Emptiness

General discussion, particularly exploring the Dharma in the modern world.
User avatar
Matt J
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Emptiness

Post by Matt J »

From my non-scholar's POV, the main thing that strikes me about the Gelug view is distinguishing between an object and its inherent existence. So they might say, "The cup is empty of inherent existence, but not empty of the cup." I never got that.
"The world is made of stories, not atoms."
--- Muriel Rukeyser
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Emptiness

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

I think the Gelug version is that things are self-empty but they do arise interdependently.

I think the non-Gelug version is that even with interdependence things still don't arise.

But I could be way off base on that.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Emptiness

Post by Malcolm »

smcj wrote:I think the Gelug version is that things are self-empty but they do arise interdependently.
Gelugs reject the appellation "rang stong", FYI.
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Emptiness

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

Malcolm wrote:
smcj wrote:I think the Gelug version is that things are self-empty but they do arise interdependently.
Gelugs reject the appellation "rang stong", FYI.
Of course.

How was my thumbnail of the difference between Gelug and non-Gelug?
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
User avatar
Losal Samten
Posts: 1591
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:05 pm

Re: Emptiness

Post by Losal Samten »

Lukeinaz wrote: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?
The fourfold negation is found in all schools of Madhyamaka, the approaches that are used can differ though, as can be seen most noticeably with the Gelugpa and Shentongpa.
I kind of feel like throwing up right now. The next thing you will tell me is The Heart Sutra is cooked!
There's no need for such a strong reaction :), if you're a Gelugpa, follow the Gelugpa approach, if you're a Sakyapa, follow the Sakyapa approach. Alternatively, no matter what school you belong to, follow the one makes sense to you even if it's not the Definitive™, as was done before the Tibetan sectarian nonsense kicked in.
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།།
User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 5694
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Emptiness

Post by conebeckham »

Simply stated, the Geluk version of Madhyamaka differentiates between the object itself, and the "inherent existence" of the object. Thus, they allow for a sort of existence on the conventional level, and refute existence only on an ultimate level.

The Tetralemma should lead to a lack of conceptualization about existence of phenomena, an exhaustion of conceptualization. For Tsong Khapa's followers, it leads to a sort of "conceptual idea" of Emptiness, due to the qualifiers that are added ("Inherent").
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།


"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")
User avatar
Rick
Posts: 2628
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:05 am

Re: Emptiness

Post by Rick »

Lukeinaz wrote:I kind of feel like throwing up right now.
That's your body trying to realize emptiness. :rolling:
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
Losal Samten
Posts: 1591
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:05 pm

Re: Emptiness

Post by Losal Samten »

conebeckham wrote:Simply stated, the Geluk version of Madhyamaka differentiates between the object itself, and the "inherent existence" of the object. Thus, they allow for a sort of existence on the conventional level, and refute existence only on an ultimate level.
It should be noted that they do not consider their view to be separating the two truths as other schools claim they do, indeed Je Tsongkhapa states that to do so is a wrong view:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eih ... ly&f=false

And the Gelugpa scholar Changkya Rolpa'i Dorje says:
  • Our great intellects these days,
    Leave things appearing clearly on one side
    And look for hares with horns as something to refute.
    Old grandmother
    (Prajnaparamita) will run away from them!
The Tetralemma should lead to a lack of conceptualization about existence of phenomena, an exhaustion of conceptualization. For Tsong Khapa's followers, it leads to a sort of "conceptual idea" of Emptiness, due to the qualifiers that are added ("Inherent").
Of course for them a conceptualised emptiness is not necessarily a bad thing, as they say Buddhas also conceptualise, albeit correctly.
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།།
Bakmoon
Posts: 746
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:31 am

Re: Emptiness

Post by Bakmoon »

Lukeinaz 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?
Very briefly, the Gelug school says that emptiness refers specifically to the emptiness of inherent existence, so the conclusion to be drawn is that although things don't exist inherently and in and of themselves, they do have existence on the relative level.

The other schools say that emptiness is much more than just the lack of inherent existence. It's about removing all views, most particularly the views of existence, non-existence, both, and neither.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Emptiness

Post by Malcolm »

Bakmoon wrote:
The other schools say that emptiness is much more than just the lack of inherent existence. It's about removing all views, most particularly the views of existence, non-existence, both, and neither.
This is because existence also cannot withstand ultimate analysis.
User avatar
Thomas Amundsen
Posts: 2034
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:50 am
Location: Helena, MT
Contact:

Re: Emptiness

Post by Thomas Amundsen »

Mother's Lap wrote: Of course for them a conceptualised emptiness is not necessarily a bad thing, as they say Buddhas also conceptualise, albeit correctly.
Heretics! JK :tongue:

This explains a lot, actually. Thanks!
Saoshun
Posts: 638
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2014 11:16 pm

Re: Emptiness

Post by Saoshun »

The best explanation of emptiness you have in Naruto Shipuuden Episode 427. It's actually show first hinayana path and then mahayana path and all cultivation, practices fails and ways of cultivation.
User avatar
Rick
Posts: 2628
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:05 am

Re: Emptiness

Post by Rick »

Malcolm wrote:
Bakmoon wrote:
The other schools say that emptiness is much more than just the lack of inherent existence. It's about removing all views, most particularly the views of existence, non-existence, both, and neither.
This is because existence also cannot withstand ultimate analysis.
Nor can that view ... or any other. ;-)

That's why I think we should all just relax and watch a lot of TV.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
Matt J
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Emptiness

Post by Matt J »

It is all very simple. What I've noticed is that soaking in this view, again and again, allows it to seep into your bones in a curious way. I find that, quite naturally, as emptiness suffuses the mind, suffering begins to diminish on its own.
rachmiel wrote: This is because existence also cannot withstand ultimate analysis.
Nor can that view ... or any other. ;-)

That's why I think we should all just relax and watch a lot of TV.
"The world is made of stories, not atoms."
--- Muriel Rukeyser
User avatar
Rick
Posts: 2628
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:05 am

Re: Emptiness

Post by Rick »

My experience too. :-)

Things also get funnier for me, sillier. Life moves from melodrama towards absurd comedy.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
Rick
Posts: 2628
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:05 am

Re: Emptiness

Post by Rick »

Here's something I don't quite get:

Form is emptiness. No problem with that. Form is clearly empty of ... (svabhava).

But:

Emptiness is form. Hmm ... that's confusing. I grok "is empty of." But "emptiness" as a subject/noun, not so much, because it seems to want to reify "being empty." Does EiF mean anything nontrivially *different* from FiE? If so, what?
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
Ayu
Global Moderator
Posts: 13244
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:25 am
Location: Europe

Re: Emptiness

Post by Ayu »

rachmiel wrote:Here's something I don't quite get:

Form is emptiness. No problem with that. Form is clearly empty of ... (svabhava).

But:

Emptiness is form. Hmm ... that's confusing. I grok "is empty of." But "emptiness" as a subject/noun, not so much, because it seems to want to reify "being empty." Does EiF mean anything nontrivially *different* from FiE? If so, what?
As far as I'm informed, it means form is the foundation for realizing emptiness. It is the frame, so there is something to be empty. Without the appearance of a conventional world, no prove for emptiness could be given.
That's why the conventional level does not contradict the absolute level and they go together.
Something has to be empty, so emptiness can be.
(Expressed with my modest skills.)
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Emptiness

Post by Malcolm »

rachmiel wrote:Here's something I don't quite get:

Form is emptiness. No problem with that. Form is clearly empty of ... (svabhava).

But:

Emptiness is form. Hmm ... that's confusing. I grok "is empty of." But "emptiness" as a subject/noun, not so much, because it seems to want to reify "being empty." Does EiF mean anything nontrivially *different* from FiE? If so, what?
Just a minor correction to the translation you are using, it should be:
  • "Matter [the material aggregate] is empty (adjective). Emptiness (noun) is matter [one to one identity]. [Therefore] there is no matter apart from emptiness; there is no emptiness apart from matter."
The same goes for the rest of the five aggregates, as it is said:
  • Likewise, sensation, perception, formations and consciousness are empty...That being so, all phenomena are emptiness, signlessness, not arising, not ceasing, neither tainted nor free from taints; neither increasing nor decreasing.
So, it is an identity proposition about the nature of reality. But it is not really a proposition, since the sūtra says that this analysis is a training. A training in what? A training in seeing that the five aggregates, all contaminated phenomena are empty of a svabhāva, an inherent nature.

However, not only contaminated phenomena are empty of a svabhāva, an inherent nature, but also so called pure phenomena, nirvana and so on.

The message? There is nothing to cling to.
Bakmoon
Posts: 746
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:31 am

Re: Emptiness

Post by Bakmoon »

rachmiel wrote:Here's something I don't quite get:

Form is emptiness. No problem with that. Form is clearly empty of ... (svabhava).

But:

Emptiness is form. Hmm ... that's confusing. I grok "is empty of." But "emptiness" as a subject/noun, not so much, because it seems to want to reify "being empty." Does EiF mean anything nontrivially *different* from FiE? If so, what?
It means that form and emptiness are inseparable. You cannot pull apart the appearance of form and the emptiness of that form.
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Emptiness

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

Malcolm wrote:The message? There is nothing to cling to.

Bingo. Bookmark that one too.

I'm trying to find another Malcolm quote (I really need to bookmark more of them) where he says that to a Buddha phenomena arise as wisdoms. The two quotes make matching bookends.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Post Reply

Return to “Dharma in Everyday Life”