Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Tue Dec 23, 2014 2:49 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 6:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm
Posts: 1444
White Lotus wrote:
for example when i look at my hands there is no sense of 'mine' whatsoever; whereas in the past there was.


That's funny, when this first happened to me the very first thing I remember was looking at my hands (I was driving) and being like "what the f*** are these?" And then I remember being amazed that I had ever thought there was anyone here at all. It made me feel like I had been living a lie.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 6:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm
Posts: 1444
sangyey wrote:
Of the two - 'me' or 'mine' which one of them is the more grosser and which one of them is the more subtler?


Me and mine are two aspects of the same thing. Can't have one without the other. If you use fire as a metaphor the 'me' and 'mine' would be the flames and the heat. I'm not sure which would be considered more subtle and which is grosser. The most important thing is finding out what the 'me' and 'mine' depend on. Much like fire depends on fuel, you need to investigate what the 'me' and 'mine' rely on for fuel. Remove the fuel and extinguish the fire.

Cut the root of a tree and the leaves will wither; Cut the root of your mind and samsara falls.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:56 pm
Posts: 589
emptiness of phenomena can be seen as the same thing as emptiness of self, infact they are the same thing entirely. only emptiness.

the reality of things will always be a matter of specualtion because things are just so. even seeing emptiness one should not become attached to it.

to attach to emptiness is not helpful, i argue that there should be respect for the reality of things. although that reality is fundamentally empty.

emptiness is just a way of seeing, but most of the time one is more concerned about the fare on the bus ticket, meeting obligations and suchlike.

even though all is ultimately empty, there is still experience for most people of a self, call it the ego. however as asunthatneversets has hinted towards... it is possible to extinguish this ego and to see without me and mine. be careful how you drive!

best wishes, Tom.

_________________
in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 4:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:56 pm
Posts: 589
a sunthatneversets, i believe you are close to realising emptiness, i feel that to miss this opportunity would be sad. you have direct experience of anatta. you may find that when you look within there is nothing to see. become aware of the sensation of this emptiness, though it may not feel empty. look within whenever you get the chance and then look without at objects in the world, is the sensation the same? within and without the same. this is seeing non duality. all objects you look at will have the same sensation, and the sensation within will be no different from the sensation of objects without. this is seeing non duality. very simple (if you are ready for it). its when we see non duality that we realise this within and without are empty. one flavour. some have called it Mind, some presence, some spirit. look within, become familiar with this ordinary feeling (own nature) and then look without, see that the feeling is the same.

hope this helps asun, no need for lengthy meditation just wisdom. give it a go. the wisdom of ordinary seeing.

best wishes, Tom.

_________________
in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:14 pm
Posts: 189
Emptiness of person is the emptiness of a subjective self, agent (perceiver/controller/doer/thinker), soul, being, within or apart from the five aggregates. One sees that the framework that "a seer is seeing the seen" is delusional, I.e.in seeing always just the experience of the seen, colours, shapes and forms without a seer. One realizes that a subjective self is illusory.

Emptiness of phenomena means each of the five aggregates does not have objective existence. There is no formness in form, no substance of thought, etc. So they are appearing but empty, illusory like a magician's trick, like a mirage, a dream.

Here is an excerpt from a Buddhist glossary site on the definition of twofold Emptiness:

Two emptinesses (二空) include (1) emptiness of self, the ātman, the soul, in a person composed of the five aggregates, constantly changing with causes and conditions; and (2) emptiness of selves in all dharmas—each of the five aggregates, each of the twelve fields, and each of the eighteen spheres, as well as everything else with no independent existence. No-self in any dharma implies no-self in a person, but the latter is separated out in the first category. Realization of the emptiness of self in a person will lead to attainment of Arhatship or Pratyekabuddhahood. Bodhisattvas who have realized both emptinesses ascend to the First Ground on their Way to Buddhahood.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:14 pm
Posts: 189
teknix wrote:

I can't argue, because I have already intuited that an arhat must be determined within emptiness. To go even further I think that it is because of the teaching that this is so. There is no reason to be stuck there, unless in absoluteness. The absoluteness has been deduced to a wrong view, from this perspective. The reason for that is the altering views and "phenomena" have yet to be realized to be able to conclude anything about everything or nothing.

Your understanding of emptiness is not the same as buddhist understanding.

In buddhism, unlike others like Advaita Vedanta, "emptiness" is not "the void" or some kind of "the formless Absolute" or "pure consciousness". That is the I AM.

Instead, emptiness in Buddhism means no self (subjective self or agent) and no true existence of phenomena that dependently originates - a further insight after realizing anatta or no subjective self.

Do not misunderstand and confuse "emptiness" in Buddhism with that in the other religions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:14 pm
Posts: 189
teknix wrote:
I have been saying that emptiness is NOT void and IS NOT nothingness. Do not confuse the issue, If I said the opposite as you claim then please show me that I may see the typo. You can read what I wrote right here :

viewtopic.php?f=34&t=6944

Ok but what I meant was that if you have right understanding of no self and emptiness, you cannot get "stuck" in it, so arhats do not get "stuck" in emptiness.

Because no self and emptiness is not an absolute, not a something, not a nothing, nor is it a state or experience: rather it just points to the absence of the true existence of a self without denying the experience of life or the appearances. This has always already been so, just that sentient beings deludedly view otherwise, like a man with cataracs seeing flowers in sky, or a child believing in santa claus.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2012 12:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:36 am
Posts: 4027
Location: Spaceship Earth
Off Topic posts split: teknix's Views

_________________
    How foolish you are,
    grasping the letter of the text and ignoring its intention!
    - Vasubandhu


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 3:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 12:00 am
Posts: 418
Xabir, do you have the link to the Buddhist glossary site?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 10:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:14 pm
Posts: 189
sangyey wrote:
Xabir, do you have the link to the Buddhist glossary site?

Yes. It was taken 2009 from the glossary http://web.archive.org/web/200904251009 ... ssary.html

But since it has changed to a shortened form in the same site:

http://www.sutrasmantras.info/glossary.html#empty2

two emptinesses (二空). (1) The emptiness of a sentient being (人空) composed of dharmas, such as the five aggregates, and dependent on causes and conditions; (2) the emptiness of a dharma (法空) dependent on causes and conditions (see eighteen emptinesses).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 3:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 12:00 am
Posts: 418
:anjali:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mikenz66 and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group