Emptiness
Re: Emptiness
"Emptiness does not mean that nothing exists. It just means that any existence that phenomena have is as a result of causes and conditions and will cease when those causes and conditions no longer apply."
Hmm ... what is the proper emptiness-driven response to the following:
What does it mean to say that A caused B? Not that B could not have occurred without A preceding it, because B might have had other causes. Also not to say that whenever A occurs B must follow, since in a different set of environmental conditions A could have occurred without B following. So ... to say A caused B is neither to say A is necessary for B nor sufficient for B.
Now to assert that A caused B is to say that under some specific set of environmental constraints, the occurrence of A is sufficient to guarantee the subsequent occurrence of B. But since the environmental conditions are never specified in saying A caused B, the notion of causation is inherently ambiguous. So ... I don't clearly know what it means to say A caused B, thus am ambiguous on whether everything has a cause.
Hmm ... what is the proper emptiness-driven response to the following:
What does it mean to say that A caused B? Not that B could not have occurred without A preceding it, because B might have had other causes. Also not to say that whenever A occurs B must follow, since in a different set of environmental conditions A could have occurred without B following. So ... to say A caused B is neither to say A is necessary for B nor sufficient for B.
Now to assert that A caused B is to say that under some specific set of environmental constraints, the occurrence of A is sufficient to guarantee the subsequent occurrence of B. But since the environmental conditions are never specified in saying A caused B, the notion of causation is inherently ambiguous. So ... I don't clearly know what it means to say A caused B, thus am ambiguous on whether everything has a cause.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Re: Emptiness
But you have to understand the Nāgārjuna clearly shows that such an account of phenomena arising through causes and conditions is incoherent.rachmiel wrote:"Emptiness does not mean that nothing exists. It just means that any existence that phenomena have is as a result of causes and conditions and will cease when those causes and conditions no longer apply."
There is a reason that the most important moment on the path of a bodhisattva is the understanding gained on the eighth bhumi, patience for the nonarising of phenomena.
The ultimate conclusion of Madhyamaka is that nothing arises, yet everything appears. E ma ho!
Re: Emptiness
Ironically, the proper Madhyamakan response to my concern about causality is RIGHT THERE IN THE VERY OPENING OF THE FRICKIN' Madhyamakakarika:
1. Neither from itself nor from another,
Nor from both,
Nor without a cause,
Does anything whatever, anywhere arise.
Shame on me for having forgotten this! I only read it like 20 times (a year or so ago). Forest for the trees ...
1. Neither from itself nor from another,
Nor from both,
Nor without a cause,
Does anything whatever, anywhere arise.
Shame on me for having forgotten this! I only read it like 20 times (a year or so ago). Forest for the trees ...
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Re: Emptiness
The opening mangalaṃ of the MMK captures the entire meaning of the text:rachmiel wrote:Ironically, the proper Madhyamakan response to my concern about causality is RIGHT THERE IN THE VERY OPENING OF THE FRICKIN' Madhyamakakarika:
1. Neither from itself nor from another,
Nor from both,
Nor without a cause,
Does anything whatever, anywhere arise.
Shame on me for having forgotten this! I only read it like 20 times (a year or so ago). Forest for the trees ...
- I prostrate to the most sublime of teachers,
the Perfect Buddha,
by whom dependent origination —
not ceasing nor arising,
not annihilated nor permanent,
not going nor coming,
not different nor the same,
the pacification of proliferation — was demonstrated as peace.
Re: Emptiness
Garfield's translation has a different ending:
I prostrate to the Perfect Buddha,
The best of teachers, who taught that
Whatever is dependently arisen is
Unceasing, unborn,
Unannihilated, not permanent,
Not coming, not going,
Without distinction, without identity,
And free from conceptual construction.
What does mangalam mean?
I prostrate to the Perfect Buddha,
The best of teachers, who taught that
Whatever is dependently arisen is
Unceasing, unborn,
Unannihilated, not permanent,
Not coming, not going,
Without distinction, without identity,
And free from conceptual construction.
What does mangalam mean?
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Re: Emptiness
rachmiel wrote:Garfield's translation has a different ending:
I prostrate to the Perfect Buddha,
The best of teachers, who taught that
Whatever is dependently arisen is
Unceasing, unborn,
Unannihilated, not permanent,
Not coming, not going,
Without distinction, without identity,
And free from conceptual construction.
What does mangalam mean?
Yes, Garfield elided the last part from his translation. It would be best if you used someone else translation. Garfields is dated and quite inaccurate in many places.
mangalaṃ is the auspicious verse in the beginning.
Re: Emptiness
What translation would you suggest? I'm interested in something that does not overlay a particular school-driven interpretation on the MMK, but strives to capture and communicate Nagarjuna's original intention.Malcolm wrote:Yes, Garfield elided the last part from his translation. It would be best if you used someone else translation. Garfields is dated and quite inaccurate in many places.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Re: Emptiness
Here's Siderits & Katsura:
"I salute the Fully Enlightened One, the best of orators,
who taught the doctrine of dependent origination,
according to which there is neither cessation nor origination,
neither annihilation nor the eternal,
neither singularity nor plurality,
neither the coming nor the going [of any dharma, for the purpose of nirvana characterized by] the auspicious cessation of hypostatization."
"I salute the Fully Enlightened One, the best of orators,
who taught the doctrine of dependent origination,
according to which there is neither cessation nor origination,
neither annihilation nor the eternal,
neither singularity nor plurality,
neither the coming nor the going [of any dharma, for the purpose of nirvana characterized by] the auspicious cessation of hypostatization."
Re: Emptiness
Pretty dreadful as literature...Norwegian wrote:Here's Siderits & Katsura:
"I salute the Fully Enlightened One, the best of orators,
who taught the doctrine of dependent origination,
according to which there is neither cessation nor origination,
neither annihilation nor the eternal,
neither singularity nor plurality,
neither the coming nor the going [of any dharma, for the purpose of nirvana characterized by] the auspicious cessation of hypostatization."
Re: Emptiness
I own the book and there are numerous places where the English is clunky in my eyes. Then again I am not a translator nor do I know Sanskrit, so I cannot really say. But yeah...Malcolm wrote:Pretty dreadful as literature...Norwegian wrote:Here's Siderits & Katsura:
"I salute the Fully Enlightened One, the best of orators,
who taught the doctrine of dependent origination,
according to which there is neither cessation nor origination,
neither annihilation nor the eternal,
neither singularity nor plurality,
neither the coming nor the going [of any dharma, for the purpose of nirvana characterized by] the auspicious cessation of hypostatization."
Re: Emptiness
Ornament Of Reason: The Great Commentary To Nagarjuna's Root Of The Middle Wayrachmiel wrote:What translation would you suggest? I'm interested in something that does not overlay a particular school-driven interpretation on the MMK, but strives to capture and communicate Nagarjuna's original intention.Malcolm wrote:Yes, Garfield elided the last part from his translation. It would be best if you used someone else translation. Garfields is dated and quite inaccurate in many places.
It is a pre-Gelug Tibetan commentary.
Re: Emptiness
Procured, thanks.
Think I'll read Garfield and Tsöndrü side by side, see how they compare.
Think I'll read Garfield and Tsöndrü side by side, see how they compare.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Re: Emptiness
Well, Jay is very influenced by Gelug, and his reading pretty much ignores the classical tradition.rachmiel wrote:Procured, thanks.
Think I'll read Garfield and Tsöndrü side by side, see how they compare.
Re: Emptiness
Malcolm wrote:Ornament Of Reason: The Great Commentary To Nagarjuna's Root Of The Middle Wayrachmiel wrote:What translation would you suggest? I'm interested in something that does not overlay a particular school-driven interpretation on the MMK, but strives to capture and communicate Nagarjuna's original intention.Malcolm wrote:Yes, Garfield elided the last part from his translation. It would be best if you used someone else translation. Garfields is dated and quite inaccurate in many places.
It is a pre-Gelug Tibetan commentary.
Rachmiel, I highly recommend this book. The root text is also presented separately so you can read just through that if you like. Garfield himself said that this translation renders his own translation obsolete.
The commentary is also very very good, even if it is a harder nut to crack than Garfield's commentary. Note that Garfield follows the general Gelug presentation of Madhyamaka, so if you want to learn the non-Gelug understanding then this is a very good commentary on the MMK. Although I think if you want to go that direction it might be better to start off with one of the commentaries on Chandrakirti's Madhyamakavatara before going on to the MMK. The Madhyamakavatara is a much more accessible text. Or perhaps even with some other supplementary texts even.
I'm going to take a look through my books and try to think of anything that might be helpful.
Re: Emptiness
Nature/all is without I-me-my-mine. When I appear, all appear. I arises in thinking mind, then this I experiences all separate things.rachmiel wrote:So if things are ultimately neither dependent nor independent ... what is the nature of the relationship between them?
Looking merely to appearances, i is sustained. Looking in, straight to see I, no thing to see.
Subhuti was one of Buddha's disciples. He was able to understand the potency of emptiness: the viewpoint that nothing exists except in its relationship of subjectivity and objectivity.(16)
One day, when Subhuti was sitting under a tree in a mood of sublime emptiness, flowers began to fall around him.
"We are praising you for your discourse on emptiness;' the gods whispered to him.
'But I have not spoken of emptiness;' said Subhuti.
"You have not spoken of emptiness, we have not heard emptiness," responded the gods."This is true emptiness."
And the blossoms showered upon Subhuti like rain.(l7)
Herein lies the key to the Buddhist notion of emptiness, which can be understood and cherished only by being empty.
Re: Emptiness
I am a complete beginner trying to study and meditate on emptiness so please forgive me. My limited understanding is presented from a Gelug view. And the books (and websites mostly Berzin) I have read make it sounds like this presentation of the Madhyamaka is the highest an most complete. Completely in accord with Nagarjuna's intent.
I am wondering what is different about the Gelug presentation. Is it not harmonious with other traditions?
I am wondering what is different about the Gelug presentation. Is it not harmonious with other traditions?
Re: Emptiness
They insist that a negation is ultimate truth.Lukeinaz wrote:
I am wondering what is different about the Gelug presentation. Is it not harmonious with other traditions?
- Losal Samten
- Posts: 1591
- Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:05 pm
Re: Emptiness
http://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/colle ... _22_05.pdfLukeinaz wrote:I am a complete beginner trying to study and meditate on emptiness so please forgive me. My limited understanding is presented from a Gelug view. And the books (and websites mostly Berzin) I have read make it sounds like this presentation of the Madhyamaka is the highest an most complete. Completely in accord with Nagarjuna's intent.
I am wondering what is different about the Gelug presentation. Is it not harmonious with other traditions?
Lacking mindfulness, we commit every wrong. - Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔
ཨོཾ་ཧ་ནུ་པྷ་ཤ་བྷ་ར་ཧེ་ཡེ་སྭཱ་ཧཱ།།
ཨཱོཾ་མ་ཏྲི་མུ་ཡེ་སལེ་འདུ།།
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔
ཨོཾ་ཧ་ནུ་པྷ་ཤ་བྷ་ར་ཧེ་ཡེ་སྭཱ་ཧཱ།།
ཨཱོཾ་མ་ཏྲི་མུ་ཡེ་སལེ་འདུ།།
Re: Emptiness
What I found really useful with the Gelug approach is the fourfold negation. It gives me a step by step process to work with and a method to see the mistaken way I apprehend myself.
Please forgive my ignorance and feel free to move this post somewhere else but..
The fourfold negation seems like a valid way to determine selflessness. I only have access to Gelug teachers at the moment, so if i was interested in other presentations where might I start?
Mother: Thank you for the article. Lots to look over there!
Is the presentation of Dependent Arising harmonious?
I kind of feel like throwing up right now. The next thing you will tell me is The Heart Sutra is cooked!
Please forgive my ignorance and feel free to move this post somewhere else but..
The fourfold negation seems like a valid way to determine selflessness. I only have access to Gelug teachers at the moment, so if i was interested in other presentations where might I start?
Mother: Thank you for the article. Lots to look over there!
Is the presentation of Dependent Arising harmonious?
I kind of feel like throwing up right now. The next thing you will tell me is The Heart Sutra is cooked!