Studio 3 : Dialog and Debate Forum

This should emphasise wisdom-definitions pertinent to main-sakes of humanity in terms of flourishing.
      Definitions include work on the book synopsis of its most various aspects :
A renaissance in the mind and cognitive sciences is via Communities of [phenomenological] Practitioners, and practically speaking: "Dialogs: DynamEq [& EQnimity], of Inner&Outer [BranchScience] Peace-building" as in the book title. This mainly follows three sages who are also psychophysical contemplatives and meditation masters as leading exponents of the Mindfulness Movement.
In the following presentation, as a documentary background that complements the many Western sources of the science, are three intercultural philosophers of the Russian Academy, the most recent of whom was philosopher of the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS, Lon.), as a mentor of the author when attending the same.

      Source for below: Rejoinders by author to a presentation of Victoria Lysenko of the Russian Academy of Sciences RAS (among six others)

Three primary exponents of the intercultural philosophising were figured as: Theodor Stcherbatsky, Otton Rosenburg (1888-1919), a less known student of extraordinary insightful work in the Buddhist Abhidharma category (who was both eminent and unfortunate: passing at the age of 31), and Alexander Piatigorsky (phased as our [a European scholar's] contemporary). [10:40] These have mention in detail further on.

<auto-update Lex. revisions below also apply to reiterations in various Lexicon listings>

reiteration from commentary and slide at [11:42] [11:59]
1.1 Stcherbatsky, Fyodor (1866-1942, Sp. Theodor; F.Th.) : Buddhologist, Sanskritologist: a grandfather and gentleman among fellows of Indo-European Indo-logy/Buddhology: graduated in 1889 from the Historico-Philological Faculty of St Petersburg Univ. (highly trained in comparative linguistics and philology [14:44]), with later studies in Vienna (Indian and Sanskrit philology with Georg Bühler) and Bonn (Buddhist epistemological and dialectic studies with Hermann Jacobi). He inaugurated the Bibliotheca, Buddhica (1897: source library of rare texts) with a former Faculty teacher, Serge Oldenburg; 1928: established the Institute of Buddhist Culture, Leningrad. Thus, he was a pioneer of Buddhist philosophy in the field of Buddhist-Western comparisons, with primary contributions to an intercultural tradition of broad-bandwidth scholarship and worldview, as inspiration to generations of international researchers.
Nevertheless, there was a tragedy of repression for those falling under the Stalinist regime of KGB imprisonments and concentration camps in the 1930s, poignantly including the people in the school which TS had magnanimously created (passed away with such unhappiness during WW2). [12:30]
Rej. - another catastrophic factor is of those very people, being dedicated and engaged in research-assimilation of both conceptual and non-conceptual realities of worldview on flourishing. His international acclaim was also exemplified by: "..Indian philosopher Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya [who] points out.. huge contribution of the Soviet scholar to.. development of world Indology and Buddhist studies.. ..after him it has become impossible to discuss Indian philosophy adequately the same time to remain innocent of his contributions to.. understanding... ...did help us-the Indians-to discover our own past.. to restore the right perspective of our own philosophical heritage." [from a most detailed article by encyclopedia ORIENTALIA on the extensive collaboration and accomplishments of TS]

TS a brief bio of contributions reiterated from slide and commentary: 1. He was first among his local and international colleagues to have "..acknowledged the existence of an original Buddhist philosophy in its own right.. [and its] crucial importance in Buddhism itself. 2. He was a pioneer of comparative philosophy in the field of Buddhist-Western comparisons. 3. ..precursor of intercultural philosophy." The latter was proposed as developmental detail for the presentation. [-14:02]

1.1.1 His interests in Buddhist philosophy actually developed through pluralistic perspectives of terminological succinctness, with such an illustrious inheritance of Indic-culture. parts of which were bridged by Neo-Kantian philosophical tenets of wisdom. Therefore (on-slide), he undertook studies with the neokantian philosopher Vvedensky (1856-1925; rejoining gen. outlines: a literary scholar, poet, dramatist, and specialist in philosophy beyond the confines of Kant; later of influence to the avant-garde art movement). "...This was the first epistemological and logical text translated into any European language." [14:39-14:57]

Earliest translated contributions: Although the enhancements of terminology helping upgrade processes of translation into Russian were blessings of his teacher Alexander Vvedensky,[14:28] the translated 1903 Dharmakirti text: "Theory of Knowledge and Logic of the Doctrine of Later Buddhists", Nyāyabindu, of key Pramanic formulations, was after being presented, not to his topical interest, [15:21] nor was he in favour of rendering concepts as interchangeable with Kantian categories. [23:10]

reiterated slide [15:53] Stcherbatsky about the attitude of Alexander Vvedensky: as written into the second volume of Theory of Knowledge and Logic... (1909; p.6), intimated (bitterly) was that a manifestation of interest by a first volume of these works (1903) was dimmed by non-learned and extraneous bias, as reference from historians of philosophy in general among crucial supporters (explicit reference to AV and implicit to Western philosophers): "..however, nothing could have shaken our confidence in its value.." And on these attitudes surfacing in the present day: "..we have to express a confidence and optimism in this task.. same.. that was characteristic for Stcherbatsky". [16:56]

VL phrased that TS was to a degree unsuccessful in his efforts to arouse interest in Buddhism among Western philosophers, but that the: intercultural dialog continued in his own thinking, explicitly formulated on-slide as facilitating: "..bridges between Indian and contemporary Western philosophical thought.." TS being: " who firmly holds in himself two worlds together.", Russian Sinologist Vasilii Alexeev (1881-1951). [17:33]
reiterated slide [17:36] "TS as Intercultural Philosopher": had some criticisms e.g. "..on comparisons and rapprochement between Buddhism and Western philosophy, for Western philosophers (especially in Schopenhauer).." Rejoining commentary: - but nevertheless he had to compose interactive terminologies of communication, with focus on: "..render[ing] some Buddhist concepts in Kantian terms.", and key statements of Western philosophers into Sanskrit, those with chosen examples from french-philosopher Henri Bergson (correlating European philosophical questions with those of Russian, although in some context of critical-skepticism). The exponents of Western terminology he then used were not inconsisten[t], as it "..may be regarded as very early specimen of intercultural philosophy." (i.e. by conferring responsibility on the Russian part for refining-inspiring new-syntheses of proper-contemporary principles in respect to these dialogs of reasoning.

Rej.*** Presentation of such terminologically advanced methodical functions of reasoning, were also meaningful enough to negotiate overlapping expressions in common Eastern lexicons (e.g. studies of astute parallel Japanese and correlation to other extensive developmental-complements of worldview). Such correlation of the Sanskrit inner-science lexicon to contemporary branches of knowledge, was of crucial functional-synthesis to cooperative functionality by successive research-scholar lineages of consciousness-studies; that included the special definitions of depth psychology correlating the mind-sciences, and the terms of Global, Perennial, Fusion, and Intercultural ~Philosophy. VL's intimations had been that these were much less formally biased than fragmented and non-integral assumptions of prior Comparative-Philosophy. Rejoin: the term intercultural [epistemic] hermeneutics (Sanskritologist D.S. Ruegg, early 1990s), then collectively represented [Lex.] -{philosophy of science aspects experientially applied as methodology to working with the reciprocal psychophysical nurture and nature of discovered-dimensions of Consciousness and the Parasympathetic System}.
Rej. TS also critically debated translations and ideas of Western scholars (in efforts toward objective common understanding of Buddhist logic), notably those of: L. Vallée Poussin, 1869-1938 (who needly became an equivalent European pioneer in the field of a Centrist philosophy), and Arthur Keith, 1866-1955. The former of these at least, were earliest whole translation efforts for Middle Way texts, displaying workable excelling-standards for refinement of curriculum studies, that were later set through Alan Wallace's following seminal mentorship and mastership of such translation standards at a central hub of European studies in Switzerland and elsewhere across the West (emergent since mid-70's). TS's representations of such curriculum items were also related to a manifold of interdisciplinary science branches, from the beginning, of strong input to analytical structures across essentially interrelated medical-traditions (and a path opener to comparisons between the Prana and Qi Systems' experiential-philosophy and their medical systems): as further prominent epistemological and pragmatic structures of Buddhology.

***Pedagogical classifications of the logical reasoning: Those principle-classifications of teachings were phrased as modern-translatable; that is for rejoins, as crucial to experimentalist tenet upholders of dialectic-epistemic reasoning in relations to qualitative practice. Legacy of extensive presence of the Indian Pandita's on roof of the world, further signified adaptation into widespread use of standard-elementary topical-primers on the philosophy of dharmas (the phenomenology), with manifold development of classifications for higher-studies on syntheses of approaches to mental functioning and principles of reasoning in meditative inner-science terms: i.e.
              1. on ways of rudimentary-view, dialectic and exemplar-logics discussing varied branch-tenets (Indo-Tib: KyabTa); 2. on psychological and meditative mental-functions functioning within epistemic hermeneutic collective lexicons (LoRig); and 3. more advanced dialectic logic (e.g. structuring mediative empirical-analysis in the dialectic tracts of consciousness studies: TaRig); and more specifically on 4. -{empirical-cognition, pramana-comparative definitions, established correlations, principles, statements, and tenet systems of comparative view and worldview} (DrubTa). The overall science term for the epistemology is Pramana, with rejoining definition: an outlining genre of the above texts as concepts deriving from Indian philosophy, here referring to Lex. -{intricate Buddhist and communal development of inner-science as epistemic research into valid cognition: of developmental conceptual and non-conceptual means, spanning all six-senses, especially core dimensions of the mental sense-consciousness, presented as introspectively parallel to the Prana and Qi systems bio-physiology of five senses by acute faculties of analytical-research dialectic}

An interesting expression on TS's method of translating Sanskrit philosophical terms, was "..where possible to penetrate into the thought of the author in its entirety.. as it would be expressed by.. author himself, if he could have written in that language." (Ibid. p.58) " [19:16]

Then his spectacular example of intercultural philosophy was mentioned: the Indo-European Symposium on Reality of the External World, documented in his Buddhist Logic Vol.1, and VL said: have a look at who were the participants (slide reiterated): a host of past Indian Panditas; ancient lineage-holder, Buddhist philosophers/logicians; " well as philosophers of the Samkya, Realists (Nyāya, Vaiśeṣika, Mīmāṃsā).." adjoining these, the main Greek lineage of philosophers; then the connected Western European philosophers (it seems he had invoked all of them!): notably including Spinoza and E. von Hartmann and a host of others. So reference was to both the internal and external system-aspects of phenomenology, and its developed scientific-view relative to a unified subjective/objective emergent-worldview. [20:14]

On TS's most famous work, there were two standard principle Indian-Buddhist logic-treatises (from Indian Pandita's Dignaga and Dharmakirti; with parallel transcriptions and commentaries highly developed in Tibetan, that through the ages, various traditions adopted as basis in later comprehensive pedagogical compendiums (on the basis of Sanskrit and comparative Tibetan sources). The two original texts were of focus in the philological achievement called Buddhist Logic, with 2 English-edition volumes (1930, 1932): [12:03] initialising exemplary beginnings to curricula-configurative development of international university studies to the present.

On the "coincidences between the Indian and European systems", presented from the now forgotten German philosopher of this comparative philology, Willy Freytag: "...if anything follows from these coincidences the idea.. that neither accident, nor arbitrariness determine ..development of philosophy, but the internal law of human nature, and philosophical issues it solves: under the most different conditions, philosophical thinking leads to the same results." (Ibid, p.7, "Uber die Erkenntnistheorie der Inder", 1905) [-21:52]
A WF clear definition was then presented of "Perennial [Eternal] Philosophy": "The human mind, in different forms, continually raises the same questions and reveals the same truths." For TS, it was said that if he could have used the term intercultural philosophy, it would figure as a "universal character of some problems" (in contrast to ideas), e.g. mind and sense interrelationships; "reality of the empirical world"; and proper correlation of standards by consciousness studies on extraordinary phenomena, etc. [22:22]
reiterated slide: "The perennial [/Intercultural] philosophy and its underlying conception of language": language is phrased as mere instrument for the expression of thought in different interchangeable languages, and these do not affect the basic idea[s]; " does not have its own consistency or own its nature." (a transparent-instrument) VL went on to intimate that nevertheless, by advances made (within linguistic science) these structures are more complex than initially thought, and a contrastive-view is now of language hav[ing] its own consistency. [23:59]
"If Dharmakirti came across the same ideas of Kant (time and cultural distance being of no importance), we make no error in rendering his thought in Kantian categories."

- For TS, Kantian terminology in Middle Way terms of topical reflection, posited reinforced structural bridges, enhancing some key expressions in Indo-European terminology as sufficient expositional-interfaces to Russian Buddhist readership; and in that framework these would traditionally be classed as adept-qualitative-means (Upaya kausalya; mostly expressing highly-generic aspects); just as up-to-date extensive-syntheses has been formulated by Wallace--not overusing--from different branches of natural language and construing in full collaboration with an international community of translators an entire common lexicon of central terms (also considering as did the Russians, background features of Western philosophical logic, esp. Greek and latin prior to translation out of the Eastern framework of logics): for up-keeping exposition of established common and uncommon contemporary empirical-insights to be of principled recognition in appropriate research-dialogs of Western-European culture and science (all these features regarded as primary rejoining structuring of an infinitely larger scientific-worldview a la Emm. Kant). [22:59]

2 Specialising in the linguistic-science research-topic of language having its own consistency (in the above account), a prominent follower of TS was introduced on-slide (rejoining findings reiterated): Otto Karl Julius Rosenburg (July 19 [O.S. July 7] 1888, Latvia -- Nov. 26, 1919). [24:17] This great scholar was the second previously mentioned exponent of intercultural philosophy. He was a 1910 graduate of St Petersburg Univ. (in various languages qualified below), going on to qualify as a Buddhologist and specialist in Abhidharma-Pramanic phenomenology and experiential-philosophy. This correlates much larger inner-science fields of studies. As pupil of Stcherbatsky he was encouraged to a become most proficient at least in salient features of connected languages (embedded in an Asian longitudinal-philology of phenomenology: an immense active study), and thus OKJR became a first Western researcher to Zen Buddhist School (Japanese; research stay: 1912-1917; 4 yrs. monastic training), the wisdom-tradition, and there were versions of TS's Sanskrit texts in all the lingua franca languages he comprehended. For the Chinese language, he even devised an alphabetical methodology for encoding Chinese characters into dictionary entries "- Tokyo 1916" (Rej. similar to present tasks of the DynEq science lexicon facilitated by AW and trans-disciplinary, intercollegiate science). So also for expertise in the Himalayan lingua-franca languages (of Russian associated Buddhists, Tibetan, Mongolian, Bhutanese, and Sikkimese, etc), [24:14] as fully related natural-language dialectic-lexicons of analysis commonly salient to the medical traditions. Rosenburg prominently became published in English and German (two of his texts on modern dialectic revisions were published from Heft, Heidelberg, 1924, a single photo was retrieved and shown), with exposition below of some salient experiential directions: [24:25]

modified from slide, rejoins using commentary vocabulary:
Quotes occurring from: Rosenburg O.O. Works on Buddhism, prepared by A.N. Ignatovich. M., on "Rozenburg's mode of intercultural philosophising", "Eastern Literature" (in Russian), p.321 (in this slide that master's name was spelt with a "z", but is generally found under "s").
- "..experience what is being studied in these texts .. following the two rules:" [-26:00-]
1. "to experience at each occurrence exactly that chain of associations with which this or that phenomenon [idea or meditative experience] is connected." (the original association of ideas of that tradition). A main factor is to experience what is described in these texts.
Response: a profound statement implying core fathoming of unified-awareness (the stream of substrate consciousness and bio-energies), the -{substantial-continuum of primary-sense mental-consciousness} (among other definitions of such a sense-faculty): first-person practice-components as direct experiential-philosophy under study.
2. Bias connotations among remits: to prevent the emergence of European associations (VL: He didn't think that a researcher should.. reject one's own culture).
Rejoin: These questions also indicate an import of nurturing common dialogue, transcending negative-extremes of interpretation and misconception (as in the principles spoken of). It also begs a contemporary question on how much the West and East have determined qualitative recognition on these precedent measures of culture for mutual cultivation, and in terms of engagement in communal flourishing beyond superficiality. Contrary to this is denial of the most crucially tested secular and spiritual unified means. What then are other critical factors in the mid-ground between these dialogs? Most extensive scientific tests on the contemporary unique and non-exclusive means of a mindfulness movement, have elucidated primarily principles from those highly evolved sources leading into Middle Way research-dialectic, that is a broad-bandwidth avenue for epistemic and empirical attenuations, as applied to those of material-world conflict: that resource being of earliest Indic-philosophy and Buddhist communal aspects for a first cognitive-science. In these ways of improvement, what are phrased European associations, mean crucial cooperations in realisation of global and evolutionary responsibility. And needed within this are Bitbol's phrasings of wisdom-compassionate percipient-action (a neo-Kantian and Middle-Way philosopher in these senses), as communal attention by applied-modes known to ease-fully dispel aforementioned biases. These are the insightful actualities in the explicate psychophysical world of substrate consciousness, and its articulated phenomenology that Pandita Dharmakirti defined as dharma.

The methodology: "..not a matter of completely identifying oneself with bearers of the studied culture, but of preserving one's own cultural identity and an intellectual distance whilst trying to understand their way of thinking and feeling."
A concluding feature on-slide was comparison of cultural and epistemic researchers to actors playing (conceptual~) roles, etc., while not completely identifying with any of them (also enshrined in AW meditative principles). [25:28]

VL reasoned on OR not analysing/interpreting Buddhist tenets from the usual European frameworks, but from within the Buddhist tradition, a rejoining experiential philosophy studied with articulated equanimity regarding transitional perspectives; and moreover, innate foundations to the phenomenology of world culture: "He is mostly interested, not in what was common to Buddhism and Western thought, but in what was specific for Buddhism, what constitutes the otherness of Buddhism: believ[ing] that only after studying Buddhism from the inside, in all its otherness, that we can start to compare Buddhism with Western thought." [26:47-27:38]
In contrast to instances of TS translating every term of the text, OR highlighted leav[ing] some terms untranslated: preventing wrong associations, (bias-misinterpretations); e.g. there was a hitch at the time, by translating Dharma as a law .. Nirvana as salvation: much as in Christian soteriology, [28:00] and an all around inadequacy of terminologically succinct and intricate concepts able to convey larger scientific distinctness of universal meanings for such translation into a general or central dialog forum, when translated into multi-genre Western/Eastern thinking.
             Rej. - for example, the classification of medical-tantras, as inheriting negotiable seeds of ethics from all other systems (innate aspirational motivations), as also synthesis of peaceable technologies for their creativity: being of current generic medical-physiological and psychological import to proper inspirations, in the most-essential herbal-medical traditions of Asia and all elsewhere (as larger consensus of global dire need).
              Rej. - in the commentary, there is a common trans-disciplinary thread relating to Atmanspacher's 2017 institutional definitions, of not over-projecting dichotomy among one's own culture on others, when engaged in root-assimilations of study, or identifying oneself too conceptually with it: thus as to create double-think. In these ways, innate/holistic and ethical perspectives can shine through culture and cultivation preserved, with constraints of objectivity/subjectivity by mode of what Buddha compared to the empirical-testing of gold (evolved pluralistic methodologies) in configuring a synthesis of worldview (synthesis of realised psychophysical dimensions of consciousness, un-obscured by distortions of ego).
These are also reminders that principle, empirical, contemporary, social-functions are encompassed in the Buddhist accomplishments, publicly deciphered by relative-aspects in cultivation of the Kalmykia Russian Buddhist region; that features these root-cultures of origin by the Nalanda University system; so widely continuing from Himalayan Indic origins; helping to integrate flourishing by skilful means of the inner and outer sciences (also natural philosophy spanning the comparative intercultural and inter-scientific, hermeneutic traditions).

1.3 Philosopher Alexander Piatigorsky (Moscow, 1929-2009, London) had two main tutors in Russia [29:33] when attending and working at the Institute of Oriental Studies and philosophy department of Moscow State University where he graduated: the famed Buddhologist Yuri Roerich (Sanskritic and Tibetan languages), and Pali-Master Gunapala Piyasena Malalasekera (an Ambassador of Ceylon/Sri Lhanka in the USSR).
             Rejoining outlines: With a balance of specialisation under these two teachers, a main developmental emphasis of his teaching practice is defined as a common foundation of qualitative Shamatha (and Vipashana: dynamic equilibrium and wisdom) roots in all the wisdom traditions as a truly interdisciplinary feature (B. Alan Wallace's special contention), as the primary erudite feed-back loop to the empirical ciphers of consciousness studies across the broad bandwidth of Buddhist and other DynamEq psychophysical technologies (moreover, of physiological and psychological science).
AP emigrated from Russia to the UK in 1974 (on delivering lectures he did not need to rely on notes, especially in debate and dialog, as he had learnt so much from memory and internalisation), after persecution of his teacher Bidia Dandaron (and such activities decades before); joining SOAS (Oriental and African Studies at Lon.) and earning respect from a large following as mentor; becoming one of their free-thinking, acclaimed philosophers and mentors as lecturer with the commendation of Berlin. [30:50]
Rejoin: a title of inner-science dialectic master would also have been appropriate, as his epistemic framework was centred on cogently-astute assimilated-principles of Buddhist phenomenology (P. Dhamma) and general epistemology : fathoming established rudimentarily and advanced empirical kinds of statements of Buddhological common principle: having acquired language knacks for its reasoned presentation through Sanskrit, Tamil, Pali, Tibetan, German, French, Italian and English (..and other languages). [-29:50-] Piatigorsky considered Kant's dialogs as important expressional records into language of Phenomenology.
Then among a series of slides on AP was the TS traditional scholarly approach to Buddhist philosophy: "First (and still dominant) tendency is to describe the same way as the ancient authors could have expressed it if they knew the language of the new European philosophical tradition established between the 17th and 19th centuries.". ('Introduction into the Study of Buddhist Philosophy', [543 date missing on slide] Moscow: NLO, p. 9-10, in Russian). [-31:17-] VL added that these reflections as applied principles of TS, designate perennial/eternal philosophy according to Rosenberg's advices: first proceeding from what philosophy say's about itself.
Among other dedicated modalities for Buddhist researchers defined by AP was: ""The.. beginning trend I would associate to the attempt of the researcher in Buddhism[:] first to reflect his philosophical position in terms of Buddhist philosophy, and then to describe the latter as a particular case of some timeless and spatially uncertain philosophy of which "my" philosophy will be another special case>>. Ibid, p.10. " [-31:47-] The relation was a said reference to perennial/eternal philosophy.
              "He called this approach 'Buddhistic', not Buddhist, [because that would be] ..a new word in Russian."
The above seems to do with there not being a term Buddh-ist in Russian, or AW: anywhere else in Asia, but in the European. The special case mentioned [Ibid, p.10] is also a qualitative reference to what qualitative input one brings anew to such knowledge practice. Another respective aside to this is when contemplating/studying various subtle systems of progressive phenomenological-method, there is first guideline to decipher what are the first rudimentary classical principles (before trying to immediately refute any flaws to move on to more advanced material), then afterward working through them to comprehend advanced levels of syntheses with respect to explanatory gaps : on non-conceptual-level, conceptual-level of empirical-statements, and within gradient systems of insight qualified by them. This refers to primers on gradient topics of analytical meditation: with concerted sense of no manifesting biased-ultimacy between classical and contemporary system-phases as incompleteness.

Some other principles of AP's hermeneutic teachings termed what we call: Buddhistic philosophy, were shown on-slide (authors modifications), i.e. that is yogic philosophy par excellence..of yogins and ascetics (rej. that comprise yogic exemplary gradients of holistic tenets/principles/worldview of practice, also developmentally integrated by Buddha into general lay guidelines and advices). As linguistic generalities, what is designated and signified is concept sets, postulates (empirical ciphers in Buddhist phenomenology and other comparative lexicons including developmental monitoring principles) "..and definitions either invented at the exit from contemplation, or were objects of contemplation, or both." A consequence is a philosophical absence of banal opposition to e.g. the practice/theory dichotomy: "..for practice here is understood as primarily: practice of contemplation ... theory ..constitutes one with the highest wisdom (P. panna, Skt. prajna), also proceeding from the experience of contemplation"
Introduction into the Study Buddhist Philosophy, p.134, 135."
               Rej. It can optimally be posited as highly functional integrated philosophy of inner and outer science: as e.g. it is contemplative practice along with theory; of integrated conceptual/non-conceptual practice correlation in teaching on epistemic-stages of highest wisdom.
thus: "..practice.. understood as primarily the practice of contemplation, and the theory actually constitutes one with the Highest Knowledge of Wisdom.. proceeding from experience of contemplation." Introduction into the Study of Buddhist Philosophy, p. 134-5. [34:52]

Reiteration as formal response from a further slide at [35:30]: From another AP questioning: on what level of human being (to add, special-condition) are the Yogin's (yogic meditators) an achievement of? What are special and extraordinary about these active discoveries and their common principles? - that is, on paths of inner science exploration in symmetric-processes of transformational awareness: fathoming the integration of substrate consciousness (its principles and extra-epistemic portals); as integral to contemplative praxis (meanings of Yoga and Samadhi) cognisant of innate-worldview, deeper than conceptual tropes of the ordinary psyche (and what that is in contrastive terms to qualitative and transformed deeper-consciousness, functioning by contemplative practice) :
             AP phrases that it "..grasps the world differently from our ordinary consciousness .. thinking has a different cognitive structure..": - and this process is generative of its own effects as bio-energy and brain neuronal channeling and alignments.
Then as modalities of psyche are mixed-up and projected as normal state of mind of the physical substrate, in some conventional terms, these are equivalent and none more special than foundational applications of mindfulness (smriti; VL sutti, that accompanies its mainstream research-partner of introspection). And AP wonderfully re-named this reverse remembering, apt in terms of construing psyche as also an unwinding into deeper nature of substrate-consciousness (and true to AW's mental sense organ/faculty). AP counterintuitively managed to state that smriti: as "..not spontaneous, but artificial ... neither [it] nor ..conditions/factors of its emergence, development/cultivation belong to the normally and naturally functioning human mind. (Ibid)" - with rejoining meaning that Samadhi is either a normal means of selective attention that is developed within specific primary-sense domains (what AW calls developmental awareness, AP precisely calls consciously-elaborated state of consciousness), also from view of bio-energetic effort as causal to mental equilibrium, in contrast to the mode of intuiting dissolve through epistemic-blockages into natural-states (of body speech and mind): as advanced implicate-aspect modes of intuitive-consciousness (these being matching definitions of rejoin): nevertheless entailing sustaining assimilation of rudimentary explicate levels of substrate consciousness. So the distinction is between developmental Shamatha transformation of mind and bio-energetic aspects, in reciprocal-contrast to intuiting natural-states of consciousness and unified psychophysical. Both of these features are essential methodological functions of the epistemic science. [36:27]
Moreover, the dialog on naturalness is in actuality an extended dialog on the Buddhist deep meditative-absorption topic of: dhyana, or nirvana, as i.e. forwarded basic natural insight into dynamic-equilibrium, that can be epistemically designated a natural phenomena. Such terms are used in key debates and analytics of the Pandita logic--(that later developed itself by further contrastive analysis of the Yogacharyan tradition itself, of these Pandita's, as more intricate forms of Centrist perspective)--used in seminal pedagogical textbooks of the present (classified functions previously glossed at "Earliest translated contributions" of TH). In research-contrast these Pandita's, the original and standard textbooks in Indo-Tibetan language, most usually commence from more elementary and most-classical realist-reasoning perspective, as basis of further expositional transitions and higher-learning on epistemic view: attributed to distinct research-aspects of consciousness. In this framework, oral traditions of monastic dialectics emerged early on, especially on placing deep nirvanic attainment as basis for further deepest realisations. This highlights reference to the nominal collective-psyche of frozen conceptual structuring, about which Piatigorski phrases explanatory gaps on normality.

Thus, a further statement was presented (Ibid, p.104) that "...In this state, all the functions and modalities of the mind are reduced to the fulfilment of this task." (fathoming the first Dhyana ground-state of the mind, qualitative of the term nirvana).
In parallel standard reckoning on mindfulness, Wallace establishes three-types: retrospective mindfulness, present centred, and conate mindfulness, but reverse mindfulness would qualify AW's sense-faculty aspects of mental consciousness.
              e.g. "..all the mental activity of a yogi is concentrated in a retrospective effort to fix the thought on the object of the proceeding thought ... functions and modalities of the mind are reduced to the fulfilment of this task" (Ibid., p.104; [36:42] auth. underlines), In Wallace's terms, this feeds-back into established definitions for the organ of mental-sense (faculty). It would follow as answer that these are somewhat hypothetical questions that endeavour on the principle of ontological relativity as suggested: Ibid., p.137. [36:35] So then there is an (innate-) denaturalising [37:47] process connected with the practice of dhyanas, and a psychological aspect: from the psyche, and how this process has, and can be applied with practice of equilibrium to mundane contexts, is outlined by syntheses and practice of developmental ethics (p.143). [37:50]
Further rejoin: a secondary issue is with distorted classical and contemporary interpretation on Western and current Eastern definitions of human body, spirit, and further on the mindfulness movement. The contemporary realisations are encompassed in the fully working-hypotheses as larger specific communal understanding of substrate consciousness, and that which is implicate beyond. Then some of AP's terminology is quite intricately specific by the Kantian principles and their metaphors, although they are essential to bridge the explanatory gaps of Western philosophy.
              A relevant and tangential rejoin is on developmental ethics mentioned above, wiwth further regard to the previously mentioned special conference of TS, that psychologically invoked presence of archetypical Pandita's into visualisation, and a present comparison to other specific micro-communities as constituents of the mindfulness movement; among extensive communities of various teachers, each with their own interconnected background psyche's of representative pro-social archetypes: and this is a yet larger sake in the visualisation of people invited as common-lineages of DynamEq individuated representations to the present (e.g. in terms of excellent Western arts and psychology): as principled questions of active and safe mentorship and livelihood relations across the GA CoP 100 (going on 1000: a COP 26, global-infrastructure of various community-practitioners), adding to interfaced DynEq wisdom aspects of interlocution on global-communal questions: of both working independence and interdependence.

Further reiteration would be superfluous to AP's closing original quotes, and VL's excellent commentary, that should be integrated by rejoins so they can adjoin background explanation to the AW Specific and General Ontological Relativity [Ibid., p.137]. The tracts are most worthwhile for interconnected scholarly assimilation of these standards of dialog, among the deeper philosophical Western roots and those of the reciprocal Russian and Eastern.

Quotes Cont.
"In no way denying the uniqueness of the human condition, dhyana calls into question the absoluteness of the phenomenon of man in the universe." [37:47] (a further correlation to the anthropocentric view that AW has founding commentaries on).
Further quotes were on AP's thinking on cosmology, parallel cosmos,
and higher seeing of visible-multiplicity (Ibid., p.143): - again relevant background correlates to AW's developed and developing cosmogony of Ontological Relativity and moreover, experiential philosophy.
VL : In AP's contexts: - dharmas as ultimate units of experience could appear only in dhyanic contemplation: "All conceivable phenomena (i.e. dharmas) can be conceived as dharmas only in contemplation, dhyana .. dharma.. by definition a dhyanic idea." VL phrased of AP's interlocution of two-truths: empirical truth and absolute truth, wholly being said able to be fathomed solely from the later perspective of dhyanas (and furthermore on this basis that fundamental true-nature of empirical reality is able to be illuminated within first relevant comprehensive, phenomenal, dimensions-of-consciousness. [-38:58]
VL Conclusions: Buddhist contemplative theory being much more classified and highly developed than just abstract constructions ... the only way for our Western scholars to understand the meditating mind is to study [those] Buddhist theories." [41:16]

VL concludes by saying that the naturalisation, the naturalising mind, is the dhyana practice. [37:48] Then author further reiterating: each of the core dharma-phenomenological referents including meditative unified sense-objects, sense-consciousness and other such experiential phenomena, are "dharmas as the ultimate units of experience" (Ibid., p.143); with rejoin that those are practices mapped within dimensions of primary consciousness, and ontologically-relative to the extensions of psychophysical states. So all these dharma's were otherwise phrased by Piatigorsky as [bandwidth-praxis] empirical-ciphers of one another.
                This is a reference to AP at SOAS, 1990s, with three Mount Wutai monks present (the author present) : a most important northernmost Chinese region, with cultural and monastic phenomenal-architecture dating back some 1900 years (through different dynasties) of commemoration: as archetype of wisdom-embodiment. Monastic universities (including a large nunnery) are still-present there, with both Buddhist, Taoist, and other representations functioning side by side (representations and presentations from such monks are now of scientifically related interest in their progress).
In conjunction with that international movement well nurtured by Stcherbatsky and other pioneers across the board, he articulated the principles of experiential and experimental Buddhistic Philosophy--(a term established through AP's discursive familiarity with Western and Russian languages; and contrasting with an "-ism": a sense non-existent in original native or Eastern public interpretations: AW's findings)--with great dedication, as synthesis of Eastern and Western language positions: emphasising how Sanskrit and its specifically related yogic (ascetic or meditative) natural-languages (specialist NL) contribute missing key mutual-languages of Intercultural Philosophy (highlighted definitions elsewhere InText on Intercultural [dialog] Hermeneutics).
At Piatigorsky's prior time, intercollegiate branch-science scholarship in the West was well on course to deciphering all kinds of paradigmatic correlations on this material, as translation/interpretation of syntheses into founding phenomenological, teaching-correlation : contributing to mutual curriculums among Indo-European Western-languages and Asian languages alike: in process contributing to defining evolvement of Linguistics in terms of unified Cognitive and Contemplative Science disciplines. Sanskritologist Tom Tillemans (following Daniel E. Purdue of Virginia's cross-cultural correlations in "Debate in Tibetan Buddhism", Snow Lion Pub's. 1992; both tutors of the author), has made outstanding revisions specifically on those related standard logic-primers derived from Dharmakirti et al (and as Professor at Laussane University), composing new meta-symbolic languages of propositional-logic for interpretations, coping with many-levels of translational concept-contrasts, further developing those analytical dialectics enriched by Western philosophy comparisons. Another primary and distinguished translator to mention among the above is Virginia University's Jeffrey Hopkins.
               It is historically propitious that Stcherbatsky was this first Russian milestone figure, and Piatigorsky was a part of that to 2009, leaving furthering principles as explicit legacy of contemporary standards at intercollegiate qualification-level : a core Phenomenology and Philosophy of Dharma's (vis. phenomenology as direct experimentalist referents of Buddha-dharma and a common dharma-praxis): establishing intricate constraints of furthering teacher-ship. To conclude as rejoin, an additional Russian interdisciplinary master is forwarded: Alexander Berzin (1944), who is another accomplished teacher most-learned in European-Western, Eastern Buddhist traditions, and many others; erudite founder of Berzin Achieves: a vast many-layered, online reference-database of many various traditions (expressing appreciation when forwarding earlier copies of this text to him after foundational-editions were complete).

Of VL's conclusion was intimation of outstanding research-experimental collaborations, in kind with patient Buddhist-contemplative representative-advances through having assimilated outlines of mainstream science into their curriculum; and that when extraneous modes of science have fixated on so-called normal mind psyches, and transferred this to appraisal to non-abstracted contemplative practices, then tangential premises enter the attitudinal front, ending up without proper referents of normality. Yet Western positive and affective psychology did gradually investigate and document these differences through the 20th century, and can interface most learned solutions through the mindfulness movement. These no doubt more advanced parts of Buddhist theory (developed in common as branch-sciences themselves: e.g. physiology), have then proven to be foundational to philosophy and means of the branch-sciences. [41:31]

NB These brief histories of updated regard, primarily on Philosopher Alexander Piatigorsky, have more specific introductions in Ch.1 and elsewhere in the DynEq text.

Rejoining other research-notes on teacher AP: A great orator and thinker, on the universality of semiotics (signs; texts; ciphers of higher reasoning through meta-text dialectics on science and logic of perception), figuring as configuring a worldview of definiens to highlight for foundational phenomenological methods, as root-culture of psychophysical and psychological cultivation, that is inner-science unified within and beyond the universe of subjects, objects, and mundane phenomena. [1] [improvisational annotations]
1. >

Rephrasing one important lecture of AP, dialog is between two persons .. not people .. East and West, but specifically between one personal knowledge and another, and their communication, all other forms of dialog are referent to this. (Lecture 4) Socrates was a highlighted profundity among standard comparative-features of dialectics, in terms inputing this into analyses by refined Buddhist-logic, in ways of his developmental dialogs being coincident to those in Buddhist and Indic philosophy. Highly regarded among Westerners by AP was Edward Conze, 1904-1979 (on topic of interdependent co-origination), [2] Charlie Broad (1887-1971), and philosophy of J.M.E. McTaggart (1866-1925; a specialist on Hegel's logic).
2. Info also from AP's teachings in the early 1990s