emptiness simple

[Dana]

I have rarely seen such patience in real life as in this thread where lovely patience persists despite all efforts at refusal of logic and reason.

Many bows in your direction, Amelius.
Many would have lost it long ago in the face of such obstinance.
If we exerted as much effort at trying to really understand a thing as we do in refuting every idea that does not fit our 'known' ones, we'd get a lot smarter, a lot faster, imho.
There is a difference between testing the veracity of a thought and simply rejecting every new idea encountered.

[5heaps]

"the emptiness of the bases of imputation".

according to theory 1, physical matter becomes a name and operates as names do.
according to theory 2, physical matter operates as physical matter does but we learn that is does so dependently, not through its own selfinstituting power.

which is the meaning of emptiness?
that matter for example is devoid of being one class of object and is actually a different class of object?
or that matter itself (not the name matter) is devoid of not existing dependently?

i really wonder at how you can resolve this issue. is it even an issue? if all things are names, then all things should function as names do right? doesnt this lead to many problems?

[norman]

Through the teaching of the Gelugpa Lama Tarab Tulku I have experinced how what we perceive really is our own mental product, our mental projection, to such an extent that I realized that in reality music does not exist at all, art does not exist at all. They are really just mental projections of the experiencing consciousness, and of the collective human consciousness.

The argument is circular. Your "mental projections of the experiencing consciousness" are themselves mental projections of the experiencing consciousness.

Music, "reality", etc, are concepts (identites) integral in their perceiving.

[5heaps]

you still around Aemilius?
i found something which talks precisely about what we were discussing.
what do you think of this:

[goodie]

i found something which talks precisely about what we were discussing.
what do you think of this:

Nice explanation, but Geshe Roach says that when you are looking at a pot, you are looking at pot and shapes&color, but not at a pot. But isn't it usually in Gelug explained that we do see commonsense objects?
Btw, is there any difference between a pot and the pot?

[5heaps]

i found something which talks precisely about what we were discussing.
what do you think of this:

Nice explanation, but Geshe Roach says that when you are looking at a pot, you are looking at pot and shapes&color, but not at a. But isn't it usually in Gelug explained that we do see commonsense objects?

yes, but i think the main point is to really get a sense of what imputation means. the best way for that is to negate as much stuff as possible without becoming nihilistic -- relying on commonsense objects can sort of act as giant training wheels, for a long time.

Btw, is there any difference between a pot and the pot?

ive heard yes

[goodie]

i found something which talks precisely about what we were discussing.
what do you think of this:

Nice explanation, but Geshe Roach says that when you are looking at a pot, you are looking at pot and shapes&color, but not at a. But isn't it usually in Gelug explained that we do see commonsense objects?

yes, but i think the main point is to really get a sense of what imputation means.

If it is meant to illustrate all what imputation entails then it's good example, but in his explanation Geshe Roach goes further by basically saying that since there is no a pot, it is possible to impute anything on anything. He gives example that you can impute body of light on your ordinary body - but according to gelug (if I understand it correctly) body of flesh is really there and you can not validly just impute body of light on it because you choose to.

the best way for that is to negate as much stuff as possible without becoming nihilistic -- relying on commonsense objects can sort of act as giant training wheels, for a long time.

It seems to me that becoming nihilistic is quite unlikely. Since we are habituated since eons to see things as truly existent, is it really such a big and possible danger to fall into nihilism? It seems unlikely, but on the other hand masters wouldn't warn about it without reason... any thoughts?

[5heaps]

If it is meant to illustrate all what imputation entails then it's good example, but in his explanation Geshe Roach goes further by basically saying that since there is no a pot, it is possible to impute anything on anything.

on the other hand he says "there is a stick there, its purple". so hes not quite saying that anything goes on anything, is he.

at the same time i agree with what you said about body of light vs human body

It seems to me that becoming nihilistic is quite unlikely. Since we are habituated since eons to see things as truly existent, is it really such a big and possible danger to fall into nihilism?

it really is. imagine if someone heard what Geshe Michael said and then didnt go on to perform intense analysis for several years, didnt study over and over, didnt meditate to develop a sophisticated mind, etc -- we could easily go around thinking that things are just names, which to me is wrong and nihilistic.

[Aemilius]

[quote="5heaps"]you still around Aemilius?
i found something which talks precisely about what we were discussing.
what do you think of this:

Yeah, I'm back. Right now I don't have sound in this computer that I'm using. He, Geshe Roach, does look quite interesting when he is talking, or lecturing rather. I don't think there is much to add to the discussion, it all boils down to personal experience, I think, how you view and interpret your own experience.

[goodie]

If it is meant to illustrate all what imputation entails then it's good example, but in his explanation Geshe Roach goes further by basically saying that since there is no a pot, it is possible to impute anything on anything.

on the other hand he says "there is a stick there, its purple". so hes not quite saying that anything goes on anything, is he.

at the same time i agree with what you said about body of light vs human body

It seems to me that becoming nihilistic is quite unlikely. Since we are habituated since eons to see things as truly existent, is it really such a big and possible danger to fall into nihilism?

it really is. imagine if someone heard what Geshe Michael said and then didnt go on to perform intense analysis for several years, didnt study over and over, didnt meditate to develop a sophisticated mind, etc -- we could easily go around thinking that things are just names, which to me is wrong and nihilistic.

There are a lot of different reasoning proving the non inherent existence as taught by Prasangika. However, the only reasoning I know for proving what Geshe Roach is explaining (that we are really looking at mental image) is the one that what we see is too perfect to be actual object, i.e. we see the back of the object, or we see whole object although we can see only one part at once. And so that is how we know we are looking at mental image and not at an object. However, I would be very interested if anybody knows some other reasonings for this. Also reasoning that mental image is opaque and not semi transparent should be quite interesting

[muni]

Wind is effortless liberated in its' own nature.

By putting my feet in water, empty feet are wet of the empty water. By going in the water I just swim.

[Aemilius]

"the emptiness of the bases of imputation".

according to theory 1, physical matter becomes a name and operates as names do.
according to theory 2, physical matter operates as physical matter does but we learn that is does so dependently, not through its own selfinstituting power.

which is the meaning of emptiness?
that matter for example is devoid of being one class of object and is actually a different class of object?
or that matter itself (not the name matter) is devoid of not existing dependently?

i really wonder at how you can resolve this issue. is it even an issue? if all things are names, then all things should function as names do right? doesnt this lead to many problems?

I could say (freely quoting Dhammapada) that if you can control your mind you can also control the manifestations of mind, i. e. the outer world. Usually we cannot control our own mind, and then we think that there is an independent world out there beyond our control. What "matter" is depends on the level of your mind control, whether or not you have attained the dhyanas, etc...

[5heaps]

"the emptiness of the bases of imputation".

according to theory 1, physical matter becomes a name and operates as names do.
according to theory 2, physical matter operates as physical matter does but we learn that is does so dependently, not through its own selfinstituting power.

which is the meaning of emptiness?
that matter for example is devoid of being one class of object and is actually a different class of object?
or that matter itself (not the name matter) is devoid of not existing dependently?

i really wonder at how you can resolve this issue. is it even an issue? if all things are names, then all things should function as names do right? doesnt this lead to many problems?

I could say (freely quoting Dhammapada) that if you can control your mind you can also control the manifestations of mind, i. e. the outer world. Usually we cannot control our own mind, and then we think that there is an independent world out there beyond our control. What "matter" is depends on the level of your mind control, whether or not you have attained the dhyanas, etc...

bad example i think, since even those who accept a form of true existence (ie. mindonly, sautranika, vaibashika) have those types of attainments. even those who accept even coarser natures of reality (ie. pre-buddhist yogis) have those attainments.

furthermore someone who practices nicely can with mere shamata establish the seeds for their future nirvana and buddhahood, even if they lack dhyana attainments in this life.

[Aemilius]

i really wonder at how you can resolve this issue. is it even an issue? if all things are names, then all things should function as names do right? doesnt this lead to many problems?

I could say (freely quoting Dhammapada) that if you can control your mind you can also control the manifestations of mind, i. e. the outer world. Usually we cannot control our own mind, and then we think that there is an independent world out there beyond our control. What "matter" is depends on the level of your mind control, whether or not you have attained the dhyanas, etc...

bad example i think, since even those who accept a form of true existence (ie. mindonly, sautranika, vaibashika) have those types of attainments. even those who accept even coarser natures of reality (ie. pre-buddhist yogis) have those attainments.

furthermore someone who practices nicely can with mere shamata establish the seeds for their future nirvana and buddhahood, even if they lack dhyana attainments in this life.

I think it is an important example, Buddha himself based his teaching on His experience that was quite extensive. Likewise the central and important figures of buddhist history have meditated and gained personal experience. Which they have then expressed in various ways. The difficulties start with followers who have only intellectual understanding and interpretations without personal experience. Thus the Doctrine gradually gets distorted, because of the lack of actual experience in dhyana, samadhi, and prajna that is based on dhyana and samadhi.
If you understand, be it only intellectually, the four dhyanas and the eight liberations (vimoksha), you will understand that the person's experience of the outer world changes radically through those attainments, even the attainment of the mundane dhyanas will change your outlook on the world permanently ( at least for this life).
Buddha himself has warned about the dangers that result from the merely intellectual understanding of his teachings, that is if the person has not attained tha states of dhyana and samadhi. In His last teaching tour, before entering Parinirvana, He emphasized that "great becomes the result of wisdom if it is based on samadhi and great becomes the result of samadhi if it is based on morality."

[5heaps]

Buddha himself has warned about the dangers that result from the merely intellectual understanding of his teachings, that is if the person has not attained tha states of dhyana and samadhi. In His last teaching tour, before entering Parinirvana, He emphasized that "great becomes the result of wisdom if it is based on samadhi and great becomes the result of samadhi if it is based on morality."

particularly shamata and 1st jhana are quite easy to achieve. compared to emptiness though they are utterly meaningless.

then we need to be able to distinguish between merely thinking about emptiness and realizing emptiness validly using the intellect. almost noone realizes it using the intellect because we are too confused when attempting to think of it -- the key is persistence.