My explanation of emptiness

Casual conversation between friends. Anything goes (almost).
User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 9357
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: My explanation of emptiness

Post by Queequeg » Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:12 pm

Aemilius wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 6:06 pm
You cannot seriously doubt whether the atoms that make up the porridge you eat exist before your consumption of the porridge or not.
Well, actually, I don't know that the porridge I eat is made up of atoms, at all. I don't know when I first learned about atoms, but I kind of recall studying this in Earth Science back in middle school, and then in more detail in Chemistry in high school. It seems to make sense in my limited experience actually investigating. So, for me, its not really a matter of doubt so much as faith that atoms are there.
It is not even "faith", it is considered to be a fact, normally.
Yeah, riddle that...
And still buddhist masters have declared matter or its particles to be without true existence.
What is "true existence"? As opposed to "ersatz existence?" or "bologna existence?" Existence is an either/or proposition. There's no room for qualification.

But generally, what they say is that dharmas are dependently arisen; this itself is emptiness; as well as the middle way.

That's all they say. They make no grand pronouncements whether atoms have "true existence" or not. If you understood the explanation, you'd see this whole assertion you make is very much irrelevant and futile, to boot.
Part of [Vasubandhu's] logic goes: Devas, humans, and pretas see same reality, i.e. same elements, but because of their different stock of merit each class of beings sees a different world. They see ambrosia, water or pus, depending on their habitual tendencies or their collection of merit. To physics and chemistry water is composed of atoms or molecules, and they are not dependent on some mystical "merit". Physics and chemistry believe that water exists inherently, independent of us humans.
Presumably, the scientists making these arguments are humans, so of course they see water, silly. Aside from that, most people have very vivid imaginations. Its really easy to think that things exist inherently. Its what gives rise to samsara and all this suffering.
outer reality
Oh, you haven't examined your mind through yet, huh. You think that world really "exists" and is something other than the feedback and static coming back through your senses...

Well. Carry on. :smile:
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

SteRo
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:29 pm

Re: My explanation of emptiness

Post by SteRo » Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:18 am

Aemilius wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 6:06 pm
Conventional reality is habitual to such an extent that it is never doubted.
I would not say that.

Aemilius wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 6:06 pm
You cannot seriously doubt whether the atoms that make up the porridge you eat exist before your consumption of the porridge or not.
I would not say that because I can seriously doubt that.
Aemilius wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 6:06 pm
It is not even "faith", it is considered to be a fact, normally.
i would consider it to be ignorance.

Aemilius wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 6:06 pm
And still buddhist masters have declared matter or its particles to be without true existence.
Thanks to these buddhist masters.

Aemilius wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 6:06 pm
How do they get away with that?
Simply because they got it right.
Aemilius wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 6:06 pm
Vasubandhu has one explanation in his Vimshati-karika or Twenty verses and its commentary. Part of his logic goes: Devas, humans, and pretas see same reality, i.e. same elements, but because of their different stock of merit each class of beings sees a different world. They see ambrosia, water or pus, depending on their habitual tendencies or their collection of merit. To physics and chemistry water is composed of atoms or molecules, and they are not dependent on some mystical "merit". Physics and chemistry believe that water exists inherently, independent of us humans. But this is denied in Madhyamaka and Yogacara. Another kind of proof is magical powers, for example, Chandrakirti once milked a picture of a cow, to get some food for his retinue of monks. If you experience this kind of events, you may begin to believe that matter does not really exist. But some people still believe that matter exists, and they or others around them say that they have been "hallucinating". Thus the belief in outer reality is not necessarily broken. Or it may come back again after some time.
I really don't care about such papanca.It is normal or regularly the case, so no blame on you. Really ... no blame on you. It is just formative ignorance inherent in life.

User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 2437
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: My explanation of emptiness

Post by Aemilius » Tue Jan 21, 2020 10:05 am

Queequeg wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:12 pm
Aemilius wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 6:06 pm
You cannot seriously doubt whether the atoms that make up the porridge you eat exist before your consumption of the porridge or not.
Well, actually, I don't know that the porridge I eat is made up of atoms, at all. I don't know when I first learned about atoms, but I kind of recall studying this in Earth Science back in middle school, and then in more detail in Chemistry in high school. It seems to make sense in my limited experience actually investigating. So, for me, its not really a matter of doubt so much as faith that atoms are there.
It is not even "faith", it is considered to be a fact, normally.
Yeah, riddle that...
And still buddhist masters have declared matter or its particles to be without true existence.
What is "true existence"? As opposed to "ersatz existence?" or "bologna existence?" Existence is an either/or proposition. There's no room for qualification.

But generally, what they say is that dharmas are dependently arisen; this itself is emptiness; as well as the middle way.

That's all they say. They make no grand pronouncements whether atoms have "true existence" or not. If you understood the explanation, you'd see this whole assertion you make is very much irrelevant and futile, to boot.
Part of [Vasubandhu's] logic goes: Devas, humans, and pretas see same reality, i.e. same elements, but because of their different stock of merit each class of beings sees a different world. They see ambrosia, water or pus, depending on their habitual tendencies or their collection of merit. To physics and chemistry water is composed of atoms or molecules, and they are not dependent on some mystical "merit". Physics and chemistry believe that water exists inherently, independent of us humans.
Presumably, the scientists making these arguments are humans, so of course they see water, silly. Aside from that, most people have very vivid imaginations.
By "imaginations" you seem to imply that matter exists inherently, Independent of you. I.e. that the kind of things like milking a picture of a cow are just imagination. If you have that view, it is taking matter or atoms as truly existing.

There is dependent existence in Buddhism, it is not true existence, and not non-existence. A man becomes a father because he has a child, without the child he is not a father, his fatherhood is dependent. Similarly with uncle, aunt, cousin, widow, grandpa, neighbour, woman, man, etc... they are all dependently existing entities or phenomena.
Last edited by Aemilius on Tue Jan 21, 2020 10:25 am, edited 4 times in total.
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)

User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 2437
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: My explanation of emptiness

Post by Aemilius » Tue Jan 21, 2020 10:12 am

SteRo wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:18 am
Aemilius wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 6:06 pm
Conventional reality is habitual to such an extent that it is never doubted.
I would not say that.

Aemilius wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 6:06 pm
You cannot seriously doubt whether the atoms that make up the porridge you eat exist before your consumption of the porridge or not.
I would not say that because I can seriously doubt that.
Aemilius wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 6:06 pm
It is not even "faith", it is considered to be a fact, normally.
i would consider it to be ignorance.

Aemilius wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 6:06 pm
And still buddhist masters have declared matter or its particles to be without true existence.
Thanks to these buddhist masters.

Aemilius wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 6:06 pm
How do they get away with that?
Simply because they got it right.
You say that from belief or faith. You must also get personal experience of its truth, that is the meaning of the Buddha's teaching.
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)

Simon E.
Posts: 7177
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: My explanation of emptiness

Post by Simon E. » Tue Jan 21, 2020 10:56 am

Such a privilege to see two masters of Dharma going at it.... :popcorn:
“The difference between us and Tara is that she knows she doesn’t exist”.

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 9357
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: My explanation of emptiness

Post by Queequeg » Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:00 pm

Aemilius wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 10:05 am

By "imaginations" you seem to imply that matter exists inherently, Independent of you.
Nope. If I meant that I would have written that. You seem to be the one asserting inherent existence, no?
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

tkp67
Posts: 928
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 5:42 am

Re: My explanation of emptiness

Post by tkp67 » Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:14 pm

if nothing existed outside of ourselves how did the 5 aggregates combine to form this existence?

if there was no matter past our existence then how is there an internet, cities, samsara and nirvana?

Are ancient stupas ethereal?

Seems the masters sought to differentiate consciousness from the vessel in which it arises which would account for the development of that perspective over time as seen in East Asian traditions such as Nichiren Buddhism.

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 9357
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: My explanation of emptiness

Post by Queequeg » Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:52 pm

tkp67 wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:14 pm
if nothing existed outside of ourselves how did the 5 aggregates combine to form this existence?
The fact that you pose your question based on a hypothetical speaks for itself: "If". I don't know. That's your concern not mine. But I'll go along for a little.

What "existence" are you talking about? You refer to the five aggregates, so then you should understand the dependent origin of what you posit as "existence". Mahayana goes further to say that all dharmas, even those aggregates themselves, are unarisen. There is no "existence" to speak of beyond the dependently originated, and at the core of this dependently originated world is the mistaken distinction between subject and object.

If you invoke Nichiren then you need to also invoke the Three Truths, Kyochi Myogo, ichinen sanzen, etc. which offer extensive explanation of "existence" as something other than what you argue for.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 3366
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: My explanation of emptiness

Post by PadmaVonSamba » Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:04 pm

Aemilius wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 6:06 pm
You cannot seriously doubt whether the atoms that make up the porridge you eat exist before your consumption of the porridge or not. It is not even "faith", it is considered to be a fact, normally. And still buddhist masters have declared matter or its particles to be without true existence. How do they get away with that?
By “true existence” they mean an existence which is unconditional and which cannot be subdivided. It doesn’t mean that an atom can’t be observed with some technological apparatus.

It means that even if you isolate one atom, it has different sides to it, it is composed of subatomic components, they are composed of even more components, infinitely.

Even to examine the tiniest of tiny particles, even then, they occur at, say, a relative distance from the observer. If a tiny sub-nano particle is observed as occurring within the walls of a laboratory, then its position, its location is thus one of its characteristics and that characteristic can only occur in relation to, say, the parking lot outside of that laboratory.

And, since any occurring phenomena can only be described as occurring based on its characteristics, and all characteristics are conditional, then there is nothing that can be said to occur unconditionally, and this is expressed by saying it has no true existence. Or, “all dharmas are unarisen”.

Two things should be pointed out here.
First, I use the term “occur” because phenomena certainly do occur. It’s just that they don’t truly exist.

Second, the most common challenge to understanding emptiness results from the mistake of starting out with the assertion of an object, and then trying to deconstruct it to the point of denying it in the first place. This simply won’t work. In other words, don’t say, “here’s an atom, but it isn’t here”. Rather, “there’s nothing here that can be described as atomness.
.
.
.
Last edited by PadmaVonSamba on Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Profile Picture: "The Fo Ming (Buddha Bright) Monk"
People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.

tkp67
Posts: 928
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 5:42 am

Re: My explanation of emptiness

Post by tkp67 » Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:07 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:52 pm
tkp67 wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:14 pm
if nothing existed outside of ourselves how did the 5 aggregates combine to form this existence?
The fact that you pose your question based on a hypothetical speaks for itself: "If". I don't know. That's your concern not mine. But I'll go along for a little.

What "existence" are you talking about? You refer to the five aggregates, so then you should understand the dependent origin of what you posit as "existence". Mahayana goes further to say that all dharnas, even those aggregates themselves, are unarisen. There is no "existence" to speak of beyond the dependently originated, and at the core of this dependently originated world is the mistaken distinction between subject and object.

If you invoke Nichiren then you need to also invoke the Three Truths, Kyochi Myogo, ichinen sanzen, etc. which offer extensive explanation of "existence" as something other than what you argue for.
The existence of matter/energy outside of the notion of our own individual consciousness/sentience.

The one upon which we communicate which interestingly enough is supposed to support consciousness in and of itself which is why it was blessed in the 90's in accordance with the HHDL.

Does it not exist past our own individual existences?

Curiously thought what is it that you think I am arguing for or against?
Last edited by tkp67 on Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 2278
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: My explanation of emptiness

Post by Minobu » Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:18 pm

I feel that people over intellectualize Sunyata .

We take the translation of Lord Nagarjuna , without being there, live, with Him as a Teacher giving a lecture, and we run with it in a very fixed conventional way of looking at the world. The point is usually missed.

The point of the teaching from Lord Nagarjuna is to take the teaching as something that is pointing to a very unconventional way of view.

Tread lightly, don't intellectualize it.
Don't try to see some underlying thing that is the cause of everything. Sunyata is not some tangible thing in the universe. It's view, hence to bring about compassion based on the reality of the teaching. I emphasize that I believe it is a correct view of realty , or what we conventionally refer to as reality.

when we say that emptiness is both non existence and existance , it's to stop one from entering any sort of extreme view on the way of all things.

It's to come to a view of the nature of all things which is empty of inherent existence and displays both a conventional view and a nihilistic view at the same time.

I recall meeting a Jane , a very arrogant angry person by nature, who disparaged Buddhism. I mentioned the beauty of sunyata and he exclaimed "Ah thats just saying everything is nothingness".

Anyway, Rinpoche always emphasised ,for some reason, that one should be very careful in entering discussion on Sunyata for great Karma can be produced from it's discussion .

getting it wrong and explaining it with wrong view is very detrimental .


Aemillious, i might be mistaken but yesterday i read something that sparked something in me , but it seems you edited it out?

did you edit a post?

maybe i just read your posts differently this morning...a minobu thing :rolling:

but it was something you posted that brought me back here.

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 9357
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: My explanation of emptiness

Post by Queequeg » Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:37 pm

tkp67 wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:07 pm
Curiously thought what is it that you think I am arguing for or against?
tkp67 wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:07 pm
The existence of matter/energy outside of the notion of our own individual consciousness/sentience.
Beyond that, I've said my piece and can't say more on the trajectory you seem to be headed.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 3366
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: My explanation of emptiness

Post by PadmaVonSamba » Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:43 pm

tkp67 wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:07 pm

The existence of matter/energy outside of the notion of our own individual consciousness/sentience.

The one upon which we communicate which interestingly enough is supposed to support consciousness in and of itself which is why it was blessed in the 90's in accordance with the HHDL.

Does it not exist past our own individual existences?
It’s kind of like, for someone who worships a god, that god may be infinite, but one can only worship what they can imagine within the limits of their own thoughts or understanding. They never really get around to worshipping their god at all. They are only praying to what they’ve imagined.

Yes, it can be demonstrated by inference and logical reasoning that there occurs some kind of matter or energy or space beyond what we can perceive. But, as soon as we begin to identify it, name it, describe it, we are only referring to our own concepts.

It’s not just enough to say, “well of course, we will always have only subjective experiences of an objective reality”. It goes a little further than that, partly because we are also part of whatever we are describing. When we look at the night sky, we think, “I am here, the universe is out there” but we are already not separate from that. We are also parts of the universe we are looking at.

This also occurs when people ask whether or not the various Buddhist deities and protectors are “real”.
What does ‘real’ mean? It means, “real, the way that you and I are real”. But then, Buddha points out that there is not any “real” self. So, where does that leave you?

Obviously phenomena and events occur which we are not conscious of. Otherwise, people would never be surprised by anything. You would always know the instant you got a virus. You’d know if you had cancer, immediately.

Perhaps it is sufficient to say that objectivity is a moot point.
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Fo Ming (Buddha Bright) Monk"
People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.

tkp67
Posts: 928
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 5:42 am

Re: My explanation of emptiness

Post by tkp67 » Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:05 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:43 pm
tkp67 wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:07 pm

The existence of matter/energy outside of the notion of our own individual consciousness/sentience.

The one upon which we communicate which interestingly enough is supposed to support consciousness in and of itself which is why it was blessed in the 90's in accordance with the HHDL.

Does it not exist past our own individual existences?
It’s kind of like, for someone who worships a god, that god may be infinite, but one can only worship what they can imagine within the limits of their own thoughts or understanding. They never really get around to worshipping their god at all. They are only praying to what they’ve imagined.

Yes, it can be demonstrated by inference and logical reasoning that there occurs some kind of matter or energy or space beyond what we can perceive. But, as soon as we begin to identify it, name it, describe it, we are only referring to our own concepts.

It’s not just enough to say, “well of course, we will always have only subjective experiences of an objective reality”. It goes a little further than that, partly because we are also part of whatever we are describing. When we look at the night sky, we think, “I am here, the universe is out there” but we are already not separate from that. We are also parts of the universe we are looking at.

This also occurs when people ask whether or not the various Buddhist deities and protectors are “real”.
What does ‘real’ mean? It means, “real, the way that you and I are real”. But then, Buddha points out that there is not any “real” self. So, where does that leave you?

Obviously phenomena and events occur which we are not conscious of. Otherwise, people would never be surprised by anything. You would always know the instant you got a virus. You’d know if you had cancer, immediately.

Perhaps it is sufficient to say that objectivity is a moot point.
.
.
.
yet regardless of the variance in our perceptions the technology we use exists in such a manner or these communications would be impossible as would the reproduction of a sutra that existed before our existences.

the point is how we interpret the world is the domain of delusion/enlightenment not the phenomenon that exist outside of ourselves

our minds don't create reality they interpret it the purity of which is a reflection of a number of conditions

If there wasn't a deluded reality there would be no samsara, if there was no pure reality there would be no nirvana. Just because this distinction exists in our mind doesn't mean what we are observing does not.

Where it is of most import is the sentient beings that exist outside of our senses but are effected by our actions none the less. If we didn't share a true and absolute reality there would be no attachment to climate or politics because there would be no cause for attachment.

In these instances attachment is the very problem effecting a very true reality that exists past our individual minds such as the decline of the environment.

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 9357
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: My explanation of emptiness

Post by Queequeg » Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:20 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:43 pm
It goes a little further than that, partly because we are also part of whatever we are describing. When we look at the night sky, we think, “I am here, the universe is out there” but we are already not separate from that. We are also parts of the universe we are looking at.
That is probably about as good an explanation that can be made to a materialist.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 9357
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: My explanation of emptiness

Post by Queequeg » Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:21 pm

tkp67 wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:05 pm
the point is how we interpret the world is the domain of delusion/enlightenment not the phenomenon that exist outside of ourselves

our minds don't create reality they interpret it the purity of which is a reflection of a number of conditions
That may be a compelling explanation for yourself, but its not right view according to Buddha.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

tkp67
Posts: 928
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 5:42 am

Re: My explanation of emptiness

Post by tkp67 » Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:32 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:20 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:43 pm
It goes a little further than that, partly because we are also part of whatever we are describing. When we look at the night sky, we think, “I am here, the universe is out there” but we are already not separate from that. We are also parts of the universe we are looking at.
That is probably about as good an explanation that can be made to a materialist.
Yet according the that logic we are not separate of material but a part of it and looking at it.

So without contending that point what do you see, what does emptiness look like?

Is it really nothing in absolute terms? are all things exactly the same in emptiness? are they non existent in emptiness?

Or are they lacking the arising self particular to our own existence as defined by the 5 aggregates?

tkp67
Posts: 928
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 5:42 am

Re: My explanation of emptiness

Post by tkp67 » Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:33 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:21 pm
tkp67 wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:05 pm
the point is how we interpret the world is the domain of delusion/enlightenment not the phenomenon that exist outside of ourselves

our minds don't create reality they interpret it the purity of which is a reflection of a number of conditions
That may be a compelling explanation for yourself, but its not right view according to Buddha.
Which one? which tradition? which citation?

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 9357
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: My explanation of emptiness

Post by Queequeg » Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:41 pm

tkp67 wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:32 pm
Queequeg wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:20 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:43 pm
It goes a little further than that, partly because we are also part of whatever we are describing. When we look at the night sky, we think, “I am here, the universe is out there” but we are already not separate from that. We are also parts of the universe we are looking at.
That is probably about as good an explanation that can be made to a materialist.
Yet according the that logic we are not separate of material but a part of it and looking at it.

So without contending that point what do you see, what does emptiness look like?

Is it really nothing in absolute terms? are all things exactly the same in emptiness? are they non existent in emptiness?

Or are they lacking the arising self particular to our own existence as defined by the 5 aggregates?
As I wrote above, I can't address your assumptions. Those are your obstacles. If you want to discuss what people like Nagarjuna actually said about emptiness, well, then, there's a discussion that could be had.

I would suggest starting with Mulamadhyamikakarika, with a commentary, and ideally, someone qualified to study it with. Absent that last part, you could pose questions here as there are some well versed, and even qualified, members of this forum.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

tkp67
Posts: 928
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 5:42 am

Re: My explanation of emptiness

Post by tkp67 » Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:37 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:41 pm
tkp67 wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:32 pm
Queequeg wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:20 pm


That is probably about as good an explanation that can be made to a materialist.
Yet according the that logic we are not separate of material but a part of it and looking at it.

So without contending that point what do you see, what does emptiness look like?

Is it really nothing in absolute terms? are all things exactly the same in emptiness? are they non existent in emptiness?

Or are they lacking the arising self particular to our own existence as defined by the 5 aggregates?
As I wrote above, I can't address your assumptions. Those are your obstacles.
You assume they are obstacles. They are questions. Are they moot, rhetorical, authentic or perhaps posed to evoke a deeper consideration.

It is curious you choose Nagarjuna and not Nichiren and expect formal dialog in casual conversation.

I am not looking to evoke cyclical conversations, seems as fruitful as herding cats.

:anjali:

Post Reply

Return to “Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 60 guests