[vicgirl]

Note: New thread, as recommended by Aloka.

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 .

Hi ratikala,
I agree with this. I'm less concerned with an orthodoxy than my post may imply. My background is Tibetan Vajrayana modified by a hefty infusion of Theravada and a respect for Spanda Shavism! So no, I'm not interested in arguing over whose point of view is "authentic". Life's too short.

I will return to this reply tomorow I look forward to it.

I politely request that you allow me my veiw as I allow you yours . Of course.

we may both reflect on these lines and find different things ,
that we may then discuss . I hope so. I studied the tenets of the four schools, culminating in the Prasangika teachings, for a few years - inspired to do so by my discovery of the Heart Sutra and fascination with the topic. I hope that extra background fleshes it out for you.

Namaste
Kris

[Indinehon]

Hi ratikala,
I agree with this. I'm less concerned with an orthodoxy than my post may imply. My background is Tibetan Vajrayana modified by a hefty infusion of Theravada and a respect for Spanda Shavism! So no, I'm not interested in arguing over whose point of view is "authentic". Life's too short.

dear srivijaya ,

wonderfull , the thought of arguing any point is not my favorite occupation , I like the thought of being able to discuss without attatchment to a particular veiw .

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 .

now the history you give above is very interesting and brings many questions to mind ,

you state a background of "tibetan vajrayana" , yes , for me allso . "followed by a hefty infusion of theravada" , prehaps less than hefty , but similarly I have allso enquired heavily into the theravadan teachings . " followed by a respect for spanda shaivism" .....that is interesting can I ask you to explain more , do you still regard your self as buddhist ? and can you explain the respect for shaivism and the paralels (if they are paralels ?) as you see it ?

my other influence is vaisnava ,so prehaps you understand my interest , and my caution when thinking to deffend any one sect .
I tend to see each as a perfectly valid path in their own right .

allso because of my history and the simple thought that I have benifited from each system I have joint loyalties ,

I dont extect others to understand this and try not to cross boundarys , talking with a buddhist vocabulary when speaking to a buddhist and a more indian terminology when speaking to indians ....

but what I have learnt is that we should speak simply in hope that all might be able to understand ? and simply reflect on the idea , so in that respect I am extremely un orthadox

I allso wonder about the whole subject of authenticity, I see and hear everywhere people using quotes to substantiate arguements , but remember the buddha being quoted as having said "look not at the word but at the meaning"which I am mindfull to do ,
in that respect I feel reflection to be the key to all wisdom .

and as with the subject of emptiness , there are extremely subtle levels of realisation as we reflect , and I am not sure that these can be discussed ? but only realised by further examination .

a good teacher guides one towards realisation , good dharma friends lead or encorage each another allso towards realisation

Haa , Haa , ....I have gone way off the original subject , but as this is a new thread I hope that is ok ?
If you want to return to the original question please say so , otherwise I am very interested to discuss different paths , different influences and how they might work together ?
and how it might affect our veiw ?

personaly I am very happy with it , but it confuses some others


I studied the tenets of the four schools, culminating in the Prasangika teachings, for a few years - inspired to do so by my discovery of the Heart Sutra and fascination with the topic. I hope that extra background fleshes it out for you. yes , a little , thank you ,

look forward to your answers ,

namaskars ratikala

[sasaderesada]

Hi guys, reading your discussion led me to think about this quote from Western teacher of Tibetan Buddhism Ken McLeod “What we are is different from who we are. And in Buddhism, we’re concerned with what we are, not who we are.” And to me what we are is not defined by which tradition or practice we follow.



( I had to look up an online source for the quote ... luckily found one here, recent too http://integral-options.blogspot.com...en-mcleod.html. I have had the quote in my notes and years of rote learning quotes comes in handy at times)

[maxtp]

I allso wonder about the whole subject of authenticity, I see and hear everywhere people using quotes to substantiate arguements , but remember the buddha being quoted as having said "look not at the word but at the meaning"which I am mindfull to do ,
in that respect I feel reflection to be the key to all wisdom .

Hi ratikala,

A gentle reminder that we are primarily a Buddhist learning community, so therefore its fine if people want to use quotes from the Buddha (or from well-known Buddhist teachers) to support their postings. (The quotes should always have links to a sutta or original source - and sentences from 'Quote sites' aren't acceptable because they can be inaccurate)

Its all too easy to get confused (particularly newcomers) about what is or isn't a teaching from the Buddha, or even to make up ones own verision of the Dharma. Its important for people reading threads to have some clarity about this, because it's the springboard to reflection on his teachings, as well as the relevant practices.

Anyway, sorry for the interruption, please continue!


with metta,

Aloka

[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

[amotoustict]

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.

This is an important consideration Kris,

Thanks,

[SingleMan]

firstly my appologies to everyone for not putting up refferences , sorry but my powers of retention are not that great that I remember the placing of every verse I've ever read .

prehaps someone present might remember and tell me , It is a well known quote and quite poinient .

"look not at the word but at the meaning

many thanks

namaskars ratikala

[Salliter]

There's something very much along those lines here:
"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher."

When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness" — then you should enter & remain in them.' http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....065.than.html

[Grennios]

dear srivajaya,

some very interesting points here , on the subject of emptyness and the correct teaching of ,

so the genie is well out of the bottle on this.

yes , we live in an age of advancement , we have access to so much information , yet lack the much needed guidance .
therefore there is allways the danger that without that guidance we might grossly missenturpret what we have before us .

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. I have come across this allso , (but in the correct study order) it is important otherwise we will find it very hard to come to the correct understanding .

in the wrong order it could be missleading , if not dangerous .


My main concern is that the philosophical position is, in fact, a kind of reification and misses what Buddha was really teaching. yes , this is where I wished to stress the need to examine carefully , we need to examine carefully , just because it is written , it dosent mean it should be counted as infalible , that would be foolish , any way we need to examine to make certain , allso to fix the understanding in our way of thinking .

from right understanding comes right thought , from right thought comes right action ......

But why is this when we know that later Buddhists did have a position - ie. the Two Truths? I think I had better answer this seperately , i'll return to it later.


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. agian withthis I totaly agree


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 veiws " , "a fetter "


yes , that which detracts from the first atainment ,

I reffer back to the eight fold path ,
right understanding leads on to right thought ,
but without right understanding , no right thought .

walk first , before even thinking to run !

but it is all to accessable and we canot resist ,
as you say "the gene is well out of the bottle here "


namaskars ratikala

[maxfieldj1]

There's something very much along those lines here:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....065.than.html

thank you

I wonder allso how many other times it occurs in other teachings ,(and other traditions) would be interesting to find more instances of the same instruction ?

namaskars ratikala

[hLabXZlK]

Emptiness is a necessary pre-requisite for any object to exist; without it, the object would be impossible. Upon in-depth analysis, we could discover that emptiness corresponds to two distinct scenarios:

1. It corresponds to the inherent existence (due to unchanging nature) that all conventional phenomena lack.

It means that if we focus purely on emptiness, it cannot be segmented or dissected further to see the real origin. Emptiness is not dependent on any other origin components to produce emptiness. Emptiness in itself is the core and basic origin.

Therefore, it has unchanging nature that all conventional phenomena lack. This conclusion is made from the 'Ultimate' perspective - seeing into the within of the within.

2. It corresponds to dependent arising (a conditional phenomenon) i.e. subject to the same lack of inherent existence as every other object or phenomenon. This is referred to as the emptiness of emptiness.

Emptiness would not exist without a dependent partner. If there were no objects to analyse, then emptiness as such could not be realised. Without objects, there can be no emptiness - a circumstance that points to emptiness of emptiness.

This conclusion is made from the 'Conventional' perspective - seeing as a subject on the other side of the object or matter.

An enlightened mind would see and realise on both the above scenarios at the same time.

[CoenceLomneedtrue]

Anything that inherently exists would not involve change.

Created objects cannot inherently exist since that would involve change.

The emptiness of inherent existence of the mind is called the Buddha nature.

The potential movement of the mind from non-enlightenment towards a state of enlightenment would not be possible if the mind itself existed inherently.

In other words, emptiness is what makes the transformation towards Buddhahood possible.

[MeeveStesia]

Emptiness can be realised into stages as below: -

Stage 1 Elementary Realisation

• All things and phenomena are lack of core essence.
• Nothing is unchanging and permanent.
• Everything is inter-related.

Stage 2 Intermediary Realisation

• Ability to differentiate the way things are perceived to exist and
the way things really exist.
• Only seeing without believing.

Stage 3 Advance Realisation

• No dualism of the subject and object, and no appearance of multiplicity.
• All things and phenomena rise and fall within a singular condition.
• Only uniformity exists.


Stage 4 Ultimate Realisation

• All dependent arising are completely blown off or extinguished.
• No string attached; nothing is left remaining.
• Infinite, unchanging, permanent and unconditional.
• Exists beyond all phenomena.

[BuyCheapest]

Anything that inherently exists would not involve change.

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.

Created objects cannot inherently exist since that would involve change.
The emptiness of inherent existence of the mind is called the Buddha nature.
The potential movement of the mind from non-enlightenment towards a state of enlightenment would not be possible if the mind itself existed inherently. The above statements are likewise predicated on the logician's device of "inherent existence".

emptiness is what makes the transformation towards Buddhahood possible. 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

[jeargefef]

But emptiness was discovered by Buddha, not devised in debate.

ah , haa ,

excuse me adding a thought here ,

"emptIness was descovered by the buddha " , can I say experienced by ,or attained by , the buddha ,
"not devised in a debate" , but prehaps the human propencity to debate comes from the sheer fact that they have no conception of it , having not experienced it ?


takes a lot of words to explain the simplest thing to a person who has never seen it !
then the words become the didactical device ,

I think we should prehaps focus on realization ,

wasnt that what the buddha was teaching ?

namaskars ratikala

[Klissineopar]

That is the challenge, isn't ? Doctrinal definitions and dogma about factors of existance, like emptiness, unsatisfactoriness, impermanence ? Bizarre conundrum, really.
Personally I find the understandings from Buddhist teachings unique, and so I guess I disagree with Kris ( now that might be a first ! ) in that it appears to me, as Ratikala was suggesting, before the Buddha and even now, to use Kris's example, the thought is that unicorns exist.
The fact that classical teachings from some traditions and certain schools today focus more on this ( ie. emptiness ) than others is irrelevant, to my mind.

[leyliana]

before the Buddha and even now, to use Kris's example, the thought is that unicorns exist.

Thanks for the replies guys and taking the time to read. I’d dearly love the opportunity to investigate this unicorn business because perhaps there is ‘something’ in it - no smoke without fire, as they say. We may at least discover a beautiful white horse with a plastic horn. Worth a look.

Okay, so the crux of the matter is the following:

“Form is empty, emptiness is form”
Question: Of what is form empty?
Answer: Inherent Existence!

So, what is inherent existence?

Definitions point to the idea that we perceive self and other as substantially, autonomous, existent entities, existing from their own side. The idea being that we project this notion onto our sensory experience and that we thus remain ignorant of the true nature of both the objects and the experiences. This ignorance keeping us bound into samsara.

According to my Mahayana training, saying that all things are empty (as a blanket statement per se) is wrong (nihilist). They are rather empty of inherent existence. It has to be qualified, as things do exist conventionally, just not ultimately. So the concept of inherent existence is crucial to this.

Is that a fair, if somewhat brief, assessment?

As far as I can see, there are two things going on here:

The first is the acknowledgement that we grasp at self and other. This can even be seen amongst animals, is visceral and innate. We are drawn to objects we desire and repulsed by those we dislike. We are saddened when things we like cease because we cling to them - so far so good, no qualms here. (Beautiful White Horse). Budddha laid out a path to help us directly see how this process unfolds within our minds and how we can relinquish and be unbound from it.

The second is the imposition of an ontology. Following on from takso's observation that if things existed inherently they could never change. The problem is, nobody imposes such criteria on sensory data. Run of the mill, uninstructed people all acknowledge the fleeting nature of life. In fact it may even encourage them to “get it while they can” and “live for today”. No one (apart from some long dead and rather silly Indian philosophers) has ever tried to impose eternal, unchanging characteristics onto sense data but precisely this is what is being refuted. (Found the Plastic Horn).

An allied strand of thought is very similar to the advaitin philosophy of Maya. One which does not stop at comparing phenomena to illusions but rather says that they are illusions! The only concession to Buddha is to replace Brahman as the ultimate ‘real’ substratum with emptiness (as an ultimate state). More ontology. more “this exists / doesn’t exist / both exists and does not exist” as per Vacchagotta.

So... is it a little clearer?

Perhaps we don’t even disagree on quite as much as it first seems.

[PapsEdisa]

Don't mind if I jump in here.

According to my Mahayana training, saying that all things are empty (as a blanket statement per se) is wrong (nihilist). They are rather empty of inherent existence. It has to be qualified, as things do exist conventionally, just not ultimately. So the concept of inherent existence is crucial to this.

This is why I hate "empty" as a translation for sunyata. It allows people to write something like "empty of inherent existence." Nobody would write "sunyata of inherent existence."

srivijava also noted that:

The problem is, nobody imposes such criteria on sensory data. Run of the mill, uninstructed people all acknowledge the fleeting nature of life.

This is also absolutely correct. 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. So sunyata is not about fleeting nature of life, because there is no point in teaching this.

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.

I refer back to Mūlamadhyamakakārikā:
"The law of existence according to nidānas, I said is Śūnyatā" (Again, my translation, which is probably different than others, or my earlier one here.)

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

People here are probably familiar with the 12 nidanas, but that's just an example of how our behavior occurs. Everything in the world has its own nidanas, the computer that you are using, the internet, the sun, the cloud all have its own nidanas. For these things, we summarized these nidanas and call them names like Maxwell's equation, boolean logics, electrons....etc.

We (At least scientists and engineers) understand the nidanas of our physical worlds, so we can manipulate them and change them to do our bidding. We are lucky that physical things can be changed, so that even those of us that are not scientists and engineers can enjoy the fruits of their understandings.

So we need to understand the nidanas of our own nature so we can change ourselves. Unfortunately, this is not shareable, because we are all different. To me, this is what enlightenment is all about.

[inilbowly]

the 12 nidanas

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

[AllAdobeOEMSoftDownload]

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


SN 12.15 - Kaccayanagotta Sutta: To Kaccayana Gotta (on Right View)



Dwelling at Savatthi...

Then Ven. Kaccayana Gotta approached the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, 'Right view, right view,' it is said. To what extent is there right view?"

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.

"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media.

From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease.

Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....015.than.html