Emptiness and the two truths

Whether you're exploring Buddhism for the first time or you're already on the path, feel free to ask questions of any kind here.

Re: Emptiness and the two truths

Postby asunthatneversets » Sat Oct 19, 2013 5:40 am

jeeprs wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote:A truly existent thing is unintelligible. Doesn't even make sense, and so non-existence doesn't make sense either. This is freedom from eternalism and nihilism.


I'm almost on board with you. No individual thing is truly existent - it doesn't exist in and of itself. But it doesn't therefore follow that nothing is real. But 'what is real' is also beyond designation as this or that thing.

Nirvana, in the positive sense, I understand as waking up to reality, seeing the way things truly are. But in addition to the negative descriptions of Nirvana, there are also positive descriptions. That is why I am interested in studying 'In Praise of Dharmadhatu'. You might say that is not 'the same Nagarjuna', but according to the chapter I have been reading it is ascribed to Nagarjuna. In that, the Dharmadhatu is described in positive terms . Brunnholzl notes in his commentary, that there are quite a few expressions in such texts which are at variance with what the strictly Madhyamika interpretation is supposed to be.

Where are the negative descriptions of Nirvana though? I don't see this apparent dichotomy of the negative a positive... again, it's only 'negative' if we are trying to establish inherency somewhere. There is no inherency, if there were, there would be no movement, no fluctuation, no growth, no dynamism, nothing at all.

jeeprs wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote:But a svabhāva is by definition unconditioned, not dependent on other entities, and not caused. Thus the existence of a svabhāva is impossible.


The way I interpret this is that, 'existence' is phenomenal realm, the manifest realm, the realm of existing things, you and I, self and other. Svabhāva, as it says, is not in this realm, being unconditioned. There is not also some other realm 'over there', because ultimately there is only one reality, but from the point of view of 'the wayfarer', they are different realms.

But I don't think I have any issue with any of those texts you have quoted.


No, no... there is no manifest realm of 'existent things' and then some other realm (you clarified that this isn't what you meant though so nevermind). That isn't what this is saying at all. Svabhāva, means something which exists inherently on its own, completely free from causes and conditions. Nāgārjuna is saying such a thing is impossible. There are no conditioned things, and therefore there's nothing which is unconditioned.
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Emptiness and the two truths

Postby Wayfarer » Sat Oct 19, 2013 5:53 am

OK here's a question.

Is anything real?

That quotation you provided above says:

This transitory world is merely conventional dissimulation,
which the authentic reality has no relationship to

What is 'authentic reality'? Is that self-existent?

Look at the Aspiration Prayer of Mahamudra:'

It is not existent--even the Victorious Ones do not see it.
It is not nonexistent--it is the basis of all samsara and nirvana.


Ergo, beyond existence/non-existence. But real.

Have to go out, chat later.
Learn to do good, refrain from evil, purify the mind ~ this is the teaching of the Buddhas
User avatar
Wayfarer
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Emptiness and the two truths

Postby hop.pala » Sat Oct 19, 2013 6:23 am

jeeprs wrote:OK here's a question.

Is anything real?

That quotation you provided above says:

This transitory world is merely conventional dissimulation,
which the authentic reality has no relationship to

What is 'authentic reality'? Is that self-existent?

Look at the Aspiration Prayer of Mahamudra:'

It is not existent--even the Victorious Ones do not see it.
It is not nonexistent--it is the basis of all samsara and nirvana.


Maybe so: exist as you see it(conventional),not exist because dependent arising,but this is dualistic thinking(concept) so with the authentic reality no relationship(first quote),the second quote is the nondualistic thinking.(beyond concept)
hop.pala
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 3:48 am

Re: Emptiness and the two truths

Postby xabir » Sat Oct 19, 2013 7:38 am

jeeprs wrote:Suffice to say, it is very easy for Madhyamika to tend towards nihilism or to support nihilistic interpretations. I think the teaching of 'emptiness' is easily misrepresented as a kind of intellectual formula. I understand it in terms of paravritti, transformation of consciousness.
Yes there is often that possibility that the person turns nihilistic or remain intellectual. At the same time, the correct understanding and application of the teaching of emptiness does lead to a non-nihilistic transformation of consciousness that releases one's clinging and reifications. As a friend/mentor of mine wrote:

In ignorance, there is hearer hearing sound.
In anatta, in hearing, only sound.
Yet sound has no true inherent nature (empty),
It is an activity and is that very activity called “hearing”.
Both “hearing and sound” are pointing to the same activity.
Only when seen to have true existence on either side does confusion arise.

In Madhyamaka Emptiness, reification is seen through.
Yet the experiential state of freedom from reification is not expounded.
However one can have a taste of that freedom from arising insight of anatta since anatta is precisely the freedom from reification of Self/self (First fold Emptiness).
In anatta, seeing is simply the full scenery, in hearing only sound…
thus, always only lights, shape, colors, sounds, scents… in clean purity.
Emptying the object further (second fold) is merely dissolving subtle bond of “externality” that creates the appearance of true existence of objects outside. When “externality” is deconstructed, it is effectively a double confirmation of anatta…
…innerly coreless and outwardly empty, all appearances are still simply sound, lights, colors and rays
In thorough deconstruction, as there is no layer that reifies, there is no conceptuality. Therefore no complication, no confusion, no stains, no boundaries, no center, no sense of dual..
no sense of activity…just self arising.
All collapse into a single sphere of natural presence and spontaneous simplicity.
Whatever appears is
neither here nor now,
Neither in nor out,
Neither arises nor ceases,
In the same space…
non-local, timeless and dimensionless
Simply present…

To Jax:
The place where there is no earth, fire, wind, space, water…
is the place where the earth, fire, wind, space and water kills “You” and fully shines as its own radiance, a complete taste of itself and fully itself.

Lastly, it is interesting to get know something about Dzogchen however the jargons and tenets are far beyond me.
Just wrote due to a sudden spurt of interest, nothing intense.
Thanks for all the sharing and exchanges.
Gone!
xabir
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:14 pm

Re: Emptiness and the two truths

Postby xabir » Sat Oct 19, 2013 7:46 am

jeeprs wrote:Contrast that with the udanna which says:

There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned.


"Nibbāna Sutta: Unbinding (3)" (Ud 8.3),

I take it that this 'unborn' is not something which is permanent, in the sense of existing continuously, in the way that 'the barren mountain peak' is conceived. It is not, properly, an object of thought or perception. But it is also not something non-existent. And I think that is because, what is 'eternal' is a different idea to 'something that exists by itself forever'.

Is that how you understand it?
In Mahayana emptiness, not born is simply the non-arising of all phenomena. In Pali suttas, not born is as Malcolm puts it: “When you have eradicated all afflictions which cause rebirth, this is all the deathlessness you need. No more birth, BAM! no more death.”

I have said earlier (please just replace 'unconditioned' here with 'unborn'),

The not-conditioned in the Pali canon simply means the cessation of afflictions.

Jnana wrote: "“Firstly, while the translation of asaṃskṛta as “the unconditioned” is fairly common, it’s a rather poor translation that all too easily leads to reification. The term asaṃskṛta refers to a negation of conditioned factors, and the meaning is better conveyed by “not-conditioned.” Secondly, for Sautrāntika commentators, and many mahāyānika commentators as well, an analytical cessation (pratisaṃkhyānirodha) is a non-implicative negation (prasajyapratiṣedha), i.e. a negation that doesn’t imply the presence of some other entity, and therefore nirvāṇa simply refers to a cessation that terminates the defilements and fetters that are abandoned by the correct practice of the noble path. It doesn’t refer to an entity or state that is substantially existent (dravyasat).”"

and Buddha clearly explains the not-conditioned/not-fabricated (asakhata) is referring to simply the ending of afflictions:


SN 43 Asaṅkhata Saṃyutta (1-44 combined & abridged):
And what, monks, is the not-fabricated (asaṅkhata)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the not-fabricated.

And what, monks, is the not-inclined (anata)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the not-inclined.

And what, monks, is the outflowless (anāsava)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the outflowless.

And what, monks, is the truth (sacca)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the truth.

And what, monks, is the farther shore (pāra)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the farther shore.

And what, monks, is the subtle (nipuṇa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the subtle.

And what, monks, is the very hard to see (sududdasa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the very hard to see.

And what, monks, is the unaging (ajajjara)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the unaging.

And what, monks, is the stable (dhuva)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the stable.

And what, monks, is the undisintegrating (apalokita)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the undisintegrating.

And what, monks, is the non-indicative (anidassana)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the non-indicative.

And what, monks, is the unproliferated (nippapañca)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the unproliferated.

And what, monks, is the peaceful (santa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the peaceful.

And what, monks, is the death-free (amata)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the death-free.

And what, monks, is the sublime (paṇīta)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the sublime.

And what, monks, is the auspicious (siva)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the auspicious.

And what, monks, is the secure (khema)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the secure.

And what, monks, is the elimination of craving (taṇhākkhaya)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the elimination of craving.

And what, monks, is the wonderful (acchariya)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the wonderful.

And what, monks, is the amazing (abbhuta)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the amazing.

And what, monks, is the calamity-free (anītika)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the calamity-free.

And what, monks, is the dhamma free of calamity (anītikadhamma)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the dhamma free of calamity.

And what, monks, is extinguishment (nibbāna)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called extinguishment.

And what, monks, is the unafflicted (abyāpajjha)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the unafflicted.

And what, monks, is dispassion (virāga)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called dispassion.

And what, monks, is purity (suddhi)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called purity.

And what, monks, is freedom (mutti)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called freedom.

And what, monks, is the unadhesive (anālaya)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the unadhesive.

And what, monks, is the island (dīpa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the island.

And what, monks, is the cave (leṇa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the cave.

And what, monks, is the shelter (tāṇa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the shelter.

And what, monks, is the refuge (saraṇa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the refuge.

And what, monks, is the destination (parāyana)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the destination.
xabir
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:14 pm

Re: Emptiness and the two truths

Postby xabir » Sat Oct 19, 2013 7:56 am

jeeprs wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote:A truly existent thing is unintelligible. Doesn't even make sense, and so non-existence doesn't make sense either. This is freedom from eternalism and nihilism.


I'm almost on board with you. No individual thing is truly existent - it doesn't exist in and of itself. But it doesn't therefore follow that nothing is real. But 'what is real' is also beyond designation as this or that thing.

Nirvana, in the positive sense, I understand as waking up to reality, seeing the way things truly are. But in addition to the negative descriptions of Nirvana, there are also positive descriptions. That is why I am interested in studying 'In Praise of Dharmadhatu'. You might say that is not 'the same Nagarjuna', but according to the chapter I have been reading it is ascribed to Nagarjuna. In that, the Dharmadhatu is described in positive terms . Brunnholzl notes in his commentary, that there are quite a few expressions in such texts which are at variance with what the strictly Madhyamika interpretation is supposed to be.

But a svabhāva is by definition unconditioned, not dependent on other entities, and not caused. Thus the existence of a svabhāva is impossible.


The way I interpret this is that, 'existence' is phenomenal realm, the manifest realm, the realm of existing things, you and I, self and other. Svabhāva, as it says, is not in this realm, being unconditioned. There is not also some other realm 'over there', because ultimately there is only one reality, but from the point of view of 'the wayfarer', they are different realms.

But I don't think I have any issue with any of those texts you have quoted.
There is this brilliant clarity that is the essence of mind, or mental activity, or experience. There is often a tendency to subjectify brilliant clarity into a Self, a Knower, but that too can be seen through. All experience is radiant, cognizant, vivid, lucid, alive, crystal clear. This knowingness is not in any case a subject, a Self, a knower, in fact in seeing it's just the experience of seen (as described in Bahiya Sutta) with no 'you' in terms of 'that'. It's a self-luminous cognizant experience without a knower. And that luminous, cognizant, alive experience of sight, sound, smell, etc are also empty and unreal, not being able to find its origin, abode, and destination, everything is non-arising and empty, illusory like a dream, a magician's trick, a mirage.

Experience, which is radiant clarity, is also nothing real, it is empty without substance or core. While vividly appearing and radiant, there is nothing real, solid, inherently existing. While empty, there is at the same time no denying of the radiant clarity that is the vivid appearance. They do not contradict. With such wisdom there can be no falling into the extremes of existence or non-existence. There is both the seeing through of the delusion of subjectification of Clarity into a metaphysical 'essence' (like Brahman), or the objectification of phenomena, and at the same time there is no establishment of non-existence but one is thoroughly actualized in vivid and total exertion of empty-clarity/everything (all appearance/activities).
xabir
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:14 pm

Re: Emptiness and the two truths

Postby asunthatneversets » Sat Oct 19, 2013 9:24 am

Sherab wrote:
Nothing exists inherently.

Nothing exists inherently. Nothing exists in and of itself. Nothing exists by its own power. (They all have the same meaning.)

Therefore:

Any thing that exists must exist in dependence on something other than itself.


There is no 'itself' in dependent origination. There is nothing apart from, created by, or underlying the assumed dependencies. On top of that, the dependencies themselves are only such because the deluded mind draws associations and decides there is allegiance between the characteristics in question. The supposed 'thing' is a conventional designation which is inferred onto a certain collection of appearances which are deemed objective due to falling victim to the notion of a subject in the first place. The entire house of cards is a fallacy.

Sherab wrote:What does liberation means than?

If liberation means to be free from existence, then liberation = non-existence.


Not at all. You aren't understanding how this works and are assuming that there is indeed inherent existence. There is nothing which inherently exists, therefore there is no non-existence, both or neither.

Sherab wrote:If liberation does not mean to be free from existence, then the state of liberation will always be a state that depends on something else. Therefore if that something else change, then the state of liberation will change. This means that there is no guarantee that the state of liberation is stable. If there can be no guarantee that the state of liberation is stable, how can that state be called a state of liberation?


Liberation means a freedom from ignorance [avidyā] and the various implications of ignorance; such as deluded notions of existence, non-existence, both and neither. Buddhahood is an innate quality, it only becomes obscured by affliction. Why is it an innate quality? Because there is nothing which isn't empty. Empty things are empty by nature, therefore emptiness is always already implied, we simply don't see it due to being caught up in ignorance.

Your line of reasoning is faulty because it's predicated on a false premise.

Sherab wrote:This is just to illustrate my point that all debates issue using mutually exclusive terms such as existent and non-existent, whether directly or indirectly, can never come to a resolution because when you push the argument to its logical conclusion, you will end up with one extreme or another. To come to a resolution intellectually, you will need to think using an approach that does not need to use such mutually exclusive terms. The other approach for resolution is to have direct realization.

Really this just illustrates that you don't understand dependent origination or emptiness. There is no establishment of mutual exclusivity, existence and non-existence are figments of delusion, and so there's no way they obstruct a resolution. As for direct realization being a resolution, that is a redundant point.
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Emptiness and the two truths

Postby Sherab » Sat Oct 19, 2013 11:56 am

Okay, let's try this then:

"Emptiness means nothing exists inherently."

Therefore:

Any thing that exists must exist because of dependencies.

What does liberation means than?

If liberation means to be free from dependencies, then liberation is non-existence since any form of existence requires dependencies.

If liberation does not mean to be free from dependencies, then the state of liberation will always be depending on 'something else'. Therefore if that 'something else' change, then the state of liberation will change. This means that there is no guarantee that the state of liberation is stable. If there can be no guarantee that the state of liberation is stable, how can that state be called a state of liberation?

This is just to illustrate my point that all debates issue using terms such as existent and non-existent that have mutually exclusive meaning, can never come to a resolution because when you push the argument to its logical conclusion, you will end up with one extreme or another. To say that emptiness means nothing exists inherently does not provide an escape from this problem of using words with mutually exclusive meaning.
User avatar
Sherab
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Emptiness and the two truths

Postby oushi » Sat Oct 19, 2013 12:15 pm

Sherab wrote:If there can be no guarantee that the state of liberation is stable, how can that state be called a state of liberation?

By bringing such requirement you bind liberation. Why should liberation be limited to one stable state? This make no sense.

Sherab wrote:Therefore if that something else change, then the state of liberation will change.

That still is a freedom to change. Isn't it?
Say what you think about me here.
User avatar
oushi
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am

Re: Emptiness and the two truths

Postby futerko » Sat Oct 19, 2013 1:30 pm

jeeprs wrote:OK here's a question.

Is anything real?

That quotation you provided above says:

This transitory world is merely conventional dissimulation,
which the authentic reality has no relationship to

What is 'authentic reality'? Is that self-existent?

Look at the Aspiration Prayer of Mahamudra:'

It is not existent--even the Victorious Ones do not see it.
It is not nonexistent--it is the basis of all samsara and nirvana.


Ergo, beyond existence/non-existence. But real.


To simplify. If you occupy a fixed reference point then maybe you can accurately perceive movement, but if your viewpoint is also in flux then there are no fixed points of reference.
In that case, what is "real" becomes redefined in terms of relationships rather than "objectively".

Therefore the view of dependent origination changes from a causality which engulfs us in a sea of impermanence into a network of relations of which we ourselves are included, so the meaning of the term "real" changes from a "hard reality" into a dynamic one.

In terms of a "true self" the first gives us the idea that if we can somehow dispense with everything that is in flux then permanence will be revealed.
The second is rather that the "truth" lies in those relationships themselves when accurately perceived as being interdependent and in a (permanent) state of flux.
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche
User avatar
futerko
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am

Re: Emptiness and the two truths

Postby asunthatneversets » Sat Oct 19, 2013 1:34 pm

Sherab wrote:Okay, let's try this then:

"Emptiness means nothing exists inherently."

Therefore:

Any thing that exists must exist because of dependencies.

What does liberation means than?

If liberation means to be free from dependencies, then liberation is non-existence since any form of existence requires dependencies.

If liberation does not mean to be free from dependencies, then the state of liberation will always be depending on 'something else'. Therefore if that 'something else' change, then the state of liberation will change. This means that there is no guarantee that the state of liberation is stable. If there can be no guarantee that the state of liberation is stable, how can that state be called a state of liberation?

This is just to illustrate my point that all debates issue using terms such as existent and non-existent that have mutually exclusive meaning, can never come to a resolution because when you push the argument to its logical conclusion, you will end up with one extreme or another. To say that emptiness means nothing exists inherently does not provide an escape from this problem of using words with mutually exclusive meaning.

Nothing exists because of dependencies. Dependent origination is not origination. Conventional existence is merely a convention. Therefore liberation is freedom from all four extremes.

"Those who perceive existents, non-existents,
inherent existence or dependent existence
do not see the truth of the Buddha's teaching."
- Nāgārjuna
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Emptiness and the two truths

Postby Malcolm » Sat Oct 19, 2013 2:25 pm

Sherab wrote:
If liberation means


Liberation simply means being free from the operation of afflictions.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12028
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Emptiness and the two truths

Postby Sherab » Sat Oct 19, 2013 3:14 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Sherab wrote:
If liberation means


Liberation simply means being free from the operation of afflictions.


I thought liberation defined as being free from the operation of affliction refers to being free from the 12 links of dependent origination, i.e. the liberation of an arhat or a pratekyabuddha. In contrast to that, I thought that the liberation of a buddha would be freedom from all dependencies. Otherwise, there would be no difference in realization between a buddha and an arhat.
User avatar
Sherab
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Emptiness and the two truths

Postby Sherab » Sat Oct 19, 2013 3:18 pm

asunthatneversets wrote:Nothing exists because of dependencies. Dependent origination is not origination. Conventional existence is merely a convention. Therefore liberation is freedom from all four extremes.

If you imply by the above that whatever appears to exist are illusions and not just illusion-like, I agree.
User avatar
Sherab
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Emptiness and the two truths

Postby Malcolm » Sat Oct 19, 2013 3:18 pm

Sherab wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Sherab wrote:
If liberation means


Liberation simply means being free from the operation of afflictions.


I thought liberation defined as being free from the operation of affliction refers to being free from the 12 links of dependent origination, i.e. the liberation of an arhat or a pratekyabuddha. In contrast to that, I thought that the liberation of a buddha would be freedom from all dependencies. Otherwise, there would be no difference in realization between a buddha and an arhat.


There is no difference between a Buddha and an arhat in terms of liberation, that is why all buddhas are also arhats; there is a vast difference between a buddha and arhat in terms of qualities.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12028
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Emptiness and the two truths

Postby Sherab » Sat Oct 19, 2013 3:28 pm

Malcolm wrote:There is no difference between a Buddha and an arhat in terms of liberation, that is why all buddhas are also arhats; there is a vast difference between a buddha and arhat in terms of qualities.
So there is no difference in the wisdom of an arhat and the wisdom of a buddha?
User avatar
Sherab
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Emptiness and the two truths

Postby Malcolm » Sat Oct 19, 2013 3:42 pm

Sherab wrote:
Malcolm wrote:There is no difference between a Buddha and an arhat in terms of liberation, that is why all buddhas are also arhats; there is a vast difference between a buddha and arhat in terms of qualities.
So there is no difference in the wisdom of an arhat and the wisdom of a buddha?


Yes, there is a difference between their qualities (wisdom being one of them), but not their liberation, i.e., freedom from rebirth in samsara, which after all is the definition of liberation by all Buddhist traditions, as well as a number of non-Buddhist ones.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12028
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Emptiness and the two truths

Postby Sherab » Sat Oct 19, 2013 3:54 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Sherab wrote:
Malcolm wrote:There is no difference between a Buddha and an arhat in terms of liberation, that is why all buddhas are also arhats; there is a vast difference between a buddha and arhat in terms of qualities.
So there is no difference in the wisdom of an arhat and the wisdom of a buddha?


Yes, there is a difference between their qualities (wisdom being one of them), but not their liberation, i.e., freedom from rebirth in samsara, which after all is the definition of liberation by all Buddhist traditions, as well as a number of non-Buddhist ones.

I thought liberation is due to wisdom and if the liberation of an arhat is the same as the liberation of a buddha, then the wisdom of an arhat and the wisdom of a buddha will be the same.
User avatar
Sherab
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Emptiness and the two truths

Postby Malcolm » Sat Oct 19, 2013 3:58 pm

Sherab wrote:I thought liberation is due to wisdom


No, liberation is due to the eradication of afflictions.

I am not sure what you mean by "wisdom". So you mean omniscience? Or do you mean prajñā?

If the former, omniscience is not required for liberation.

If the latter, the prajñā that eradicates the afflictions is exactly the same in an arhat and a buddha.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12028
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Emptiness and the two truths

Postby Sherab » Sat Oct 19, 2013 4:36 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Sherab wrote:I thought liberation is due to wisdom


No, liberation is due to the eradication of afflictions.

I am not sure what you mean by "wisdom". So you mean omniscience? Or do you mean prajñā?

If the former, omniscience is not required for liberation.

If the latter, the prajñā that eradicates the afflictions is exactly the same in an arhat and a buddha.

Okay, let me try again and see if I can make my trend of thought a little clearer.

I was thinking along the line that the liberation of an arhat is liberation from the 12 links of dependent origination. This is done when any link is cut. That cutting is due to a certain wisdom realized.

Since the wisdom of a buddha is far greater than the wisdom of an arhat, there must be a difference in the realization of a buddha compared to an arhat.

This implies that the wisdom realized by a buddha goes further than just cutting the 12 links of dependent origination. It is the difference in knowledge/wisdom of a buddha compared to an arhat that allows the buddha to perform greater 'miraculous' feats than an arhat. So I thought that the difference would come from the buddha having knowledge of all dependencies and not just those of the 12 links of DO. Via the buddha's knowledge/wisdom of all dependencies, the liberation of the buddha is liberation from all dependencies, in contrast to the liberation of an arhat which is only a liberation from the 12 links of DO.
User avatar
Sherab
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

PreviousNext

Return to Exploring Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests

>