Here are two MA thesis on Buddhism

A forum for those wishing to discuss Buddhist history and teachings in the Western academic manner, referencing appropriate sources.
White Lotus
Posts: 1333
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: Here are two MA thesis on Buddhism

Post by White Lotus »

what you look for is what you find, what you seek is what you find. your seeking creates your view of things. keeping an open mind one sees that there are many possibilities or none. once the five sensory vijnanas are extinguished there is no seeing whatsoever. this happens after inner mind has ceased and at the time of the complete cessation of external consciousness.

unless the five sensory vijnanas have ceased it is not possible to see emptiness except by reference to 'buddha nature'. when the five sensory vijnanas have ceased all is empty and yet there is the trace of seeing. a trace which is not.

with emptiness there is no one seeing, no seeing and nothing seen. however maintaining ones freedom one is able to say that there is no emptiness only reality or that there is only emptiness no reality. that emptiness is itself not a reality or that it is the only conventional reality, or the only fundamental reality... these statements may in themselves be found false or true depending on how one seeks.

experience says that there is no mind, no self and no consciousness. freedom says that all of these things exist concurrently, regardless of whether or not they exist.

people tend to get bogged down in fine details. for example... is there a mind that sees? (yogacara) or is there no seeing mind and no seeing. from experience i would say that the yogacara view is further from the truth than no mind and no seeing... however in order to maintain my freedom i recognise that the yogacara view is valid even though experience says otherwise.

i value freedom of mind it moderates experience. experience says i have no mind, no self and no consciousness, i have no sight and see nothing at all. freedom says that even though i do not see. i am able to relate to this computer at which i type. to the ordinary person i see and am seen. i however know that though you see me, i do not see you. and yet there is the trace of reality. i see without seeing (simplifying).

mindfulness ''without a mind'' is impossible, however mindfulness is replaced by emptiness... and emptiness is simply i no longer see anything conventionally. though there is a trace of seeing ordinary things there is no trace. seeing without seeing. some would be inclined to say just ''no seeing'' and that would be fine, but would limit oneself.

i hear that there is the shentong rantong argument. some will argue from experience that there is absolutely no point to refer to, others will argue that it is mind that sees and is empty. either of these views limit one, but both of these views can be said to be empty. inherently empty. and yet... there is no emptiness. ''this is emptiness'', but ''that'' may not be.

bringing in the theistic argument (it is Christmas!), everything that exists is empty and therefore does not inherently exist by virtue of itself, however if all this was created out of nothing and is in a sense merely empty. the one that enforces it (the continuum or feedback loop) may actually not be empty. as an author writes a book (or an engineer designs and programs a compter), the author really exists, the words of the book are made real in the mind of the reader only. if this were so 'a'/prajnaparamita would not be ultimate since it would have an enforcer (even though it only conventionally exists). this is worth thinking about on the spiritual path. Emptiness is reality as we know it, without origins, but by what order does it exist. is emptiness 'God'... possibly? i am not convinced that this is a logical argument, but it bears thinking about.

i hope i havent digressed too far from the subject... after all... it is Christmas!

happy Christmas one and all,

Tom. :juggling:
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.
Post Reply

Return to “Academic Discussion”