emptiness = interdependence?

[kirtu]

The spanner in the works here is the idea of a Buddha nature which is an innate quality rather than a potentiality. In this case, the ethical logic is not about producing wholesome qualities, but uncovering what is already there. Compassion is then something which must be associated with the realisation of Buddha Nature ~ spontaneous, natural, pre-given.

Buddhanature is taught at least ways - either as a potential or as an innate quality or as an innate true nature.

Kirt

[White Lotus]

There is no buddha nature, that is buddha nature. not a thing. this is mysterious, how can something which does not exist have potential and apparent existence. look around you. all things are buddha nature embodied. there is no fundamental approach toward nature nor conventional approach, this is a fabrication. we see it, yet it does not exist... paradox.

rgds, White Lotus.

[Jnana]

I have no cause to refute Maitripa here, but wouldn't you also say that it is up to each practitioner to develop and sharpen their prajna, and learn to discern the correct view of reality?

Of course. That's what teachers, texts, and a sitting cushion are for.

All the best,

Geoff

[White Lotus]

if we have a correct view of reality, we say there is No reality. prajna can only be attained when one sees ones own nature. when one sees ones own nature one sees that there is no difference between prajna and dhyana, nor between dhayana and walking, sitting or talking. But, this can only be seen when one sees oneself within. that perfectly normal self nature most people have, which once seen begins to reveal the true nature of things. when the nature of the within is seen to be identical in sensation from that which is without then one is lead by the true dharma eye to begin to understand things. unless you see your own nature how will you know that there is no nature. no mind and no self. before you recognise oneness of interior and exterior you may need to recognise the sameness of all things (samata).

words are only pointers, ultimately you will teach yourself far more than any teacher ever can. meditation... brick polishing, but fun.

best wishes, white lotus.

[tobes]

The spanner in the works here is the idea of a Buddha nature which is an innate quality rather than a potentiality. In this case, the ethical logic is not about producing wholesome qualities, but uncovering what is already there. Compassion is then something which must be associated with the realisation of Buddha Nature ~ spontaneous, natural, pre-given.

Buddhanature is taught at least ways - either as a potential or as an innate quality or as an innate true nature.

Kirt

Yes, of course. But there are very different implications for the relation/inseparability of emptiness and compassion depending on which way.

[tobes]

IMO the issue of discussion is just the indefinite term "inseparable".

Kind regards

But can we treat this term outside of the context in which it is being used?

Inseparability in this context is an inseparability between two things: emptiness and compassion.

Therefore, to understand what the term inseparability refers to, and what meanings it might have, one needs to understand what emptiness is, what compassion is, and what kind of relation ensues between them.

[ground]

IMO the issue of discussion is just the indefinite term "inseparable".

Kind regards

But can we treat this term outside of the context in which it is being used?

Inseparability in this context is an inseparability between two things: emptiness and compassion.

Therefore, to understand what the term inseparability refers to, and what meanings it might have, one needs to understand what emptiness is, what compassion is, and what kind of relation ensues between them.

Exactly, providing the context of terms is better than the mere babbling of "buzz words" that one has read or heard because the latter provokes the irrational reification of "the babbled".

Cause and effect are "inseparable". I think this is better expressed and then the discussion may focus on in what sense that what is called "cause" may be (but not necessarily is) the cause of what is called "effect".

And analyzing that one may find out that even the categorical statement of emptiness being the cause of compassion may be only true in certain contexts but not generally. And this then may entail the inference that the statement "emptiness and compassion are inseparable" even within this context actually is invalid without providing a further context (which may be an especially severe form of "ignorance" of the subject that requires some sort of "understanding" of emptiness in order to be able to be compassionate.).


Kind regards

[muni]

I'd still rather use the term "dependent origination" than "interdependence", not just for the fact that the former is an actual term used by the Buddha and Buddhist traditions, whereas the latter is not strictly found in all traditions. There is a difference, and it is an important one.

Was looking for the definitions of interdependence-dependent origination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interdependence

In order to understand Buddhist cosmology, we have to comprehend one of the key concepts of Buddhism, that of "interdependence". One of the aspects of that interdependence is the relationship between humanity's consciousness and the reality we perceive around us. According to Buddhism, all the proprieties that we attribute to the phenomenal world are not necessarily intrinsic to the object itself, but are conceived by our mind and filtered through our perceptions.
Be followed:
http://www.purifymind.com/InterdependenceBudd.htm

[gregkavarnos]

There's so much hair splitting happenin' on this thread, you'd be excused if you thought you'd stumbled into a hairdressers conference!

[norman]

Things are not empty because of their interdependence. Emptiness is not a quality.

The appearance (perceived) of any thing, is all it is, as an object. There is no other object. The dependence of things as being appearances is not their dependent origination, it is simply their appearance.

The reason for establishing the dependence of things, is for explaining their appearance, which is all they are, as objects. The object in itself is void (empty) of the concept of itself: the very voidness it is void of is its Dependent origination.

Their dependent origination is not their dependence, since it's not an object, it is their voidness as being the entities that we assume them to be.

Their voidness is not due to the fact that they are dependent, since their dependence is all that they have ever been as an appearance (which is how we know them).

[Josef]

There are lot of unnecessary elaborations going on here when one of the most famous sutra quotes of all time pretty clearly represents all the necessary information to answer the question.

"Form is emptiness, emptiness is form."

Interdependence/dependent origination is how we understand the appearance of forms etc. and since form is non other than emptiness.....
There is no need to draw complex philosophical distinctions when the teachings are quite clear.

[Malcolm]

There are lot of unnecessary elaborations going on here when one of the most famous sutra quotes of all time pretty clearly represents all the necessary information to answer the question.

"Form is emptiness, emptiness is form."

Interdependence/dependent origination is how we understand the appearance of forms etc. and since form is non other than emptiness.....
There is no need to draw complex philosophical distinctions when the teachings are quite clear.

Please revise your translation

"Matter is emptiness..."

The rūpa in question here is rūpaskandha i.e. "so too sensation, ideation, formations and consciousness".

And yes, whatever "arises together" (samutpāda) "in dependence" (pratītya) is empty.

[muni]

Things are not empty because of their interdependence. Emptiness is not a quality.

The appearance (perceived) of any thing, is all it is, as an object. There is no other object. The dependence of things as being appearances is not their dependent origination, it is simply their appearance.

The reason for establishing the dependence of things, is for explaining their appearance, which is all they are, as objects. The object in itself is void (empty) of the concept of itself: the very voidness it is void of is its Dependent origination.

Their dependent origination is not their dependence, since it's not an object, it is their voidness as being the entities that we assume them to be.

Their voidness is not due to the fact that they are dependent, since their dependence is all that they have ever been as an appearance (which is how we know them).

There are more than one way to see dependency, like as dependent on causes and conditions, depend on phenomenas' parts and even one part is as dependent relation. And then the dependence seen as things through language and conceptual thought. In this dependency, how can there be other than emptiness? As they have no independent nature, they are empty of inherence.

[Josef]

There are lot of unnecessary elaborations going on here when one of the most famous sutra quotes of all time pretty clearly represents all the necessary information to answer the question.

"Form is emptiness, emptiness is form."

Interdependence/dependent origination is how we understand the appearance of forms etc. and since form is non other than emptiness.....
There is no need to draw complex philosophical distinctions when the teachings are quite clear.

Please revise your translation

"Matter is emptiness..."

The rūpa in question here is rūpaskandha i.e. "so too sensation, ideation, formations and consciousness".


And yes, whatever "arises together" (samutpāda) "in dependence" (pratītya) is empty.

Consider my translation revised. That makes the sutra quote even more clear on the point.
thanks N.

[Malcolm]

There are lot of unnecessary elaborations going on here when one of the most famous sutra quotes of all time pretty clearly represents all the necessary information to answer the question.

"Form is emptiness, emptiness is form."

Interdependence/dependent origination is how we understand the appearance of forms etc. and since form is non other than emptiness.....
There is no need to draw complex philosophical distinctions when the teachings are quite clear.

Please revise your translation

"Matter is emptiness..."

The rūpa in question here is rūpaskandha i.e. "so too sensation, ideation, formations and consciousness".


And yes, whatever "arises together" (samutpāda) "in dependence" (pratītya) is empty.

Consider my translation revised. That makes the sutra quote even more clear on the point.
thanks N.

Actually, I am a little wrong,

it is really is "Matter is empty, emptiness is matter" that is the most precise rendering.

[Josef]

Its really much better.
"Matter" allows for the much more inclusive meaning you posted in this quote:
"The rūpa in question here is rūpaskandha i.e. "so too sensation, ideation, formations and consciousness"".

Making what is already an incredibly pithy quote much more encompassing.

[Malcolm]

Its really much better.
"Matter" allows for the much more inclusive meaning you posted in this quote:
"The rūpa in question here is rūpaskandha i.e. "so too sensation, ideation, formations and consciousness"".

Making what is already an incredibly pithy quote much more encompassing.

Yes, since the rūpaskandha includes all material five sense organs and all five sense objects i.e. everything made of the four elements.

[Rael]

in the end there is even the emptiness of the teaching of emptiness .........

Sunyata strips the the I, the ego , and all poisons like greed and hatred and anger and jealousy....

It's really the most beautiful philosophical view ....the Epitome of view....which eventually leads to experience....

[Sherab]

There are lot of unnecessary elaborations going on here when one of the most famous sutra quotes of all time pretty clearly represents all the necessary information to answer the question.

"Form is emptiness, emptiness is form."

Interdependence/dependent origination is how we understand the appearance of forms etc. and since form is non other than emptiness.....
There is no need to draw complex philosophical distinctions when the teachings are quite clear.

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?

[Malcolm]

Has anyone tried to understand what Norman was trying to say?

Yup.