Potential

[ground]

Now, you will grant, I think, that direct experience of "emptiness" is possible--even though there is no "emptiness" per se to be experienced.

No. But I will grant that the experience of non-attachment is possible. ("non-attachment" here subsumes the 8th and 9th limbs of dependent origination)

Kind regards

Renunciation or non-attachment is actually very close to the experience labeled emptiness from a practitioner's point of view. However renunciation is still mainly personal while emptiness covers everything, this is actually the difference between mahayana and theravada according to my understanding.

/magnus

I am recognizing the particular view here. Actually it is a "tenet" taught by some tibetan schools.

Kind regards

[Pema Rigdzin]

TMingyur,

Since you did not comment on my most recent post in this thread, I'll distill my main point and ask you a straightforward question.

1) My point: All of us Buddhists start out believing in the plausibility of truths we have not yet been able to verify, and we all continue to have faith in a nature and fruition we've not yet been able to realize entirely for ourselves. So, it's hypocritical to point the finger at others for "clinging to speculative views" when he have also done so and necessarily continue to do so.

2) My question: You state that for someone who has not directly realized that which is pointed to in the tathagatabarbha teachings, having conviction in this teaching is merely clinging to a speculative view that may not correspond to "reality as it is." I'm assuming you've not yet directly realized emptiness, only merely reasoned it out and gained conviction that it corresponds to "reality as it is". If you have not yet directly realized non-affirming emptiness, how is your conviction in it any more than merely clinging to a speculative view?

[ground]

TMingyur,

Since you did not comment on my most recent post in this thread, I'll distill my main point and ask you a straightforward question.

Please accept my apologies if I have overlooked questions you have adressed to me. Perhaps there have been too many responses to my insignificant postings that exceeded my capacity.

1) My point: All of us Buddhists start out believing in the plausibility of truths we have not yet been able to verify, and we all continue to have faith in a nature and fruition we've not yet been able to realize entirely for ourselves. So, it's hypocritical to point the finger at others for "clinging to speculative views" when he have also done so and necessarily continue to do so.

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding. I am referring to views and habits, not to persons. But it appears as if habits manifest through the activities of persons and as if persons are the agents acting and having control so that this always gets mixed up.
There is no accusation intended. How could there be accusation for what is inherent ("inherent" here just linguistically applied not meant in any philosophical sense). There is no problem with "clinging to views" if one is aware "Now I am clinging to this or that view due to having myself conditioned with it, due to contacting this thought or that, due to not being mindful of dependent origination".

2) My question: You state that for someone who has not directly realized that which is pointed to in the tathagatabarbha teachings, having conviction in this teaching is merely clinging to a speculative view that may not correspond to "reality as it is." I'm assuming you've not yet directly realized emptiness, only merely reasoned it out and gained conviction that it corresponds to "reality as it is". If you have not yet directly realized non-affirming emptiness, how is your conviction in it any more than merely clinging to a speculative view?

Of course "clinging to speculative view" may be applicable to the context of what I am writing too.
See if you are grinding two wooden sticks against each other with appropriate intensity fire will arise and the sticks will burn to ashes.


Kind regards

[Grigoris]

Now, you will grant, I think, that direct experience of "emptiness" is possible--even though there is no "emptiness" per se to be experienced.

No. But I will grant that the experience of non-attachment is possible. ("non-attachment" here subsumes the 8th and 9th limbs of dependent origination

Well, it looks like your ignorance has trapped you in views because in MN 121The Cula-suññata Sutta (The Lesser Discourse on Emptiness),
which you can find here http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; , it says the following:

"Ananda, whatever contemplatives and priests who in the past entered & remained in an emptiness that was pure, superior, & unsurpassed, they all entered & remained in this very same emptiness that is pure, superior, & unsurpassed. Whatever contemplatives and priests who in the future will enter & remain in an emptiness that will be pure, superior, & unsurpassed, they all will enter & remain in this very same emptiness that is pure, superior, & unsurpassed. Whatever contemplatives and priests who at present enter & remain in an emptiness that is pure, superior, & unsurpassed, they all enter & remain in this very same emptiness that is pure, superior, & unsurpassed.
"Therefore, Ananda, you should train yourselves: 'We will enter & remain in the emptiness that is pure, superior, & unsurpassed.'"
That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Ven. Ananda delighted in the Blessed One's words.

[heart]

I am recognizing the particular view here. Actually it is a "tenet" taught by some tibetan schools.

Kind regards

Not really, but I actually don't mind at all practicing according to the tenets of the Tibetan schools, why would I? They are all pointing directly to what the Buddha taught. If you don't see that what are you doing here in the Tibetan section?

respectfully
/magnus

[ground]

Now, you will grant, I think, that direct experience of "emptiness" is possible--even though there is no "emptiness" per se to be experienced.

No. But I will grant that the experience of non-attachment is possible. ("non-attachment" here subsumes the 8th and 9th limbs of dependent origination

Well, it looks like your ignorance has trapped you in views because in MN 121The Cula-suññata Sutta (The Lesser Discourse on Emptiness),
which you can find here http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; , it says the following:

"Ananda, whatever contemplatives and priests who in the past entered & remained in an emptiness that was pure, superior, & unsurpassed, they all entered & remained in this very same emptiness that is pure, superior, & unsurpassed. Whatever contemplatives and priests who in the future will enter & remain in an emptiness that will be pure, superior, & unsurpassed, they all will enter & remain in this very same emptiness that is pure, superior, & unsurpassed. Whatever contemplatives and priests who at present enter & remain in an emptiness that is pure, superior, & unsurpassed, they all enter & remain in this very same emptiness that is pure, superior, & unsurpassed.
"Therefore, Ananda, you should train yourselves: 'We will enter & remain in the emptiness that is pure, superior, & unsurpassed.'"
That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Ven. Ananda delighted in the Blessed One's words.

You should not go by mere words but consider the context.

Kind regards

[ground]

I am recognizing the particular view here. Actually it is a "tenet" taught by some tibetan schools.

Kind regards

Not really, but I actually don't mind at all practicing according to the tenets of the Tibetan schools, why would I? They are all pointing directly to what the Buddha taught. If you don't see that what are you doing here in the Tibetan section?

respectfully
/magnus

Actually not all tibetan schools share your view.
But this is secondary.

My intention is investigation.

Kind regards

[Grigoris]

You should not go by mere words but consider the context.

I'm gonna risk banning/warning and call it as it is: you, my friend, are full of it. After nine pages of discussion where all your arguments have been torn to shreds you still come up with one line of cryptic, nonsensical garbage to try and cover up your basic lack of knowledge and experience. Go read MN 106, 121, 122 SN 12.15, 35.85 and when you are finished, since you consider yourself a Mahayanaist ,the Lankavatara Sutra section on emptiness and when you are bored with that just about any major treatise by Nagarjuna and then after all that sit your ass down and meditate for 15 or so years and then come back and write something intelligent for us to read.

[ground]

You should not go by mere words but consider the context.

I'm gonna risk banning/warning and call it as it is: you, my friend, are full of it. After nine pages of discussion where all your arguments have been torn to shreds you still come up with one line of cryptic, nonsensical garbage to try and cover up your basic lack of knowledge and experience. Go read MN 106, 121, 122 SN 12.15, 35.85 and when you are finished, since you consider yourself a Mahayanaist ,the Lankavatara Sutra section on emptiness and when you are bored with that just about any major treatise by Nagarjuna and then after all that sit your ass down and meditate for 15 or so years and then come back and write something intelligent for us to read.

What nine pages? Nine pages about buddha nature?

What is your point?

Kind regards

[ground]

Now gregkavarnos

lets turn to the last page (of 10 pages) ... where the topic emptiness came up.

What can be experienced is non-attachment.
Now you find the word "emptiness" in the suttas and what do you infer from that? You infer that because this word can be found this proves that it is emptiness that is experienced?

But emptiness is just a temporary modus operandi of consciousness leading to the experience of non-attachment. Quite similar to absorptions. Just consider the context of the sutta you quoted a passage from.

Kind regards

[ground]

The experience is a lack of something that continuously has been there before. What we all know. What is it? Attachment. We all know and directly experience attachment. Therefore the experience of its absence is so striking, so completely different ... so liberating. This is not "emptiness", it is just an absence what's makes the difference and it is an absence of attachment.
If you say "No it's emptiness of attachment. It is being empty of attachment" then we may agree. Is that what you understand as "emptiness"?

Kind regards

[Rael]

ha......i wish i was here earlier.....

[Rael]

"is inherently present within us as a natural attribute"

yeah there is nothing that is inherent and i think he used the wrong word in translation...

his holiness is getting old....

He stepped down today

[Rael]

Whatever fancy name you are going to apply you won't find such an inherently present {fancy name}.

So you don't believe that all sentient beings have the inherent potential to achieve enlightenment? Maybe it's just present in some (lucky few) sentient beings? In none?

the word inherently is confusing the subtle matters of sunyata ....

[conebeckham]

"Buddha Nature" is the inherent potential of all sentient beings. It is the base. It is not a conditioned phenomena, but the Realm of Reality, the Dharmadhatu.

This statement is in keeping with the original quote from HHDL. Also, it is in keeping with the traditions of Mahamudra and Dzokchen, and also Highest Yoga Tantra. It is called many things, "Ordinary Mind" (Thamal Gyi Shepa) in Mahamudra, "Rigpa" in Dzokchen.

Being attached to the concept "Buddha Nature" or "Inherent Potential" is just another attachment.....in the same way that one can be attached to "emptiness" as an "ultimate reality"....these are conceptual positions elaborated by the mental consciousness.

In actuality, it is impossible to be "attached" to Buddha Nature, because there is no ultimate subject/object dualism, therefore, no attachee and no attacher.

As long as there is merely conceptual "investigation," there will be no experiental understanding of any of this. One must ultimately go beyond analysis. The oral instructions of the masters of the lineages of Dzokchen and Mahamudra and the practices of these lineages are the means and methods to generate experience.

[ground]

As long as there is merely conceptual "investigation," there will be no experiental understanding of any of this.

But "understanding of any of this" is conceptual. Why? Because of "this". And concepts like an affirmative "this" and affirmative "that" are manifestations of attachment.

One must ultimately go beyond analysis.

And then there is either the "stupidity of an animal" or non-attachment. But fabricating non-attachment into some "this" or "that" is exactly the conditioning of attachment ... in this case clinging to the view of a mere thought.

The oral instructions of the masters of the lineages of Dzokchen and Mahamudra and the practices of these lineages are the means and methods to generate experience.

Whatever this " experience" may be.

Kind regards

[conebeckham]

As long as there is merely conceptual "investigation," there will be no experiental understanding of any of this.

But "understanding of any of this" is conceptual. Why? Because of "this". And concepts like an affirmative "this" and affirmative "that" are manifestations of attachment.

Yes, perhaps I should have said "there will be no experience of this..."
Then again, of course, in order to communicate the ineffable, one must have recourse to conceptual apparatus, language, and the resulting duality.

One must ultimately go beyond analysis.

And then there is either the "stupidity of an animal" or non-attachment. But fabricating non-attachment into some "this" or "that" is exactly the conditioning of attachment ... in this case clinging to the view of a mere thought.

Is Yugananda "non-attachment," TMingyur? Or, might we say, it is more properly understood as "union"--though that term implies a duality which is not ultimately existent.

The oral instructions of the masters of the lineages of Dzokchen and Mahamudra and the practices of these lineages are the means and methods to generate experience.

Whatever this " experience" may be.

Kind regards

Right....whatever it may be. But hey, if you prefer your "non-attachment," that's cool.

[ground]

But hey, if you prefer your "non-attachment," that's cool.

It is not a matter of choice but a matter of mindfulness of attachment, its arising and ceasing depening on conditions ... contact ... feeling ... volition ...

That is experience ... not mere thought. And yes I do prefer experience to mere thought.

Kind regards

[conebeckham]

But hey, if you prefer your "non-attachment," that's cool.

It is not a matter of choice but a matter of mindfulness of attachment, its arising and ceasing depening on conditions ... contact ... feeling ... volition ...

That is experience ... not mere thought. And yes I do prefer experience to mere thought.

Kind regards

As do I--and the path or technique of mindfulness of attachment is a path that leads to direct experience. In Mahamudra terms, we say "Thoughts are self-liberated as they appear."

[Grigoris]

where the topic emptiness came up.

The topic of emptiness is not seperate to the topic of Tathagatagarbha.

What can be experienced is non-attachment.

How does one experience non-attachment? For example, in order to see one needs the eye sense organ, light and a visual object. When one of the three are missing one does not experience non-seeing do they? They just do not see. So, again, how does one experience non-attachment?

Now you find the word "emptiness" in the suttas and what do you infer from that? You infer that because this word can be found this proves that it is emptiness that is experienced?

Sorry to inform you but I am not a brain dead moron. Go read the Sutta and Sutra I refer too and, like I said earlier, come back and say something intelligent.

But emptiness is just a temporary modus operandi of consciousness leading to the experience of non-attachment.

Non-attachment relies on the realisation/experience of emptiness. Emptiness is the "basis" for non-attachment. Without the experience of emptiness, the realisation of dependent origination, from where will non-attachment arise? As long as one dwells in the dualistic notion of an inherently existing subject and object non-attachment cannot arise. So through experiencing emptiness and overcoming dualism one can then dwell in non-attachment.

The experience is a lack of something that continuously has been there before. What we all know. What is it? Attachment. We all know and directly experience attachment. Therefore the experience of its absence is so striking, so completely different ... so liberating. This is not "emptiness", it is just an absence what's makes the difference and it is an absence of attachment.
If you say "No it's emptiness of attachment. It is being empty of attachment" then we may agree. Is that what you understand as "emptiness"?

You are obviously unaware of the fact that there are a number of different categories of emptiness that one can experience and that they range from absence to presence. Again GO READ THE SUTTA AND SUTRA I REFERRED TO, and when informed, COME BACK AND SAY SOMETHING INTELLIGENT!

Stop throwing around speculative views.

And yes I do prefer experience to mere thought.

Hey, that could be a new Buddhist form of cussin' "Why don't you just go and get experienced!" So go and get experienced and stop speculating!