[Colorostikse]

firstly as the discussion began on the subject of emptiness , I would like to ask who has come accross the instruction not to teach on emptiness (unless or untill the practitioner is ready to receive the teaching) that of course should be at the discression of an experienced teacher .

Hi ratikala,
I guess it can be a difficult topic but it's one which kind of rears its head quite a lot in Buddhism, like a kind of shorthand for something profound - a reason "why" Buddhism is top of the pile. Whilst teachers may gauge a student's capacity for it, there's lots already out there which is available to all, so the genie is well out of the bottle on this.

My personal experience was that deep intellectual understanding of the matter was touted as a prerequisite to a direct experience and thus enlightenment, hence my interest and study of the subject. My main concern is that the philosophical position is, in fact, a kind of reification and misses what Buddha was really teaching. I'll try to make clear what I mean.

The quote I gave from the Vacchagotta Sutta is great because it captures something unique. Vacchagotta was a logician and philosopher and was well disposed towards the Buddha (unlike some). He was really keen to pin Buddha down on a key question - namely 'what is the ultimate basis of existence'. In order to squeeze it out of Buddha he presents him with mutually excluding sets of possibilities. Vacchagotta features in this sutta too. He runs alternatives past Buddha and gets no joy. In desperation he asks:
"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?" to which Buddha replies:
A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. But why is this when we know that later Buddhists did have a position - ie. the Two Truths?

Let's look at Vacchagotta's options:

1. After death a Tathagata exists. This could equally be applied to anything. It's the eternalist view and Buddha isn't biting.
2. After death a Tathagata does not exist. The opposite. We may almost expect Buddha to approve of this as he taught that all things are impermanent, but again he's not going for it. Perhaps a bit too nihilistic?
3. After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist. This is the best option of all, as it would enable Buddha to reply that things exist conventionally, but not ultimately - ie their 'true' nature is emptiness. Again he shows no interest.
4. After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist. This covers the opposite. I've never encountered a position like this one before but Vacchagotta has it covered.

I believe the reason why Buddha showed no interest in these philosophical positions was not due to any assessment on their validity per se, simply that they were irrelevant to the work in hand. The philosopher, the intellectual mind is always seeking a basis, an ultimate, a position he can adhere to and claim as valid. Buddha describes such an undertaking as:
a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding. Also within the Mahayana school we see in the Mahamudra teachings of Tilopa an emphasis on direct experience of that which is beyond dualistic dichotomies:
Free of intellectual conceits, disavowing dogmatic principles,
The truth of every school and scripture is revealed.
Absorbed in Mahamudra, you are free from the prison of samsara;
Poised in Mahamudra, guilt and negativity are consumed;
And as master of Mahamudra you are the light of the Doctrine. http://www.keithdowman.net/mahamudra/tilopa.htm

It's not escaped my notice that some Buddhist share an unwillingness to drop preconceptions of an 'ultimate' with some Theists. In the case of Buddhists it's the philosophy of emptiness, the discarding of which implies eternalism. For theists (even avowed monists) it's the notion of the godhead, the discarding of which implies a nihilistic void. Both are stewing in the same sorry old pot it seems.


do you still regard your self as buddhist ? Yes, as my path and experiences correspond to Buddhist teachings. But I'm a square peg in a round hole wherever I go - too Mahayanist for the Theravadans, too Theravadan for the Mahayanists.

can you explain the respect for shaivism and the paralels (if they are paralels ?) as you see it ? I'll PM you on that one, as this is a Buddhist board and I don't think there would be sufficient interest or approval for such a public digression.

I have benifited from each system I have joint loyalties Yes, it's blindness to reject out of hand something which has worked for you. I know what you mean.

Namaste
Kris