Challenge23 wrote:Also, please note that defining Enlightenment in the negative isn't really effective, so saying Enlightenment is not X, Y, or Z doesn't say what it is.
We have to know that it is not the intention of prajnaparamitha sutta for example, not to express thing in the positive or affirmative way. But, it is because you cannot define the thing at all.
When you define something in the positive way, it give rise a sense of self. If you can define something, you are having self that you can define.
But, reality has no self. HOw do you want to define something which is not there?
You can define something as such or such or such or such. But, no matter how many ways you define, none of them will be true.
That is why Prajnaparamitha sutta teach us everything in the negative way. TO wake us up, please stop please stop wondering how to define this.
It is not because we don't want to define this reality in the positive way, but it is because we simply cannot define it. Just because there is no self in all appearances of dependent origination.
THere is nothing for you to define.
THere is also no such thing as there is something which is undefineable.
It is because you have nothing, that is why you cannot define that.
People confuse because when we say there is nothing, for them it is completely non-existence.
They cannot know inside the appearance of dependent origination, you actually cannot find anything.
That is the consequence of dependent origination.
Nothing there, but appearances are there. Appearances are there, but you cannot define it, because in dependent orignation, you cannot have the self (entity) for you to define.