Philosophical implications of the emptiness of the teachings themselves

A forum for those wishing to discuss Buddhist history and teachings in the Western academic manner, referencing appropriate sources.
wei wu wei
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:01 am

Re: Philosophical implications of the emptiness of the teachings themselves

Post by wei wu wei »

Johnny Dangerous wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 3:53 pm
wei wu wei wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 3:34 pm

Well, the way you are defining “truth” here is implicitly conditional, but in Buddhadharma the only thing “true” is beyond conditions, in fact conditions themselves are ultimately beyond conditions, illusory nature is itself an illusion, etc.
When you say "beyond conditions," what do you mean? This sounds like you're positing a kind of noumena.
I’m talking about the nature of phenomena too, as there is no difference.
I'm just not familiar with the assertion that anything is "beyond conditions" from a Buddhist analytical perspective.
wei wu wei
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:01 am

Re: Philosophical implications of the emptiness of the teachings themselves

Post by wei wu wei »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 5:58 pm
wei wu wei wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 3:41 pm I don't think the teachings want us to swap a view of an inherently existing self for a view of the aggregates--Nagarjuna says as much.
I don’t think I suggested that.

I suggested that what we perceive as individual
things ”are” merely temporarily arising aggregates.

I was referring to the phrase you used:
“inherently are”
—in which I assume ‘are’ means ‘exist’.

Yes, it’s correct as you say, ‘there is no way that things inherently are’

—but they ‘are’ arising appearances.
They ‘are’ composites.

My point is, just because phenomena lack inherent existence doesn’t mean there’s no phenomena.

Likewise, just because dharna teachings on emptiness lack intrinsic reality themselves, this does not mean they are not valid teachings or that they are self-contradictory. If they were, then any argument to that effect would likewise be just as invalid for the very same reason.

I agree that it is helpful to see things as collections of causes, conditions, and parts as opposed to seeing them as discrete individuals, but I think that's a halfway point. We have to be careful with language here--as you note with your scare quotes around the word "are." It's not that we are saying that X is its aggregates; it's that we are saying that X is imputed in dependence upon its aggregates. There's a very significant difference.

I'm also not arguing that there are no phenomena. What I am arguing is that what we take to be the ultimate and final status of any phenomena (its emptiness)--this is also just a conventional existent, which also disappears under analysis. It's not that emptiness is somehow "more real" than the phenomena it's imputed to. A phenomena and its emptiness, in the end, have equal status.
wei wu wei
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:01 am

Re: Philosophical implications of the emptiness of the teachings themselves

Post by wei wu wei »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 5:58 pm
wei wu wei wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 3:41 pm I don't think the teachings want us to swap a view of an inherently existing self for a view of the aggregates--Nagarjuna says as much.
I don’t think I suggested that.

I suggested that what we perceive as individual
things ”are” merely temporarily arising aggregates.

I was referring to the phrase you used:
“inherently are”
—in which I assume ‘are’ means ‘exist’.

Yes, it’s correct as you say, ‘there is no way that things inherently are’

—but they ‘are’ arising appearances.
They ‘are’ composites.

My point is, just because phenomena lack inherent existence doesn’t mean there’s no phenomena.

Likewise, just because dharna teachings on emptiness lack intrinsic reality themselves, this does not mean they are not valid teachings or that they are self-contradictory. If they were, then any argument to that effect would likewise be just as invalid for the very same reason.

It's also not that I want to argue that the teachings contradict themselves; rather, they erase themselves.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9441
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Philosophical implications of the emptiness of the teachings themselves

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

wei wu wei wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 8:09 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 5:58 pm
wei wu wei wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 3:41 pm I don't think the teachings want us to swap a view of an inherently existing self for a view of the aggregates--Nagarjuna says as much.
I don’t think I suggested that.

I suggested that what we perceive as individual
things ”are” merely temporarily arising aggregates.

I was referring to the phrase you used:
“inherently are”
—in which I assume ‘are’ means ‘exist’.

Yes, it’s correct as you say, ‘there is no way that things inherently are’

—but they ‘are’ arising appearances.
They ‘are’ composites.

My point is, just because phenomena lack inherent existence doesn’t mean there’s no phenomena.

Likewise, just because dharna teachings on emptiness lack intrinsic reality themselves, this does not mean they are not valid teachings or that they are self-contradictory. If they were, then any argument to that effect would likewise be just as invalid for the very same reason.

It's also not that I want to argue that the teachings contradict themselves; rather, they erase themselves.
Same thing here: Contradict, negate, erase.

By your sans reasoning, the point you are making is also not valid because it has no inherent reality.
Thus, it also erases itself.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17092
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Philosophical implications of the emptiness of the teachings themselves

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

wei wu wei wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 7:48 pm
Johnny Dangerous wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 3:53 pm
wei wu wei wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 3:34 pm

When you say "beyond conditions," what do you mean? This sounds like you're positing a kind of noumena.
I’m talking about the nature of phenomena too, as there is no difference.
I'm just not familiar with the assertion that anything is "beyond conditions" from a Buddhist analytical perspective.
That’s the limitation of a purely analytical perspective, pretty much by definition. Eventually the idea game exhausts itself. Anyway, phenomena are beyond arising, cessation, etc. if you like, this is prajnaparamita , so hardly outside the Buddhist analytical perspective. Quibble about the term beyond if you want, but it seems a bit semantic.

There are two ways to engage analysis: one is that the purpose of analysis is to find an ultimate view, the other is seeing analysis as a way to exhaust and go beyond views altogether.
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
wei wu wei
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:01 am

Re: Philosophical implications of the emptiness of the teachings themselves

Post by wei wu wei »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 8:33 pm
wei wu wei wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 8:09 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 5:58 pm
I don’t think I suggested that.

I suggested that what we perceive as individual
things ”are” merely temporarily arising aggregates.

I was referring to the phrase you used:
“inherently are”
—in which I assume ‘are’ means ‘exist’.

Yes, it’s correct as you say, ‘there is no way that things inherently are’

—but they ‘are’ arising appearances.
They ‘are’ composites.

My point is, just because phenomena lack inherent existence doesn’t mean there’s no phenomena.

Likewise, just because dharna teachings on emptiness lack intrinsic reality themselves, this does not mean they are not valid teachings or that they are self-contradictory. If they were, then any argument to that effect would likewise be just as invalid for the very same reason.

It's also not that I want to argue that the teachings contradict themselves; rather, they erase themselves.
Same thing here: Contradict, negate, erase.

By your sans reasoning, the point you are making is also not valid because it has no inherent reality.
Thus, it also erases itself.
By saying erase, I actually meant something positive--that there's nothing left to cling to, including views. I think that is how it should be. We start with a fixation on objects; then perhaps fixation on the medicine (since it's an ultimate truth); then we find that the ultimate only exists conventionally. No less liberating, but we also are liberated from that.

The point you're making about how my reasoning contradicts itself: this is exactly what Nagarjuna's opponents charged him with: if you say everything lacks inherent existence, then even your own reasoning does as well. Remember his famous reply? I would be in error if I advanced any thesis. All Madhyamikas have to answer to this charge.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9441
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Philosophical implications of the emptiness of the teachings themselves

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

wei wu wei wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 1:16 am The point you're making about how my reasoning contradicts itself: this is exactly what Nagarjuna's opponents charged him with: if you say everything lacks inherent existence, then even your own reasoning does as well. Remember his famous reply? I would be in error if I advanced any thesis. All Madhyamikas have to answer to this charge.
No I don’t know that reply.
What did he say?
But so what if it lacks inherent existence, as long as one doesn’t cling to the thought that it has inherent existence?
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
SilenceMonkey
Posts: 1448
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:54 am

Re: Philosophical implications of the emptiness of the teachings themselves

Post by SilenceMonkey »

wei wu wei wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 8:09 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 5:58 pm
I don’t think I suggested that.

I suggested that what we perceive as individual
things ”are” merely temporarily arising aggregates.

I was referring to the phrase you used:
“inherently are”
—in which I assume ‘are’ means ‘exist’.

Yes, it’s correct as you say, ‘there is no way that things inherently are’

—but they ‘are’ arising appearances.
They ‘are’ composites.

My point is, just because phenomena lack inherent existence doesn’t mean there’s no phenomena.

Likewise, just because dharna teachings on emptiness lack intrinsic reality themselves, this does not mean they are not valid teachings or that they are self-contradictory. If they were, then any argument to that effect would likewise be just as invalid for the very same reason.

It's also not that I want to argue that the teachings contradict themselves; rather, they erase themselves.
The teachings exist only so long as our karma, afflictions and obscurations exist. When the teachings are empty, so will our ignorance, suffering, grasping to self and everything else. The teachings exist for our benefit.

The teachings and methods are directly proportional to our ignorance and afflictions. We use them provisionally to destroy our ignorance. A lot of ignorance needs a lot of Madhyamaka. A bit of ignorance needs a bit of Madhyamaka. If there’s no ignorance, there’s no need for Madhyamaka.

Emptiness teachings are illusory, yes… But we use illusions to destroy our illusions.

The whole point of the Madhyamaka teachings is not to say something. The point is to help us cut through our views, which are exactly what prevent us from achieving enlightenment.

The problem here is with understanding the two truths.
wei wu wei
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:01 am

Re: Philosophical implications of the emptiness of the teachings themselves

Post by wei wu wei »

SilenceMonkey wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 2:23 am
wei wu wei wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 8:09 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 5:58 pm
I don’t think I suggested that.

I suggested that what we perceive as individual
things ”are” merely temporarily arising aggregates.

I was referring to the phrase you used:
“inherently are”
—in which I assume ‘are’ means ‘exist’.

Yes, it’s correct as you say, ‘there is no way that things inherently are’

—but they ‘are’ arising appearances.
They ‘are’ composites.

My point is, just because phenomena lack inherent existence doesn’t mean there’s no phenomena.

Likewise, just because dharna teachings on emptiness lack intrinsic reality themselves, this does not mean they are not valid teachings or that they are self-contradictory. If they were, then any argument to that effect would likewise be just as invalid for the very same reason.
I agree with all of this!


It's also not that I want to argue that the teachings contradict themselves; rather, they erase themselves.
The teachings exist only so long as our karma, afflictions and obscurations exist. When the teachings are empty, so will our ignorance, suffering, grasping to self and everything else. The teachings exist for our benefit.

The teachings and methods are directly proportional to our ignorance and afflictions. We use them provisionally to destroy our ignorance. A lot of ignorance needs a lot of Madhyamaka. A bit of ignorance needs a bit of Madhyamaka. If there’s no ignorance, there’s no need for Madhyamaka.

Emptiness teachings are illusory, yes… But we use illusions to destroy our illusions.

The whole point of the Madhyamaka teachings is not to say something. The point is to help us cut through our views, which are exactly what prevent us from achieving enlightenment.

The problem here is with understanding the two truths.
wei wu wei
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:01 am

Re: Philosophical implications of the emptiness of the teachings themselves

Post by wei wu wei »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 1:44 am
wei wu wei wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 1:16 am The point you're making about how my reasoning contradicts itself: this is exactly what Nagarjuna's opponents charged him with: if you say everything lacks inherent existence, then even your own reasoning does as well. Remember his famous reply? I would be in error if I advanced any thesis. All Madhyamikas have to answer to this charge.
No I don’t know that reply.
What did he say?
But so what if it lacks inherent existence, as long as one doesn’t cling to the thought that it has inherent existence?
So, his opponent thinks he's going to capture Nagarjuna in self contradiction: if universal emptiness applies to all phenomena, then it must also apply to what you're saying, making it self-contradictory. (This was a non-Buddhist opponent BTW).

His famous reply was he would fall into self-contradiction if he had advanced any thesis of his own.

This line has been the source of massive amounts of commentarial literature and debate among various schools of Madhyamaka. It's fascinating terrain, if you're into that type of thing. I'll post a link for an article by Jan Westerhoff, the noted contemporary scholar of Madhyamaka and author of several books about Nagarjuna.

Long story short, when you turned my logic back on me about the topic we were discussing, this is exactly what a debate opponent did to Nagarjuna, thus igniting one of the most interesting exchanges in Madhyamaka history!

Here's the article: https://philarchive.org/archive/WESTNV
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9441
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Philosophical implications of the emptiness of the teachings themselves

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

wei wu wei wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 4:24 am Here's the article: https://philarchive.org/archive/WESTNV
Thanks! I look forward to reading it.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9441
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Philosophical implications of the emptiness of the teachings themselves

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 6:12 am
wei wu wei wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 4:24 am Here's the article: https://philarchive.org/archive/WESTNV
Thanks! I look forward to reading it.
Ok, now I read it. I think I read about this story of Nagarjuna like, 30 years ago, and forgot all about it, but it’s probably why the same argument occurred to me.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
wei wu wei
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:01 am

Re: Philosophical implications of the emptiness of the teachings themselves

Post by wei wu wei »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 6:20 am
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 6:12 am
wei wu wei wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 4:24 am Here's the article: https://philarchive.org/archive/WESTNV
Thanks! I look forward to reading it.
Ok, now I read it. I think I read about this story of Nagarjuna like, 30 years ago, and forgot all about it, but it’s probably why the same argument occurred to me.
Yes, the parallels seemed too close to be pure coincidence!
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9441
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Philosophical implications of the emptiness of the teachings themselves

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

wei wu wei wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 6:02 am
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 6:20 am
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 6:12 am
Thanks! I look forward to reading it.
Ok, now I read it. I think I read about this story of Nagarjuna like, 30 years ago, and forgot all about it, but it’s probably why the same argument occurred to me.
Yes, the parallels seemed too close to be pure coincidence!
Well, one can find the seed of contradiction (I think it’s a Hegelian thing, but I’ve never actually studied Hegel, so I don’t know) in just about any argument and flip it back onto the arguer. I am probably guilty of doing that too often.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
Ayu
Global Moderator
Posts: 13256
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:25 am
Location: Europe

Re: Philosophical implications of the emptiness of the teachings themselves

Post by Ayu »

An off topic discussion went here: https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.p ... 66#p667166
Please mind the standards of the subforum Academic Discussion.
Post Reply

Return to “Academic Discussion”