Impermanent phenomena

General forum on the teachings of all schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism. Topics specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
User avatar
Hieros Gamos
Posts: 150
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 3:25 pm

Re: Impermanent phenomena

Post by Hieros Gamos »

Sherab Dorje wrote:true nature
OK. Does the truth with respect to this nature change? I suggest the middle way understands that anicca is not a "truth" in this universal, metaphysical sense. Otherwise the true nature is an "atta". Instead, the saying of "anicca" or "nicca" is itself dependent and arises based on particular experience. So neither yes nor no here is the middle way.

The intellect is to be abandoned. Ideas are to be abandoned. Consciousness at the intellect is to be abandoned. Contact at the intellect is to be abandoned. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too is to be abandoned. This is called the All as a phenomenon to be abandoned.
SN 35.24
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21938
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Impermanent phenomena

Post by Grigoris »

The Middle Way is to recognise the empty nature of all phenomena (thus avoiding eternalism), whilst understanding that they arise (exist) dependent on causes and conditions (thus avoiding nihilism).

That is what Middle Way means.

What you are proposing is, well, to tell you the truth it is incredibly unclear as to what you are proposing, but it ain't Madhyamaka.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
User avatar
Hieros Gamos
Posts: 150
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 3:25 pm

Re: Impermanent phenomena

Post by Hieros Gamos »

Sherab Dorje wrote:it is incredibly unclear
Respectfully, it is simply Nagarjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. I am simply saying that the three characteristics of existence (impermanence, suffering and non-self) are themselves phenomena which dependently arise and are therefore conditional on particular experience. That is, they have no intrinsic nature nor any nonexistence. They can therefore not be either affirmed or denied in the manner of "universal truth". This is hardly controversial. If this was not the case, Nagarjuna could not have said:

Whatever is dependently co-arisen, That is explained to be emptiness. That, being a dependent designation, Is itself the middle way.

How can it be otherwise that impermanence is a phenomena? There are nothing but phenomena there are no noumena. Since it is a phenomena it dependently arises like all other phenomena.
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21938
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Impermanent phenomena

Post by Grigoris »

Hieros Gamos wrote:Respectfully, it is simply Nagarjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. I am simply saying that the three characteristics of existence (impermanence, suffering and non-self) are themselves phenomena which dependently arise and are therefore conditional on particular experience. That is, they have no intrinsic nature nor any nonexistence. They can therefore not be either affirmed or denied in the manner of "universal truth". This is hardly controversial. If this was not the case, Nagarjuna could not have said:

Whatever is dependently co-arisen, That is explained to be emptiness. That, being a dependent designation, Is itself the middle way.

How can it be otherwise that impermanence is a phenomena? There are nothing but phenomena there are no noumena. Since it is a phenomena it dependently arises like all other phenomena.
Now you are being clear.

First of all, the Nagarjuna quote you use is talking about the "designation" as being a phenomenon, not emptiness per se.

If emptiness is dependently arisen, then what is its cause?
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
User avatar
Hieros Gamos
Posts: 150
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 3:25 pm

Re: Impermanent phenomena

Post by Hieros Gamos »

Sherab Dorje wrote:Now you are being clear.
I'm happy one of us thinks so. Apologies to this sangha again for giving offense earlier - I lob missiles from behind a wall I build when I am unsure then come crashing through when I am sure.
Sherab Dorje wrote:First of all, the Nagarjuna quote you use is talking about the "designation" as being a phenomenon, not emptiness per se.
Per se means in itself. Emptiness means a thing is devoid of existing in any way other than in your mind as a result of karma forcing you to organize the data. It indicates there is no such thing as "in itself" because nothing has any nature of its own. Since nothing has any nature of its own emptiness itself has no nature of its own. So emptiness can only be defined negatively, dun gang shik ngunsum du topke dri ma separ jepa, that which when directly realized permanently finishes all impurities. This negative definition is a designation. Everything is a designation, everything is imputed. That's what emptiness means. So this negative definition is also just a designation, in other words, it is conditional, imputed, dependent. This doesn't mean nothing exists at all. It just means that emptiness is like everything else, something we've learned to hold self-existently true. And it can't be self-existently true because nothing is self-existent. So it has to be dependently true. Emptiness is like everything else, just a mental concept projected on the basis of a collection of parts.
Sherab Dorje wrote:If emptiness is dependently arisen, then what is its cause?
Ha we may as well ask why Nagarjuna negated causation in verse 1 of the first part of his treatise then affirmed the conditions for dependent arising in verse 2. It is not self caused, not other caused, not both, not neither. Yet there are conditions for it to arise. How can he do this? Oceans of ink have been spilled to explain. Perhaps because we can think of two senses of nirvana: rangshin gyi nyande, "natural nirvana", which means chu tamche rangshin gyi tongpa, everything is empty of any nature of its own, and "real nirvana", lo bur namdak gi nyang de, the purity of eliminating the afflications as a result of great effort. Perhaps the first sense responds to this question.
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21938
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Impermanent phenomena

Post by Grigoris »

Hieros Gamos wrote:Per se means in itself. Emptiness means a thing is devoid of existing in any way other than in your mind as a result of karma forcing you to organize the data. It indicates there is no such thing as "in itself" because nothing has any nature of its own. Since nothing has any nature of its own emptiness itself has no nature of its own. So emptiness can only be defined negatively, dun gang shik ngunsum du topke dri ma separ jepa, that which when directly realized permanently finishes all impurities. This negative definition is a designation. Everything is a designation, everything is imputed. That's what emptiness means. So this negative definition is also just a designation, in other words, it is conditional, imputed, dependent. This doesn't mean nothing exists at all. It just means that emptiness is like everything else, something we've learned to hold self-existently true. And it can't be self-existently true because nothing is self-existent. So it has to be dependently true. Emptiness is like everything else, just a mental concept projected on the basis of a collection of parts.
Again you are talking about the designation "emptiness". I did not say emptiness is a phenomenon, you did.
Sherab Dorje wrote:If emptiness is dependently arisen, then what is its cause?
Ha we may as well ask why Nagarjuna negated causation in verse 1 of the first part of his treatise then affirmed the conditions for dependent arising in verse 2. It is not self caused, not other caused, not both, not neither. Yet there are conditions for it to arise. How can he do this? Oceans of ink have been spilled to explain. Perhaps because we can think of two senses of nirvana: rangshin gyi nyande, "natural nirvana", which means chu tamche rangshin gyi tongpa, everything is empty of any nature of its own, and "real nirvana", lo bur namdak gi nyang de, the purity of eliminating the afflications as a result of great effort. Perhaps the first sense responds to this question.
The question cannot be answered, because empty and dependently arisen are synonyms. Which is the reason why emptiness is not a phenomenon.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
User avatar
Hieros Gamos
Posts: 150
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 3:25 pm

Re: Impermanent phenomena

Post by Hieros Gamos »

Sherab Dorje wrote:I did not say emptiness is a phenomenon, you did.
There are nothing but phenomena.

Anything and everything is there only upon my thinking of the collection of the parts in a particular way depending on the particular experience. Since emptiness is also there, emptiness is also there only upon my thinking of the collection of the parts in a particular way depending on the particular experience.

Emptiness is like everything else: not nothing, not a noumena, but a phenomena - like the reflection of a person in a mirror.
Jesse
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed May 08, 2013 6:54 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Impermanent phenomena

Post by Jesse »

All thing's are permanently impermanent. whoah man my head just exploded.
Image
Thus shall ye think of all this fleeting world:
A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream;
A flash of lightning in a summer cloud,
A flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream.
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21938
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Impermanent phenomena

Post by Grigoris »

Hieros Gamos wrote:
Sherab Dorje wrote:I did not say emptiness is a phenomenon, you did.
There are nothing but phenomena.

Anything and everything is there only upon my thinking of the collection of the parts in a particular way depending on the particular experience. Since emptiness is also there, emptiness is also there only upon my thinking of the collection of the parts in a particular way depending on the particular experience.

Emptiness is like everything else: not nothing, not a noumena, but a phenomena - like the reflection of a person in a mirror.
Really? So when you are unconscious, for example, everything just stops because you are no longer thinking about it? :shrug: Emptiness is there whether one is aware of it or not. Actually it is the lack of awareness (ignorance) of the emptiness of self and other that is one of the causes of suffering.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Impermanent phenomena

Post by LastLegend »

Hieros Gamos wrote:
Anything and everything is there only upon my thinking of the collection of the parts in a particular way depending on the particular experience. Since emptiness is also there, emptiness is also there only upon my thinking of the collection of the parts in a particular way depending on the particular experience.

Emptiness is like everything else: not nothing, not a noumena, but a phenomena - like the reflection of a person in a mirror.
I think I understand you. A thought is dependent on another thought on another thought. Everything exists by relationship.
It’s eye blinking.
User avatar
Hieros Gamos
Posts: 150
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 3:25 pm

Re: Impermanent phenomena

Post by Hieros Gamos »

Sherab Dorje wrote:Emptiness is there whether one is aware of it or not.
OK so it is somewhere outside of the five heaps? Where is it then, in what sense is it "there" if it isn't in the five heaps?
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21938
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Impermanent phenomena

Post by Grigoris »

Hieros Gamos wrote:
Sherab Dorje wrote:Emptiness is there whether one is aware of it or not.
OK so it is somewhere outside of the five heaps? Where is it then, in what sense is it "there" if it isn't in the five heaps?
Inside, outside, inside and outside, neither inside nor outside. Take a pick. Regardless, even if you are not aware of it (or unconscious) it is there.

So what are you proposing: That there is nothing that is not included in the skhanda?
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Impermanent phenomena

Post by Sherab »

Sherab Dorje wrote:
If emptiness is dependently arisen, then what is its cause?
Ha we may as well ask why Nagarjuna negated causation in verse 1 of the first part of his treatise then affirmed the conditions for dependent arising in verse 2. It is not self caused, not other caused, not both, not neither. Yet there are conditions for it to arise. How can he do this? Oceans of ink have been spilled to explain. Perhaps because we can think of two senses of nirvana: rangshin gyi nyande, "natural nirvana", which means chu tamche rangshin gyi tongpa, everything is empty of any nature of its own, and "real nirvana", lo bur namdak gi nyang de, the purity of eliminating the afflications as a result of great effort. Perhaps the first sense responds to this question.
The question cannot be answered, because empty and dependently arisen are synonyms. Which is the reason why emptiness is not a phenomenon.
I believe this is where one usually hit a road block using traditional line of reasoning.

If emptiness and dependently arisen are synonymous, then since emptiness is empty (i.e. the emptiness of emptiness), emptiness itself must be dependently arisen. If emptiness is dependently arisen it is a phenomenon.

What about the emptiness of emptiness? If emptiness itself is dependently arisen, then emptiness of emptiness must be dependently arisen too, since there is nothing in the emptiness of emptiness that is not empty i.e. dependently arisen. Since this process can be repeated infinitely, then all forms of emptiness must necessarily be dependently arisen and are therefore phenomena.

So yes, the question can be answered but it is not a satisfactory answer. That is the limit of traditional reasoning.

If we don't like the above reasoning but just say that emptiness and dependently arisen are synonymous and stop there, then one would be forced into saying that emptiness and dependent arising is the ultimate and therefore truly existing. In other words, one is force into reifying emptiness and dependent arising.
User avatar
anjali
Former staff member
Posts: 1662
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:33 pm

Re: Impermanent phenomena

Post by anjali »

Sherab wrote:
Sherab Dorje wrote:The question cannot be answered, because empty and dependently arisen are synonyms. Which is the reason why emptiness is not a phenomenon.
If emptiness and dependently arisen are synonymous, then since emptiness is empty (i.e. the emptiness of emptiness), emptiness itself must be dependently arisen. If emptiness is dependently arisen it is a phenomenon.
Empti-ness means the quality or state of being empty. From a buddhist perspective, emptiness means essencelessness--the quality of having no essence.

A distinction can be made between
1) dependent origination as the fabricating process and
2) the empty quality of the resulting fabrications.

When we discuss emptiness, it is usually in the context of fabrications. However, it's worth noting that
1) the fabricating process has no essence,
2) the fabrications have no essence and
3) any qualities of those fabrications (including the empty quality) have no essence.
Image
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21938
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Impermanent phenomena

Post by Grigoris »

Sherab wrote:If emptiness and dependently arisen are synonymous, then since emptiness is empty (i.e. the emptiness of emptiness)...
The emptiness of emptiness, according to Ju Mipham in Gateway to Knowledge, refers to the emptiness of the designation. Emptiness is not a phenomenon, it just describes the lack of inherent characteristics of phenomena.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Impermanent phenomena

Post by Sherab »

If you wish to make those points, then you should not say that emptiness and dependent arising are the synonymous. If you wish to say that emptiness and dependent arising are synonymous then my arguments hold. You have to be consistent. You cannot have your cake and eat it.
User avatar
Hieros Gamos
Posts: 150
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 3:25 pm

Re: Impermanent phenomena

Post by Hieros Gamos »

Sherab Dorje wrote:
Hieros Gamos wrote:
Sherab Dorje wrote:Emptiness is there whether one is aware of it or not.
OK so it is somewhere outside of the five heaps? Where is it then, in what sense is it "there" if it isn't in the five heaps?
Inside, outside, inside and outside, neither inside nor outside. Take a pick. Regardless, even if you are not aware of it (or unconscious) it is there.

So what are you proposing: That there is nothing that is not included in the skhanda?
I think the only reasonable position on that point is agnostic. Anyway if there was what would it matter? What matters is what I can do with my own experience in practice Noone else can practice for me. Anyway the point is that if emptiness has a nature of its own there's at least one thing that isn't dependent.
Post Reply

Return to “Mahāyāna Buddhism”