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 Heruka » Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:15 am

Sherab 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.


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....
Heruka
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 2:34 am

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Sherab » Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:07 am

Namdrol wrote:
Sherab wrote:
Nangwa wrote:Has anyone tried to understand what Norman was trying to say?

Yup.

Please explain what you think Norman was trying to say. Thanks.
User avatar
Sherab
 
Posts: 695
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby ground » Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:25 am

"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
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby muni » Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:40 am

Sherab wrote:[

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.
Last edited by muni on Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
muni
 
Posts: 2734
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:55 am

Emptiness = Interdependence like heat = (the process of) burning
: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: 7873
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Rael » Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:49 pm

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 :quoteunquote: Buddhist concepts :quoteunquote: 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
Love Love Love
User avatar
Rael
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:36 pm

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Malcolm » Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:04 pm

Sherab wrote: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.
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: 10152
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Sherab » Thu Mar 31, 2011 12:25 am

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

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Malcolm » Thu Mar 31, 2011 12:42 am

Sherab wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
Sherab wrote: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.
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: 10152
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Sherab » Thu Mar 31, 2011 12:52 am

Namdrol wrote:"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.
User avatar
Sherab
 
Posts: 695
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Malcolm » Thu Mar 31, 2011 1:06 am

Sherab wrote:
Namdrol wrote:"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".
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: 10152
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Will » Thu Mar 31, 2011 1:17 am

Also seen are a few "the nature which is natureless".
Revealing one essence: this means the inherently pure, complete, luminous essence, which is pure of its own nature. -- Fa-tsang
User avatar
Will
 
Posts: 1728
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:21 am

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Sherab » Thu Mar 31, 2011 3:30 am

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

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby ground » Thu Mar 31, 2011 3:35 am

Namdrol wrote: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
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Josef » Thu Mar 31, 2011 3:55 am

TMingyur wrote:
Namdrol wrote: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.
Josef
 
Posts: 1565
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Malcolm » Thu Mar 31, 2011 3:58 am

TMingyur wrote:
Namdrol wrote: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.
Last edited by Malcolm on Thu Mar 31, 2011 4:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
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: 10152
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Josef » Thu Mar 31, 2011 4:00 am

Sherab wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
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.
Josef
 
Posts: 1565
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby ground » Thu Mar 31, 2011 4:18 am

Namdrol wrote:
TMingyur wrote:
Namdrol wrote: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
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Sherab » Thu Mar 31, 2011 4:41 am

TMingyur wrote:
Namdrol wrote: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.
User avatar
Sherab
 
Posts: 695
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby ground » Thu Mar 31, 2011 4:47 am

Sherab wrote:
TMingyur wrote:
Namdrol wrote: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
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: smcj, yorkieman and 13 guests

>