emptiness = interdependence?

[Heruka]

The famous sutra quote looks deceptively simple to understand, which is precisely why I not that sure that it is that simple to understand.

study nagajuna in this regard, understand the forMULA.

once you get it,

no one gonna get you twisted again.

i mean really suck it up........there is no conflict in sutra, in tantra, in mahamudra or dzokchen....

[Sherab]

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

Yup.

Please explain what you think Norman was trying to say. Thanks.

[ground]

"emptiness = interdependence" meaning "emptiness is the same as interdependence" is true in that neither can be directly perceived and both are mere thoughts.
However it obviously is not true as far as the meaning of each is concerned. If the meaning were identical then there would not be two different terms.

Kind regards

[muni]

[

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

Maybe he said how things appaer/are experienced and his pointing: *how they really are*. Then to say their emptiness is not due to interdependence is okay, still the interdependence as relative tool speaks for itself.
yes, they are not empty "due to". Just their nature.

[gregkavarnos]

Emptiness = Interdependence like heat = (the process of) burning

[Rael]

the word empty is really being analysed far too much.

it's the same with suchness....
i had an open discussion with The Tulku that it did not make sense the way it is used....

there was an English teacher in the group who understood the concern...

M y take on the discussion was; all in all it is the best they came up in order to point to something for us English to work with...
"they "as in the first translators of Buddhist doctrine into English...

Western thinking wants language to be succinct. Even a metaphor is succinct....

now Buddhist concepts using emptiness and suchness...wowza....drop succinct and discuss...

no better still practice and study and practice and study...

i think without practice these concepts are never realized.... intellectuality it just doesn't cut it...

i may be wrong Some might be able to "get it" but i came to my understanding over a few years of study and practice....i finally saw it...

i recall the Gakki and Nichiren Shoshu priests trying to explain co arising and inter dependent ..i think they had the indo Japanese word Ku Ke chu ...meh i forget.......20 years anyway and until i had a Tantric teacher....it never hit home with the beauty of the philosophy of it all...

sunyata....


here let this play in the background....1;33 and it sings of sunyata....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsBjA6CO1jU

[Malcolm]

Please explain what you think Norman was trying to say. Thanks.

I said I tried... when I parsed it, I came up with contradictions. Better to let norman reinterpret for us.

[Sherab]

Please explain what you think Norman was trying to say. Thanks.

I said I tried... when I parsed it, I came up with contradictions. Better to let norman reinterpret for us.

What are the contradictions that you discovered?

[Malcolm]

Please explain what you think Norman was trying to say. Thanks.

I said I tried... when I parsed it, I came up with contradictions. Better to let norman reinterpret for us.

What are the contradictions that you discovered?

"Emptiness is not a quality or a nature of things"

This is the main one.

[Sherab]

"Emptiness is not a quality or a nature of things"
This is the main one.

I am not too sure about that.

Things ultimately have no nature. Emptiness itself is also empty. So how can emptiness be a nature or quality of things in the ultimate sense.

Conventionally, things have nature. So if emptiness is the nature of things, it must be in the conventional sense. But to say emptiness is the conventional nature of things also does not make much sense to me. It would be like saying water is (conventionally) wet and empty at the same time. "Wet and empty" makes no sense to me.

[Malcolm]

"Emptiness is not a quality or a nature of things"
This is the main one.

I am not too sure about that.

Things ultimately have no nature. Emptiness itself is also empty. So how can emptiness be a nature or quality of things in the ultimate sense.

Conventionally, things have nature. So if emptiness is the nature of things, it must be in the conventional sense. But to say emptiness is the conventional nature of things also does not make much sense to me. It would be like saying water is (conventionally) wet and empty at the same time. "Wet and empty" makes no sense to me.

Emptiness is the ultimate nature of things. That is why it is called ultimate truth.

Candrakirti said, all things possess two natures, one relative, one ultimate.

Incidentally, emptiness is termed "the natureless nature".

[Will]

Also seen are a few "the nature which is natureless".

[Sherab]

Incidentally, emptiness is termed "the natureless nature".

Is "natureless nature" different from "no nature" in terms of meaning. If so, what is the difference in meaning?

[ground]

Emptiness is the ultimate nature of things. That is why it is called ultimate truth.

Actually this means the "ultimate nature of all things" is a mere thought. I think that's the point if one harbors the thought "ultimate nature of all things".

Kind regards

[Josef]

Emptiness is the ultimate nature of things. That is why it is called ultimate truth.

Actually this means the "ultimate nature of all things" is a mere thought. I think that's the point if one harbors the thought "ultimate nature of all things".

Kind regards

Asserting a view or holding a view doesn't change the nature of things.
Whether or not the view or assertion is a "mere thought" doesn't make any difference when we get down to business.

[Malcolm]

Emptiness is the ultimate nature of things. That is why it is called ultimate truth.

Actually this means the "ultimate nature of all things" is a mere thought. I think that's the point if one harbors the thought "ultimate nature of all things".

Kind regards

Well, no -- actually Candarkirti defines a truth as an _object_ of a cognition. Depending upon whether that cognition is deluded or undeluded, the object in question is either an ultimate truth or a relative truth.

The thought "things are empty is just an enumerated ultimate, a conceptual ultimate. This must be distingushed from the non-enumerated ultimate truth that is a veridical cognition of the object, the ultimate nature of a given thing, i.e. its emptiness.

[Josef]

Conventionally, things have nature. So if emptiness is the nature of things, it must be in the conventional sense. But to say emptiness is the conventional nature of things also does not make much sense to me. It would be like saying water is (conventionally) wet and empty at the same time. "Wet and empty" makes no sense to me.

Things appear conventionally because of dependent origination and the conditioned/karmic/dualistic vision of sentient beings. In the ultimate sense they are empty i.e., nature-less nature.

[ground]

Emptiness is the ultimate nature of things. That is why it is called ultimate truth.

Actually this means the "ultimate nature of all things" is a mere thought. I think that's the point if one harbors the thought "ultimate nature of all things".

Kind regards

Well, no -- actually Candarkirti defines a truth as an _object_ of a cognition.

Well, yes ... however one may share his view or not.

I have just picked this sentence out of the context with which you might have referred to Candrakirti's view exclusively (without wanting to assert that yourself).


Kind regards

[Sherab]

Emptiness is the ultimate nature of things. That is why it is called ultimate truth.

Actually this means the "ultimate nature of all things" is a mere thought. I think that's the point if one harbors the thought "ultimate nature of all things".

Kind regards

"Ultimate nature of all things" has two aspects: as a mere thought and as a pointer to the meaning. It is the latter that is important in communication whereas the former is relevant only if you cling to the words without understanding what the words meant.

[ground]

Emptiness is the ultimate nature of things. That is why it is called ultimate truth.

Actually this means the "ultimate nature of all things" is a mere thought. I think that's the point if one harbors the thought "ultimate nature of all things".

Kind regards

"Ultimate nature of all things" has two aspects: as a mere thought and as a pointer to the meaning. It is the latter that is important in communication whereas the former is relevant only if you cling to the words without understanding what the words meant.

Ah ... "a pointer to the meaning". Like e.g. "horn of a hare" which is a mere thought and points to the meaning. So in case of "horn of a hare" it is the latter that is important in communication whereas the former is relevant only if one clings to the words without understanding what the words meant. Right?

Kind regards