emptiness simple

[Aemilius]

There is no identity that is separate from the thing itself. Confused we think there are two cars, the identity car and another thing/not-yet-car, whose identity the first car is. But there is only one thing, the identity itself, there is nothing corresponding to it, there is no second car. Same with regard to a person.

[Dexing]

There is no identity that is separate from the thing itself. Confused we think there are two cars, the identity car and another thing/not-yet-car, whose identity the first car is. But there is only one thing, the identity itself, there is nothing corresponding to it, there is no second car. Same with regard to a person.

So what is the first car, or first person, actually?

Shurangama Sutra, Chapter 2:

"The Buddha told Manjushri and the great assembly, 'To the Tathagatas and the great Bodhisattvas of the ten directions, who dwell in this Samadhi, seeing and the conditions of seeing, as well as thoughts regarding seeing, are like flowers in space--fundamentally non-existent. This seeing and its conditions are originally the wonderful pure bright substance of Bodhi. How could one inquire into its existence or non-existence? Manjushri, I now ask you: Could there be another Manjushri besides you? Or would that Manjushri not be you?'

'No, Bhagavan: I would be the real Manjushri. There couldn't be any other Manjushri. Why not? If there were another one, there would be two Manjushris. But as it is now, I could not be that non-existent Manjushri. Actually, neither of the two concepts 'existent'or 'non-existent' applies.'

The Buddha said, 'That is how the basic substance of wonderful Bodhi is in terms of emptiness and mundane objects. They are basically misnomers for the wonderful brightness of unsurpassed Bodhi, the pure, perfect, true mind. Our misconception turns them into form and emptiness, as well as hearing and seeing.

They are like the second moon: does that moon exist or not? Manjushri, there is only one true moon. That leaves no room for questioning its existence or non-existence. Therefore, your current contemplating of the seeing and the mundane objects and the many observations that entails are all false thoughts. You cannot transcend existence and non-existence while caught up in them. Only the true essence, the wonderful enlightened bright nature is beyond pointing out or not pointing out.'"

The one true moon, car, person, etc. are all misnomers for the "wonderful brightness of unsurpassed Bodhi".

The first car, person, you are speaking about correspond also to that second moon. "Like flowers in space--fundamentally non-existent", yet therefore "actually neither of the two concepts 'existent' or 'non-existent' applies".

[White Lotus]

Only the true essence, the wonderful enlightened bright nature is beyond pointing out or not pointing out.'"

everyone has this true essence, infact all things are this true essence. when you look within, the sensation is the same as when you look around you. all have this essence, they just dont see it.

the essence of the computer as you look upon it is no different from the essence within you when you look within. all things are this one true essence. yet people say that because this essence needs to be perceived that there are enlightened and unenlightened... but in all cases the essence is always there. some see it as emptiness, others break through the emptiness and see it as Mind.

actually all beings see this essence, but they just dont realize that they are always seeing it, it is so mundane and ordinary that they miss it. this is the Mind, the true nature, the buddha nature. not only sentient beings have it, but everything 'is' it.

perceiving emptiness the dog has no buddha nature, nor does anyone or anything. only emptiness is perceived... in this state there is not a thing at all. piercing through emptiness, to the fundamental mind, all things are the fundamental nature of Mind. the issue of emptiness is not simple, it is a function of mind.

best wishes, White Lotus.

[Aemilius]

There is no identity that is separate from the thing itself. Confused we think there are two cars, the identity car and another thing/not-yet-car, whose identity the first car is. But there is only one thing, the identity itself, there is nothing corresponding to it, there is no second car. Same with regard to a person.

So what is the first car, or first person, actually?

Shurangama Sutra, Chapter 2:

"The Buddha told Manjushri and the great assembly, 'To the Tathagatas and the great Bodhisattvas of the ten directions, who dwell in this Samadhi, seeing and the conditions of seeing, as well as thoughts regarding seeing, are like flowers in space--fundamentally non-existent. This seeing and its conditions are originally the wonderful pure bright substance of Bodhi. How could one inquire into its existence or non-existence? Manjushri, I now ask you: Could there be another Manjushri besides you? Or would that Manjushri not be you?'

'No, Bhagavan: I would be the real Manjushri. There couldn't be any other Manjushri. Why not? If there were another one, there would be two Manjushris. But as it is now, I could not be that non-existent Manjushri. Actually, neither of the two concepts 'existent'or 'non-existent' applies.'

The Buddha said, 'That is how the basic substance of wonderful Bodhi is in terms of emptiness and mundane objects. They are basically misnomers for the wonderful brightness of unsurpassed Bodhi, the pure, perfect, true mind. Our misconception turns them into form and emptiness, as well as hearing and seeing.

They are like the second moon: does that moon exist or not? Manjushri, there is only one true moon. That leaves no room for questioning its existence or non-existence. Therefore, your current contemplating of the seeing and the mundane objects and the many observations that entails are all false thoughts. You cannot transcend existence and non-existence while caught up in them. Only the true essence, the wonderful enlightened bright nature is beyond pointing out or not pointing out.'"

The one true moon, car, person, etc. are all misnomers for the "wonderful brightness of unsurpassed Bodhi".

The first car, person, you are speaking about correspond also to that second moon. "Like flowers in space--fundamentally non-existent", yet therefore "actually neither of the two concepts 'existent' or 'non-existent' applies".

The first car/person is designation only.

[norman]

There is no identity that is separate from the thing itself. Confused we think there are two cars, the identity car and another thing/not-yet-car, whose identity the first car is. But there is only one thing, the identity itself, there is nothing corresponding to it, there is no second car. Same with regard to a person.

The first car/person is designation only.

So in your regard, there's essentially no difference between thinking about a car, and looking at a car?
If there's "no identity that is separate from the thing itself", how can you have an identity in the first place, since there is none to have it? The mere notion of there being no identity that is separate from the thing itself assumes two separate objects in mind, namely the identity, and the thing itself -- assumed to be not separate. No?

[Aemilius]

For the first question: There are six senses through which you have six different peceptions of a car, including the mental perception. You have a visual perseption, sound perception, smell perception and so on... till mental perception of an image of a car or a thought of a car. They are all distinct and different. You have a car identity through sound, a car identity through smell, taste(?), touch, and thinking, -besides seeing ofcourse. Do we now have six identities ? At least we have six different perceptions, whose objectual content is different in each case.

For the second point: It refers to an experience of realizing that habitually we add some "thing" behind each name, each identity. When we cease doing it there is nothing extra anymore! See?

So in your regard, there's essentially no difference between thinking about a car, and looking at a car?
If there's "no identity that is separate from the thing itself", how can you have an identity in the first place, since there is none to have it? The mere notion of there being no identity that is separate from the thing itself assumes two separate objects in mind, namely the identity, and the thing itself -- assumed to be not separate. No?

[swampflower]

Ha, Ha - truly there is no "thing" to have an identity. So what is this "identity".

However, this sounds like name and form. Name and form support each other. There can be no name without form and no form without name. So how does this identity exist alone?

[Aemilius]

Ha, Ha - truly there is no "thing" to have an identity. So what is this "identity".

However, this sounds like name and form. Name and form support each other. There can be no name without form and no form without name. So how does this identity exist alone?

It exists by imputation, you project an object and then you perceive it, or like you produce a dream and then you experience the dream.

[catmoon]

Ha, Ha - truly there is no "thing" to have an identity. So what is this "identity".

However, this sounds like name and form. Name and form support each other. There can be no name without form and no form without name. So how does this identity exist alone?

Ho ho, Swampie strikes again!

I find it helpful to visualize the "I" as a label badly applied. Like a kangaroo with a license plate tied to it's tail. The license plate has little if any relevance to the actual kangaroo and is a positive nuisance besides.

However, the name and form stuff raised an eyebrow here. We seem to be quite good at creating labels that have no referents. And certainly not every form has been named, or each dust mote would have a name. So I'm not sure what this means, although I have some suspicions. Care to clarify?

ps come to think of it, the first line quoted above shows an example of a name that has no associated form.

[Aemilius]

Ha, Ha - truly there is no "thing" to have an identity. So what is this "identity".

However, this sounds like name and form. Name and form support each other. There can be no name without form and no form without name. So how does this identity exist alone?

Ho ho, Swampie strikes again!

I find it helpful to visualize the "I" as a label badly applied. Like a kangaroo with a license plate tied to it's tail. The license plate has little if any relevance to the actual kangaroo and is a positive nuisance besides.

However, the name and form stuff raised an eyebrow here. We seem to be quite good at creating labels that have no referents. And certainly not every form has been named, or each dust mote would have a name. So I'm not sure what this means, although I have some suspicions. Care to clarify?

ps come to think of it, the first line quoted above shows an example of a name that has no associated form.

Form is also an imputation, a designation, and is thus similar to name, this is the meaning we are getting at.

[5heaps]

Form is also an imputation, a designation, and is thus similar to name, this is the meaning we are getting at.

form is the designation of form? then, if designations are internal, form is internal.

[Aemilius]

Form is also an imputation, a designation, and is thus similar to name, this is the meaning we are getting at.

form is the designation of form? then, if designations are internal, form is internal.

No, it means that "form" is a word, it is a name!

[5heaps]

No, it means that "form" is a word, it is a name!

so any time you have the word you have the object

[Aemilius]

No, it means that "form" is a word, it is a name!

so any time you have the word you have the object

Saying that "form" is a word does not imply what you suggest.

[5heaps]

No, it means that "form" is a word, it is a name!

so any time you have the word you have the object

Saying that "form" is a word does not imply what you suggest.

how could it not?

[Aemilius]

how could it not?

That is not an interesting question, there is no basis for discussion in it. "Man is a word" does not imply that trolls exist because "troll" is also word, it is an idiotic statement.
There is ample room for discussion in "what is form?" however. There is a field of psychology that has studied it at length, and it is large topic in the buddhist abhidharma too.
In front of you there is something truly vast (the universe). How does it happen that you isolate from this vastness an area that you decide to be a form that is then given a name "tree" for example, or the name "leaf", and so on.. ? How did "tree" and "leaf" stand out in the great vastness to become isolated areas that were then thus named ?
Form is also called "gestalt" in psychology, are you familiar with it ?

[5heaps]

In front of you there is something truly vast (the universe). How does it happen that you isolate from this vastness an area that you decide to be a form that is then given a name "tree" for example, or the name "leaf", and so on.. ? How did "tree" and "leaf" stand out in the great vastness to become isolated areas that were then thus named ?

thats one of the central topics of study in buddhism.

but vaibhashika is quite meaningless to study in this respect since it only accepts self-sufficiently knowable objects and not imputedly-knowable ones. for that one needs to rely on Dharmakirti for apoha and sautrantika's ideas of imputation and selflessness, which the higher schools accept.

The Distinction between Self-sufficiently Knowable and Imputedly Knowable Phenomena

Form is also called "gestalt" in psychology, are you familiar with it ?

zzzzz

"Man is a word" does not imply that trolls exist because "troll" is also word, it is an idiotic statement.

if things are words then not only do trolls necessarily exists since "troll" exists, but a man can become a troll as soon as you just use "troll" instead of "man".

as Jeffrey Hopkins says, when Shakespeare said a rose by any other name would still be a rose, he did not mean, a rose by any other name would still be called rose.

[catmoon]

It may help at this point to meditate upon the following scenario: A stranger appears at your door with box. He leaves the box at your feet and leaves.

Now before you open the box, what is the relationship between the thing in the box and mental labels?

[5heaps]

It may help at this point to meditate upon the following scenario: A stranger appears at your door with box. He leaves the box at your feet and leaves.

why? is it not more realistic to consider something more practical and accessible, such as things apprehended through valid cognition?

[catmoon]

It may help at this point to meditate upon the following scenario: A stranger appears at your door with box. He leaves the box at your feet and leaves.

why? is it not more realistic to consider something more practical and accessible, such as things apprehended through valid cognition?

At this point I do not think so. However, I would agree that that the meditation I have suggested is probably not worth more than a session or two, and should not be permitted to derail other, more standard work. Ideally, contemplating the mystery box would lead directly back to emptiness, with a little added insight.

Don't read too much into my suggestion, it's just something that popped up and seemed like a really good idea.