[HotboTgameR]

To quote Ajahn Buddhadasa:

"If at any moment any person at all has a mind empty of grasping at and clinging to 'I' and 'mine', even if it is only for an instant, it means that the mind has realized emptiness. It is pure, radiant and at peace. It is one and the same thing as the heart of the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha. Thus at any moment that one has a mind empty in this way one has taken refuge, one has reached the Triple Gem."

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha196.htm

Thanks Aloka. Direct and simple.

[Unakjyfk]

Don't mind if I jump in here.

no not at all ,

me jumping in for the day too

Even people in India at the time of Buddha knew about fleeting nature of life (they probably called it Dukkha), they just didn't know why. please excuse me , but even people in india ?...duhkham , it is a sanskrit word , equateing to suffering in the same sence as buddha used it , so sorry to contradict but I am afraid they did know what it meant ...... dissquietitude . unsteadiness . and is often translated in just this way allso from palli .(how ever I understand the mistake as very little is taught about pre buddhist india within the buddhist tradition)


So sunyata is not about fleeting nature of life, because there is no point in teaching this. sorry this part I dont quite understand ?......sunyata is not about the fleeting nature , but is about the un steady nature , the illusive nature , the un satisfactory nature , ..thus suffering!


Srivijaya , sujests its illusory nature and uses the sanskrit maya ;Illusion .
(phenomena being illusory ), prehaps another way to describe the phenomenal world as we currently perceive it is often refered to as the illusory energy of ......(I am not going in to a debate about bhraman as there are many conceptions of..)(but it equates to the buddha nature that some buddhists accept)(me included).


What people keep forgetting when they discuss sunyata is the concept of "dependent origination." Without "dependent origination," the whole concept of sunyata is rather meaningless. so I am assuming that you are meaning "dependent origination" is that in order to originate there must be an origin ,

way back I had said that beyond sunyata is that which is not sunyata , that which is sat cit ananda (sorry that is sanskrit ) ...the essence of universal conciousness , sat;truth ...cit;conciousness ...ananda;bliss .....

so maya is the illusion to which we cling which masks true realization ....

so when aloka says ....

[plantBanceper]

It's my opinion that a genuine experiential understanding of sunnata (emptiness) is arrived at not through complex debate, nor through spacing out in an emptiness la-la land, but through simple analysis, together with regular meditation practice - and the purification of mental obscurations......

or from too much phylosopical wrangling !

meditation

and the purification of mental obscurations

mental obscurations ; maya the illusion that blinds clear seeing


To quote Ajahn Buddhadasa:

"If at any moment any person at all has a mind empty of grasping at and clinging to 'I' and 'mine', even if it is only for an instant, it means that the mind has realized emptiness. It is pure, radiant and at peace. It is one and the same thing as the heart of the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha. Thus at any moment that one has a mind empty in this way one has taken refuge, one has reached the Triple Gem." that realization of emptiness is the realization of the emptiness of illusion !

beyond that illusion , once purified , once removed , exponged !

It is pure , radient and at peace ....sat cit ananda , the essence of universal conciousness !

it is one and the same thing as the heart of the buddha , the dharma and the sangha .


so beyond illusion is truth , conciousness and bliss sat cit ananda .

conventional reality ....the illusory

ultimate reality ....truth conciousness and bliss

hope that makes sence

namaskars ratikala

[LypeReexy]

Hi Aloka-D,

Conventionally Dependent Origination is considered in interpretations, to be over 3 lifetimes. Personally I prefer the momentary or one lifetime version. However I won't go into that because there are plenty of references in the Theravada forum.

Oh, really? I am not aware that there are people who consider Dependent Origination to cover 3 lifetimes. To me, Dependent Origination is happening constantly all the time for everything as we speak. I mean, I could get thirsty and go get a drink of water.

I guess I'll look over the Theravada forum.

It's my opinion that a genuine experiential understanding of sunnata (emptiness) is arrived at not through complex debate, nor through spacing out in an emptiness la-la land, but through simple analysis, together with regular meditation practice - and the purification of mental obscurations......

I agree that it is important to experience sunyata, but in my mind, if I don't know what sunyata is, how do I know what I have experienced is sunyata or something else?

We probably have a basic difference in our understanding of sunyata, but I guess that's OK. it will just mean that we will end up in difference places and via different paths.

[georgshult]

As for Nagarjuna, this is the sutta he refers to in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā Ch 15

Hi Aloka-D,

If you are referring to my quote from Mūlamadhyamakakārikā , it is actually from Ch. 24, (English translation of the title might be "Examination of 4 Noble Truths") where he argued that 4 Noble Truths are sunyata as well. Sorry, I can't find any freely available English translation of Mūlamadhyamakakārikā on line.

[Oswczrdz]

We probably have a basic difference in our understanding of sunyata, but I guess that's OK. it will just mean that we will end up in difference places and via different paths.

Mine is from about 20 years study and practice with Tibetan Buddhism followed by a couple of years with the Theravada Forest Tradition.

If you are referring to my quote from Mūlamadhyamakakārikā , it is actually from Ch. 24 Oh no sorry, I wasn't refering to the quote , it was because Nagarjuna was mentioned that I wanted to point out his reference to a sutta in the Pali Canon in his "Examination of Essence" chapter.

[gusunsuth]

Hi ratikala,

please excuse me , but even people in india ?...duhkham , it is a sanskrit word , equateing to suffering in the same sence as buddha used it , so sorry to contradict but I am afraid they did know what it meant ...... dissquietitude . unsteadiness . and is often translated in just this way allso from palli .(how ever I understand the mistake as very little is taught about pre buddhist india within the buddhist tradition)

I didn't think that I was saying that Indians didn't know what dukkha mean. I thought I wrote that they did not know why they have dukkha. Didn't Siddhartha left the palace to search for the cause and reason for all the suffering?

sorry this part I dont quite understand ?......sunyata is not about the fleeting nature , but is about the un steady nature , the illusive nature , the un satisfactory nature , ..thus suffering!

Sorry if I was not clear. I was referring to Srivijaya 's usage of fleeting nature that most people understand the world to be and use it as an justification to "seize the day" (I assume in a less than ideal way) so to speak. I mean, someone who simply tell us that we are all going to die, is not someone who's telling us anything really useful, right?

so I am assuming that you are meaning "dependent origination" is that in order to originate there must be an origin ,

For a phenomenon, let us call it "A" to be created (birth is the term used sometime), there must be a possibility that it can occur. Once there is a possibility, then the requirements for "A" must be fulfilled. The requirements are the "A"'s dependencies. "dependent origination" is the creation of a phenomenon as the result of fulling of a phenomenon's dependencies.

So before "dependent origination", there is no "A". But there is a possibility for "A", so is a "possibility " an origin?

Anyway, I can see that our understanding of sunyata really differs. And probably not just sunyata, but all the basic Buddhist terms.

[ñàéäèíã]

Anyway, I can see that our understanding of sunyata really differs. And probably not just sunyata, but all the basic Buddhist terms.

Which tradition do you practice with Yuan ? Zen ?

[D6Ri5u13]

Which tradition do you practice with Yuan ? Zen ?

I guess I don't strictly follow any specific tradition or school. I believe that everyone, every school and every discipline (Not just Buddhism) might have something that can help me understand the Truth. So I seek out information, try to absorb everything I can, and use my own facilities to filter out what does not work for me.

I like to think of myself as a Buddhist, not "XXXXX Buddhist".

[trettegeani]

I guess I don't strictly follow any specific tradition or school. I believe that everyone, every school and every discipline (Not just Buddhism) might have something that can help me understand the Truth. So I seek out information, try to absorb everything I can, and use my own facilities to filter out what does not work for me.

I like to think of myself as a Buddhist, not "XXXXX Buddhist".

This is my approach too Yuan, although I practice Tibetan Buddhism - some folk find it hard to get their head around that one -lol.

[Shemker394]

Some great posts on this thread. It's good to exchange ideas and re-visit assumptions - that's what it's all about IMHO. If we can exchange ideas without dogma, then we've done alright.

This is saying that sunyata's definition is that all things' creation, existence and destruction (or change) are governed by the law of nidanas.

Hi Yuan, thanks for the reply but I don't know what tha Law of Nidanas is. I don't even know what a nidana is!!! Could you please elaborate?

__


I agree with Aloka's Ajahn Buddhadasa quote:
"If at any moment any person at all has a mind empty of grasping at and clinging to 'I' and 'mine', even if it is only for an instant, it means that the mind has realized emptiness. It is pure, radiant and at peace. It is one and the same thing as the heart of the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha. Thus at any moment that one has a mind empty in this way one has taken refuge, one has reached the Triple Gem." Absolutely beautiful.

[grubnismarl]

Hi Yuan, thanks for the reply but I don't know what tha Law of Nidanas is. I don't even know what a nidana is!!! Could you please elaborate?

Hi srivijaya,

In English, Nidānas can be simply defined as “causation.” But, there are two components to the “causation”, a “possibility” of a phenomenon and the prerequisites (elements and conditions) that are necessary for a phenomenon to occur. If both the possibility and the prerequisites for a phenomenon come together, then this phenomenon will occur.

I like to use fire as an example to illustrate Nidānas. I think that we agree that the phenomenon of "fire" is possible in our world. At the simplest level, the prerequisites for fire is sufficient amount fuel, air and heat all in the same proximity. If any of the prerequisites are missing, we would not get fire. You can call these prerequisites "dependencies". So "Dependent origination" is the event that all the dependencies are fulfilled, at which time, the phenomenon comes to be.

Another thing about fire that I want to point out. If we look at fire, it changes all the time right? I mean, it flickers, "dances", and maybe changes in color. Why? Because its dependencies are changing all the time, a change in the fuel (maybe a patch of wood is more moist than another.), a breeze, what ever, can all change its dependencies. And when the dependencies change, it changes. Usually, we consider this "fire" as a single, real fire, because it provides us warmth and light, more or less consistently while it is there. Or we can consider this "fire" to not be a single fire, but births and deaths of many many fires, each with a lifetime of milliseconds, because each fire looks different than the one that came before and after it. It is with the second view, that we said that the characteristic of "fire" is sunyata.

With fire, you also get smoke, heat and light, right? So fire is also considered to be a Nidanas (dependency) for smoke, heat and light. So this is why there is a concept of chain of causation, as refers to in Wiki for the definition of Nidanas .

12 Nidanas that most Buddhists should be familiar with is simply an explanation of how human (at least for the emotion/mind aspect) works.

Does this sounds like a science lesson?

[Sxedlawb]

Here we have the crux of the issue with the philosophy of the Two Truths. It is predicated on a statement of existence which has no basis in fact. It's like saying that 'unicorns never existed' - well who ever said they did?

In the same way the notion of an unchanging "inherent existence" is put up for demolition. Well who ever said that things exist / don't exist in this manner? We have a speculative ontology here and nothing more than that, despite the rigorous logic of debating philosophers. The concluding 'emptiness' which necessarily follows from this 'analytical process' is merely a logical construction. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Buddha's realisation of Sunyata, which was direct, non-dual and non-discursive.

Okay, it has its uses insomuch as some sects may have insisted on an unchanging atman. It points out the folly of such a position. It also points out the inconsistencies of other Buddhist sects who were likewise wandering into territory Buddha never entered. But it remedies this problem by engaging on the same terms as those erroneous debaters and thus becomes locked into the same paradigm - the assumption of an ultimate basis. It is a handy didactical device designed to win debates, not establish a position on an ultimate state - which was something Buddha assiduously avoided.



The above statements are likewise predicated on the logician's device of "inherent existence".


I completely agree here! But emptiness was discovered by Buddha, not devised in debate. It was a significant discovery as it enabled him to go much further than other mendicants of his day in gaining unbinding. Why? Because in all cases where an "ultimate state" is presupposed (even an ultimate state of emptiness), there will be clinging to it at the point where the contemplative assumes that he has encountered it. There are no limits to Buddha's liberation, therefore any such clinging would be detrimental to this unbinding.

Namaste
Kris

Hi Kris;

As one schooled in the same set of philosophical underpinning laid out rather (too?) meticulously by Takso, I find myself in general agreement with your critique, though my take is slightly different. I've never regarding the two truths as an assertion of some kind of positive unshakable definitive reality (nor does Takso, I'd imagine). They are debating tools, which effectively refute eternalist and nihilist arguments; they are tools for debate within one's own mind as well...for challenging it's knee-jerk eternalist (mainly) beliefs; and they are ways of understanding teachings such as the Heart Sutra, for example.

If the purpose of creating these debating tools is to systematically engage/debate our own mind, then it's fair to say that they have the effect of weakening one's adherence to what has always seemed clear and obvious to most sentient beings---that things truly exist; that "I" truly exist; that my happiness depends on getting "stuff" and obtaining positive emotional states and the good feelings that flow from having them, and on hanging on to them. If the "me" that holds firmly to these tenets is confronted with these arguments about true existence the logical component of me may well adapt this presentation of emptiness as their own system. For example, one may come to understand that the concept of a permanent and unchanging soul is false and cease holding to it.

Whatever weakens clinging to self and outer phenomena is a good thing. However this is both a blessing and a potential curse. Gaining some understanding of madyamika prasangika is not only completely ineffective in protecting one from engaging in nonstop perceptual error that characterizes "pervasive" suffering; thinking that one has moved closer to perceiving emptiness directly based on having an intellectual understanding of it can actually become a source of pride and arrogance which brings that practitioner further and further away from the goal of Buddhism---to remove fundamental ignorance through non-conceptual discernment, and, with it, all suffering. It may also turn one away from engaging in the study of all the preliminary subjects, in developing a good heart, in generating a real palpable disgust for Samsara, in recognizing one's own negative minds and working to tame them, in developing meditation skills, etc. One may feel that, possessing the highest teachings, there's little need for anything else other than to contemplate and expound on them. It also makes it more difficult to meditate properly on emptiness when one goes in thinking that they've solved the problem of existence. and all they need to do it apply it in meditation. It's not like that at all.

Why is that?

A logical construct has no power to destroy grasping to self, to existence, to objects, to pleasant feelings, and the like, even when that construct conceptually obliterates the true existence of all of the above. That's because that construct isn't part of one's actual tenet system. What one feel on any moment, what one discriminates in that moment, what intention one formulates in that moment---these are the indicia of one's tenet system. You can expound on and sincerely believe every word of Nagarjuna's 70 stanzas on emptiness; you can prove that the person walking across the floor towards you with the knife lacks inherent existence, that there is no walking due to lack of effective cause and effect, and no "knife wielder"; yet existential fear will quickly envelop ANY such person, unless they have directly perceived emptiness, and have given up all clinging to existence. One's own actual tenet system is so deeply entrenched that no amount of logic can overcome it. That's why when Je Tsongkhapa, who had already published great works on "Emptiness" asked Manjusri (well...the vision of Manjusri, at least) what level of practice he was on he was told rather curtly "you're not even lower scope". Practice can remove the deepest and most ingrained tendencies of the mind by achieving nonconceptual discernment, which shatters all of those fabrications---it reveals truth, nakedly, that can't be denied, like a light showing an object in a previously dark room. Je Tsonkhapa was advised to practice, do retreats, do preliminaries, etc. Only after years of practice is it said that he saw emptiness directly. This was a good 20 years after he'd become one of the greatest Emptiness scholars of Tibet.

Since all this is theory, dependent upon reasoning, no matter how perfect a reason is posited, no matter how well the reason applies to the assertion, it is of absolutely no value in terms of its liberative capability without the ability to attain deep meditative absorption and apply analysis within that absorption and achieve non-conceptual discernment. That is to say, discernment of emptiness---the experience of not-finding a truly existing self or object after earnestly looking for it in every possible way, is the only way for the mind to come around to accepting selflessness of self or selflessness of object. And I'd go even further and state that, if one were to attempt to apply the conclusions of any of the statements made by Takso (which I'm not disputing in the least, btw), in meditation; if one were to examine an object and look for it's lack of something, look for it's inherent malleability, from whence all phenomena can appear, they would never achieve the direct yogic perception of emptiness, because they would be attempting to drag conceptual notion into a non-conceptual state of mind. In a sense, they would be attempting to "cancel" appearing phenomena...to view it as something less than it appears to be; they would be attempting to engraft their conceptual view of reality on what is clearly NOT a view---on direct perception of reality.

So, you never perceive emptiness non-conceptually if you look for something's emptiness; you can achieve the direct perception of emptiness if you examine what appears in your mind and try to establish it as truly existent and are totally honest about your motive; that is, your motive should be to find a self that really does/could/did exist. Make your best case for true existence, examining the consequences if that were so.

[Psymoussy]

Conventionally Dependent Origination is considered in interpretations, to be over 3 lifetimes. Personally I prefer the momentary or one lifetime version. However I won't go into that because there are plenty of references in the Theravada forum.

It's my opinion that a genuine experiential understanding of sunnata (emptiness) is arrived at not through complex debate, nor through spacing out in an emptiness la-la land, but through simple analysis, together with regular meditation practice - and the purification of mental obscurations......


To quote Ajahn Buddhadasa:

"If at any moment any person at all has a mind empty of grasping at and clinging to 'I' and 'mine', even if it is only for an instant, it means that the mind has realized emptiness. It is pure, radiant and at peace. It is one and the same thing as the heart of the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha. Thus at any moment that one has a mind empty in this way one has taken refuge, one has reached the Triple Gem."

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha196.htm

Hi Aloka;

The way you just framed this question kind of answers it without having to analyze. Obviously "experiential" understanding can't come through debate. Debate is a type of experience, naturally, but the term "experiential understanding" specifically refers to emptiness achieved through non-conceptual discernment, at least as I understand the term.

Just to reiterate far more briefly what I stated above...

Debate fails to have the slightest effect on one's deep belief structure. That is to say, feeling in response to stimuli, discrimination, intention (and all the things which impinge on and are influenced by these mental factors), aren't changed by adopting an intellectual position; they are, however, forever changed by nonconceptual discernment of what one has always believed to be "I"; failing to find I in a conclusive way, a definitive way, in a way which destroys all clinging to I----well, that WILL change feeling, discrimination, intention.

So, I'm not sure of what you really think about debate. I agree that debate is useless in meditation; it may even be harmful if you try to force your understanding onto your meditation object, rather than examining it without prejudice, and honestly looking at it, at how it exists, at its causes, etc. However I think it is a good way to disabuse oneself of wrong view, especially if one clings to certain fallacies regarding eternalism or nihilism. That's one of the main reasons that it was engaged in, historically.

[eropiereetuekm]

The way you just framed this question kind of answers it without having to analyze. Obviously "experiential" understanding can't come through debate. Debate is a type of experience, naturally, but the term "experiential understanding" specifically refers to emptiness achieved through non-conceptual discernment, at least as I understand the term

Hi tjampel, nice to see you posting again,

Any understanding of emptiness that I have myself was first arrived at through non-conceptual understanding and practice - and general analysis came later, so I guess thats rather like putting 'the cart before the horse' to coin an old English expression.

Sorry but I'm not able to read much here at the moment because I'm getting headaches through too much exposure to computer font....which is why I made a request for spacing/paragraphs in the announcements section, because I can't read blocks of text on a screen at the moment without getting visual disturbances.

[videolkif]

Does this sounds like a science lesson?

Nothing wrong with a science lesson Yuan

Thanks for the explanation. It's very much an elaboration upon dependent origination and I can very much see where you are coming from on that point.

[uphokyhuP]

thinking that one has moved closer to perceiving emptiness directly based on having an intellectual understanding of it can actually become a source of pride and arrogance which brings that practitioner further and further away from the goal of Buddhism---to remove fundamental ignorance through non-conceptual discernment

Hi tjampel,
Very much agree with this point. I guess having spent time in the company of Gelugpa scholars in my early days I was left with the overriding impression that an intellectual grasp of the matter was a sublime condition well beyond the reach of most and was considered the 'last word' on Buddha's teachings. Like you say, this can breed a certain contempt of "simple" teachings which one considers are aimed at the 'masses'.

How could breathing meditation compare to Chandrakirti's Sevenfold Reasoning for example???

It took me a long time to break free of that spell.

Only after years of practice is it said that he saw emptiness directly. This was a good 20 years after he'd become one of the greatest Emptiness scholars of Tibet. Absolutely.

no matter how perfect a reason is posited, no matter how well the reason applies to the assertion, it is of absolutely no value in terms of its liberative capability without the ability to attain deep meditative absorption and apply analysis within that absorption and achieve non-conceptual discernment. Spot on again! No amount of telling myself that Pamela Anderson was empty of inherent existence ever made a difference

It's insight gained in meditation which begins to undermine our habitual thought patterns and reactions.

Namaste
Kris

[polleroy]

@Element (especially)

I had earlier had a few exchanges with you regarding the concept of whether "Buddha Nature" was a "value added" component or represented a kind of stripping away of the veil(s) of ignorance we're subject to on a constant basis. We had discussed what was meant by "luminous and aware" in the context of the epithet "Buddha Nature". I think that the above quote proffered by Aloka is germane. Note that this mind (what we referred to as "Buddha Nature") is far different from the mind of a Buddha acting in its capacity as Buddha. A Buddha makes a specific promise to help sentient beings; the promise is in the nature of compassionate activity within the triple world; this activity is characterized by specific abilities and "powers", as they are called. The ability to rest in the non-conceptual discernment of emptiness is not what makes a Buddha unique; it's what is common to Buddha and arahant and, additionally, to an arya, while resting in this state.

Ajahn Buddhadasa:

"If at any moment any person at all has a mind empty of grasping at and clinging to 'I' and 'mine', even if it is only for an instant, it means that the mind has realized emptiness. It is pure, radiant and at peace. It is one and the same thing as the heart of the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha. Thus at any moment that one has a mind empty in this way one has taken refuge, one has reached the Triple Gem."

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha196.htm