[ordercigsnick]

Perhaps, I should say the concept of emptiness! I've read many books, and it seems to be very important, especially in meditation. I understand that all phenomena are dependent arising and that nothing inherently exists. I understand the concepts of cause and effect. But if nothing inherently exists what causes the cause to produce the effect??I find it very difficult to understand. Any wisdom out there would be appreciated!

[Janny2006]

Sounds like you're not doing to bad from your explanation. I can add a few things to see if they help complete your understanding.
Emptiness is not nothingness, this is sometimes a misunderstanding that people get.
Things do exist relatively but they do not exist as solid, perminat and unchanging things which is how we perceive them to be. Everything from a Human to a rock is in constant flux.
My living room table is made of wood, it's real, I can feel it but its changing, It used to be a tree and before that a seed and all the things that went into feeding the tree as it grew. Things we see as things are more occurances than they are things.
I'm not very good at explaing these things in words but hope it's of some help to you

[vvxtiopmx]

Emptiness is usually connected with the impermanence of phenomena (anicca) and with not-self (anatta) In other words there is no fixed 'self', its always constantly changing and therefore is empty of anything permanent and this is also true of phenomena in general.

We can also begin to understand emptiness through meditation, when our mind starts to become settled and still.

These words from the section "Studying and Experiencing" in Ajahn Chah's "A still Forest Pool" might be helpful:



The Buddha saw that whatever the mind gives rise to are just transitory, conditioned phenomena, which are really empty. When this dawned on him, he let go, gave up, and found an end to suffering. You too must understand these matters according to the truth. When you know things as they are, you will see that these elements of mind are a deception, in keeping with. the Buddha's teaching that this mind has nothing, does not arise, is not born, and does not die with anyone. It is free, shining, resplendent, with nothing to occupy it. The mind becomes occupied only because it misunderstands and is deluded by these conditioned phenomena, this false sense of self.

Therefore, the Buddha had us look at our minds. What exists in the beginning? Truly, not anything. This emptiness does not arise and die with phenomena. When it contacts something good, it does not become good; when it contacts something bad, it does not become bad. The pure mind knows these objects clearly, knows that they are not substantial.

When the mind Of the meditator abides like this, no doubt exists. Is there becoming? Is there birth? We need not ask anyone. Having examined the elements of mind, the Buddha let them go and became merely one who was aware of them. He just watched with equanimity. Conditions leading to birth did not exist for him. With his complete knowledge, he called them all impermanent, unsatisfactory, empty of self. Therefore, he became the one who knows with certainty. The one who knows sees according to this truth and does not become happy or sad according to changing conditions. This is true peace, free of birth, aging, sickness, and death, not dependent on causes, results, or conditions, beyond happiness and suffering, above good and evil. Nothing can be spoken about it. No conditions promote it any longer.

Therefore, develop samadhi, calm and insight; learn to make them arise in your mind and really use them. Otherwise, you will know only the words of Buddhism and with the best intentions, go around merely describing the characteristics of existence. You may be clever, but when things arise in your mind, will you follow them? When you come into contact with something you like, will you immediately become attached? Can you let go of it? When unpleasant experiences arise, does the one who knows hold that dislike in his mind, or does he let go? If you see things that you dislike and still hold on to or condemn them, you should reconsider-this is not yet correct, not yet the supreme. If you observe your mind in this way, you will truly know for yourself.

http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Bo...dhas Teachings

[hansen384cbh]

hi Dawn,

I thought that I answer some of your questions by changing your quote a bit. Hope this helps to think about this differently.

Perhaps, I should say the concept of sunyata! I've read many books, and it seems to be very important. I understand that all phenomena are dependent arising. I understand the concepts of cause and effect. You can think of Sunyata as the name of a theory (like Newton's First Law.) 'Dependent arising' and 'cause and effects' are the reason that a phenomenon's inherent characteristic is sunyata.

We say the characteristic of water is sunyata, because it is constantly changing, and the way it can change depends on its "Dependencies." if you add heat, water evaporate faster (i.e. changes faster.) if you make it cold, water can become ice (i.e. changes). If you leave it be, it evaporates, just slowly (i.e. changes).

So a phenomenon can become the cause of another phenomenon, it can also become the dependency of yet another phenomenon.

Everything does exist. But everything is inherently sunyata (i.e. changes all the time depending on their Nidānas.)

[mensforyouthis]

Perhaps, I should say the concept of emptiness!

Hi Dawn,
You've nailed the 'problem' there. There's much ink spilled on this and just about all of it wasted in my opinion. Emptiness is a discovery, not a concept, ultimate condition or philosophy. It is not necessary to "understand" emptiness - it will eventually unfold of itself within meditation.
Namaste
Kris

[k5wTvu9f]

Thanks everyone for your input. I think my attraction to Buddhism in the first place was the obvious simplicity (how the four noble truths and the eightfold path could be tested, and implemented by anyone). I tend to simplify ideas as much as possible in order to convey my thoughts. In contrast I also may over-analyze for fear that I'm missing something important. Thank you, especially Aloka-D, for the link. I think, I may have a better grasp on emptiness, than I thought. I use the reality of "emptiness" to practice mindfulness. Which, I think was Buddha's point. A tool we can all use to separate from attachment, and craving.

[oronozopiy]

We say the characteristic of water is sunyata, because it is constantly changing, and the way it can change depends on its "Dependencies." if you add heat, water evaporate faster (i.e. changes faster.) if you make it cold, water can become ice (i.e. changes). If you leave it be, it evaporates, just slowly (i.e. changes).

So a phenomenon can become the cause of another phenomenon, it can also become the dependency of yet another phenomenon.

Everything does exist. But everything is inherently sunyata (i.e. changes all the time depending on their Nidānas.)

dear yuan

thankyou , this is a particularly nice way of describing it ,

I used to find the whole subject of emptyness (shunyata) difficult to get my head arround simply because of the amount of terminology used to explain it ,

you are right to sugest that we think of it as' shunyata ', as the term emptyness has other conotations and therefore tends to confuse .(I think it is a problem caused when translating sanskrit or pali , as we do not have specific terms for these concepts)

I tend to think allong the lines of conventional reality as being empty of permenantly or inherently existant phenomena , and ultimate reality (buddha nature tathagatagabha) as the only perminantly non changing phenomena .(therefore the only truely existant phenomena)

a question for yuan ,

do you think that there exists cultural conditioning that prepairs an aspirant to understand principles like 'shunyata' ?
(natural cultural conitioning that westerners lack , therefore making it harder for the westerner to grasp some principals )

(aloka , please make a seperate thread if you think it is preferable , thank you )

namaskars ratikala

[OEMCHEAPSOFTDOWNLOAD]

I tend to think allong the lines of conventional reality as being empty of permenantly or inherently existant phenomena , and ultimate reality (buddha nature tathagatagabha) as the only perminantly non changing phenomena .(therefore the only truely existant phenomena)

Hi ratikala,
This position was developed by Indian philosophers well after Buddha's time. If you carefully examine what Buddha taught you will see that he actually rejected it. It comes as a bit of a shock to discover that, I admit but take a look at this and ponder the implications:
Then Vacchagotta the wanderer went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Now then, Master Gotama, is the cosmos eternal?"

"That has not been declared by me, Vaccha: 'The cosmos is eternal.'"

"Well then, Master Gotama, is the cosmos not eternal?"

"Vaccha, that too has not been declared by me: 'The cosmos is not eternal.'"

"Then is the cosmos finite?"... "Is the cosmos infinite?"... "Is the body the same as the soul?"... "Is the body one thing, and the soul another?"... "Does the Tathagata exist after death?"... "Does the Tathagata not exist after death?"... "Does the Tathagata both exist and not exist after death?"... "Does the Tathagata neither exist nor not exist after death?"

"Vaccha, that too has not been declared by me: 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....008.than.html

In particular the section about the Tathagata is relevant. Vaccha covers all logical eventualities and Buddha rejects them all. No Two Truths here, as it would fall under the "both exist and not exist" option. No eternal abiding anything. No conventional or ultimate.

As a philosophical tool the 'Two Truths' do a decent job of upsetting the self-cherishing apple cart but they are understood by many to be an ontological position, which is a step the Buddha never took.

Namaste
Kris

[Klorissana]

dear yuan

I tend to think allong the lines of conventional reality as being empty of permenantly or inherently existant phenomena , and ultimate reality (buddha nature tathagatagabha) as the only perminantly non changing phenomena .(therefore the only truely existant phenomena)

a question for yuan ,

do you think that there exists cultural conditioning that prepairs an aspirant to understand principles like 'shunyata' ?
(natural cultural conitioning that westerners lack , therefore making it harder for the westerner to grasp some principals )

(aloka , please make a seperate thread if you think it is preferable , thank you )

namaskars ratikala

hi Ratikala,

Thank you for finding my description of sunyata useful. However, I cannot help but wonder that if everything's nature is sunyata, why would there exist a thing called "buddha nature" whose nature is not sunyata?

I don't think the difficult with sunyata is an East or West thing. It is more like a people thing. We have no need for this concept in our daily lives. I mean, it is not useful, as I sit here typing, to think that the chair that I am sitting on is changing all the time and might disintegrate at any moment. Even the monitor that you are looking at, we all know that the content on the monitor is changing all the time, electrons are refreshing the images 60 times a second, one pixel at a time. But as I compose this post, all that would just be distracting and counter-productive. Just like we only need 3rd grade arithmetic, and Newton's law of physics in our daily interaction with the world.

But when we need to research the Big Bang, to better understand our physical world, we need higher math, and Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Sunyata is a concept that we need to understand if we want to search for the truth about human nature.

Also, I think another big obstacle about understanding sunyata is that when people think of a religion and a religious concept, it needs somehow be mystical or supernatural, like a God. But people keep losing the grasp that Buddhism is all about human beings, not gods. Buddha was a human being before and after his awakening. There is no reason to make sunyata any more mysterious than what it is.

[67Irralphaisa]

dear yuan ,

first I must explain that I am tibetan buddhist therefore mahayana , therefore mine is a typicaly mahayana veiw .

however the last thing I want to do is start a dispute over correct veiw , that would be futile to say the least .
therefore I will simply explain mahayana veiw

hi Ratikala,

I cannot help but wonder that if everything's nature is sunyata, why would there exist a thing called "buddha nature" whose nature is not sunyata?

this is prehaps where the veiws differ , shunyata is shunyata that which is non perminant , that which by its very nature does not inherently exist . then asside from the non permenant there is the perminant , the unchanging .(the eteternal , constant !)
that which is un changing is truth .


but when we need to research the Big Bang, to better understand our physical world, we need higher math, and Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Sunyata is a concept that we need to understand if we want to search for the truth about human nature. now if you want to bring science in to the equasion then all you can find is matter , or lack of matter in this constantly changing and imperminant world . but to do that you still need truth otherwise how do you analise the matter or lack of matter ? ....truth is the one thing outside of the question .

Also, I think another big obstacle about understanding sunyata is that when people think of a religion and a religious concept, it needs somehow be mystical or supernatural, like a God. But people keep losing the grasp that Buddhism is all about human beings, not gods. Buddha was a human being before and after his awakening. There is no reason to make sunyata any more mysterious than what it is. oh dear , this is where I do not want to argue , but please allow me a slight difference of perspective ,
I am not wanting to create a supernatural , I am simply recognising the buddha to be the embobiment of truth , I am not creating a god but simply recognising a truth which goes beyond human nature , beyond shunyata , a truth which is complete realization ! a truth that will allways remain so , before and after any number of big bangs , creations and disolutions .
to me buddhist practice is for human beings , but buddhism is about realization ! ???
I am not saying you canot have your own veiw or practice , I am more than happy for you to take or understand as you feel comfortable to do .

buddha may well represent an ordinary man to some but to others he is the embodiment of truth and in some respects divine , again we must allow all veiw points .

even those veiw points aside he attained full knowledge therefore he is truth , truth is unchanging , eternal and canot be classed as empty .

all we can do is reflect deeply on this , debating will not bring forth realization only meditation .

namaskars ratikala

[TypeTeasiaDer]

Hi ratikala,
This position was developed by Indian philosophers well after Buddha's time. If you carefully examine what Buddha taught you will see that he actually rejected it. It comes as a bit of a shock to discover that, I admit but take a look at this and ponder the implications:

dear srivijaya ,

Im sure this arguement hs been had a thousand times , just as you say this mahayana veiw is a later addition , the opposite arguement is that the buddha neither refutes nor confirms .

I will return to this reply tomorow
but I politely request that you allow me my veiw as I allow you yours .

we may both reflect on these lines and find different things ,
that we may then discuss .

namaskars ratikala

[BliliBoopsy]

dear ratikala,

Thank you for educating me on your views.

[iceleliewBync]

Post moved to new thread in the "Beyond Belief" section.

[CGH1KZzy]

Hi all,

Just a gentle reminder that this is the beginners forum !

If those members who are more experienced would like to have discussions/ debates with each other, please don't do it here but start new threads in one of the other forums on the website instead.

I'm behind schedule offline at the moment and so I don't have time to move your posts to a new thread myself right now

....Thanks for your consideration.

and with kind wishes,

Aloka

[apannamma]

Emptiness is usually connected with the impermanence of phenomena (anicca) and with not-self (anatta) In other words there is no fixed 'self', its always constantly changing and therefore is empty of anything permanent and this is also true of phenomena in general.

We can also begin to understand emptiness through meditation, when our mind starts to become settled and still.

These words from the section "Studying and Experiencing" in Ajahn Chah's "A still Forest Pool" might be helpful:


http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Bo...dhas Teachings

The link is very interesting and helpful. I've already read through Part 1 "Understanding the Buddha’s Teachings" and looking forward to reading more.

Thanks!

[gghrdfffhfyj]

Admin note regarding Takso's posts


Its important to keep any posts relating to emptiness very simple and uncomplicated, because this is the Beginners to Buddhism forum, Takso ( and also "Buddha Nature" isn't a term which is used to describe emptiness in Theravada Buddhism, by the way).

I am moving your posts to the "Emptiness break-off thread from the Beginners Forum" in the Beyond Belief forum. Please continue there.

Thanks very much