Dear Suan Lu Zaw,

> Dictionaries need to be comprehensive and need to include non-
> scientific uses of the same term even if they are in the majority.

So is it your contention that the definition of a percept as "a mental
concept resulting from perceiving" is non-scientific ? Try a quick google
search and I believe you will find "percept" used in precisely that sense in
many ostensibly scientific contexts.which are sufficient to disprove your
implied contention.

> The realist position of the scientific discipline is not a
> preconception, but the result of rigorous systematic training, often
> with mathematical precision.

There are many ways in which I could critique that claim but then we would
move way beyond the stated objects of this group. However, I occurs to me
that you have not really understood my position. Perhaps that is because I
have been too elliptical or assumed prior information on your part which is
lacking. When I talk of "percepts" as being mental constructs (though
perhaps strictly speaking in non-Buddhist terms, as being neurological
constructs), this does not imply that they are necessarily delusory in a
conventional sense. It was long recognized in Indian Buddhist circles that
one can have a reasonably verdical representation (percept) of a vastu. One
way to distinguish whether a percept is verdical or not, is whether it is
causally efficient when acted upon (artha-kriyaa). In this way, one can
adopt a percept-based theory of epistemology and still engage in the
sciences or anything else that requires interaction with the world.

> Do you really and seriously mean that you are interested in and
> capable of engaging in informed debate?

Indeed, I just though you might benefit from a taste of the effects of ad
hominem attacks. If you have a problem with my arguments, disprove them and
stop being obnoxious -- you know nothing of me beyond the little I have
chosen to write here.

> I merely called a spade a spade when calling you a speculative
> ideologist as you write only speculative stuff without adequate
> textual analysis from the Pali texts.

Just because I do not provide you with textual analysis from Pali or any
other texts does not mean that I write speculatively -- it just means I do
not have a lot of time to dig out every reference needed to satisfy you.
Then again, my sources are based on Sanskrit, Chinese and Tibetan. Can you
read these languages ? If so, I'll give you such references as my time
allows.

> In addition, you keep writing contradicting or incoherent statements.

Please illustrate. I believe I have been entirely consistent and
coherent -- the only problem is that you do not happen to agree. Well, I
can live with that.

> You could not cope with the harsh reality of external sense objects, in

this

> case, the letters on your computer screen and their compositions,
> all coming from outside your mind.

Not at all. Regardless of what my actual feelings were, you corroborate my
position rather than disprove it. The blobs on the computer screen have no
intrinsic linguistic meaning in themselves as external sense objects, only
by shared convention. Convention does not exist in external objects, but
only as a shared mental contruct. From the bare sense-data provided by the
blobs, I have created a quasi-verdical representation in my head of the
symbolic encoding of your intended message.

> Sorry for the hurt inflicted

Sorry, but I find it hard to believe you. In your next sentence, you
mention "[the] mentalism you seem to have been peddling" which sounds rather
derisory. Then you conclude your message with an aggressive threat. Ever
heard of pharusa-vaacaa ?

> Now we witness that your mentalism is so fragile to demolish by a
> few key srokes of mine. Your mentalist theory of perception and
> nimitta did not survive the onslaught of my calling a spade a spade.

A non-sequitur. My reaction, whatever that was, to your message neither
proves nor disproves your claim. You seem to be labouring under the
delusion that I have somehow speculatively and idiosyncratically concocted a
bizarre theory of perception that noby else has heard of. Can I suggest
some homework before we continue this discussion -- I honestly do not have
time to fill in the gaps in your knowledge myself. Instead, try reading the
following:
1. Buddhist Theory of Perception, CS Vyas (Navrang, New Delhi 1991)
2. Dignaga on Perception, trans Masaaki Hattori, Harvard Univ Press 1968
(a classic)
3. Recognizing Reality, Georges Dreyfuss, SUNY 1997
4. Any of the books by Bimal Matilal as he specialized in Indian theories
of perception, but try his Perception: An essay on Classical Indian Theories
of Knowledge

> You may need to have a far thicker skin to withstand a looming
> Theravada analysis, I warn you now. You can back out now while there
> is time.

OK, let's see what theory of perception you propose.

Stephen Hodge