Emptiness, Salvation. HELP!

[LastLegend]

"emptiness, or non-duality"

The point of this language is to point at the sublime. It's like raft, once crossed the river don't need the raft. The raft cannot be taken definitive or to be truth, nor anything taken to be truth. Truth is only in language.

[Johnny Dangerous]

Sure, but Shentongpa don't do things like say "phenomena are unreal, but the Tathgatagarbha is"..Madhyamaka Shentong also does not assert that Tathagatagarbha has inherent existence exactly, at least as I understand it, so it is not some "opposite" of emptiness. I can reread the stuff i've read on Shentong to be sure, but I was pretty sure this was addressed specifically in the last thing I read on the subject by Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamsto - a shentongpa. Shentong is a pretty subtle position.

Were you reading Khenpo Tsultrim's "Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness"? On p.66 it says:

This non-conceptual Wisdom Mind is not the object of the conceptualizing process and so it not negated by Madhyamaka reasoning. Therefore, it can be said to be the only thing that has absolute and true existence.

Personally I think "existence" is an inappropriate term here since that implies something manifest, but I'm not a khenpo or his translator.

-------------------------

But back to the OP; thus apparent phenomena have only a provisional reality, but there is an ultimate reality, "Truth", or whatever you'd like to call it.

I have read it, and Stars of Wisdom..which I thought I recalled having some good stuff on it...
. I will reread it, but I thought the above explanation was qualified a lot more in the book then simply throwing this one quote out there allows for. I was also trying to say (and I think it is correct still) that emptiness (shentong or not) does not imply that phenomena are 'not real' in the way the OP was thinking. I don't really get why you think Shentong changes basoc Madhymaka reasoning on that.

[madhusudan]

In reply to the OP, here are some thoughts in the spirit of just discussing.

Emptiness is best approached as a refutation of other views, which are eternalism, nihilism, both, and neither. It is the middle between all of those, or just a position of none of them. The other four positions involve grasping, while the middle way does not.

I tend to contemplate emptiness as being nothing more than dependent origination. Read some of the original texts and commentaries as well as contemporary teachings by Lamas available online. Then apply the analysis you learn to whatever arises.

I definitely agree with an earlier poster who suggested building merit, as that makes everything much easier. Just think how much merit you must already have to even be interacting with these teachings, which are the most profound truth in existence. There are root sources and contemporary teachings on this available on the internet.

Exploring emptiness is a lot of fun and will definitely help cut through all passions as well as develop compassion and kindness. It is the development of Right View. You're doing a lot of good by taking this interest - Right Effort - so keep up the good work!

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

I have read it, and Stars of Wisdom..which I thought I recalled having some good stuff on it...
. I will reread it, but I thought the above explanation was qualified a lot more in the book then simply throwing this one quote out there allows for.

There are many shades of grey when it comes to Shentong. That particular presentation is a bit heavy handed I think, at least in English. But being heavy handed it emphasized something important. I have heard that the 8th Karmapa said something to the effect that "The Buddha-Nature is self-empty in essence, but other-empty in expression." I've enjoyed that idea for a couple of weeks now. (I may switch to another at any time though.)

I was also trying to say (and I think it is correct still) that emptiness (shentong or not) does not imply that phenomena are 'not real' in the way the OP was thinking. I don't really get why you think Shentong changes basoc Madhymaka reasoning on that.

Generally Shentong accepts Madhyamaka reasoning for apparent phenomena. You can summarize the tetralemma in a few different ways. But I think it common to all summations is the idea that phenomena lack an essence or undeniable facticity that makes them "truly established", therefore not totally what we would commonly assume to be "completely real". They do have a provisional reality. That's falsifiable. Try holding your breath for 10 minutes. The "provisional reality" will be undeniable, even though the essential reality is absent.

As a Shentongpa that's my comic-book level of understanding. Others may feel free to correct me on that.

[Johnny Dangerous]

I have read it, and Stars of Wisdom..which I thought I recalled having some good stuff on it...
. I will reread it, but I thought the above explanation was qualified a lot more in the book then simply throwing this one quote out there allows for.

There are many shades of grey when it comes to Shentong. That particular presentation is a bit heavy handed I think, at least in English. But being heavy handed it emphasized something important. I have heard that the 8th Karmapa said something to the effect that "The Buddha-Nature is self-empty in essence, but other-empty in expression." I've enjoyed that idea for a couple of weeks now. (I may switch to another at any time though.)

I was also trying to say (and I think it is correct still) that emptiness (shentong or not) does not imply that phenomena are 'not real' in the way the OP was thinking. I don't really get why you think Shentong changes basoc Madhymaka reasoning on that.

Generally Shentong accepts Madhyamaka reasoning for apparent phenomena. You can summarize the tetralemma in a few different ways. But I think it common to all summations is the idea that phenomena lack an essence or undeniable facticity that makes them "truly established", therefore not totally what we would commonly assume to be "completely real". They do have a provisional reality. That's falsifiable. Try holding your breath for 10 minutes. The "provisional reality" will be undeniable, even though the essential reality is absent.

As a Shentongpa that's my comic-book level of understanding. Others may feel free to correct me on that.

So wait, you are saying you think the OP is correct in his wondering whether emptiness teaches that "things do not exist" or something similar? That kind of reasoning is most definitely refuted in Madhyamaka, which i'm sure you know..So again, I don't really get what point you are trying to make exactly.

phenomena lack an essence or undeniable facticity that makes them "truly established"

Does not = "does not exist". Lack of inherent existence is not non-existence, I read that over and over again in commentary. My only point is the OP's feeling that emptiness teaches that "nothing exists" or perhaps that nothing is important, is going in the wrong direction..are you disagreeing with that, or just trying to make some unrelated point about shentong?

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

My only point is the OP's feeling that emptiness teaches that "nothing exists" or perhaps that nothing is important, is going in the wrong direction..

I think there is a remarkable agreement between Buddhadharma and existentialism about life, but only on the level of samsara. The whole point of existentialism is that it denies that there is anything else to life beyond what we can see. Dharma says that the thing that is really significant about life is what continues to be important even after you die. Thus the (universally ignored) instruction to meditate on impermanence and death at the start of each practice session.

In terms of reorienting ourselves away from samsaric concerns the Madhyamaka demonstrates that this life, and everything we are attached to, is completely inexplicable. And the first logical position it dispels is that "things are real" in the way that is commonly assumed to be the case.

So yes, downplaying secular life by showing it cannot have lasting happiness (1st Noble Truth), and downplaying apparent phenomena by showing it isn't anything we can conceive of (Madhyamaka), are powerful ideas to motivate one to break from the status quo. If you are a secularist and don't believe in anything beyond that, then it sounds like nihilism. But if you do believe in something beyond that, then it is a healthy provocation to disinvest yourself from an untenable situation and invalid ideation.

[Johnny Dangerous]

My only point is the OP's feeling that emptiness teaches that "nothing exists" or perhaps that nothing is important, is going in the wrong direction..

I think there is a remarkable agreement between Buddhadharma and existentialism about life, but only on the level of samsara. The whole point of existentialism is that it denies that there is anything else to life beyond what we can see. Dharma says that the thing that is really significant about life is what continues to be important even after you die. Thus the (universally ignored) instruction to meditate on impermanence and death at the start of each practice session.

In terms of reorienting ourselves away from samsaric concerns the Madhyamaka demonstrates that this life, and everything we are attached to, is completely inexplicable. And the first logical position it dispels is that "things are real" in the way that is commonly assumed to be the case.

So yes, downplaying secular life by showing it cannot have lasting happiness (1st Noble Truth), and downplaying apparent phenomena by showing it isn't anything we can conceive of (Madhyamaka), are powerful ideas to motivate one to break from the status quo. If you are a secularist and don't believe in anything beyond that, then it sounds like nihilism. But if you do believe in something beyond that, then it is a healthy provocation to disinvest yourself from an untenable situation and invalid ideation.

Ok, now I get what you are saying I think, I'm in agreement with what you've said here for the most part. Believe it or not, existentialism (Camus specifically) was one of the first things to draw me to Buddhism.

My point was that the OP seems to be focued on this portion only - and that basically it amounts to existnentialism or nihilism without the "other part", which is why I mentioned (like you did here) that the merit we make carries on.

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

...without the "other part", which is why I mentioned (like you did here) that the merit we make carries on.

The Gelugpa in me wants to add "awareness" to "merit". The causal path perspective says that enlightenment comes from accumulating enough merit and awareness. So how much you develop you mind in this life also carries over to the next, in addition to merit.

[Johnny Dangerous]

...without the "other part", which is why I mentioned (like you did here) that the merit we make carries on.

The Gelugpa in me wants to add "awareness" to "merit". The causal path perspective says that enlightenment comes from accumulating enough merit and awareness. So how much you develop you mind in this life also carries over to the next, in addition to merit.

Yes of course there are two accumulations..trying to keep the conversation within the realm that someone new to Dharma asking about emptiness doesn't have too much baggage to be burdened with...especially because the OP's question is a "wisdom" one, and he seems in flux as to the value of the "wisdom" part as he currently understands it.

[cw2400]

In reply to the OP, here are some thoughts in the spirit of just discussing.

Emptiness is best approached as a refutation of other views, which are eternalism, nihilism, both, and neither. It is the middle between all of those, or just a position of none of them. The other four positions involve grasping, while the middle way does not.

I tend to contemplate emptiness as being nothing more than dependent origination. Read some of the original texts and commentaries as well as contemporary teachings by Lamas available online. Then apply the analysis you learn to whatever arises.

I definitely agree with an earlier poster who suggested building merit, as that makes everything much easier. Just think how much merit you must already have to even be interacting with these teachings, which are the most profound truth in existence. There are root sources and contemporary teachings on this available on the internet.

Exploring emptiness is a lot of fun and will definitely help cut through all passions as well as develop compassion and kindness. It is the development of Right View. You're doing a lot of good by taking this interest - Right Effort - so keep up the good work!

Thank you for the encouragement. I have already read several things on this thread that made me think.." Dang it, I knew that!!" It has been so very helpful. some, admittedly, still too deep. I wasn't connecting the dots of things I have already learned. I think my head was still swimming with all the new knowledge that I was racing to cram in there. A couple of days latter, much of what is being discussed seems to me like common sense. I need to slow down. I am very eager to learn a path that has felt like getting back upon a bike that I forgot I had. Thank you all so much. Keep it coming.

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

We're not teachers, maybe it's good to be cautious in our definitions.

E.g. the storehouse consciousness is not one of the eighteen dhatus so by definition is also "inconceivable", but it isn't dharmadhatu. And even samsara is "boundless", the wheel never stops turning.

[Shemmy]

<<So, one of my biggest hangups so far is the idea that everything is an illusion i.e. "emptiness, or non-duality". I do understand that this is very difficult concept to comprehend, and takes much cultivation, but still feel that I am missing some piece of the picture that would help me a great deal to not misguide myself.>>

Just my two cents, I am probably just some dumb new ager in a yurt somewhere who thinks he pursues Buddhist agendas but it seems you have focussed a lot on textual/conceptual levels and you might want to consider that by meditation practice and by practicing awareness in your daily life you will arrive at morre resolution regarding many of the things you are asking about. The texts are there to guide us, thinking about what we’ve read takes us further but more needs to be done namely meditation and other practices which are the real deal as far as developing our understanding. I salute you on your perspicacity and care with reading up on the topic of emptiness and so forth, but at some point you have to experience it for yourself and then use your textual knowledge as support for what you encounter in life and on the meditation seat.

<<After telling of a bodhisattva that was discouraged Buddha gave an analogy of a mother that had a dream of saving her child that was swept down the river. She wakes up to realize that it was all a dream and none of it happened. (paraphrased) Khyentse concludes "Trying to help sentient beings is extremely painful and difficult, yet even when we believe that we have woken up from the nightmare that is samsara, we are still dreaming."
My conclusion: that this life and Nirvana, enlightenment is all illusory, not real. I believe in good for goodness' sake, not for reward. But if nothing is real, why continue to try? For others, for ourselves?>>

I think it is important not to confuse the kind of be-a-good-citizen-and-help-others that we are sometimes taught to do by our mostly non-Buddhist societies for the kind of helpfulness encouraged by various Buddhist schools. In fact, I have lived for several decades in Buddhist Asia and find people to be pretty appallingly indifferent to the plight of others. Of course i am generalizing and I apologize for that but there are certain trends that you notice in the behavior of any given group and too many Buddhists here think nothing of pretty appalling exploitation of others without so much as a thank you, among other crimes, and usually a lot worse than no thank you. Many would feel no remorse at running you over with a car because you were in the way while on the way to visit a monk to make merit. And likely they would not be able fathom why anyone might be upset about that nor would they feel they had done anything particularly wrong that they didn’t simply drive around you. Stupid guy he was in the way! End of story, you see it all the time over here. It is not my problem is the way most Buddhists in Asia seem to view anything but their own difficulties. I am not saying they are on track, but my point is that that it is quite interesting that that kind of attitude flourishes even more in Buddhist countries and I think it says something about the whole notion of helping others about the futility of it for most, even the most well meaning who as you put it the need for someone to be helped doesn’t often exist outside of our own thinking. I think that notion is pretty well part of the general culture here.

I think it is more about just doing good because that is what you do, it is in your clear and empty nature, if i may use those terms. If it is a struggle you aren’t there yet really. Your sense of struggle will neutralize the good of what you are trying to achive. "look what I have done! I spent my whole life helping these people!" And that is so easy to collapse and become resentment. "I struggled to help them and they don't even recognize what I have done! I now hate them!" You are finished then at that point, in terms of being helpful, you have become a kind of oppressor at that point. To help others It comes as a by product of your abiding in emptiness does it not? The awareness that develops makes our actions whatever they might be end up being more helpful. It isn’t something you struggle with, you are either someone who can help others or you are not there yet. And who is to say that you have helped or not, it really can’t be determined can it? Perhaps yo uhave done countless thing to help others without even realizing that. Of course, to do what you think is good and helpful will help reinforce the eventual situation whereby we arrive at that point that our actions and thoughts an d so on do make a difference, so it isn’t futile to try an d help others as long as you are not doing them grievous harm with your misguided attempts and it would be nice not to run people over with your car without bothering to trun the steering wheel, but perhaps that is a message for those who find it completely pointless to do anything to help no matter how small.

[明安 Myoan]

The joy of new knowledge must intersect with your most ordinary suffering also.
I love to read about the Dharma, but I sometimes do so because it's more pleasurable than sitting bored and restless staring at a wall.

[cw2400]

So many words in the world. I would like to clear something, however (no negative tone in my voice by the way). I would do good for the sake of doing good no matter my philosophy, or religious practice. I am ignorant, but this much I know better. I have had people ask me " What is the point of doing good if there isn't a hell?" This is a scary thought pattern that I have come across too often. ." I believe in good for goodness' sake, not for reward. But if nothing is real, why continue to try? For others, for ourselves? I mean this existence isn't real, but we feel it. So we feel hell, that also isn't real" I was applying this question in the context of what was confusing me from a Buddhist view point. I do recognize the ignorance in my question, but please do not think that it is my belief in doing good for either fear, or reward.

Gratitude to all, keep it coming.
Cody

[明安 Myoan]

Illusory does not mean unimportant or without consequence, but language can be an impediment.

[Wayfarer]

I believe in good for goodness' sake, not for reward. But if nothing is real, why continue to try? For others, for ourselves? I mean this existence isn't real, but we feel it. So we feel hell, that also isn't real" I was applying this question in the context of what was confusing me from a Buddhist view point. I do recognize the ignorance in my question, but please do not think that it is my belief in doing good for either fear, or reward.

There are several issues here. One is 'reward and punishment'. Ol' time religion often used the carrot and stick approach of reward and punishment to keep people on the straight and narrow - but that is not a hard thing to see through.

But there's another level of understanding, as you say in the first sentence. In virtue ethics, which goes back to Aristotle, there is the idea that 'virtue is its own reward'. This is that true virtue, because it cultivates unselfishness and detachment from the passions, gives rise to equanimity and other excellent personal qualities, which make for a truly happy state (called by Aristotle 'eudamonia'). And in my experience, enacting that path is actually pretty difficult, as we have many inclinations against it. But we continue to try, because we know that so far as we succeed in it, we truly are better off for it.

As regards the Buddhist view of the unreality of material things - the original idea behind this is that worldly people put a lot of emphasis on possessions, status, recognition, pleasure, comfort and so on. In other words, seeking the optimal life-circumstances. Don't forget the renunciate origins of Buddhism - it was about giving up, or not relying on, those things for one's peace of mind, or finding a peace which was not at all reliant on externals. So these things in which most people put a lot of stock are unreal. But that doesn't mean dukkha is unreal; suffering is undeniably real. To deny that is to tend towards nihilism. (Commentaries on Prajñāpāramitā say that grasping the meaning of Śūnyatā is difficult, and that grasping it wrongly, is worse than not grasping it at all. It is also said that the understanding of Śūnyatā is simply the antidote for clinging to the reality of worldly things, but for one that clings to the idea of Śūnyatā, there is no remedy!)

[Johnny Dangerous]

So many words in the world. I would like to clear something, however (no negative tone in my voice by the way). I would do good for the sake of doing good no matter my philosophy, or religious practice. I am ignorant, but this much I know better. I have had people ask me " What is the point of doing good if there isn't a hell?" This is a scary thought pattern that I have come across too often. ." I believe in good for goodness' sake, not for reward. But if nothing is real, why continue to try? For others, for ourselves? I mean this existence isn't real, but we feel it. So we feel hell, that also isn't real" I was applying this question in the context of what was confusing me from a Buddhist view point. I do recognize the ignorance in my question, but please do not think that it is my belief in doing good for either fear, or reward.

Gratitude to all, keep it coming.
Cody

The whole illusion thing does NOT mean "does not exist", and it definitely doesn't mean that things have no consequences. It means that actually things exist in a manner that is quite different from how we have always perceived them.

Trungpa says:

“The bad news is you’re falling through the air, nothing to hang on to, no parachute. The good news is there’s no ground.”

So things are more open than you think, if fact they are totally open, and without beginning or end. That is not really bad news at all, but, it is bad news to craving for permanence, and news to the delusional view we habitually hold. It is actually the best news we can ever get, but it is not always easy to see it that way. We reflexively want to build things up, create stories about what is "real" and what isn't, why things are what they are etc. etc..but things are just beyond stories.

it is a different way of seeing things, but it is not "non existence", that is one extreme to be avoided in Buddhist teachings.

Here's a nice Pali Sutta:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html


Buddhanet has a free Nagarjuna pdf that you should read if you want to delve deeper into the philosophical end:

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/nagarjuna.pdf

[cw2400]

So many words in the world. I would like to clear something, however (no negative tone in my voice by the way). I would do good for the sake of doing good no matter my philosophy, or religious practice. I am ignorant, but this much I know better. I have had people ask me " What is the point of doing good if there isn't a hell?" This is a scary thought pattern that I have come across too often. ." I believe in good for goodness' sake, not for reward. But if nothing is real, why continue to try? For others, for ourselves? I mean this existence isn't real, but we feel it. So we feel hell, that also isn't real" I was applying this question in the context of what was confusing me from a Buddhist view point. I do recognize the ignorance in my question, but please do not think that it is my belief in doing good for either fear, or reward.

Gratitude to all, keep it coming.
Cody

The whole illusion thing does NOT mean "does not exist", and it definitely doesn't mean that things have no consequences. It means that actually things exist in a manner that is quite different from how we have always perceived them.

Trungpa says:

“The bad news is you’re falling through the air, nothing to hang on to, no parachute. The good news is there’s no ground.”

So things are more open than you think, if fact they are totally open, and without beginning or end. That is not really bad news at all, but, it is bad news to craving for permanence, and news to the delusional view we habitually hold. It is actually the best news we can ever get, but it is not always easy to see it that way. We reflexively want to build things up, create stories about what is "real" and what isn't, why things are what they are etc. etc..but things are just beyond stories.

it is a different way of seeing things, but it is not "non existence", that is one extreme to be avoided in Buddhist teachings.

Here's a nice Pali Sutta:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html


Buddhanet has a free Nagarjuna pdf that you should read if you want to delve deeper into the philosophical end:

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/nagarjuna.pdf

Thank you. No ground...I like that, and its applicable to a noob like me. I bookmarked the items to read...I have so much to read..according to my capacity (family &work) it will take some time to get to the larger texts, but assure you that I will. thanks.

[Dan74]

I don't know how Tibetan Buddhists handle these issues, so I apologise in advance if what I write is completely off the mark, but my instincts tell me "Less reading more practice!"

The reason is simple - while our insight is shallow, profound texts are bound to be misunderstood. To deepen the insight, we need practice, formal, informal, everyday, etc. Incorporate what we've learned and been instructed to do, into our lives, cultivate the Paramitas, the Abode, you-name-it!

_/|\_

[Johnny Dangerous]

I don't know how Tibetan Buddhists handle these issues, so I apologise in advance if what I write is completely off the mark, but my instincts tell me "Less reading more practice!"

The reason is simple - while our insight is shallow, profound texts are bound to be misunderstood. To deepen the insight, we need practice, formal, informal, everyday, etc. Incorporate what we've learned and been instructed to do, into our lives, cultivate the Paramitas, the Abode, you-name-it!

_/|\_

Depends on the lineage, the teacher. I just did a retreat where the advice I took was that I think too much, and try too hard. Sometimes it's good advice, then again, it also strikes me as kind of odd when I meet Buddhists who have never cracked open a sutra or non-modern commentary. IMO the op should be applauded for trying to dig into the view of Buddhism...I'd say the main thing is that eventually it's easy to reach a point in study where you NEED a bonafide teachers help to stay on track.....at least that's been my personal experience.