Sunyata and dependent origination

General forum on Mahayana.

Re: Sunyata and dependent origination

Postby Malcolm » Thu Jun 23, 2011 3:36 pm

Lazy_eye wrote:It seems to me though that if we are not at a certain stage of realization, we have to approach "emptiness" conceptually, at least so we can know what it is not. Though understanding via concept and definition are not finally prajna, we still may need them as signposts.

There's a difference between understanding emptiness and realizing emptiness. The former by nature implies concept and even the idea of self. (There has to be someone who "stands under" it).

Concept, though, necessarily involves distance -- to conceive of something means you are regarding it (from outside). So it follows that a person who "conceives" emptiness cannot be realizing it fully.

Not meaning to be pushy, but might anyone here have a take on my question above?

Can we posit emptiness simply as a subtractive process -- i.e. as the result of abandoning all wrong views?


Emptiness is the abandoning of wrong views itself.

But there are only two wrong views i.e. "is" and "is not".

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

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10187
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Sunyata and dependent origination

Postby LastLegend » Thu Jun 23, 2011 3:47 pm

Lazy_eye wrote:It seems to me though that if we are not at a certain stage of realization, we have to approach "emptiness" conceptually, at least so we can know what it is not. Though understanding via concept and definition are not finally prajna, we still may need them as signposts.

There's a difference between understanding emptiness and realizing emptiness. The former by nature implies concept and even the idea of self. (There has to be someone who "stands under" it).

Concept, though, necessarily involves distance -- to conceive of something means you are regarding it (from outside). So it follows that a person who "conceives" emptiness cannot be realizing it fully.

Not meaning to be pushy, but might anyone here have a take on my question above?

Can we posit emptiness simply as a subtractive process -- i.e. as the result of abandoning all wrong views?


Yes...but emptiness of Buddha is different from emptiness of an Arahant and Bodhisattva. In other words, what Buddha has realized is different from what Arahant and Bodhisattva have realized. Only Buddhas see through all phenomena but most Bodhisattvas and Arahants cannot. So true emptiness is Buddha. Buddha is truly cleaned, free from all suffering. Arahants and Bodhisattvas still have subtle suffering residue that we human with naked eyes cannot detect or see. But in comparison, Bodhisattvas's subtle suffering residue is more subtle than that of Arahants.
NAMO AMITABHA
NAM MO A DI DA PHAT (VIETNAMESE)
NAMO AMITUOFO (CHINESE)
User avatar
LastLegend
 
Posts: 1732
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Sunyata and dependent origination

Postby Lazy_eye » Thu Jun 23, 2011 3:52 pm

Namdrol wrote:
Emptiness is the abandoning of wrong views itself.

But there are only two wrong views i.e. "is" and "is not".

N


Thank you, Namdrol.

In that case, then, isn't it unnecessary (in theory) to present emptiness "positively" -- that is to posit it as something, for example, as "causes and conditions".

We do see emptiness presented in this way, but my understanding is that it's done so as an antidote to nihilism. That is, for those of us who are not very close to realizing emptiness, there's a risk of mistaking "abandoning of all wrong views" for nothingness -- and thus actually fall into the second of the two wrong views.

Form=emptiness: the antidote to eternalism
Emptiness=form: the antidote to nihilism

Also, not to quibble, but aren't there wrong views #3 and #4 (namely, "both is and is not" and "neither is nor is not")?
User avatar
Lazy_eye
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:32 am
Location: Laurel, MD

Re: Sunyata and dependent origination

Postby muni » Thu Jun 23, 2011 7:02 pm

"Nobody is freeing phenomena or make them empty". Clouds are free in vast sky. When thoughts about get no fixation; they are free nature and has no doer who make them arise or a doer who must stop them. They are selfless selfliberating nature like all so seen outer things, when no movie-making conceptual mind grasp/moves towards its appaerances-experiences but let them be free. A mirror is not holding passing reflections neither.

Here "a master" must guide. "Empty knowing" has no owner. So is there told.
muni
 
Posts: 2735
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Sunyata and dependent origination

Postby Malcolm » Thu Jun 23, 2011 7:24 pm

Lazy_eye wrote:Also, not to quibble, but aren't there wrong views #3 and #4 (namely, "both is and is not" and "neither is nor is not")?


3 is just a restatement of 1, as 4 is merely a restatement of 2. They are necessary because there are some who suppose that an instance of become involves being both existent and non-existence at one and the same time.

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

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10187
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Sunyata and dependent origination

Postby conebeckham » Thu Jun 23, 2011 7:54 pm

Namdrol wrote:
conebeckham wrote:Excellent, thank you.

One more, somewhat tangential, question, Namdrol, if I may....."Thamel Gyi Shepa." ? SNIP

tha mal gyi shes pa, according to Gyalwa Yangonpa, is a yogi's term for ye shes.



Is ye shes "beyond mind?"
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.
User avatar
conebeckham
 
Posts: 2430
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Sunyata and dependent origination

Postby Malcolm » Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:26 pm

conebeckham wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
conebeckham wrote:Excellent, thank you.

One more, somewhat tangential, question, Namdrol, if I may....."Thamel Gyi Shepa." ? SNIP

tha mal gyi shes pa, according to Gyalwa Yangonpa, is a yogi's term for ye shes.



Is ye shes "beyond mind?"



Of course.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10187
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Sunyata and dependent origination

Postby conebeckham » Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:55 pm

aha, so-called "Ordinary Mind" is beyond mind!

I never liked that translation of Tamal Gyi Shepa anyway. That paper on Gampopa, in the Dzokchen/Tsong Khapa thread, had a better translation......though I can't remember it right now.

What's interesting, at least to me, is that "Rang Jung Yeshe" or Tamal Gyi Shepa or whatever you want to call it is actually coemergent with conceptuality....like water and milk mixed. Yet not the same...
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.
User avatar
conebeckham
 
Posts: 2430
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Sunyata and dependent origination

Postby ground » Sat Jun 25, 2011 2:45 am

Even in the General Mahayana forum all there is is the talk in terms of tibetan buddhism and vajrayana. Vajrayanists seem to have acquired Mahayana in public media. But I think that they are just the loudest .... maybe also the proudest.

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Sunyata and dependent origination

Postby muni » Sat Jun 25, 2011 7:42 am

TMingyur wrote:Even in the General Mahayana forum all there is is the talk in terms of tibetan buddhism and vajrayana. Vajrayanists seem to have acquired Mahayana in public media. But I think that they are just the loudest .... maybe also the proudest.

Kind regards

Right! Then regarding the topic; Vajrayana is Mahayana as well. All those clasifications to fit us all in order to keep our narrow head in selfcherishing. It is like my dogs; here I lift my paw . Of course methods can contradict and so confuse, while clarity is to be given.

Own state of mind (dependent) is so easely forgotten in debats and the object fixated.

Sunyata and dependent origination in Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana...does it fit me? Baaah, no! Paw up please. For pride is there equanimity.
Last edited by muni on Sat Jun 25, 2011 6:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
muni
 
Posts: 2735
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Sunyata and dependent origination

Postby Malcolm » Sat Jun 25, 2011 2:04 pm

TMingyur wrote:Even in the General Mahayana forum all there is is the talk in terms of tibetan buddhism and vajrayana. Vajrayanists seem to have acquired Mahayana in public media. But I think that they are just the loudest .... maybe also the proudest.

Kind regards



Nah, just the only ones that present Mahāyāna based on Indian commentarial sources.
Last edited by Malcolm on Sat Jun 25, 2011 3:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10187
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Sunyata and dependent origination

Postby mudra » Sat Jun 25, 2011 3:08 pm

LastLegend wrote:Yes...but emptiness of Buddha is different from emptiness of an Arahant and Bodhisattva. In other words, what Buddha has realized is different from what Arahant and Bodhisattva have realized. Only Buddhas see through all phenomena but most Bodhisattvas and Arahants cannot. So true emptiness is Buddha. Buddha is truly cleaned, free from all suffering. Arahants and Bodhisattvas still have subtle suffering residue that we human with naked eyes cannot detect or see. But in comparison, Bodhisattvas's subtle suffering residue is more subtle than that of Arahants.


The emptiness of a Buddha is just as 'empty' as that of an Arhant :)

Obviously what a Buddha realizes is different from others, otherwise Buddha and others would be the same.

What exactly do you mean by subtle suffering residue? Subtle remainder of klesha? or actual suffering?
User avatar
mudra
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:55 am

Re: Sunyata and dependent origination

Postby Malcolm » Sat Jun 25, 2011 3:50 pm

conebeckham wrote:aha, so-called "Ordinary Mind" is beyond mind!

I never liked that translation of Tamal Gyi Shepa anyway. That paper on Gampopa, in the Dzokchen/Tsong Khapa thread, had a better translation......though I can't remember it right now.

What's interesting, at least to me, is that "Rang Jung Yeshe" or Tamal Gyi Shepa or whatever you want to call it is actually coemergent with conceptuality....like water and milk mixed. Yet not the same...


tha mal in this context means "completely unmodified", "left in its original state".

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

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10187
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Sunyata and dependent origination

Postby cloudburst » Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:25 am

Namdrol wrote:
Emptiness is the abandoning of wrong views itself.

But there are only two wrong views i.e. "is" and "is not".

N


Wrong view.
Can't say "is" is wrong view while saying "Emptiness is..."
Self contradiction.
User avatar
cloudburst
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:49 pm

Re: Sunyata and dependent origination

Postby Jinzang » Sun Jun 26, 2011 1:24 am

You are confusing the "is" of predication with the "is" of existence. In Tibetan these are two different words.
Lamrim, lojong, and mahamudra are the unmistaken path.
Jinzang
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 3:11 am

Re: Sunyata and dependent origination

Postby cloudburst » Sun Jun 26, 2011 1:31 am

Jinzang wrote:You are confusing the "is" of predication with the "is" of existence. In Tibetan these are two different words.


Can you predicate something on a non-existent?

Either there is a wrong view or there isn't.
User avatar
cloudburst
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:49 pm

Re: Sunyata and dependent origination

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Sun Jun 26, 2011 1:46 am

cloudburst wrote:
Can you predicate something on a non-existent?


If you say that you can't base a position on something that does not exist,
and that is your position,
then you just did.
:tongue:
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.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Sunyata and dependent origination

Postby cloudburst » Sun Jun 26, 2011 2:08 am

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
cloudburst wrote:
Can you predicate something on a non-existent?


If you say that you can't base a position on something that does not exist,
and that is your position,
then you just did.
:tongue:


Jin was trying to say that there "is" a difference between existence and predication. in other words, a difference exists.
My point is that if you are predicating, you are doing so upon existence, so in either case, you have existence.
N (and I suppose J) think existence is a wrong view, so there is self-contradiction.

I haven't claimed that existence is a wrong view, in fact I am arguing that is not, so I can say "is" all I like without contradicting myself, can't I?
User avatar
cloudburst
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:49 pm

Re: Sunyata and dependent origination

Postby Dechen Norbu » Sun Jun 26, 2011 3:08 am

That's nonsense.
Nonexistence is lack of existence. You can't say that because of that nonexistence exists.
User avatar
Dechen Norbu
 
Posts: 2798
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:50 pm

Re: Sunyata and dependent origination

Postby cloudburst » Sun Jun 26, 2011 4:08 am

Dechen Norbu wrote:That's nonsense.
Nonexistence is lack of existence. You can't say that because of that nonexistence exists.


Why not? An Absence is something you can know, and that is all existence can be, something known by mind. Many non-existences can be known, such as the lack of your car keys in your pocket when you have lost them.

Main point is that you can't say 'existence is a wrong view and then claim that differences exist, that there "are" two wrong views etc. That is self-contradictory.
User avatar
cloudburst
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:49 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Mahāyāna Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

>