Misunderstanding emptiness

[gad rgyangs]

No, ignorance is just as illusory as buddhahood.

N

Is that really true?

you mean "really true" as in "really true that it says that in some texts?" or "really true that anyone here knows that for sure from first hand experience?"

[PadmaVonSamba]

No, ignorance is just as illusory as buddhahood.

N

Is that really true?

you mean "really true" as in "really true that it says that in some texts?" or "really true that anyone here knows that for sure from first hand experience?"

really true meaning, "is (the alledged fact of) ignorance being just as illusory as buddhahood merely a subjective projection of the mind, or can we say that objectively ignorance is just as illusory as buddhahood?

[gad rgyangs]

really true meaning, "is (the alledged fact of) ignorance being just as illusory as buddhahood merely a subjective projection of the mind, or can we say that objectively ignorance is just as illusory as buddhahood?

by "can we say" do you mean "can we say that it says so in some texts?" or "can we say so because we know it from first hand experience?" would't one have to be a buddha to know the answer to your question?

[Malcolm]

really true meaning, "is (the alledged fact of) ignorance being just as illusory as buddhahood merely a subjective projection of the mind, or can we say that objectively ignorance is just as illusory as buddhahood?

The entire path, from the beginning until final Buddhahood is completely illusory, insubstantial, according to Haribhadra.

For example, afflictions are not substantial entities in the mind that must be removed. They have no more reality than the mind they are felt to afflict. Wisdom is not something substantial which is gained by the mind.

The whole network of dependent origination is insubstantial. There are no substantial members which belong to anything dependently originated. Substantiality is a deluded mental appearance.
N

[conebeckham]

Right. Niguma also says exactly the same thing--in fact, her most famous Treatise is "The Stages of the (Illusory) Path."

[yadave]

If you wish to understand Madhyamaka, then I, among others can help you here. Some of us, like myself, have formal training in the field.

I get that, Sir. I sincerely appreciate your assistance, would be honored to study Madhyamaka with you, it would be a question of time, schedules, personal goals, the usual fun questions whose answers I don't have on top of my head today.

But there is nothing in Buddhism to redesign.

But when you make statements like this, like a statement of fact, after we just read a book by several thoughtful scholars whose opinions don't match yours, I must scratch my head.

Perhaps if I had started my Buddhist journey in Madhyamaka, it would be such a part of me that I would feel like you today. But I started with authors -- Buddhists and philosophers -- who took a broad view of "reality" in which Buddhism was an important part, an essential domain of inquiry or method for discovering "truth." There are other methods to reveal knowledge, like the gentle story Quiet Mind told earlier in this thread about the mutual understanding and insight he shares with his significant other. This kind of knowledge cannot be learned in a book or on the mat or by studying salt molecules but only in interaction with others.

Anyway, that's a little about my background, I avoid treating it as a dogma but it still feels helpful and informs my perspective.

Regards,
Dave.

[Malcolm]

There are other methods to reveal knowledge

There is all kinds of knowledge and all kinds of methods to reveal it -- Madhyamaka is intent on discovering the knowledge that completely pacifies suffering.

N

[PadmaVonSamba]

really true meaning, "is (the alledged fact of) ignorance being just as illusory as buddhahood merely a subjective projection of the mind, or can we say that objectively ignorance is just as illusory as buddhahood?

The entire path, from the beginning until final Buddhahood is completely illusory, insubstantial, according to Haribhadra.

For example, afflictions are not substantial entities in the mind that must be removed. They have no more reality than the mind they are felt to afflict. Wisdom is not something substantial which is gained by the mind.

The whole network of dependent origination is insubstantial. There are no substantial members which belong to anything dependently originated. Substantiality is a deluded mental appearance.
N

If what you are experiencing is illusion, then how do you know it is illusion?

[Malcolm]

If what you are experiencing is illusion, then how do you know it is illusion?

The same way you know you are dreaming when you are in a dream.

Not easy, not impossible.

[PadmaVonSamba]

really true meaning, "is (the alledged fact of) ignorance being just as illusory as buddhahood merely a subjective projection of the mind, or can we say that objectively ignorance is just as illusory as buddhahood?

by "can we say" do you mean "can we say that it says so in some texts?" or "can we say so because we know it from first hand experience?" would't one have to be a buddha to know the answer to your question?

What I am saying is,
are we really having this conversation?

If you are having a dream, and somebody in the dream comes up to you and tells you that you are dreaming,
since they are not "real", why should you believe them?

[PadmaVonSamba]

Are you saying
"things are not real, and that is the real way things are"
???

[conebeckham]

What I am saying is,
are we really having this conversation?

If you are having a dream, and somebody in the dream comes up to you and tells you that you are dreaming,
since they are not "real", why should you believe them?

If you know you are dreaming, then you undersand the "context," and of course the dream person is a mere appearance to mind, and the value you place on the dream person and his or her words is informed by your knowledge.

If you do not know you are dreaming, then you may or may not choose to believe the dream person's existence, as well as the veracity of the dream person's statements. However, even if you believe the dream person is telling the truth, this belief will likely not cause you to awaken from the dream. It may, however, initiate a line of examining, questioning, reflection, on your part.

[Mr. G]

The entire path, from the beginning until final Buddhahood is completely illusory, insubstantial, according to Haribhadra.

For example, afflictions are not substantial entities in the mind that must be removed. They have no more reality than the mind they are felt to afflict. Wisdom is not something substantial which is gained by the mind.

The whole network of dependent origination is insubstantial. There are no substantial members which belong to anything dependently originated. Substantiality is a deluded mental appearance.
N

[Malcolm]

If you are having a dream, and somebody in the dream comes up to you and tells you that you are dreaming,
since they are not "real", why should you believe them?

Who else wold you beleive if there are no real persons.

Anyway, this is a boring game of semantics.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Anyway, this is a boring game of semantics.

....Or does it only APPEAR to be???

[Malcolm]

Anyway, this is a boring game of semantics.

....Or does it only APPEAR to be???

Yes, it appears so.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Anyway, this is a boring game of semantics.

....Or does it only APPEAR to be???

Yes, it appears so.

Well, what i am thinking is,
is physical phenomena an illusion
or is it the reality of physical phenomena that is the illusion?

I have mentioned somebody once saying, regarding the question of the existence of other realms,
that other realms were no more real than this one.
And what that means is, how much one will experience existence in another realm
depends a lot on how much one clings to the apparent reality of this one.

It can be said that all phenomena can be divided infinitely (in many ways)
and thus has no inherent existence.
But why is divisibility the criteria for establishing the "reality" of something?

So, maybe "reality" has nothing to do with physical particles, molecules, or whatever
To say "It's not real because I can cut it in half"
...I mean, that's a bit silly. Isn't it?
.
.
.

[Malcolm]

is physical phenomena an illusion
or is it the reality of physical phenomena that is the illusion?

If the reality of physical phenomena is an illusion, physical phenomena are illusory because the nature of a thing cannot be different than the thing that bears that nature -- for example, wetness and water, heat and fire, etc.

But why is divisibility the criteria for establishing the "reality" of something?

Irreducibility is held to be the criteria for establishing identity. Identity is the basis for establishing the reality of a given thing. If the identity of a given thing cannot be etablished for that thing because a given thing can still be reduced and analyzed, that thing's reality depends on non-analytical acceptance (hence a convention). Assuming that no phenomena can bear ultimate analysis, a given thing's reality is an imputation based upon an appearance that has not been subject to ultimate analysis.

N

[deff]

nice response namdrol

[kirtu]

really true meaning, "is (the alledged fact of) ignorance being just as illusory as buddhahood merely a subjective projection of the mind, or can we say that objectively ignorance is just as illusory as buddhahood?

The entire path, from the beginning until final Buddhahood is completely illusory, insubstantial, according to Haribhadra.

For example, afflictions are not substantial entities in the mind that must be removed. They have no more reality than the mind they are felt to afflict. Wisdom is not something substantial which is gained by the mind.

The whole network of dependent origination is insubstantial. There are no substantial members which belong to anything dependently originated. Substantiality is a deluded mental appearance.
N

Really true. But it's also our experience that we compulsively attach to our delusions.

Kirt