devilyoudont wrote:Atman as described here differs from Emptiness only by erring on the side of "is" more often than "is not", although it vehemently defies both. Is this typical of Advaita?
PS. Perhaps a more careful reading will reveal some form of subtle reification, or that these statements take themselves to be Truth. (annihilation) Dunno.
deepbluehum wrote:Emptiness is not a ground of being, unlike the Brahman posited by Advaita.
deepbluehum wrote:To really get into the important difference you have to go beyond philosophy to the method of practice. Emptiness can also be thought of as a name for a method.
deepbluehum wrote:Here you don't look, grasp, like, etc.
deepbluehum wrote:Then, the practice of buddhist meditation and resulting bliss is easy to understand.
LastLegend wrote:So if you conceptualize or imagine, you are giving it an identity or self.
devilyoudont wrote:LastLegend wrote:So if you conceptualize or imagine, you are giving it an identity or self.
If you do not imagine, you are doing the same.
Are you talking about me or the AG? My question deals with what the AG, at least initially, teaches about the nature of Atman. I myself have specifically rejected conceptualized Emptiness(es) as perfect Emptiness. To my mind, Emptiness can be summed up as "no definitive synthesis; no enduring analysis." Emptiness is the rejection, not just of conceptualized telicity, but of conceptualizable telicity. You can't hide from it by deliberately shrouding your mind in unawareness, because absolutely anything can be declared to be nonconceptual. Which, of course, they are: Since the mind is nonconceptual, conceptualized Emptiness(es) are true Emptiness! Dogs are nonconceptual, therefore dogs are Emptiness. Mu! If you understand these statements as ultimate negations by way of relative affirmation, they are perfect reflections of true Emptiness. If not, you are falling under conceptualization. An unthinking ritual cannot be Mahayana Emptiness, just as a class of sentient organisms cannot.
Ritualized Zen can be understood as a kind of "Taoist Buddhism" that tends to reject theoria in favor of praxis at the level of relative truth. Emptiness, however, rejects action too, utterly destroying either, both and neither, dominating over realms of thought and nonthought alike with its blazing adamantine sword of indiscriminate fury. Taking any method or comparison to be Emptiness is to mistake the finger for the moon. There is no way around this, and it's pointless to argue about it in a manner not aimed at the further illumination of both minds. In the end, all conceptualization and ritual must be negated in order to arrive at true understanding. This is why laying too much stress on thought or action or Platonic ideal forms can ultimately become misleading.
None of the preceding words can tell you what Emptiness is, unless they are used as tools to get at the intent behind them. Uncompassionate, uncharitable, nonempathetic minds can never reach that immeasurable field where all beings are Buddhas. Those unwilling to understand can be brainwashed, but cannot be made to understand. They will invariably discover shady groves alongside the path that promise afternoons of blissful contentment. The Buddhadharma cannot be taught.
devilyoudont wrote:That's fine dude, you can keep to your Emptiness of unthinking bliss and I'll "keep to" my inconceivable Buddhadharma. All I'm saying is, I can deny yours, but you literally cannot deny mine. All you can do is try, and it's beneficial for all beings for you to do so. Keep it up.
devilyoudont wrote:Thanks, I'll keep your kind words in mind.
Now, doesn't anyone have any opinions on the teachings of the AG? Read it, that's not that bad. I kinda liked it.
LL, don't you have any opinions about the topic at hand? Or will having opinions violate your Emptiness?
Users browsing this forum: Mother's Lap and 8 guests