emptiness = interdependence?

[gregkavarnos]

You think so? Plato was trying to prove the (pre-)existence of a permanent notion called "cupness" and Diogenes challenged this by bringing pointing to the fact that it was all merely a (foolish) mental fabrication.

[Rael]

You think so? Plato was trying to prove the (pre-)existence of a permanent notion called "cupness" and Diogenes challenged this by bringing pointing to the fact that it was all merely a (foolish) mental fabrication.

interesting...my take on it was Plato saw that our mind formulates the things around us and gives them a label.

he wasn't talking about the fact that ultimately there is no cup....

your projecting....

[Malcolm]

You think so? Plato was trying to prove the (pre-)existence of a permanent notion called "cupness" and Diogenes challenged this by bringing pointing to the fact that it was all merely a (foolish) mental fabrication.

interesting...my take on it was Plato saw that our mind formulates the things around us and gives them a label.

he wasn't talking about the fact that ultimately there is no cup....

your projecting....

The point greg was making is that plato theorized there was a ideal cup that informed all instances of cups. That ideal cup is ultimate, all cups that derive from that ideal are relative.

[Rael]

non empty.....i mean there is a reason you never read a teacher saying this before....lol


edit....the nature of non- empty is even worse.

You need to read Nāgārjuna again:

"If there were something a little not empty, there would be something to be empty;
as there is nothing that is not empty, where is there something to be empty?"

yes indeed i should....

I think your translation is a little off though .or your interpretation of..yes no....hence your seeing the nature of non empty....

there is no nature to be seen in "non empty" anything for it does not exist ...the nature of non-empty is just some moot pointless mis-pointing to the task at hand......


the point of using emptiness is to point to Sunyata.

confusing the issue with your interpretation of Nargajuna...if thats a real translation.....is not helping....


hopefully you won't take it personal anymore and just accept the fact you boo boo'ed and now your flogging a dead horse ....



there is no such thing as "The Nature of non-empty" ....



i used these cause i know you love em....

[Rael]

You think so? Plato was trying to prove the (pre-)existence of a permanent notion called "cupness" and Diogenes challenged this by bringing pointing to the fact that it was all merely a (foolish) mental fabrication.

interesting...my take on it was Plato saw that our mind formulates the things around us and gives them a label.

he wasn't talking about the fact that ultimately there is no cup....

your projecting....

The point greg was making is that plato theorized there was a ideal cup that informed all instances of cups. That ideal cup is ultimate, all cups that derive from that ideal are relative.

i don't think Plato talked of things being ultimate and relative...thats buddhist philosophy...."conventiona"l anyone

i could be wrong though...

[Malcolm]

there is no such thing as "The Nature of non-empty"

I agree with you. That line was a formal statement to show that a non-dependent thing would have to be non-empty. Such things do not exist, therefore there are no things that are not empty.

Some people think there are non-empty things, such people think those things lack dependence -- for example, the Nyaya school. They are very opposed to the idea of emptiness and maintain that non-empty things are non-dependent things.

You might want to read chapter 15 of the MMK where Nāgārjuna addresses the idea of non-empty, non-dependent phenomena.

Before you decide people are in error, you might want to find out if you have understood what they are saying.

[Rael]

there is no such thing as "The Nature of non-empty"

Some people think there are non-empty things, such people think those things lack dependence -- for example, the Nyaya school. They are very opposed to the idea of emptiness and maintain that non-empty things are non-dependent things.

You might want to read chapter 15 of the MMK where Nāgārjuna addresses the idea of non-empty, non-dependent phenomena.

oki doke...but can we skip to the part where i tell you that he was addressing this as the wrong way of looking at things.....
that it is totally going to throw you off......

[Malcolm]

there is no such thing as "The Nature of non-empty"

Some people think there are non-empty things, such people think those things lack dependence -- for example, the Nyaya school. They are very opposed to the idea of emptiness and maintain that non-empty things are non-dependent things.

You might want to read chapter 15 of the MMK where Nāgārjuna addresses the idea of non-empty, non-dependent phenomena.

oki doke...but can we skip to the part where i tell you that he was addressing this as the wrong way of looking at things.....
that it is totally going to throw you off......

No, it is not going to throw me off in the least -- I know that Nāgājuna is rejecting non-empty, non-dependent things completely. That is the whole point, non-empty, non-dependent things don't exist at all -- they are mere abstractions.

[Rael]

there is no such thing as "The Nature of non-empty"

I agree with you. That line was a formal statement to show that a non-dependent thing would have to be non-empty. Such things do not exist, therefore there are no things that are not empty.

Some people think there are non-empty things, such people think those things lack dependence -- for example, the Nyaya school. They are very opposed to the idea of emptiness and maintain that non-empty things are non-dependent things.

You might want to read chapter 15 of the MMK where Nāgārjuna addresses the idea of non-empty, non-dependent phenomena.

Before you decide people are in error, you might want to find out if you have understood what they are saying.

you edited this right?

i like to tell people when i edit it right....

did you edit it before or after my reply....

[Rael]

No, it is not going to throw me off in the least -- I know that Nāgājuna is rejecting non-empty, non-dependent things completely. That is the whole point, non-empty, non-dependent things don't exist at all -- they are mere abstractions.

you wrote this and i wanted to point out it can throw people off and the way you posted it seems like you considered it to be a way of looking at emptiness..the non-empty jaberwocky should not have been used...

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.

you are now agreeing with me ....WTF



helping like....thats all dude.

i have friends in high places that show me stuff....lol...

i'm mad i've always been mad...and i never read Nargajuna stuff....king of the snake people lived 900 years....

but thats not meaning that i don't like the pointing to stuff in those tales....

[Malcolm]

you are now agreeing with me ....WTF

As I said, before deciding someone does not understand something, ask first.

[Rael]

you are now agreeing with me ....WTF

As I said, before deciding someone does not understand something, ask first.

oki doke here's one for ya...

why enter the jaberwockey in a paragraph of teaching about emptiness when you knew it was actually something that should be addressed separate....or did it sort of blur into your post.....and like you gotta leave it there now cause your infallible....

questions questions....

[Malcolm]

you are now agreeing with me ....WTF

As I said, before deciding someone does not understand something, ask first.

oki doke here's one for ya...

why enter the jaberwockey in a paragraph of teaching about emptiness when you knew it was actually something that should be addressed separate....or did it sort of blur into your post.....and like you gotta leave it there now cause your infallible....

questions questions....

It's a formula, incomplete unless all terms are stated.

N

[Rael]

It's a formula, incomplete unless all terms are stated.

N

ok... well for what it is worth ...


the formula posed this way is deceptive in my opinion...
adding things that are not relevant to pointing to Sunyata in the same paragraph that contain material that is...

i caught it...other wouldn't..especially those asking questions about this...

Namdrol , just a speck of advice, sometimes you should not post things just cause you can....and own one of these

good day Namdrol...

[gregkavarnos]

As an aside:

Theory of Forms
The Theory of Forms (Greek: ιδέες) typically refers to the belief expressed by Socrates in some of Plato's dialogues, that the material world as it seems to us is not the real world, but only an image or copy of the real world. Socrates spoke of forms in formulating a solution to the problem of universals. The forms, according to Socrates, are roughly speaking archetypes or abstract representations of the many types of things, and properties we feel and see around us, that can only be perceived by reason (Greek: λογική); (that is, they are universals). In other words, Socrates sometimes seems to recognise two worlds: the apparent world, which constantly changes, and an unchanging and unseen world of forms, which may be a cause of what is apparent.

[Pema Rigdzin]

I think your translation is a little off though .or your interpretation of..yes no....hence your seeing the nature of non empty....

there is no nature to be seen in "non empty" anything for it does not exist ...the nature of non-empty is just some moot pointless mis-pointing to the task at hand......


the point of using emptiness is to point to Sunyata.

confusing the issue with your interpretation of Nargajuna...if thats a real translation.....is not helping....


hopefully you won't take it personal anymore and just accept the fact you boo boo'ed and now your flogging a dead horse ....



there is no such thing as "The Nature of non-empty" ....

Rael,

I can't take it anymore... Look, you misunderstood the point of Namdrol going full circle in saying that if something weren't dependently arisen that it would necessarily be non-empty. Seriously, I think you are the only person in this thread to have mistaken him for positing something that is non-empty. If you're not, the others at least had sense enough not to make themselves look silly by flagrantly mocking their own misunderstanding of the point he was making. Seriously, stop all the dramatic antics and just go back and re-read what he posted and think about it. You're just embarrassing yourself over and over.

Edit: OK, nevermind the above. Looking back over the last couple posts, I see you've since figured this out. I guess I might as well leave my post up anyway since I said it and since maybe it'll help you think before making such a spectacle of yourself in the future.

[Malcolm]

the formula posed this way is deceptive in my opinion...

Ok. I heard you. I don't agree. But that's ok.

N

[Sherab]

Sort of off topic-- but to answer the question: Dzogchen is a way of realization that is beyond cause and effect i.e. which does not require causal accumulations of merit and wisdom. It is not an ontological state beyond cause and effect. The reason that Dzogchen does not propose an ontological state is that since no phenomena at all are established in the basis, there are no ontological states at all, either existent or non-existent. In Dzogchen, the term "dependent origination" refers solely to the process initiated by the knowledge obscuration of avidyā which falsely imputes identity to person and things onto the appearance of the basis. Kadag and lhundrup may be understood as how non-afflictive or pre-afflictive processes in the basis are described in Dzogchen teachings.

Vidyā | Avidyā
kadag | emptiness
lhundrub | dependent origination

N

Beings processes, kadag and lhundrub are not identical in Dzogchen. It is correct to say this? If yes, how is kadag equivalent to emptiness and lhundrub equivalent to dependent origination since in Madhyamaka, emptiness is identical to dependent origination according to your earlier reasoning.

[Malcolm]

Beings processes, kadag and lhundrub are not identical in Dzogchen. It is correct to say this? If yes, how is kadag equivalent to emptiness and lhundrub equivalent to dependent origination since in Madhyamaka, emptiness is identical to dependent origination according to your earlier reasoning.

Kadag and lhundrup are completely inseparable.

Lhundrub is kadag, kadag is lhundrup i.e. original purity has self-perfected qualities; these self-perfected qualities are originally pure.

So, it is precisely the same.

[Sherab]

Beings processes, kadag and lhundrub are not identical in Dzogchen. It is correct to say this? If yes, how is kadag equivalent to emptiness and lhundrub equivalent to dependent origination since in Madhyamaka, emptiness is identical to dependent origination according to your earlier reasoning.

Kadag and lhundrup are completely inseparable.

Lhundrub is kadag, kadag is lhundrup i.e. original purity has self-perfected qualities; these self-perfected qualities are originally pure.

So, it is precisely the same.

I guess we agree then: emptiness and dependent origination are inseparable, just as kadag and lhundrup.
The only difference I see is that I view emptiness and dependent origination as different isolates (I hate this term but I can't think of anything else) but you don't.