not a thing, but there is.

[White Lotus]

Hui Nengs famous words... from the beginning not a thing.
the Heart sutra... no eyes no ears no nose etc.
why does the 'own nature' radiate. it feels like something.
awareness may be empty like, but it is still something.

[ground]

As long as there is "body" there will be "something".

Kind regards

[Rael]

Hui Nengs famous words... from the beginning not a thing.
the Heart sutra... no eyes no ears no nose etc.
why does the 'own nature' radiate. it feels like something.
awareness may be empty like, but it is still something.

empty does not mean nothingness...

the words we use in english might not do it justice...

i've had this talk with lamas...

if you are going to use emptiness or empty...
you should always use it with inherent existence.

empty of inherent existence

New Agers seek to be empty ...lol....it's a goal for some new agers...

they want to find the emptiness....not in the sense of understanding but as a destination....a place to go to....

I had a talk with a Jain once who seemed to know what he was talking about until i mentioned Sunyata and he went weird on me saying God is not nothingness....whoah....i bowed out and went and got a coffee....lol....

[Blue Garuda]

Hui Nengs famous words... from the beginning not a thing.
the Heart sutra... no eyes no ears no nose etc.
why does the 'own nature' radiate. it feels like something.
awareness may be empty like, but it is still something.

empty does not mean nothingness...

the words we use in english might not do it justice...

i've had this talk with lamas...

if you are going to use emptiness or empty...
you should always use it with inherent existence.

empty of inherent existence

New Agers seek to be empty ...lol....it's a goal for some new agers...

they want to find the emptiness....not in the sense of understanding but as a destination....a place to go to....

I had a talk with a Jain once who seemed to know what he was talking about until i mentioned Sunyata and he went weird on me saying God is not nothingness....whoah....i bowed out and went and got a coffee....lol....

That's a shame - it would have been interesting to know what he made of DO, impermanence etc.

It's a huge generalisation, but I sometimes wonder if Buddhists aren't akin to Jains without God and asceticism.

[Dexing]

Hui Nengs famous words... from the beginning not a thing.
the Heart sutra... no eyes no ears no nose etc.
why does the 'own nature' radiate. it feels like something.
awareness may be empty like, but it is still something.

empty does not mean nothingness...

the words we use in english might not do it justice...

Huineng didn't say empty means nothingness (and neither did White Lotus). He said originally (before conceptualization and grasping) there is not a "thing".

i've had this talk with lamas...

if you are going to use emptiness or empty...
you should always use it with inherent existence.

empty of inherent existence

Why not just "use" emptiness as it appears in the various sūtras? It is not always followed by "of inherent existence".

For example the Tibetan might read something like "All dharmas are emptiness, without any characteristics", just as the Chinese says "All dharmas are empty of appearances".

"Empty of inherent existence" still leaves something to lack inherent existence which is a characteristic, being of a dependent nature, but originally there is not a single thing, and much less an inherent existence or nonexistence.

It is like dancing flowers in space, an analogy drawn in many sūtras. Those flowers are originally only an illusion. There is no need to speak of being empty of inherent existence then. There is nothing to speak of as existing or not existing. Both something and nothing is in the realm of ordinary beings.

The five skandhas in their own-nature are empty. If something is even without its own nature, what else could it have?!

[Rael]

That's a shame - it would have been interesting to know what he made of DO, impermanence etc.

It's a huge generalisation, but I sometimes wonder if Buddhists aren't akin to Jains without God and asceticism.

he said sunyata means nothingness...everything is nothing...then he went on to say God is not nothingness...

sorry i left out that bit....that was the context...
what is DO

[Rael]

Hui Nengs famous words... from the beginning not a thing.
the Heart sutra... no eyes no ears no nose etc.
why does the 'own nature' radiate. it feels like something.
awareness may be empty like, but it is still something.

empty does not mean nothingness...

the words we use in english might not do it justice...

Huineng didn't say empty means nothingness (and neither did White Lotus). He said originally (before conceptualization and grasping) there is not a "thing".

i've had this talk with lamas...

if you are going to use emptiness or empty...
you should always use it with inherent existence.

empty of inherent existence

Why not just "use" emptiness as it appears in the various sūtras? It is not always followed by "of inherent existence".

For example the Tibetan might read something like "All dharmas are emptiness, without any characteristics", just as the Chinese says "All dharmas are empty of appearances".

"Empty of inherent existence" still leaves something to lack inherent existence which is a characteristic, being of a dependent nature, but originally there is not a single thing, and much less an inherent existence or nonexistence.

It is like dancing flowers in space, an analogy drawn in many sūtras. Those flowers are originally only an illusion. There is no need to speak of being empty of inherent existence then. There is nothing to speak of as existing or not existing. Both something and nothing is in the realm of ordinary beings.

The five skandhas in their own-nature are empty. If something is even without its own nature, what else could it have?!

i never said he said it meant nothingness.....

it feels like something.
awareness may be empty like, but it is still something.

my post was pointing to what the above implies....

it is still something.....it has nothing to do with emptiness to say...it is still something...once you say that in english anyway...it is so off topic....lol

when i said this

if you are going to use emptiness or empty...
you should always use it with inherent existence.

i said use it with.....use it ....

he said "it is still something"'

if you understand what Sunyata is , you would understand that this is no way to go about it...

[Su DongPo]

the Heart sutra... no eyes no ears no nose etc.

I think the sutra might help with this question, actually. Starting from your quote, it reads:

無眼耳鼻舌身意。無色聲香味觸法。無眼界。無眼識界。乃至無意界。無意識界。無無明。無無明盡。乃至無老死。亦無老死盡。

"No eyes, ears, nose, tongue, are brought into awareness; no shapes [colors], sounds, smells, tastes are brought into cognition. Thus there is no awareness to be found; no ignorance; no end to ignorance; thus, there is no aging and death; and no end to aging and death."

The double negative -- no end to ignorance [no understanding]; no end to death -- is the "somethingness" found in emptiness.

awareness may be empty like, but it is still something.

Yes, it is the consciousness of the lack of inherent existence of any thing, being, concept, or principle. That is "something," isn't it?

Maitri,
Su Dongpo

[Su DongPo]

Why not just "use" emptiness as it appears in the various sūtras? It is not always followed by "of inherent existence".

For example the Tibetan might read something like "All dharmas are emptiness, without any characteristics", just as the Chinese says "All dharmas are empty of appearances".

"Empty of inherent existence" still leaves something to lack inherent existence which is a characteristic, being of a dependent nature, but originally there is not a single thing, and much less an inherent existence or nonexistence.

It is like dancing flowers in space, an analogy drawn in many sūtras. Those flowers are originally only an illusion. There is no need to speak of being empty of inherent existence then. There is nothing to speak of as existing or not existing. Both something and nothing is in the realm of ordinary beings.

Yes, this is better than what I just wrote, I now see. The phrase "lack of inherent existence" is ugly translation English anyway.

[Astus]

From the Perfect Enlightenment Sutra (two different translations):

“Virtuous man, one who practices Complete Enlightenment of the causal ground of the Tathagata realizes that [birth and extinction] are like an illusory flower in the sky. Thus there is no continuance of birth and death and no body or mind that is subject to birth and death. This nonexistence of [birth and death and body and mind] is so not as a consequence of contrived effort. It is so by its intrinsic nature. The awareness [of their nonexistence] is like empty space. That which is aware of the empty space is like the appearance of the illusory flower. However, one cannot say that the nature of this awareness is nonexistent. Eliminating both existence and nonexistence is in accordance with pure enlightenment."

"Good sons, in the practice of Perfect Enlightenment of the causal stage of the Tathāgata one understands these 'sky-flowers,' thus there is no transmigration, nor body/mind to undergo life-and-death. But they are not caused to be non-existent. It is because they lack original nature. Now, this [prior] awareness is in itself void, like empty space. Yet since this awareness that perceives it to be like empty space is none other than the appearance of sky-flowers, you also cannot say that there is no nature of awareness. Existence and non- existence both being dispelled is called 'according with pure enlightenment.'"

It is also like what Huairang said to the sixth patriarch: "To say that it is like a thing is to miss the point." - which applies to believing that there is something (or there isn't).

[Su DongPo]

From the Perfect Enlightenment Sutra (two different translations):

“Virtuous man, one who practices Complete Enlightenment of the causal ground of the Tathagata realizes that [birth and extinction] are like an illusory flower in the sky. Thus there is no continuance of birth and death and no body or mind that is subject to birth and death. This nonexistence of [birth and death and body and mind] is so not as a consequence of contrived effort. It is so by its intrinsic nature. The awareness [of their nonexistence] is like empty space. That which is aware of the empty space is like the appearance of the illusory flower. However, one cannot say that the nature of this awareness is nonexistent. Eliminating both existence and nonexistence is in accordance with pure enlightenment."

"Good sons, in the practice of Perfect Enlightenment of the causal stage of the Tathāgata one understands these 'sky-flowers,' thus there is no transmigration, nor body/mind to undergo life-and-death. But they are not caused to be non-existent. It is because they lack original nature. Now, this [prior] awareness is in itself void, like empty space. Yet since this awareness that perceives it to be like empty space is none other than the appearance of sky-flowers, you also cannot say that there is no nature of awareness. Existence and non- existence both being dispelled is called 'according with pure enlightenment.'"

It is also like what Huairang said to the sixth patriarch: "To say that it is like a thing is to miss the point." - which applies to believing that there is something (or there isn't).

Thanks, but I am a little blown away by this.

Honestly this (either translation) is beyond me; perhaps I need to read the entire text. But not tonight.

[White Lotus]

thanks everyone. i am speaking from experiece of own nature. it is possible to argue that there is no nature whatsoever, this not being a thing is certainly not nothing, though it can be said to include nothingness and everything, purer than either. this not a thing is however still something, but it can be argued also that it is not a thing. it is hard to talk about and even harder to understand other than to call own nature awareness, which is simple.

love White Lotus.

[Rael]

It is also like what Huairang said to the sixth patriarch: "To say that it is like a thing is to miss the point."

THAT IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO EXPRESS...OBVIOUSLY QUITE BADLY..

My teacher told us that one can produce incredible bad karma from trying to explain Sunyata badly....

He said it is best to stay quiet and not confuse anyone even if your intentions are righteous.

Let the person come to a master and let the master plant the seeds...

i thought i was lucid on the matter and seem to have created confusion.....

Just because i know what i mean...lol....