Dzogchenpa by Accident?

[wisdom]

Just to play devils advocate for a moment, but also to ask a legitimate question because I don't really know the answer...

Isn't it said that appearance and emptiness are dependent on one another. Without one, the other does not exist? Wouldn't this imply causality? From emptiness arises appearances, appearances are of the nature of emptiness, which gives rise to appearance, which is of the nature of emptiness, and so on and so forth, and beyond the arising of appearance from emptiness, and beyond the emptiness of appearance, would be the unconditioned state itself (and therefore also the Middle Way), which would be free from the extremes of emptiness and appearance?

If this dependence on one another, emptiness giving rise to appearance, and appearance giving rise to emptiness, is not described as causality, what is it described as? Is this basically what is meant by DO?

I'm way in over my head with this one, thanks in advance!

[deff]

that's a good question

i'm probably way off... but i'll take a shot at this, hopefully i'll be corrected if i'm wrong...

emptiness does not arise from appearances, all appearances are always empty by nature

emptiness is the lack of inherent existence, it isn't an affirmative quality, so we can't really say a lack of something has a cause

however, the concept of emptiness is very much dependent on appearances (as well as conceptualization), so without appearances there would be no way to assert emptiness

as an example... if i have a jar that's empty inside, i can assert it is empty of jelly beans - this assertion of being empty of jelly beans (the conceptual emptiness) is very much dependent on the fact that there's a jar in the first place to be called empty. however, what the concept of emptiness points to, the lack of jelly beans, is not itself caused by anything as the lack of something is never caused, it's unconditioned

i might be way off though, so i'd await a more educated person's response

[deff]

and just to clarify, cause it's kinda a clumsy example - the jar had never had jelly beans in it (appearances were never non-empty, inherently existent) - so this lack of jelly beans, or lack of inherent existence, was never created such as through the act of removing previously filled jelly beans from the jar. it might be a confusing example, sorry

[treehuggingoctopus]

Isn't it said that appearance and emptiness are dependent on one another. Without one, the other does not exist? Wouldn't this imply causality?

I'm no specialist, but I'll try to take up your glove. Since emptiness is not a "thing", the "dependence" between appearance and emptiness is nothing like the "dependence" within pratitya-sammutpada, i. e., the "dependence" between "things" - indeed, the word "dependence" could be rather misleading here.

Also, if emptiness is not a "thing", can you co-originate it? How could it arise from appearances?

(Waiting to be corrected by Namdrol.)

[Sönam]

stop saying nonsense as emptiness being caused.

Hi Dechen Norbu,

If I am following you correctly, you are saying that emptiness in Buddhism is uncaused like Atman, Brahman in Hinduism?

Therefore emptiness is like the god of Buddhism, being uncaused as it were?

No one says such things. Every body knows that Atman is caused.

But if emptiness is caused, does it exists something uncaused, and what it is (and please don't speak about 7 points, etc. I don't know at all what it is - and not so interested in having a look for ... too intellectual for me) ?

Sönam

[Dechen Norbu]

stop saying nonsense as emptiness being caused.

Hi Dechen Norbu,

If I am following you correctly, you are saying that emptiness in Buddhism is uncaused like Atman, Brahman in Hinduism?

Therefore emptiness is like the god of Buddhism, being uncaused as it were?

Just ignore this^ guy's babbling. He was duly and clearly corrected.
He's also CC's sock puppet. CC has no clue about this subject, so neither has Emptiness.
So let's stop elaborating from nonsense, OK guys?

[heart]

stop saying nonsense as emptiness being caused.

Hi Dechen Norbu,

If I am following you correctly, you are saying that emptiness in Buddhism is uncaused like Atman, Brahman in Hinduism?

Therefore emptiness is like the god of Buddhism, being uncaused as it were?

Just ignore this^ guy's babbling. He was duly and clearly corrected.
He's also CC's sock puppet. CC has no clue about this subject, so neither has Emptiness.
So let's stop elaborating from nonsense, OK guys?

And CC is the sock puppet of alwayson.

/magnus

[Dechen Norbu]

That, I think, we can't yet prove. But we are watching.

[Malcolm]

You don't understand cessation or annhilationism.

Annhilationism is an absence of causes, by definition.

Annihilationism is the mistaken belief that an existent thing becomes non-existent, for example, a self.

But this fact has not stopped any of the Indo-Tibetan Madhyamikas from treating emptiness as an object and running it through a 7 point Prasangika analyses (or similar) to prove that emptiness is conditioned. This is part of Madhyamaka's charm.

The Tarkajvala asserts the following.

"The unconditioned is the two cessations, space and suchness"

The unconditioned is analytical cessation and non-analytical cessation, space and suchness. Analytical cessation is discriminating wisdom i.e. having analyzed and extinguished the evident afflictions, that analysis and cessation is given the name "nirvana". Non-analytical cessation is when a given thing is never separate from cessation by any means. Space opens up room and has the characteristic of being unobstructed. Suchness previously did not exist, nor come to not exist through destruction, is not [presently] mutually dependent and has no basis. Those four are permanent because their nature is unchanging.

Since emptiness and tathāta are synonyms, it is a little hard to prove that emptiness is conditioned.

N

[Mr. G]

Thanks for that clarification Namdrol

[Malcolm]

Just to play devils advocate for a moment, but also to ask a legitimate question because I don't really know the answer...

Isn't it said that appearance and emptiness are dependent on one another. Without one, the other does not exist? Wouldn't this imply causality? From emptiness arises appearances, appearances are of the nature of emptiness, which gives rise to appearance, which is of the nature of emptiness, and so on and so forth, and beyond the arising of appearance from emptiness, and beyond the emptiness of appearance, would be the unconditioned state itself (and therefore also the Middle Way), which would be free from the extremes of emptiness and appearance?

If this dependence on one another, emptiness giving rise to appearance, and appearance giving rise to emptiness, is not described as causality, what is it described as? Is this basically what is meant by DO?

I'm way in over my head with this one, thanks in advance!

The nature of appearances is empty, that is correct. But then you have to ask the question: do appearances arise? They seem to , but do they? Do appearances remain, they seem to, but do they? Appearances seem to vanish. They seem to, but do they? When you understand that appearances do not arise, remain, or vanish, then you understand the emptiness of appearances. If appearances do not in reality arise, remain or vanish, how could their emptiness arise, remain or vanish?

N

[deff]

And CC is the sock puppet of alwayson.

/magnus

and alwayson was the sockpuppet of Enochian?

[heart]

And CC is the sock puppet of alwayson.

/magnus

and alwayson was the sockpuppet of Enochian?

Yeah, could be.

/magnus

[Malcolm]

And CC is the sock puppet of alwayson.

/magnus

and alwayson was the sockpuppet of Enochian?

Yeah, could be.

/magnus

And Enochian was a sock puppet of Namdrol BwaHahahahahahahahahahahah Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....

(kidding)

[Dechen Norbu]

[Pero]

Haha, that would've been one of the biggest troll jobs ever...

[heart]

And Enochian was a sock puppet of Namdrol BwaHahahahahahahahahahahah Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....

(kidding)

hahahaha...

/magnus

[deff]

[Sönam]

kidding ?

[wisdom]

The nature of appearances is empty, that is correct. But then you have to ask the question: do appearances arise? They seem to , but do they? Do appearances remain, they seem to, but do they? Appearances seem to vanish. They seem to, but do they? When you understand that appearances do not arise, remain, or vanish, then you understand the emptiness of appearances. If appearances do not in reality arise, remain or vanish, how could their emptiness arise, remain or vanish?

N

Thats a really good point. Technically if the nature of appearances is empty, then appearances simply never appear in the first place. At one point could they be said to appear? Whatever appears, no matter how insignificant we make it, even a single particle, is of the nature of emptiness, so nothing appears in the first place.

Thanks for clarifying that. I had grasped that appearances were empty, but hadn't pushed the question far enough to realize that I was considering appearances as having arisen in the first place! So that answers my original question