emptiness = interdependence?

No holds barred discussion on the Buddhadharma. Argue about rebirth, karma, commentarial interpretations etc. Be nice to each other.

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby muni » Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:43 pm

Namdrol wrote:
TMingyur wrote:The word "beyond" in the context of affirmation seems to be the pillar of all these ideas. A pillar that is a mere concept itself.



Correct, reality is inexpressible. Now we can all go home.

But your sabbasutta citation is not relevant. Why? Because nirvana, the supreme dharma, part of the dharmadhatu, is an object of the mano-dhatu.

This is why the Buddha states "Monks, there is an unborn, etc..."


Why is it inexpressible? Because one fall in nihilism?

Here Nagarjuna. http://www.scribd.com/doc/26113968/Naga ... -Commented
muni
 
Posts: 2735
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Malcolm » Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:46 pm

muni wrote:Why is it inexpressible? Because one fall in nihilism?



Because ontological predicates of phenomena are all erroneous.
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: 10165
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Rael » Fri Apr 01, 2011 4:54 pm

Nangwa wrote:
TMingyur wrote:
Nangwa wrote:
This idea of concepts like "actual ultimate truth" "being beyond concepts" is a conventional, conceptual, unnecessary and redundant assertion.

Kind regards

More stating the obvious.
You keep making the same redundant and obvious statement in post after post.
Nobody thinks that concepts about the ultimate truth are anything other than conventional, not sure how many times this has to be stated.


in all fairness i find TMingyur take on this indispensable...his seems to be a pure Theravada approach ...and it is necessary and important....no make that a privilege for me to see his view....

he has jerked me out of my seat more than once.....
Love Love Love
User avatar
Rael
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:36 pm

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Fri Apr 01, 2011 6:09 pm

Rael wrote:in all fairness i find TMingyur take on this indispensable...his seems to be a pure Theravada approach ...and it is necessary and important....no make that a privilege for me to see his view....

he has jerked me out of my seat more than once.....

Maybe the first time he made it in the first thread he posted in it was indispensable, but I think that you will find that most people here realise the limitations of language and cognition and don't need to be reminded of them in every single thread.

Maybe TM could make the post his signature and spare us having to gloss over the specific post every time.

As for the pure Theravadra approach, you will find that the passage I cited here viewtopic.php?f=66&t=2860&start=100#p32837 is also Theravadra Sutta and shows that discussion or mention of ultimate reality is not beyond expression in reative terms AND this ultimate reality or the "ultimate Dhamma" does not (seem to) fall within the range of the "All"mentioned in the quotation that TM likes to flap around in peoples faces (continuously).
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7892
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Malcolm » Fri Apr 01, 2011 6:48 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:AND this ultimate reality or the "ultimate Dhamma" does not (seem to) fall within the range of the "All"mentioned in the quotation that TM likes to flap around in peoples faces (continuously).



No, actually it does. The Sabbasutta is just a description of the twelve āyatanas. The twelve āyatanas contain all conditioned and unconditioned phenomena, including the supreme Dharma, nirvana.

The twelve āyatanas:
eye | form
ear | sound
nose | scent
tongue | tastes
body | tactiles
mind | dharmas

That is it. There are no phenomena taught in any buddhist teachings that can go beyond this list. The dharma āyatana contains the aggregates of sensation, ideation and formations (vedanasamjñā̄saṃskaraskandha), as well as space and the two kinds of cessation. When the twelve āyatanas are broken out in to the eighteen dhātus, the dharma āyatana changes its name to the dharmadhātu. Mano āyatana, the mind ayatanā is the aggregate of consciousness, vijñāna skandha, and the ten material āyatanas, eye, form, etc, are the rūpaskandha.
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: 10165
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Fri Apr 01, 2011 7:16 pm

Excuse my ignorance!

So you are saying that the "ultimate Dhamma" mentioned in the Dhammapada quote is, in the dhatu categorisation scheme, the dharmadhatu? It seems to make sense but the commentary to the Sutta quoted by TM states:
Thus it seems more this discourse's discussion of "All" is meant to limit the use of the word "all" throughout the Buddha's teachings to the six sense spheres and their objects. As the following discourse shows, this would also include the consciousness, contact, and feelings connected with the sense spheres and their objects. Nibbana would lie outside of the word, "all." This would fit in with another point made several times in the Canon: that dispassion is the highest of all dhammas (Iti 90), while the arahant has gone beyond even dispassion (Sn 4.6; Sn 4.10).
Thus Nibbana IS beyond the "All" and incapable of expression or perception at the relative level.

This seems to be contradictory, because isn't the dharmadhatu the source of all phenomena: Relative and Ultimate?

So either we are steeped in (or ultimately are) dharmadhatu and thus, being inseperable from it, we can perceive the Ultimate which also arises from dharmadhatu (when the veil of ignorance is lifted) or phenomena are seperate to the dharmadhatu and thus have no contact with the ultimate. But, then again, I guess if I take the Middle Path approach then this contradiction will be erased. :rolleye:
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7892
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Malcolm » Fri Apr 01, 2011 7:31 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:Excuse my ignorance!

So you are saying that the "ultimate Dhamma" mentioned in the Dhammapada quote is, in the dhatu categorisation scheme, the dharmadhatu? It seems to make sense but the commentary to the Sutta quoted by TM states:
Thus it seems more this discourse's discussion of "All" is meant to limit the use of the word "all" throughout the Buddha's teachings to the six sense spheres and their objects. As the following discourse shows, this would also include the consciousness, contact, and feelings connected with the sense spheres and their objects. Nibbana would lie outside of the word, "all." This would fit in with another point made several times in the Canon: that dispassion is the highest of all dhammas (Iti 90), while the arahant has gone beyond even dispassion (Sn 4.6; Sn 4.10).
Thus Nibbana IS beyond the "All" and incapable of expression or perception at the relative level.

This seems to be contradictory, because isn't the dharmadhatu the source of all phenomena: Relative and Ultimate?

So either we are steeped in (or ultimately are) dharmadhatu and thus, being inseperable from it, we can perceive the Ultimate which also arises from dharmadhatu (when the veil of ignorance is lifted) or phenomena are seperate to the dharmadhatu and thus have no contact with the ultimate. But, then again, I guess if I take the Middle Path approach then this contradiction will be erased. :rolleye:
:namaste:


Well, that may be how Theravadins approach that sutta -- but some tendencies in Theravada are slightly eternalist. We also have that Sutra in the Agamas, and the way the twelve āyatanas are described by Vasubandhu and the way I have outlined this is completely normal and consistent with that sutra. Nirvana, for stream enterers and so on, is an object of their consciousnesses since it is included in the dharmāyatana/dhātu.

There are no phenomena that lie outside the twelve āyatanas.
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: 10165
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Sherab » Sat Apr 02, 2011 1:11 am

Luke wrote:His main point is that the Buddhist concept of emptiness is really the interdependence of all things. Do you agree with this?
.

Getting back to the OP .... here's my proposed answer:

Emptiness is the label representing the inexpressible, the nature of the uncategorized ultimate.
Emptiness is also the label representing the expressible nature of the categorized ultimate, i.e. the no-nature of all phenomena.
Dependent origination is the label representing the expressible, the nature of the relative.

Therefore the inherent meaning of emptiness is not the inherent meaning of dependent origination.

The nonduality (or inseparability) of emptiness and dependent origination is the meaning of the ultimate.

Comments?
User avatar
Sherab
 
Posts: 695
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Malcolm » Sat Apr 02, 2011 1:17 am

Sherab wrote:
Luke wrote:His main point is that the Buddhist concept of emptiness is really the interdependence of all things. Do you agree with this?
.

Getting back to the OP .... here's my proposed answer:

Emptiness is the label representing the inexpressible, the nature of the uncategorized ultimate.
Emptiness is also the label representing the expressible nature of the categorized ultimate, i.e. the no-nature of all phenomena.
Dependent origination is the label representing the expressible, the nature of the relative.

Therefore the inherent meaning of emptiness is not the inherent meaning of dependent origination.

The nonduality (or inseparability) of emptiness and dependent origination is the meaning of the ultimate.

Comments?


"Whatever arises in dependence does not in truth arise."

PP sutras.
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: 10165
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Sherab » Sat Apr 02, 2011 1:21 am

Namdrol wrote:
Sherab wrote:
Luke wrote:His main point is that the Buddhist concept of emptiness is really the interdependence of all things. Do you agree with this?
.

Getting back to the OP .... here's my proposed answer:

Emptiness is the label representing the inexpressible, the nature of the uncategorized ultimate.
Emptiness is also the label representing the expressible nature of the categorized ultimate, i.e. the no-nature of all phenomena.
Dependent origination is the label representing the expressible, the nature of the relative.

Therefore the inherent meaning of emptiness is not the inherent meaning of dependent origination.

The nonduality (or inseparability) of emptiness and dependent origination is the meaning of the ultimate.

Comments?


"Whatever arises in dependence does not in truth arise."

PP sutras.

Does the quotation contradict my proposed answer? If yes, please elaborate.
User avatar
Sherab
 
Posts: 695
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Malcolm » Sat Apr 02, 2011 1:36 am

Sherab wrote:Does the quotation contradict my proposed answer? If yes, please elaborate.


The inherent meaning of dependent origination is emptiness. Whatever is empty dependently arises; whatever dependently arises is empty, according to Nagarjuna.

In other words, there is nothing not empty that arises at all, and all that arises is empty because it dependently arises. There is no emptiness apart from dependent origination, and no dependent origination apart from emptiness.
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: 10165
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: YES emptiness = interdependence

Postby Will » Sat Apr 02, 2011 1:56 am

Or as Je Tsongkhapa put it:

“Whatsoever depends on conditions,
That is devoid of intrinsic existence.”
What excellent instruction can there be
More amazing than this proclamation?
Revealing one essence: this means the inherently pure, complete, luminous essence, which is pure of its own nature. -- Fa-tsang
User avatar
Will
 
Posts: 1730
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:21 am

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sat Apr 02, 2011 8:58 am

Namdrol wrote:Nirvana, for stream enterers and so on, is an object of their consciousnesses since it is included in the dharmāyatana/dhātu.
Does that mean that Nirvana is/can be an object of "ordinary" consciousness or can it only be perceived at the level of alayavijnana/arya consciousness? Sorry if the question seems clumsy but I can't really think of any other way to state what I am thinking.
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7892
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Malcolm » Sat Apr 02, 2011 2:17 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
Namdrol wrote:Nirvana, for stream enterers and so on, is an object of their consciousnesses since it is included in the dharmāyatana/dhātu.
Does that mean that Nirvana is/can be an object of "ordinary" consciousness or can it only be perceived at the level of alayavijnana/arya consciousness? Sorry if the question seems clumsy but I can't really think of any other way to state what I am thinking.
:namaste:



It is only on object of an arya's mind.
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: 10165
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Sherab » Mon Apr 04, 2011 12:28 am

Namdrol wrote:
Sherab wrote:Does the quotation contradict my proposed answer? If yes, please elaborate.


The inherent meaning of dependent origination is emptiness. Whatever is empty dependently arises; whatever dependently arises is empty, according to Nagarjuna.

In other words, there is nothing not empty that arises at all, and all that arises is empty because it dependently arises. There is no emptiness apart from dependent origination, and no dependent origination apart from emptiness.

Doesn't "Whatever arises in dependence does not in truth arise" refer to the nonduality (inseparability) of dependent origination and emptiness? In other words, the quote does not refer to the equality of emptiness and dependent origination and is instead referring to emptiness and dependent origination as "aspects" of the ultimate. If so, the explanation given by you refers to just this nonduality (inseparability) isn't it?
User avatar
Sherab
 
Posts: 695
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby norman » Mon Apr 04, 2011 8:11 pm

Sherab wrote:
Nangwa wrote:The famous sutra quote looks deceptively simple to understand, which is precisely why I not that sure that it is that simple to understand.
Has anyone tried to understand what Norman was trying to say?


Hello, Sherab.

How can an object be absent of something it lacks (i.e. Self-nature)?
Emptiness can only be established in terms of categories that are a priori empty.

The Void is objectively and conceptually inexistent except as Form, as the apparent universe.
But the apparent universe is not existent, except as voidness; which is void of objectivity (conceptuality).
Therefore, all phenomenal manifestation (all objectivity) is NOT, as what, where, and how we think it is, because it's void (objectively and conceptually). It's not an object of perception.

All objectivity (every perceivable 'thing') is its own absence of itself (what we consider it to be), which is what it is. It is its own absence of itself as a concept. No object has any nature at all, no emptiness, no quality, no nothing, because they are not existent as what we perceive them to be.

Their true nature is a no-nature, and their no-nature is their true nature; for all dharmas have one mark only, i.e. no mark ... for there are not two natures of dharma, but just one single is the nature of all dharmas. And the true nature of all dharmas is a no-nature, and their no-nature is their true nature. It is thus that all points of possible attachment are abandoned.” - Prajnaparamita in 8000 lines

The true nature of all dharmas is no-nature, of EVERY idea about ”reality”, about anything at all. ”Reality” has one mark only, i.e. no mark - no quality, no emptiness, no nothing. ”Reality” is not an object of perception, there is nothing there, it's a ”category of analysis” (Red Pine).

The emptiness that exists as being the emptiness of objects, as their quality, or true nature, or whatever - is NOT such, because emptiness IS Form.

The Form that exists as being empty of itself, as a quality, as its true nature, or whatever - is NOT such, because Form IS empty.

The declaration that objects are void or empty has got nothing to do with the objects themselves, they were never there to be emptied in the first place.

Here's Red Pine's definition of Form:

The word rupa does not actually refer to a concrete object but to the appearance of an object. Form is like a mask that cannot be removed without revealing its own illusory identity. Such a mask might be worn by a table or a sunset or a number or a coin (the rupee), or a universe. Whether such things are real is not relevant (...) Thus, form is not an objective category but a subjective one extrapolated from a person's own experience and beyond which it has little, if any, meaning (...) Emptiness can only be established in terms of categories that are a priori empty. Whatever we might consider emptiness to be, is identical to whatever conceptual category we might dream up, in this case the skandha of form. The existence of form is not denied, nor its non-existence. It exists as a category of analysis.
norman
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 9:18 pm

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby norman » Mon Apr 04, 2011 8:31 pm

Form itself does not possess the own-being of form, etc. Perfect wisdom does not
possess the mark (of being) ‘perfect wisdom.’ A mark does not possess the
own-being of a mark. The marked does not possess the own-being of being marked,
and own-being does not possess the mark of [being] own-being.

He courses in a sign when he courses in form, etc., or in the sign of form, etc.,
or in the idea that ‘form is a sign,’ or in the production of form, or in the stopping
or destruction of form, or in the idea that ‘form is empty,’ or ‘I course,’ or ‘I am a
Bodhisattva.’ For he actually courses in the idea ‘I am a Bodhisattva’ as a basis.
Or, when it occurs to him ‘he who course thus, courses in perfect wisdom and
develops it,’ – he courses only in a sign. Such a Bodhisattva should be known as
unskilled in means
.

- Prajnaparamita in 8000 lines

When one is coursing in the idea that "form is empty", one courses in a sign.
When one courses in the idea that "form is a sign", one courses in a sign.

When one courses such, one "courses in the idea ‘I am a Bodhisattva’ as a basis", and "such a Bodhisattva should be known as
unskilled in means
".

"I am a Bodhisattva" ... isn't this the definition of a hypocrite?
norman
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 9:18 pm

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Sherab » Tue Apr 05, 2011 12:32 am

Hi Norman,

"Form is empty. Emptiness is form".

I think I got what you are saying. Your posts seemed to me to address the first part of the above quote pretty well. But I've not quite got how you addressed the second part.

For me, all phenomena are mere appearances or mere illusions. All phenomena would include all mind and matter. The "structural" relationship between the illusion of mind and the illusion of matter is what that allows emptiness to appear in various forms. That "structural" relationship is dependent origination. But as mind and matter are empty, even dependent origination itself, the structural relationship, cannot be anything else but empty.
User avatar
Sherab
 
Posts: 695
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Malcolm » Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:09 am

Sherab wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
Sherab wrote:Does the quotation contradict my proposed answer? If yes, please elaborate.


The inherent meaning of dependent origination is emptiness. Whatever is empty dependently arises; whatever dependently arises is empty, according to Nagarjuna.

In other words, there is nothing not empty that arises at all, and all that arises is empty because it dependently arises. There is no emptiness apart from dependent origination, and no dependent origination apart from emptiness.

Doesn't "Whatever arises in dependence does not in truth arise" refer to the nonduality (inseparability) of dependent origination and emptiness? In other words, the quote does not refer to the equality of emptiness and dependent origination and is instead referring to emptiness and dependent origination as "aspects" of the ultimate. If so, the explanation given by you refers to just this nonduality (inseparability) isn't it?


The citation means that "empty" and "dependent" are completely interchangeable terms. It can be expressed as follows:

Something empty is something dependent;
something dependent is something empty;
something not-empty is something non-dependent;
something non-dependent is something not-empty.
The nature of the dependent is to be empty;
the nature of the empty is to be dependent;
the nature of the non-dependent is to be non-empty;
the nature of the non-empty is to be non-dependent.

In other words, dependent origination and śūnyatā are precisely the same thing.

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: 10165
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby retrofuturist » Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:24 am

Greetings Namdrol,
Namdrol wrote:In other words, dependent origination and śūnyatā are precisely the same thing.

In what sense are you referring to dependent origination here?

If you're using it in a 'twelve nidanas' sense, all the formations that follow ignorance are dharmas incorrectly cognised/formed(sankhata) as non-empty. To wit, I would have thought śūnyatā was reality and dependent origination was the cognitive distortion which made it appear otherwise.

So they would be same thing in terms of reality, but different in terms of the perception/experience of that reality. Because the latter is dependent (upon ignorance), it gives rise to duhkha, whereas perception/experience of śūnyatā does not.

Maitri,
Retro. :)
Live in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes

Dhamma Wheel (Theravada forum) * Here Comes Trouble
User avatar
retrofuturist
Founding Member
 
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:54 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Norwegian, theanarchist, Thrasymachus and 17 guests

>