emptiness = interdependence?

[Pema Rigdzin]

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.

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.

Though I don't agree with you, I think I can see where you're coming from. Maybe if one examines each from up close, focusing on them separately, they may seem like isolates. But from a bird's eye view, not so much. Kind of like, if one spent enough time thinking about the reflective capacity of a mirror and the reflection itself, one might crystalize the two as isolates. And maybe there would be some situations in which that conceptual separation and isolated focus might be useful, but it wouldn't make the separation actual.

[ground]

Well from my perspective the notion "phenomenon" is not mistaken since it has a correlate in direct experience.

What phenomenon can be directly experienced?

Correlate!!!!

Close your eyes and then open them. There are quite some correlates.

Kind regards

To quote you, all I find is "nameless experience". "You are a philosopher".

You are right in that it is "nameless experience". On the other hand what is experienced are correlates or is a correlate of what is called "phenomena". So some term has to be applied and it is chosen depending on context of communication and to express different aspects .
Be it "phenomena" or "correlates [of the term phenomena]" or "nameless experience". We may also establish "ompf" and agree to this convention. So there is the direct experience of "ompf". Then you may ask "What ompf is directly experienced" And I will answer "it is a correlate of ompf that is experienced".
If you take vision e.g. there is "background" and "foreground" and "shapes" and "colors" but actually there are only correlates (plural) or a correlate (singular) of these and thought synthesizes "background" and "foreground" and "shapes" and "colors".

In contrast to this "emptiness" is mere thought there is no correlate at all. "emptiness" is a product of thought's synthesis. The same holds true with "existence". So thought first produces "existence" and then "emptiness" as its own self-referential antidot.

Kind regards

[ground]

If you take vision e.g. there is "background" and "foreground" and "shapes" and "colors" but actually there are only correlates (plural) or a correlate (singular) of these and thought synthesizes "background" and "foreground" and "shapes" and "colors".

This is just an example. If you take mind you can apply the same. Take "joy" and everybody knows what it is. why? Because there is a correlate that can be directly experienced. "Joy" is thought but the correlate is not thought. Therefore "joy" is not mere thought.

In contrast to this "emptiness" is mere thought there is no correlate at all. "emptiness" is a product of thought's synthesis. The same holds true with "existence". So thought first produces "existence" and then "emptiness" as its own self-referential antidot.

Therefore the Buddha says how it should be in the first place:

But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Kind regards

[Sherab]

Though I don't agree with you, I think I can see where you're coming from. Maybe if one examines each from up close, focusing on them separately, they may seem like isolates. But from a bird's eye view, not so much. Kind of like, if one spent enough time thinking about the reflective capacity of a mirror and the reflection itself, one might crystalize the two as isolates. And maybe there would be some situations in which that conceptual separation and isolated focus might be useful, but it wouldn't make the separation actual.

Sure. But I find it useful tool for understanding the lack of difference between samsara and nirvana, impure phenomena and pure phenomena, the three nature presentation in the so-called yogacara sutras, the unity of the profound and the vast, why things are neither conditioned nor unconditioned, etc., etc.

[gregkavarnos]

In contrast to this "emptiness" is mere thought there is no correlate at all. "emptiness" is a product of thought's synthesis. The same holds true with "existence". So thought first produces "existence" and then "emptiness" as its own self-referential antidot.

Excerpt of commentary to the Mahasunnata Sutta which can be found here http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Translator's Introduction
This sutta gives many valuable lessons on practical issues surrounding the attempt to develop an internal meditative dwelling of emptiness, to maintain it, and to see it through to Awakening. Some of these issues include the need for seclusion as a conducive setting for the practice, types of conversation and thinking that are beneficial and harmful for the practice, the dangers of being distracted by visitors, and the proper attitude to have toward one's teacher. However, for an explanation of emptiness in and of itself, it's necessary to look elsewhere in the Canon.
There you find emptiness approached from three perspectives, treating it (1) as a meditative dwelling, (2) as an attribute of objects, and (3) as a type of awareness-release. The first approach is obviously the most immediately relevant to the discussion in this sutta, but in fact all three approaches play a role here.

Emptiness as a meditative dwelling is most fully discussed in MN 121. Essentially, it boils down to the ability to center the mind in a particular mode of perception, to maintain it there, and then to notice the absence and presence of disturbance within that mode. The process starts with perceptions of one's external surroundings — village, wilderness, the earth property — and then moves internally to the four formless states, the "themeless concentration of awareness," and finally to release from all mental fermentation. Each step is compared to the one preceding it to see how its more refined perception engenders less disturbance. For instance, if you move from a perception of the wilderness to a perception of earth, the first step is to settle and "indulge" in that perception. Then you notice what types of disturbance have been abandoned in the move from the perception of wilderness to the perception of earth — for example, all thought of the dangers of wilderness are gone — and then to see what disturbances remain based on the latter perception. Then you abandon the perception causing those disturbances and move on to a more refined level of perception. This process is pursued until it arrives at the "themeless concentration of awareness." When noting that even this refined level of concentration is fabricated, inconstant, and subject to cessation, one gains total release from all mental fermentations and the disturbances that would arise based on them. This is the level of emptiness that is "superior and unsurpassed," and is apparently what the Buddha is referring to in this sutta when he says that by "not attending to any themes, he enters & remains in internal emptiness."

Notice that in every step along the way of this process, the emptiness is the lack of disturbance experienced in a particular mind state. This means that the mind state is to be perceived simply as an example of the presence and absence of stress. In other words, emptiness in this sense relates directly to the second of the three characteristics — stress or suffering. The pursuit of this emptiness relates to the four noble truths, as it looks for the causes of stress and uses tranquility together with insight to abandon those causes in a quest to put a total end to suffering.

Emptiness in its second meaning, as an attribute of objects, is most fully discussed in SN 35.85. That sutta describes emptiness as meaning the lack of self or anything pertaining to a self in the internal and external sense media. Whatever sense of self that may surround these objects is not inherent in them, and is instead simply the result of one's own penchant for "I-making" and "my-making." Seeing the artificiality of "I-making" and "my-making" in this way helps lead to a sense of disenchantment with these "makings," thus helping to abandon any clinging associated with them.

Thus emptiness in this sense relates directly to the third of the three characteristics: not-self. However, just as the three characteristics are not radically separate from one another — everything stressful is for that reason not-self — the practical application of this sense of emptiness is not radically different from the first. As SN 12.15 points out, when one no longer latches onto any idea of "my self," one sees phenomena within and without simply as examples of stress arising and passing away. To practice meditation from this perspective — seeing each state of concentration as an example of stress arising and passing away — is to develop emptiness as a meditative dwelling.

Emptiness in its third meaning, as a type of awareness-release, is an application of emptiness in its second. MN 43 describes this state of concentration as follows: "There is the case where a monk — having gone into the wilderness, to the root of a tree, or into an empty dwelling — considers this: 'This is empty of self or of anything pertaining to self.'" It adds that this awareness-release is different from the awareness-release that results when one doesn't attend to any themes. Thus this state of concentration cannot be entirely equated with the emptiness as a meditative dwelling mentioned in this sutta. MN 106 further adds that if one frequently abides in the emptiness awareness-release, one may either attain the dimension of nothingness — one of the formless states — or be committed to the discernment that will lead to Awakening. The first of these two alternatives is another way in which emptiness as an awareness-release differs from emptiness as a meditative dwelling as defined in MN 121. However, because the standard definition of discernment is seeing phenomena in terms of the four noble truths, the second alternative — being committed to discernment — would apparently follow the same pattern suggested by SN 12.15, above. In other words, as one no longer perceives phenomena in terms of self, one tends to view them simply as examples of stress arising and passing away. So, again, this third meaning of emptiness, like the second, eventually leads in practice back to the first. As MN 43 notes, when one attains full awakening, the themeless awareness-release and the emptiness awareness-release come to differ only in name, and not in actuality.

[ground]

In contrast to this "emptiness" is mere thought there is no correlate at all. "emptiness" is a product of thought's synthesis. The same holds true with "existence". So thought first produces "existence" and then "emptiness" as its own self-referential antidot.

Excerpt of commentary to the Mahasunnata Sutta which can be found here http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Of course there are different meanings of the term "emptiness". I have been referring the the meaning how it is expounded by Madhyamaka philosophers teaching an alleged view of a person called "Nagarjuna" and who are hopelessly enmeshed in views of existence or non-existence, not both nor neither. Circling aound their mere thought "existence" and then circling around their mere thought "emptiness" as an antidot against their own thought. To even harbor such thoughts is wrong view in the first place.

Kind regards

[gregkavarnos]

Lankavatara Sutra on emptiness from here http://lirs.ru/do/lanka_eng/lanka-nondiacritical.htm

At that time again Mahamati the Bodhisattva-Mahasattva made a request of the Blessed One. Tell me, Blessed One, how all things are empty, unborn, non-dual, and have no self-nature, so that I and other Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas might be awakened in the teaching of emptiness, no-birth, non-duality, and the absence of self-nature, and, quitting the discrimination of being and non-being, quickly realise the highest enlightenment.

Then the Blessed One said this to Mahamati the Bodhisattva-Mahasattva: Now, Mahamati, listen well and reflect well upon what I tell you.

Replied Mahamati the Bodhisattva-Mahasattva, I will indeed, Blessed One. (74) The Blessed One said: Emptiness, emptiness, indeed! Mahamati, it is a term whose self-nature is false imagination. Because of one's attachment to false imagination, Mahamati, we have to talk of emptiness, no-birth, non-duality, and absence of self-nature. In short, then, Mahamati, there are seven kinds of emptiness: (1) The emptiness of individual marks (lakshana), (2) the emptiness of self-nature (bhavasvabhava), (3) the emptiness of no-work (apracarita), (4) the emptiness of work (pracarita), (5) the emptiness of all things in the sense that they are unpredicable (nirabhilapya), (6) the emptiness in its highest sense of ultimate reality realisable only by noble wisdom, and (7) the emptiness of mutuality (itaretara) which is the seventh.

Mahamati, what then is the emptiness of individual marks? It is that all things have no [such distinguishing] marks of individuality and generality. In consideration of mutuality and accumulation, [things are thought to be realities], but when they are further investigated and analysed, Mahamati, they are non-existent, and not predicable with individuality and generality; and because thus no such ideas as self, other, or both, hold good, Mahamati, the individual marks no longer obtain. So it is said that all things are empty as to their self-marks.

Again, Mahamati, what is meant by the emptiness of self-nature? Mahamati, it is that all things in their self-nature are unborn, hence the emptiness of self-nature, and it is therefore said that things are empty in their self-nature.

Again, Mahamati, what is meant by the emptiness of no-work? It is that the Skandhas are Nirvana itself and there is no work doing in them from the beginning. Therefore, one speaks of the emptiness of no-work.

(75) Again, Mahamati, what is meant by the emptiness of work? It is that the Skandhas are devoid of an ego and its belongings, and go on functioning when there is a mutual conjunction of cause and action. Thus one speaks of the emptiness of work.

Again, Mahamati, what is meant by the emptiness of all things in the sense that they are unpredicable? It is that the nature of the false imagination is not expressible, hence the emptiness of all things in the sense of their unpredicability. Thus one speaks of the emptiness of unpredicability.

Again, Mahamati, what is meant by the emptiness in its highest sense of ultimate reality realisable by noble wisdom? It is that in the attainment of an inner realisation by means of noble wisdom there is no trace of habit-energy generated by all the erroneous conceptions [of beginningless past]. Thus one speaks of the highest emptiness of ultimate reality realisable by noble wisdom.

Again, Mahamati, what is meant by the emptiness of mutual [non-existence]? It is this: when a thing is missing here, one speaks of its being empty there. For instance, Mahamati, in the lecture-hall of the Mrigarama there are no elephants, no bulls, no sheep, but as to the Bhikshus I can say that the hall is not devoid of them; it is empty only as far as they [i. e. the animals] are concerned. Further, Mahamati, it is not that the lecture-hall is devoid of its own characteristics, nor that the Bhikshu is devoid of this Bhikshuhood, nor that in some other places, too, elephants, bulls, and sheep are not to be found. Mahamati, here one sees all things in their aspect of individuality and generality, but from the point of view of mutuality (itaretara) some things do not exist somewhere. Thus one speaks of the emptiness of mutual [non-existence].

These, Mahamati, are the seven kinds of emptiness of which mutuality ranks the lowest of all and is to be put away by you.

(76) Again, Mahamati, not that things are not born, but that they are not born of themselves, except when seen in the state of Samadhi—this is what is meant by "all things are unborn." To have no self-nature is, according to the deeper sense, to be unborn, Mahamati. That all things are devoid of self-nature means that there is a constant and uninterrupted becoming, a momentary change from one state of existence to another; seeing this, Mahamati, all things are destitute of self-nature. So one speaks of all things having no self-nature.

Again, Mahamati, what is meant by non-duality? It means that light and shade, long and short, black and white, are relative terms, Mahamati, and not independent of each other; as Nirvana and Samsara are, all things are not-two. There is no Nirvana except where is Samsara; there is no Samsara except where is Nirvana; for the condition of existence is not of mutually-exclusive character.1 Therefore, it is said that all things are non-dual as are Nirvana and Samsara. For this reason, Mahamati, you should discipline yourself in [the realisation of] emptiness, no-birth, non-duality, and no-self-nature.

1 Read after T'ang.

Then at that time the Blessed One recited this couplet of verses:

137. I always preach emptiness which is beyond eternalism and nihilism; Samsara is like a dream and a vision, and karma vanishes not.

138. Space, Nirvana, and the two forms of cessation— thus (77) the ignorant discriminate the things which are not effect-producing, but the wise stand above being and non-being.

At that time again, the Blessed One said this to Mahamati the Bodhisattva-Mahasattva; This [teaching of] emptiness, no-birth, non-duality, and no-self-nature is found in all the sutras of all the Buddhas, and this doctrine is recognised in every one of them. However. Mahamati, the sutras are the teaching in conformity with the dispositions of all beings and deviate from the [real] sense, and not the truth-preserving statement. Mahamati, it is like unto the mirage which entices the deer with its treacherous springs, the springs are not there but the deer are attached, imagining them to be real. So with the teachings disclosed in all the sutras, they are for all beings for the gratification of their own discriminating minds. They are not the truth-preserving statements meant for noble wisdom to grasp. For this reason, Mahamati, be in conformity with the sense and be not engrossed in the word-teaching.

[ground]

To paraphrase the Buddha:
Anyone who wants say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be fettered by speculation. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

Kind regards

[Dexing]

How is "fettered by speculation" a paraphrase of "put to grief"? Paraphrase means to express the same meaning in different words for clarification, not to impute your favorite phrase upon the text. This is your interpretation of its implication, not a paraphrasing.

[ground]

How is "fettered by speculation" a paraphrase of "put to grief"? Paraphrase means to express the same meaning in different words for clarification, not to impute your favorite phrase upon the text. This is your interpretation of its implication, not a paraphrasing.

put to grief = experiencing dukkha, again and again, perpetuated; not liberated. If however you are assuming that clinging to speculative views is liberating ... well it is up to you.

Kind regards

[Dexing]

I'm not disagreeing, I'm merely suggesting that paraphrase means to "express the same meaning in different words", not to alter the meaning.

"Fettered by speculation" is not the same meaning as "put to grief". Many things lead to duḥkha, but they are not what was said and should not substitute a different meaning.

It is important to distinguish between your interpretation of what the Buddha said, and what the texts actually record. If you are presenting your interpretation, fine, but do not put it in quotations or directly quote from scripture with your added alterations without making those alterations clear. Otherwise it is dishonest and misleading.

[muni]

You know, after reading through the last three pages of this thread the following question came to mind:

Is the dog chasing its tail or is the tail chasing the dog?

dog.jpg

Woof!

Good one.

Many stories by such. Like a poor dreaming snake, wanting to defeat the enemy as soon as that one dared move toward him. As own tail was the only nasty one following him all the time, his venom poisoned its' being, he destroyed the opportunity to be freed of the falseness of ones dreamlike concepts. It was a teaching to see mistaken / misperceptions through emptiness-interdependence.

[Malcolm]

Of course there are different meanings of the term "emptiness".

Where do the three gates of liberation, śunyatā, alakṣana, and apranidhana, fit in your scheme?

You see, nirvana, according to your presentation of the Sabba sutta, seems to be excluded.

[gregkavarnos]

It's unclear from the embedding whether you are asking me or TMingyur the question, care to clarify?

[Rael]

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.

there is no drama other than what ever you want to see....Padwaaan sit and learn ...don't knock the messenger....and stop being a suck up....suck ups are not what the Buddha intended to produce....

there was nothing to figure out......

One needs to be very carefull in what they say in order to point someone to come to the understanding of Sunyata.

that was and will always be my point.....

mishing and mashing your knowledge and tossing enough against the wall in order to show how much you read is not the way to go...

what one reads ,when used as a teaching tool of our Lord's Way, is important to be put to type in the right context...

context is everything....when teaching


In this case when viewing Namdrol's self proclaimed formula less would have definatly been more...the non- empty stuff should have had a disclaimer that even the 900 year old King of the Snake People said this is not the way to go....the previous stuff in the formula was the way ....

you don't mash it all up and go" here ya go".....


i hate the suck up circle jerk forum dance people feel the need to do....

it's not personal for me..

except in the sense of teaching people proper, in the name of Our Lord......
especially if your going to make your living off it

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.

you see that i was right and yet you call it making a spectacle of myself.......hence my suck up circle jerk comments...

[ground]

Of course there are different meanings of the term "emptiness".

Where do the three gates of liberation, śunyatā, alakṣana, and apranidhana, fit in your scheme?

You see, nirvana, according to your presentation of the Sabba sutta, seems to be excluded.

The times I have had a scheme I 've been completely lost. So I better refrain from fabricating a scheme in order to meet your expectations.

One can rid oneself of obscurations ... be it with or without the Sabba sutta. If this is what you refer to with "Nirvana" then I cannot understand your 2nd sentence. If your "Nirvana" refers to something else other than that then I cannot understand you either.

Kind regards

[Malcolm]

Of course there are different meanings of the term "emptiness".

Where do the three gates of liberation, śunyatā, alakṣana, and apranidhana, fit in your scheme?

You see, nirvana, according to your presentation of the Sabba sutta, seems to be excluded.

The times I have had a scheme I 've been completely lost. So I better refrain from fabricating a scheme in order to meet your expectations.

One can rid oneself of obscurations ... be it with or without the Sabba sutta. If this is what you refer to with "Nirvana" then I cannot understand your 2nd sentence. If your "Nirvana" refers to something else other than that then I cannot understand you either.

Kind regards

To rephrase: do you understand the three gates of liberation? If so, how?

[ground]

They correspond to the three characteristics selflessness, impermanence and dukkha.

Kind regards

[Malcolm]

They correspond to the three characteristics selflessness, impermanence and dukkha.

Kind regards

How do you understand selflessness?

[ground]

Non-grasping, non-attachment, non-craving. No agent experiencing.

Kind regards