[pongeystrhjst]

http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/emptiness.html

. Emptiness is a key concept in Buddhist philosophy, or more precisely, in the ontology of Mahayana Buddhism.

[OWDavid]

Impermanence is an abstract concept.

Absolutely, the concept is just that - a mere concept projected from our own side upon a process which we assume to possess the attributes we assign to it.

[DenisLevvin]

What part of nagarjuna's explanation that you cite here is an ontological argument do you not understand?

And how is the following (from SN 35.85) not "ontological"?

Then Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One, "It is said that the world (loka) is empty, the world is empty, lord. In what respect is it said that the world is empty?"

"Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty."

[gamecasta]

Yes, some schools -- notably the Sarvastivada -- taught that dharmas "exist across the three time periods (past, present, future)".

That doesn't necessarily mean "permanent and unchanging", but at any rate it is a straw man. The Buddha's declaration of the irrelevance of such ontological speculations suffices, and indulging in arguments against them is merely stepping into the ontological cesspool with those who argue them, and turning that romp in the slop into a Whole Nuther Religion.

And how is the following (from SN 35.85) not "ontological"?

Then Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One, "It is said that the world (loka) is empty, the world is empty, lord. In what respect is it said that the world is empty?"

"Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty."

Two ways: One, when the Buddha speaks of "loka" in his own liberative teachings -- and he is here-- he is referring to how we perceive and react to the world, not the nature of existence:

Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One: "'The world, the world'[1] it is said. In what respect does the word 'world' apply?

"Insofar as it disintegrates,[2] monk, it is called the 'world.' Now what disintegrates? The eye disintegrates. [Visual] Forms disintegrate. Consciousness at the eye disintegrates. Contact at the eye disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates.

"The ear disintegrates. Sounds disintegrate...

"The nose disintegrates. Aromas disintegrate...

"The tongue disintegrates. Tastes disintegrate...

"The body disintegrates. Tactile sensations disintegrate...

"The intellect disintegrates. Ideas disintegrate. Consciousness at the intellect consciousness disintegrates. Contact at the intellect disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates.

"Insofar as it disintegrates, it is called the 'world.'"

Dwelling at Savatthi. There the Blessed One addressed the monks: "I will teach you the origination of the world & the ending of the world. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded to the Blessed One.

The Blessed One said: "And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is 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. From clinging 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. This is the origination of the world.

"Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact...

Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises nose-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact...

Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises tongue-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact...

Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises body-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact...

Dependent on the intellect & mental qualities there arises intellect-consciousness. The meeting of the three is 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. This is the origination of the world.


"And what is the ending of the world?

Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. Now, from the cessation & fading away of that very craving comes the cessation of clinging. From the cessation of clinging 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. This is the ending of the world.

"Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact..

. Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises nose-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact...

Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises tongue-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact..

Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises body-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact..

Dependent on the intellect & mental qualities there arises intellect-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. Now, from the cessation & fading away of that very craving comes the cessation of clinging. From the cessation of clinging 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. This is the ending of the world." Second: the Buddha declares nothing about the nature of loka's existence; he simply declares that it is "not me, not mine":


"Insofar as it is empty ofa self or of anything pertaining toa self".

[Espacamlisa]

[...]

The phrase "all phenomena are not-self" could be viewed as an ontological statement. It discusses how things are. The phrase also could be viewed as a speculative view. But we know that it is neither. Likewise, the phrase "empty of inherent existence" does not necessarily imply an ontological speculative view. Rather, it describes something that we can see with discernment, as the Buddha taught in his own words.

When someone uses this phrase, particularly in a discussion that draw in Theravada and Mahayana perspectives, it is not a mistatement of the Buddha's teachings. Rather, is is one window into the Buddha's teachings. Admittedly, this particular phrase is a window with some smudges on it, because so many people have poked their fingers at it over the years. But at its core, there's nothing wrong with using this phrase. It does not have to mean "nothing exists."

There is a section of the Lankavatara Sutra which I quite like:

___________________________
Like a master of painting or his pupils, who arrange colours to produce a picture, I teach. The picture is not in the colours, nor in the canvas, nor in the plate; in order to make it attractive to all beings, a picture is presented in colours. What one teaches, transgresses; for the truth (tattva) is beyond words. ...

The teaching itself is thus variously given, subject to transgression; the teaching is no teaching whatever, if it is not to the point in each case.

According to the nature of a disease the healer gives their medicine; even so the Buddhas teach beings in accordance with their mentalities.


Lankavatara Sutra, Chap.2, section IX, v.117 - 124.
http://lirs.ru/do/lanka_eng/lanka-nondiacritical.htm
___________________________


AIUI, suttas (and sutras) are generally records of a specific event, when the Buddha gave a particular teaching to a particular person, or group of people, in answer to a particular question, or in order to clarify a particular aspect of his teaching. He tailored his words to the occasion, much like a doctor would give a specific medicine to treat a specific ailment. Its not (generally) a medicine, if you don't have the relevant ailment.

These sutta records were later written down in Pali, and subsequently translated into various languages. So there can be quite a large element of 'Chinese whispers', in that quite a lot of the original context, and nuances in the original language, may be lost. So in that sense, a phrase like 'empty of inherent existence' may be largely empty of inherent meaning, unless you have some knowledge of the original context, and unless also it is relevant to your own particular mentality and preoccupations at that particular time.

I do not know who first came up with the phrase 'empty of inherent existence', or what specific term it was intended to translate. I interpret it to mean that, because all phenomena are the result of causes and conditions outside of themselves, then all phenomena are empty or void of self-nature. That is, there is no part or aspect of any phenomenon which is independent or apart from these ongoing processes of 'external' causation. Strictly speaking, there is no 'external' or 'internal' either. Everything is part of the whole, the whole is reflected in everything.

But everything is unique. Every snowflake is unique, even though they are all the product of external circumstances. And all circumstances are unique, at least once you get down to the finer details.

The phrase 'empty of inherent existence' seems the kind of phrase where you have to already understand the meaning and the context, if you are to understand the (intended) meaning. But I suppose much of language is like that. The phrase definitely doesn't mean 'nothing exists' , it means nothing exists independently of all the other things that exist.

So I agree with Jechbi when they say: '[ The phrase 'empty of inherent existence'] is one window into the Buddha's teachings. Admittedly, this particular phrase is a window with some smudges on it, because so many people have poked their fingers at it over the years. But at its core, there's nothing wrong with using this phrase. It does not have to mean "nothing exists." '

[Kolovorotkes]

Mark,

The phrase originated with Nagarjuna. We know the context of its origin and the meaning it was designed to convey. This is already discussed in this thread (and a couple of other recent ones here). The Buddha did not teach it.

Until they were written down, the Pali Suttas were memorized and passed on with as much effort as possible given to avoid the "chinese whispers" influence by folks who were highly committed and who had nothing better to do.

That things arise due to causes and conditions is irrelevant to the Buddha's purpose of eradicating the asavas and the suffering they generate. This has also been pointed out here.

The question of "inherent existence-or not" is not a "window into the Buddha's teachings". the Buddha himself pointed out that such speculations were meanigless to the Dhamma. It is an irrelevant tangent. And it does take the opposite of the "inherent existence", and we can see its use as meaning precisely that all over the place in "mahayana" writings and discourse.

[KimLinbert]

Mark,

The phrase originated with Nagarjuna. We know the context of its origin and the meaning it was designed to convey. This is already discussed in this thread (and a couple of other recent ones here). The Buddha did not teach it.

Until they were written down, the Pali Suttas were memorized and passed on with as much effort as possible given to avoid the "chinese whispers" influence by folks who were highly committed and who had nothing better to do.

That things arise due to causes and conditions is irrelevant to the Buddha's purpose of eradicating the asavas and the suffering they generate. This has also been pointed out here.

The question of "inherent existence-or not" is not a "window into the Buddha's teachings". the Buddha himself pointed out that such speculations were meanigless to the Dhamma. It is an irrelevant tangent. And it does take the opposite of the "inherent existence", and we can see its use as meaning precisely that all over the place in "mahayana" writings and discourse.

But surely knowing (and ideally understanding) the Buddha's teaching on the origin of phenomena, including the asavas and suffering, may be helpful in 'eradicating' or liberating one from suffering?

Though not if it is just speculating about the nature of phenomena, divorced from the context of liberation from suffering.

The point I was trying to make, per the Lankavatara quote, was that it seems a good idea both to understand what the Buddha actually taught (and to some extent, what later respected commentators taught), and also to know whether or not a particular teaching is relevant and helpful to one's own particular situation, or to someone else's.

Which may or may not be similar to the point you were making, I'm not quite sure.

[tadacia]

But surely knowing (and ideally understanding) the Buddha's teaching on the origin of phenomena, including the asavas and suffering, may be helpful in 'eradicating' or liberating one from suffering?

The Buddha didn't teach "the origin of phenomena. Hr did teach the origin of suffering.

Though not if it is just speculating about the nature of phenomena, divorced from the context of liberation from suffering. ...which is what all this extraneous "inherent existence/non-existence" nonsense is.

The point I was trying to make, per the Lankavatara quote, ...which the Buddha did not teach...

was that it seems a good idea both to understand what the Buddha actually taught That is an EXCELLENT idea. Too bad so few pay attention to it.

(and to some extent, what later respected commentators taught),
The Buddha's teachings are clear enough without any need for "commentators" injecting their superstitions into it.

and also to know whether or not a particular teaching is relevant and helpful to one's own particular situation, or to someone else's. Thet Buddha's own teachings are relevant to everyone, at any time.

Which may or may not be similar to the point you were making, I'm not quite sure. Decidedy not.

[hLabXZlK]

But surely knowing (and ideally understanding) the Buddha's teaching on the origin of phenomena, including the asavas and suffering, may be helpful in 'eradicating' or liberating one from suffering?

Hi Mark,
I don't think that anyone would take issue with that. It's just how we do this that effects the outcome.

Though not if it is just speculating about the nature of phenomena, divorced from the context of liberation from suffering. Exactly. There's nothing wrong with as much rampant speculation as you like but it's not a path to liberation. This begs the question as to whether philosophical views are the same (or even superior) to direct meditative experience. I, personally, think not. Perhaps you do too but I have seen it advocated on many occasion.

it seems a good idea both to understand what the Buddha actually taught (and to some extent, what later respected commentators taught), and also to know whether or not a particular teaching is relevant and helpful to one's own particular situation, or to someone else's. My advice would be that meditation should always lead the way, as the context of the teachings only becomes apparent within the light of it.

Welcome to BWB btw

[Grennios]

Inherent existence/own-being (svabhava) was a notion cooked up by various Abhidhammic schools...

Buddhadasa used the term svabhava often.

Paramatha-sabhava-dhamma (Ultimate Dhammas)

Everything Is Anatta
Elements, Senses, & Aggregates
Dependent Origination

http://www.suanmokkh.org/archive/arts/ret/r-talks1.htm Imo, from a meditative perspective, there is sabhava. For example, the element of consciousness is the element of consciousness. Consciousness can be experienced as arising & passing, unsatisfactory and not-self, but, apart from that, it cannot be broken down in experience. Consciousness has the nature consciousness (rather than 'self') as its svabhava.

Nagajuna's short coming is he falls into the intellectual. For example, Nargajuana would assert consciousness has its underlying causes but the problem is these causes (hetu) are not observable.

The Buddha himself did not discuss the causes (hetu) of consciousness, that is, the various neurons, electrical impulses, etc. The Buddha only described the supporting conditions (paccaya) of consciousness, namely, the sense bases.

The Buddha broke up observable experience into the five aggregates, six elements, six sense bases, etc. The individual constituants of these seventeen natures have their svabhava, namely, the eye has the svabhava of eye, the ear has the svabhava of ear, feeling has the svabhava of feeling, etc.

As the Buddha said: "Why is it called feeling? Because it feels, thus it is called feeling", etc. That feeling 'feels' (rather than is a 'self') is its svabhava.

With metta

Bhikkhus, why do they speak of rupa? Bhikkhus, this nature naturally disintegrates (ruppati, vexed, oppressed), for this reason it is called "rupa." Why does it disintegrate? It disintegrates due to cold, due to heat, due to hunger, due to thirst, and due to the contacts of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, and crawling animals. This nature naturally disintegrates, for this reason it is called "rupa."

Bhikkhus, why do they speak of vedana? Bhikkhus, this nature is felt (vedayati), for this reason it is called "vedana." What does it feel? It feels pleasure, pain, and neither-pain-nor-pleasure. Bhikkhus, this nature feels, for this reason it is called "vedana."

Bhikkhus, why do they speak of sanya? Bhikkhus, this nature naturally recognizes (sanjanati, perceives), for this reason it is called "sanya." What does it recognize? It recognizes green, yellow, red, and white. Bhikkhus, this nature naturally recognizes, for this reason it is called "sanya."

Bhikkhus, why do they speak of sankhara? Bhikkhus, this nature naturally concocts concocted things (abhisankharonti), for this reason it is called "sankhara." What does it concoct? It concocts rupa as something concocted with "formness," it concocts vedana as something concocted with "feelingness," it concocts sanya as something concocted with "recognition-ness," it concocts sankhara as something concocted with "concoctingness," it concocts vinyana as something concocted with "cognition-ness." Bhikkhus, this nature naturally concocts concocted things, for this reason it is called "sankhara."

Bhikkhus, why do they speak of vinyana? Bhikkhus, this nature naturally cognizes (vijanati), for this reason it is called "vinyana." What does it cognize? It cognizes sourness, bitterness, spiciness, sweetness, astringency, non-astringency, saltiness, and non-saltiness. Bhikkhus, this nature naturally cognizes, for this reason it is called "vinyana."

[NKUDirectory]

"Insofar as it disintegrates, monk, it is called the 'world.' Now what disintegrates? The eye disintegrates. [Visual] Forms disintegrate. Consciousness at the eye disintegrates. Contact at the eye disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates.

"The ear disintegrates. Sounds disintegrate...

"The nose disintegrates. Aromas disintegrate...

"The tongue disintegrates. Tastes disintegrate...

"The body disintegrates. Tactile sensations disintegrate...

"The intellect disintegrates. Ideas disintegrate. Consciousness at the intellect consciousness disintegrates. Contact at the intellect disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates.

"Insofar as it disintegrates, it is called the 'world.'"

Greetings Stuka

Are you suggesting this "disintegration" occurs due to how we perceive and react to the world?

If disintegration is caused by perceiving (sanna) and reacting (sankhara), then why would cultivating vipassana (clear seeing) be necessary?

Also, is this "we" creating this "disintegration" Brahma, Vishnu or Shiva?

Thanks

[Npbfamgt]

Greetings Stuka

Are you suggesting this "disintegration" occurs due to how we perceive and react to the world?

No. I am pointing out that the Buddha defines "loka" in terms of the Six Sextets. And when we "transcend the world", and we speak of "world-transcending" Dhamma, this is what it is that is transcended.

[ElisasAUG]

Buddhadasa used the term svabhava often.

Imo, from a meditative perspective, there is svabhava. For example, the element of consciousness is the element of consciousness. Consciousness can be experienced as arising & passing, unsatisfactory and not-self, but, apart from that, it cannot be broken down in experience. Consciousness has the nature consciousness (rather than 'self') as its svabhava.

The Buddha broke up observable experience into the five aggregates, six elements, six sense bases, etc. The individual constituants of these seventeen natures have their svabhava, namely, the eye has the svabhava of eye, the ear has the svabhava of ear, feeling has the svabhava of feeling, etc.

As the Buddha said: "Why is it called feeling? Because it feels, thus it is called feeling", etc. That feeling 'feels' (rather than is a 'self') is its svabhava.

Thanks Element -- this is interesting and useful.

It occurred to me after reading your post that one reason "inherent existence" sounds like word salad is that it's a clunky translation of a Sanskrit term.

Bhava I understand as "becoming", while I guess sva refers to "self" or "ownership". Interestingly, though, I see that in Chinese it gets rendered as zi-xing (自性) -- and this word "xing" (性) means something more like "nature" or "property". So maybe there was some slippage in translation there too.

Sarvastivada: stuff has an "essence".
Nagarjuna/Madhyamaka: not

Nagajuna's short coming is he falls into the intellectual. I'd buy that, yes. Occupational hazard of philosophers...

[joe-salton]

[QUOTE=stuka;21092]The Buddha didn't teach "the origin of phenomena. Hr did teach the origin of suffering.



...which is what all this extraneous "inherent existence/non-existence" nonsense is.



ITSM the Buddha's teaching on dependent arising (paticcasamuppada) is a teaching on the origin of phenomena, and leads on to his teaching on the origin of suffering. The phrase 'empty of inherent existence', although its a rather clunky phrase (or translation) seems to me a kind of unfolding or explication of dependent arising.

The idea that phenomena are empty of inherent existence may or may not be helpful to meditation, or to the process of liberation from suffering, but it does seem to me to be quite helpful in terms of ethics, in how you regard 'self' and 'other'. And it may be helpful in terms of avoiding attachment to phenomena.

So it seems a bit harsh to describe the phrase 'empty of inherent existence' as either extraneous or nonsense, YMMV.

[Ilaubuas]

ITSM.........YMMV.

Hi Mark,

I have no idea what your abbreviations mean !

Please could you avoid using them because it causes confusion for our members around the world who don't speak English as their first language.

Thanks

A-D

[excholza]

Originally Posted by stuka (MarkD
But surely knowing (and ideally understanding) the Buddha's teaching on the origin of phenomena, including the asavas and suffering, may be helpful in 'eradicating' or liberating one from suffering?

The Buddha didn't teach "the origin of phenomena. Hr did teach the origin of suffering.

(MarkDThough not if it is just speculating about the nature of phenomena, divorced from the context of liberation from suffering. ...which is what all this extraneous "inherent existence/non-existence" nonsense is.
ITSM the Buddha's teaching on dependent arising (paticcasamuppada) is a teaching on the origin of phenomena,... If it were, we would see the Buddha saying, "In short, the whole mass of phenomena" in the twelfth Nidana, rather than "In short, the whole mass of suffering".

Please show us a Hubble photograph of Ignorance, squatting out there in the Vacuum of Space, giving Birth to the Universe. It's absurd.

...and leads on to his teaching on the origin of suffering. And please show us in the Pali Suttas where Buddha teaches the monks, "Monks, I will teach you paticcasamuppada, the Origin of Phenomena, which leads on to the Origin of Suffering".

The phrase 'empty of inherent existence', although its a rather clunky phrase (or translation) seems to me a kind of unfolding or explication of dependent arising. Please show in the Pali Suttas where the Buddha used the phrase "empty of inherent existence" to describe paticcasamupada or any part of his teachings. It is a clunky phrase and a clunky notion, and the Buddha did not teach it.

The idea that phenomena are empty of inherent existence may or may not be helpful to.......the process of liberation from suffering,... The idea that phenomena have inherent existence may or may not be helpful to.......the process of liberation from suffering

The idea that "The cosmos is not eternal" may or may not be helpful to.......the process of liberation from suffering.


The idea that "The cosmos is eternal" may or may not be helpful to.......the process of liberation from suffering.

The idea that "he cosmos is finite " may or may not be helpful to.......the process of liberation from suffering,...

The idea that "The cosmos is infinite " may or may not be helpful to.......the process of liberation from suffering,...

The idea that "The soul & the body are the same " may or may not be helpful to.......the process of liberation from suffering,...

The idea that "The soul is one thing and the body another " may or may not be helpful to.......the process of liberation from suffering,...

The idea that "after death one exists " may or may not be helpful to.......the process of liberation from suffering,...

The idea that "After death one does not exist " may or may not be helpful to.......the process of liberation from suffering,...




Again, "empty of inherent existence" is just another of many speculative ontological views, just like all the others above which the Buddha called "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, Awakening, Nibbana."


but it does seem to me to be quite helpful in terms of ethics, in how you regard 'self' and 'other'. And it may be helpful in terms of avoiding attachment to phenomena. The same is true for every other speculative ontological view above, and many others. At best they are what the Buddha called sammaditthi sasava -- views mired in the defilements. But thank you for acknowledging that this absurdity that is errantly held so highly by so many sects as the Supreme Thing "may or may not be helpful to.......the process of liberation from suffering". You make my point for me.

So it seems a bit harsh to describe the phrase 'empty of inherent existence' as either extraneous or nonsense, YMMV. It's simply a matter of taking out the trash. Why cling to the trash, when the real Dhamma is right there in front of us?



(The Buddha):

Friends, there are groups of wanderers and priests that misrepresent me with lying, empty, baseless,
insincere words: "The samaṇa Gotama, who leads people astray to their ruin, lays out a creed of the
vacancy, destruction, and nonexistence of beings."

That these wanderers and priests misrepresent me with lying, empty, baseless, insincere words for the
reason that I have never said such things, you'll never find me saying such things.
In the past as well as now, friends, I teach just suffering and the remainderless
quenching of suffering. (Pubbe cāhaṃ bhikkhave etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññāpemi,
dukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ.)1

1 MN 22: Alagaddūpama Sutta, M.i.140 (also S.iii.119 and S.iv.384), MDB 234. Translated from The Buddha's Life
from His Own Lips, pp. 287.

[betraaaus]

Hi Mark,

I have no idea what your abbreviations mean !

Please could you avoid using them because it causes confusion for our members around the world who don't speak English as their first language.

Thanks

A-D

YMMV "Your mileage may vary"

I *think* "ITSM" may be a typo and was supposed to be "ISTM", which would seem to be "It seems to me".


Agree that listervspeak on a multinational board is about as counterproductive as 733t5p34k.

[arerrurrY]

The phrase 'empty of inherent existence', although its a rather clunky phrase (or translation) seems to me a kind of unfolding or explication of dependent arising. So it seems a bit harsh to describe the phrase 'empty of inherent existence' as either extraneous or nonsense.

hi MarkD

i agree. to me, it is quite a handy phrase, once one gets over its 'clunkiness'. i read this phrase used over & over again for many years, without any clear explanation and one day i decided to understand it. i discovered it can be quite practical

for example, take suffering. if the mind is suffering, it can reflect: "this suffering is empty of inherent existence". this will cause the mind to examine the causes of that suffering, each of which will also be empty of inherent existence. so, through examining the lack of inherent existence, the suffering will lose its energy, diminish, then fall apart & cease

on its own, the phrase is vague, needing explanation. but once understood in context, it is very useful; skilful means, imo

with metta

Element

[BrifsGefel]

hi MarkD

i agree. to me, it is quite a handy phrase, once one gets over its 'clunkiness'. i read this phrase used over & over again for many years, without any clear explanation and one day i decided to understand it. i discovered it can be quite practical

for example, take suffering. if the mind is suffering, it can reflect: "this suffering is empty of inherent existence". this will cause the mind to examine the causes of that suffering, each of which will also be empty of inherent existence. so, through examining the lack of inherent existence, the suffering will lose its energy, diminish, then fall apart & cease

on its own, the phrase is vague, needing explanation. but once understood in context, it is very useful; skilful means, imo

There are plenty of other cliche's the Buddha didn't teach that have the same effect: "This too shall pass", etc.


;-)

[diegogo]

I'd buy that, yes. Occupational hazard of philosophers...

Which is why the Buddha refused to imbibe.