Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 9:01 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 155 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 10:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:09 am
Posts: 432
Namdrol wrote:
5heaps wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
Emptiness cannot be cognized directly. It has no characteristics, no shape, color, form, duration, etc.

only hinayanists have a problem with saying that negatives cant be cognized explicitly..but even they would say it can be cognized directly, where directly is taken to mean free of conceptuality ie. without conceptual consciousness, needing to rely on a mental image. do you understand what i mean by explicit vs implicit?

One cannot cognize that which lacks characteristics. It's impossible.

if by characteristics you mean shape, color, form, duration, etc, then its no problem to cognize it directly. for, just as empty space for example lacks all of these things and it can be cognized direcly without the use of a conceptual consciousness, so too can emptiness


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 11:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 8:49 pm
Posts: 143
Namdrol wrote:

Dependent origination is correct relative truth; by understanding that, one is lead to correct understanding of ultimate truth, emptiness.



this is really powerful for me. thank you.

d


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 12:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 8:49 pm
Posts: 143
cloudburst wrote:
If not, please demonstrate my error.



well, actually, your error is the extent to which you are invested in trying to show someone up. irrespective of whether you 'win' or not, it's that investment that sentences you to suffering. (not trying to be rude, btw - just working my way through the thread sequentially.)

d


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 2:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
5heaps wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
5heaps wrote:
One cannot cognize that which lacks characteristics. It's impossible.

if by characteristics you mean shape, color, form, duration, etc, then its no problem to cognize it directly. for, just as empty space for example lacks all of these things and it can be cognized direcly without the use of a conceptual consciousness, so too can emptiness


What type of empty space are you referring, be specific. Do you mean the sky, do you mean the empty space in a box? Conditioned space and unconditioned space are different.

N

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 11:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:09 am
Posts: 432
Namdrol wrote:
What type of empty space are you referring, be specific. Do you mean the sky, do you mean the empty space in a box? Conditioned space and unconditioned space are different.

i mean the unconditioned mere absence of physical obstruction. i dont think anyone except vaibhashika accepts that as a functioning thing, but they dont know how to posit mental labelling so its only natural that they would say something like that


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 1:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Posts: 2845
5heaps wrote:
One cannot cognize that which lacks characteristics. It's impossible.

isn't the lack of characteristics a characteristic?
I mean, if you say, "that which lacks characteristics" then you are creating a category.
Everything has characteristics.
If it doesn't have characteristics, or qualities, then there is no "it" to begin with.

So, we might say "the breeze" but really that is just a word we use to describe the movement of air.
There is no "breeze" apart from air movement.
We have words for a lot of things which are experiences and which have characteristics
but don't have any reality to them as self-existing. I think, according to the Buddha, that includes just about everything.

So, I think things have characteristics even if they don't truly exist. But there is nothing which has no characteristics.
the essential quality of "is" are characteristics.

_________________
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 1:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
5heaps wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
What type of empty space are you referring, be specific. Do you mean the sky, do you mean the empty space in a box? Conditioned space and unconditioned space are different.

i mean the unconditioned mere absence of physical obstruction. i dont think anyone except vaibhashika accepts that as a functioning thing, but they dont know how to posit mental labelling so its only natural that they would say something like that


Oh well, that type of space is merely a mental abstraction, it is unreal, no one sees it or perceives it since it lacks characteristics. So your thesis is rejected.

N

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 1:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
PadmaVonSamba wrote:
isn't the lack of characteristics a characteristic?


Is a "lack of money" money?

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2011 2:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Posts: 2845
Namdrol wrote:
PadmaVonSamba wrote:
isn't the lack of characteristics a characteristic?


Is a "lack of money" money?


Yes...it's money that you don't have!
...and sometimes it can be a huge amount.

_________________
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2011 2:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
PadmaVonSamba wrote:
isn't the lack of characteristics a characteristic?


Is a "lack of money" money?


Yes...it's money that you don't have!


Can you spend a lack of money?

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2011 2:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Posts: 2845
Don't confuse "characteristics' with "defining characteristics".
Since mind is infinite, it has no defining characteristics. Only "infining " characteristics.
The nature of mind, it's characteristics (space & luminosity) are infinite, not finite.

(Define:
de= "of"
fine= "end"
in other words, the end of something, it's boundaries of limitation)

_________________
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2011 2:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Don't confuse "characteristics' with "defining characteristics".
Since mind is infinite, it has no defining characteristics. Only "infining " characteristics.
The nature of mind, it's characteristics (space & luminosity) are infinite, not finite.

(Define:
de= "of"
fine= "end"
in other words, the end of something, it's boundaries of limitation)


Making up your own dharma language now?

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Posts: 2845
Namdrol wrote:
PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Don't confuse "characteristics' with "defining characteristics".
Since mind is infinite, it has no defining characteristics. Only "infining " characteristics.
The nature of mind, it's characteristics (space & luminosity) are infinite, not finite.

(Define:
de= "of"
fine= "end"
in other words, the end of something, it's boundaries of limitation)


Making up your own dharma language now?


ha ha. maybe. A long time ago it occurred to me that if there are terms "finite" ,"infinite", and "definite" then if there is "infinity" why not "definity" and if there is "defining" then why not "infining"?

My point was that a characteristic does not have to be something which defines something if that something is infinite.There are defining characteristics, so why not have characteristics which are not defining?

If space is infinite, then you can't define it, because infiniteness is its characteristic.
So, you can experience mind, its infinite nature which has no defining characteristics but iyt can be experienced because it still has characteristics, one of which is that it cannot be defined.

_________________
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 11:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:04 pm
Posts: 418
Lazy_eye wrote:
Hi:

Mahayanists sometimes get accused of misinterpreting paticcasamuppada (dependent origination). My experience has been that those making the accusations are often not aware of the Mahayana emphasis on sunyata.

But what is the relationship between sunyata and paticcasamuppada? Is understanding emptiness the same thing as understanding dependent origination? Or is sunyata broader in scope?

Looking at the Heart Sutra, sunyata would seem to be an all-encompassing term that includes anatta and dependent origination, while expanding the scope of these teachings to include all phenomena. Since the sutra applies sunyata to the twelve links, it would seem to transcend/supersede paticcasamuppada, as though the latter were just a manifestation. Both, though, arise out of the general principle:

Quote:
when this is this comes to be, with the arising of this that arises
.

Your thoughts? Clarifications? Corrections?


Because all things are dependent origination, we cannot pin point any essence, it is empty (sunya).
It is also because it is empty (sunya), nothing can be standstill and must depend on its surrounding (dependent origination).

THey are simply different way to say the same thing.

_________________
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 1:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:55 am
Posts: 453
adinatha wrote:
Enochian wrote:
adinatha wrote:
Re interconnectedness. This is also the case. In a sense, everything give rise to everything. The causal complex is so complex that it cannot be sorted out and discrete boundaries are not known.



Even causality itself is "empty" :thumbsup:


With this knowledge engaging in action is paramita.



Not necessarily. Paramita depends heavily on motivation and inclusion of all iving beings in that motivation. Mere awareness of interconnectedness is a beginning for sure, but not a guarantee that one's actions become 'perfections'.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 155 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Asbestos Buddha, Inge and 19 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group