Emptiness as negation

Forum for discussion of Tibetan Buddhism. Questions specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
User avatar
cyril
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:47 am

Emptiness as negation

Post by cyril »

Ok, so I am currently reading Avi Sion’s “Logical criticism of Buddhist doctrines” and I came across the following argumentation:
Emptiness cannot be claimed as a one-off experience because it is defined by negation as the absence of essence or self-nature. Negation is a basic act of reason. It is not something ever directly experienced, not a positive phenomenon. Thus, to claim that what Buddha experienced is precisely emptiness, it would be necessary to claim a positive character to emptiness; otherwise it must be admitted his rational faculty was involved.

Can anyone spot what is wrong in this line of thought? I’ve been ruminating on this for a couple of days now and I still cannot find any fault in the author’s reasoning. And yet, since it denies the Aryas’ non-conceptual cognition of emptiness, there must be something wrong there.
"You have to make the good out of the bad because that is all you have got to make it out of."
- Robert Penn Warren -
User avatar
Aryjna
Posts: 1626
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 12:45 pm

Re: Emptiness as negation

Post by Aryjna »

cyril wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:43 am Ok, so I am currently reading Avi Sion’s “Logical criticism of Buddhist doctrines” and I came across the following argumentation:
Emptiness cannot be claimed as a one-off experience because it is defined by negation as the absence of essence or self-nature. Negation is a basic act of reason. It is not something ever directly experienced, not a positive phenomenon. Thus, to claim that what Buddha experienced is precisely emptiness, it would be necessary to claim a positive character to emptiness; otherwise it must be admitted his rational faculty was involved.

Can anyone spot what is wrong in this line of thought? I’ve been ruminating on this for a couple of days now and I still cannot find any fault in the author’s reasoning. And yet, since it denies the Aryas’ non-conceptual cognition of emptiness, there must be something wrong there.
He is under the impression that the buddha is supposed to have had a "one-off experience" which cannot have been what he thinks is emptiness, due to it being a negation. Since none of the above are correct, the whole paragraph makes no sense.
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17089
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Emptiness as negation

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

It seems to assume that emptiness is an intrinsic property, rather than apprehension of phenomena… A Buddha doesn’t have some special experience called “emptiness” outside of convention, a Buddha just sees things as they are.

“Negation” is a verbal description of analysis , but “negation” as used here is not liberation, so it’s a weird statement to me.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
PeterC
Posts: 5191
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Emptiness as negation

Post by PeterC »

cyril wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:43 am Ok, so I am currently reading Avi Sion’s “Logical criticism of Buddhist doctrines” and I came across the following argumentation:
Emptiness cannot be claimed as a one-off experience because it is defined by negation as the absence of essence or self-nature. Negation is a basic act of reason. It is not something ever directly experienced, not a positive phenomenon. Thus, to claim that what Buddha experienced is precisely emptiness, it would be necessary to claim a positive character to emptiness; otherwise it must be admitted his rational faculty was involved.

Can anyone spot what is wrong in this line of thought? I’ve been ruminating on this for a couple of days now and I still cannot find any fault in the author’s reasoning. And yet, since it denies the Aryas’ non-conceptual cognition of emptiness, there must be something wrong there.
He's using a contemporary definition of the words "negation" and "emptiness" on top of an (incorrect) characterization of the Buddha's experience.

He also missed the part where this is an experiential teaching. If he really wants to understand what shunyata is, he needs to practice.
User avatar
cyril
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:47 am

Re: Emptiness as negation

Post by cyril »

Johnny Dangerous wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 7:13 am It seems to assume that emptiness is an intrinsic property, rather than apprehension of phenomena… A Buddha doesn’t have some special experience called “emptiness” outside of convention, a Buddha just sees things as they are.
i think there is a distinction to be made between the apprehension of positive phenomena (say, clouds in the sky) and negative phenomena (the sky is empty of clouds). The first one can be experienced directly, the later only in relation to the former. I can directly perveive the empty sky but I cannot establish that it is empty of clouds unless I have experienced the clouds previously. At least that's what I think the author is trying to get at. The implication being that, since a negative phenomenon can only be established by reasoning, in relation to a positive phenomenon, the direct non-dual cognition of emptiness is virtually impossible since the non-dual mind transcends discursive thinking alltogether.
"You have to make the good out of the bad because that is all you have got to make it out of."
- Robert Penn Warren -
User avatar
cyril
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:47 am

Re: Emptiness as negation

Post by cyril »

PeterC wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 7:22 am
cyril wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:43 am Ok, so I am currently reading Avi Sion’s “Logical criticism of Buddhist doctrines” and I came across the following argumentation:
Emptiness cannot be claimed as a one-off experience because it is defined by negation as the absence of essence or self-nature. Negation is a basic act of reason. It is not something ever directly experienced, not a positive phenomenon. Thus, to claim that what Buddha experienced is precisely emptiness, it would be necessary to claim a positive character to emptiness; otherwise it must be admitted his rational faculty was involved.

Can anyone spot what is wrong in this line of thought? I’ve been ruminating on this for a couple of days now and I still cannot find any fault in the author’s reasoning. And yet, since it denies the Aryas’ non-conceptual cognition of emptiness, there must be something wrong there.
He's using a contemporary definition of the words "negation" and "emptiness" on top of an (incorrect) characterization of the Buddha's experience.

He also missed the part where this is an experiential teaching. If he really wants to understand what shunyata is, he needs to practice.
I don't think he really wants to practice. His biased attitude is quite obvious throughout the book. A lot of arguments he makes are plain wrong, others are downright stupid (like, if Buddha was truly enlightened, then why didn't he acknowledged the God of Israel or why none of the bibical prophets foresaw or acknowledged Buddha's attainment). Yet, to me, this paragraph I quoted somehow seems logically correct. Why do you think the terms "negation" and "emptiness" are used incorrectly in the context?
"You have to make the good out of the bad because that is all you have got to make it out of."
- Robert Penn Warren -
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17089
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Emptiness as negation

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

cyril wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 7:51 am
Johnny Dangerous wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 7:13 am It seems to assume that emptiness is an intrinsic property, rather than apprehension of phenomena… A Buddha doesn’t have some special experience called “emptiness” outside of convention, a Buddha just sees things as they are.
i think there is a distinction to be made between the apprehension of positive phenomena (say, clouds in the sky) and negative phenomena (the sky is empty of clouds). The first one can be experienced directly, the later only in relation to the former. I can directly perveive the empty sky but I cannot establish that it is empty of clouds unless I have experienced the clouds previously. At least that's what I think the author is trying to get at. The implication being that, since a negative phenomenon can only be established by reasoning, in relation to a positive phenomenon, the direct non-dual cognition of emptiness is virtually impossible since the non-dual mind transcends discursive thinking alltogether.
There is no such animal as “negative phenomena” though, there is just the union of appearance emptiness. So of course the one can only be established by the other, form is emptiness emptiness is form yada yada.

Realization is exactly the realization of that union, not of “negation” which is just part of the Two Truths as praxis.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 4604
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Emptiness as negation

Post by Aemilius »

cyril wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 7:51 am
Johnny Dangerous wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 7:13 am It seems to assume that emptiness is an intrinsic property, rather than apprehension of phenomena… A Buddha doesn’t have some special experience called “emptiness” outside of convention, a Buddha just sees things as they are.
i think there is a distinction to be made between the apprehension of positive phenomena (say, clouds in the sky) and negative phenomena (the sky is empty of clouds). The first one can be experienced directly, the later only in relation to the former. I can directly perveive the empty sky but I cannot establish that it is empty of clouds unless I have experienced the clouds previously. At least that's what I think the author is trying to get at. The implication being that, since a negative phenomenon can only be established by reasoning, in relation to a positive phenomenon, the direct non-dual cognition of emptiness is virtually impossible since the non-dual mind transcends discursive thinking alltogether.
That is not true at all. For example, you can swim in a lake that is ampty of large boulders, and it is a primary phenomenon. You can drive a car on a road that is empty of large holes, and you will regard it a primary phenomenon. You can sleep in a room that is empty of loud noises, and you will regard it natural.
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
User avatar
cyril
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:47 am

Re: Emptiness as negation

Post by cyril »

Aemilius wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:27 am
cyril wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 7:51 am
Johnny Dangerous wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 7:13 am It seems to assume that emptiness is an intrinsic property, rather than apprehension of phenomena… A Buddha doesn’t have some special experience called “emptiness” outside of convention, a Buddha just sees things as they are.
i think there is a distinction to be made between the apprehension of positive phenomena (say, clouds in the sky) and negative phenomena (the sky is empty of clouds). The first one can be experienced directly, the later only in relation to the former. I can directly perveive the empty sky but I cannot establish that it is empty of clouds unless I have experienced the clouds previously. At least that's what I think the author is trying to get at. The implication being that, since a negative phenomenon can only be established by reasoning, in relation to a positive phenomenon, the direct non-dual cognition of emptiness is virtually impossible since the non-dual mind transcends discursive thinking alltogether.
That is not true at all. For example, you can swim in a lake that is ampty of large boulders, and it is a primary phenomenon. You can drive a car on a road that is empty of large holes, and you will regard it a primary phenomenon. You can sleep in a room that is empty of loud noises, and you will regard it natural.
Yes, that's what I was saying. You can swim in a lake that is free of large boulders and that is indeed a primary experience. But can you truly establish that the lake is empty of boulders if you never saw or experienced otherwise a boulder before? The direct experience is, without question, primary but the correct understanding of that experience seems to be secondary since it depends on the very object or phenomena whose findable existence is negated by your direct experience.
"You have to make the good out of the bad because that is all you have got to make it out of."
- Robert Penn Warren -
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Emptiness as negation

Post by Malcolm »

cyril wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:43 am Ok, so I am currently reading Avi Sion’s “Logical criticism of Buddhist doctrines” and I came across the following argumentation:
Emptiness cannot be claimed as a one-off experience because it is defined by negation as the absence of essence or self-nature. Negation is a basic act of reason. It is not something ever directly experienced, not a positive phenomenon. Thus, to claim that what Buddha experienced is precisely emptiness, it would be necessary to claim a positive character to emptiness; otherwise it must be admitted his rational faculty was involved.

Can anyone spot what is wrong in this line of thought? I’ve been ruminating on this for a couple of days now and I still cannot find any fault in the author’s reasoning. And yet, since it denies the Aryas’ non-conceptual cognition of emptiness, there must be something wrong there.
It is very faulty. Buddha's awakening was predicted on seeing dependent origination. Whatever is empty is dependently originated, whatever is dependent originated is empty. Negations are merely an analytical manner of approximating emptiness. Negations are not themselves the insight into the absence of inherent existence of dependently originated phenomena. When an ārya cognizes emptiness, they are cognizing the emptiness of something, and that something is always something which arises dependent on causes and conditions.

So, basically Avi Sion is an idiot who did not bother to even understand the thought of the person he was refuting.
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17089
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Emptiness as negation

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

cyril wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 5:54 pm
Aemilius wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:27 am
cyril wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 7:51 am

i think there is a distinction to be made between the apprehension of positive phenomena (say, clouds in the sky) and negative phenomena (the sky is empty of clouds). The first one can be experienced directly, the later only in relation to the former. I can directly perveive the empty sky but I cannot establish that it is empty of clouds unless I have experienced the clouds previously. At least that's what I think the author is trying to get at. The implication being that, since a negative phenomenon can only be established by reasoning, in relation to a positive phenomenon, the direct non-dual cognition of emptiness is virtually impossible since the non-dual mind transcends discursive thinking alltogether.
That is not true at all. For example, you can swim in a lake that is ampty of large boulders, and it is a primary phenomenon. You can drive a car on a road that is empty of large holes, and you will regard it a primary phenomenon. You can sleep in a room that is empty of loud noises, and you will regard it natural.
Yes, that's what I was saying. You can swim in a lake that is free of large boulders and that is indeed a primary experience. But can you truly establish that the lake is empty of boulders if you never saw or experienced otherwise a boulder before? The direct experience is, without question, primary but the correct understanding of that experience seems to be secondary since it depends on the very object or phenomena whose findable existence is negated by your direct experience.
What you’ve written is actually an argument in favor- of non dual realization of emptiness, rather than against it?

Of course phenomena and their emptiness cannot be separated, they are not two things in anything but praxis, which is what “negation” is.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
Norwegian
Posts: 2632
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:36 pm

Re: Emptiness as negation

Post by Norwegian »

Malcolm wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:27 pm
cyril wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:43 am Ok, so I am currently reading Avi Sion’s “Logical criticism of Buddhist doctrines” and I came across the following argumentation:
Emptiness cannot be claimed as a one-off experience because it is defined by negation as the absence of essence or self-nature. Negation is a basic act of reason. It is not something ever directly experienced, not a positive phenomenon. Thus, to claim that what Buddha experienced is precisely emptiness, it would be necessary to claim a positive character to emptiness; otherwise it must be admitted his rational faculty was involved.

Can anyone spot what is wrong in this line of thought? I’ve been ruminating on this for a couple of days now and I still cannot find any fault in the author’s reasoning. And yet, since it denies the Aryas’ non-conceptual cognition of emptiness, there must be something wrong there.
It is very faulty. Buddha's awakening was predicted on seeing dependent origination. Whatever is empty is dependently originated, whatever is dependent originated is empty. Negations are merely an analytical manner of approximating emptiness. Negations are not themselves the insight into the absence of inherent existence of dependently originated phenomena. When an ārya cognizes emptiness, they are cognizing the emptiness of something, and that something is always something which arises dependent on causes and conditions.

So, basically Avi Sion is an idiot who did not bother to even understand the thought of the person he was refuting.
Same guy who appeared on e-Sangha ages ago, making a big fuzz about how Nagarjuna was mistaken, wrong, blah blah etc. I asked him if he had ever actually read Nagarjuna himself. Turns out he had not. He had based all of his writings on really poor secondary sources it turned out. I think it's safe to say that the 'scholarship' of someone like this, is not worth anybody's time.
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 4604
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Emptiness as negation

Post by Aemilius »

cyril wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 5:54 pm
Aemilius wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:27 am
cyril wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 7:51 am

i think there is a distinction to be made between the apprehension of positive phenomena (say, clouds in the sky) and negative phenomena (the sky is empty of clouds). The first one can be experienced directly, the later only in relation to the former. I can directly perveive the empty sky but I cannot establish that it is empty of clouds unless I have experienced the clouds previously. At least that's what I think the author is trying to get at. The implication being that, since a negative phenomenon can only be established by reasoning, in relation to a positive phenomenon, the direct non-dual cognition of emptiness is virtually impossible since the non-dual mind transcends discursive thinking alltogether.
That is not true at all. For example, you can swim in a lake that is ampty of large boulders, and it is a primary phenomenon. You can drive a car on a road that is empty of large holes, and you will regard it a primary phenomenon. You can sleep in a room that is empty of loud noises, and you will regard it natural.
Yes, that's what I was saying. You can swim in a lake that is free of large boulders and that is indeed a primary experience. But can you truly establish that the lake is empty of boulders if you never saw or experienced otherwise a boulder before? The direct experience is, without question, primary but the correct understanding of that experience seems to be secondary since it depends on the very object or phenomena whose findable existence is negated by your direct experience.
The thing is that Buddha used "emptiness" to describe an experience or several slightly different experiences. Thus what is primary is experience. If you experience a state free of concepts or inner dialogue, that can be and it has been described in many ways, one of which is that "it is clear and empty of mental clutter". Afterwards concepts appear again, and it is hard to say why either experience would be "primary"? Because normally you were always thinking, and the state of freedom from thoughts or the state empty of thoughts appeared later. And the latter state is much more rarer, at least in human world in the present era.
Understanding occurs at the same time as the experience, understanding is not (necessarily) a later construction. It is also a question of what you are used to.
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
User avatar
cyril
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:47 am

Re: Emptiness as negation

Post by cyril »

Malcolm wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:27 pm
cyril wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:43 am Ok, so I am currently reading Avi Sion’s “Logical criticism of Buddhist doctrines” and I came across the following argumentation:
Emptiness cannot be claimed as a one-off experience because it is defined by negation as the absence of essence or self-nature. Negation is a basic act of reason. It is not something ever directly experienced, not a positive phenomenon. Thus, to claim that what Buddha experienced is precisely emptiness, it would be necessary to claim a positive character to emptiness; otherwise it must be admitted his rational faculty was involved.

Can anyone spot what is wrong in this line of thought? I’ve been ruminating on this for a couple of days now and I still cannot find any fault in the author’s reasoning. And yet, since it denies the Aryas’ non-conceptual cognition of emptiness, there must be something wrong there.
It is very faulty. Buddha's awakening was predicted on seeing dependent origination. Whatever is empty is dependently originated, whatever is dependent originated is empty. Negations are merely an analytical manner of approximating emptiness. Negations are not themselves the insight into the absence of inherent existence of dependently originated phenomena. When an ārya cognizes emptiness, they are cognizing the emptiness of something, and that something is always something which arises dependent on causes and conditions.

So, basically Avi Sion is an idiot who did not bother to even understand the thought of the person he was refuting.
Ok, understood. But when we say all dependently originated phenomena are empty of inherent existence, we do not negate that which arises as dependently originated; that's only the basis for our negation. What we negate is the inherent existence; but, since that is a concept, it follows that the non-conceptual mind could not cognize it as such. It looks like there is something i fail to grasp here.
"You have to make the good out of the bad because that is all you have got to make it out of."
- Robert Penn Warren -
User avatar
cyril
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:47 am

Re: Emptiness as negation

Post by cyril »

Norwegian wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:58 pm
Same guy who appeared on e-Sangha ages ago, making a big fuzz about how Nagarjuna was mistaken, wrong, blah blah etc. I asked him if he had ever actually read Nagarjuna himself. Turns out he had not. He had based all of his writings on really poor secondary sources it turned out. I think it's safe to say that the 'scholarship' of someone like this, is not worth anybody's time.
Well. I wasn't tring to dispute the author's scholarship or personna; as I mentioned, his book has a lot of erroneous argumentation which is obvious even if you are not riguroulsy trained in logic and so on. It was just this particular paragraph that got me thinking.
"You have to make the good out of the bad because that is all you have got to make it out of."
- Robert Penn Warren -
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Emptiness as negation

Post by Malcolm »

cyril wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 7:15 pm
Malcolm wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:27 pm
cyril wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:43 am Ok, so I am currently reading Avi Sion’s “Logical criticism of Buddhist doctrines” and I came across the following argumentation:

Can anyone spot what is wrong in this line of thought? I’ve been ruminating on this for a couple of days now and I still cannot find any fault in the author’s reasoning. And yet, since it denies the Aryas’ non-conceptual cognition of emptiness, there must be something wrong there.
It is very faulty. Buddha's awakening was predicted on seeing dependent origination. Whatever is empty is dependently originated, whatever is dependent originated is empty. Negations are merely an analytical manner of approximating emptiness. Negations are not themselves the insight into the absence of inherent existence of dependently originated phenomena. When an ārya cognizes emptiness, they are cognizing the emptiness of something, and that something is always something which arises dependent on causes and conditions.

So, basically Avi Sion is an idiot who did not bother to even understand the thought of the person he was refuting.
Ok, understood. But when we say all dependently originated phenomena are empty of inherent existence, we do not negate that which arises as dependently originated; that's only the basis for our negation. What we negate is the inherent existence; but, since that is a concept, it follows that the non-conceptual mind could not cognize it as such. It looks like there is something i fail to grasp here.
Yes, inherent existence, an existence that is nondependent, is a false concept that we negate in relation to mere existence, an existence that arises dependent on causes and conditions. When we search for inherent existence, we cannot find it. That nonfinding is called "emptiness." For example, we can say a pot is empty of water, without implying there is water somewhere else. No one refutes this kind if negation, if they do, it is what is termed an exaggeration, no one argues that saying something is empty of water necessarily implies water elsewhere. Also, no one can argue that the perception of the absence of water is invalid. Sion's thesis, that one cannot perceive an absence is foolish and naive. As I said, he is an idiot.
Shinjin
Posts: 399
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2021 2:44 pm

Re: Emptiness as negation

Post by Shinjin »

Malcolm wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:24 pm As I said, he is an idiot.
He has a phd in philosophy according to his bio.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Emptiness as negation

Post by Malcolm »

Shinjin wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:41 pm
Malcolm wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:24 pm As I said, he is an idiot.
He has a phd in philosophy according to his bio.
Yes, well, you know what Ph.D stands for? Pinheaded Dope.
Shinjin
Posts: 399
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2021 2:44 pm

Re: Emptiness as negation

Post by Shinjin »

Malcolm wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:53 pm
Shinjin wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:41 pm
Malcolm wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:24 pm As I said, he is an idiot.
He has a phd in philosophy according to his bio.
Yes, well, you know what Ph.D stands for? Pinheaded Dope.
:rolling:
User avatar
cyril
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:47 am

Re: Emptiness as negation

Post by cyril »

Malcolm wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:24 pm
Yes, inherent existence, an existence that is nondependent, is a false concept that we negate in relation to mere existence, an existence that arises dependent on causes and conditions. When we search for inherent existence, we cannot find it. That nonfinding is called "emptiness." For example, we can say a pot is empty of water, without implying there is water somewhere else. No one refutes this kind if negation, if they do, it is what is termed an exaggeration, no one argues that saying something is empty of water necessarily implies water elsewhere. Also, no one can argue that the perception of the absence of water is invalid. Sion's thesis, that one cannot perceive an absence is foolish and naive. As I said, he is an idiot.
Maybe I am being mistaken but I think what Sion was implying here is that one cannot perceive an absence without making recourse to an act of reasoning, however basic that act might be. Given that inherent existence is a false concept, can the non-dual mind recognize a false concept for what it is without giving raise to conceptual thinking? This is the issue I am struggling with.
"You have to make the good out of the bad because that is all you have got to make it out of."
- Robert Penn Warren -
Post Reply

Return to “Tibetan Buddhism”