My explanation of emptiness

Casual conversation between friends. Anything goes (almost).
User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 10876
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: My explanation of emptiness

Post by Queequeg »

tkp67 wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:37 pm
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:
They are obstacles because in discussing emptiness, your questions head down an unfruitful path and are basically meaningless in this context.

Nichiren is not at odds with Nagarjuna. He very much relies on Nagarjuna through Tiantai/Tendai. If you're going to invoke Nichiren, it helps if you had a good grasp of what he taught. Nichiren did not teach essential self.
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
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 11345
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: My explanation of emptiness

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

tkp67 wrote: 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?
Any of them really. There are no Buddhist positions that assume for instance, that the qualia that we experience as phenomena come from something other than the mind, even the Skanhda model recognizes that what is termed "the world" is a continuum of subjective experiences. In modern terms, about all one can say about physical things which exist "outside" of appearances is that perhaps they are idk...probability fields of atoms or something roughly the equivalent of Atomism of Sautantrika...even that is iffy. Virtually everything about "the world" is imputed by mind, from colors to spatial relationships, to what we think of as "our bodies", which is just a gestalt we put together from sense experiences.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .olen.html
"...if you think about how many hours, months and years of your life you've spent looking at things, being fascinated by things that have now passed away, then how wonderful to spend even five minutes looking into the nature of your own mind."

-James Low
tkp67
Posts: 1887
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 5:42 am

Re: My explanation of emptiness

Post by tkp67 »

Queequeg wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:50 pm
tkp67 wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:37 pm
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:
They are obstacles because in discussing emptiness, your questions head down an unfruitful path that are basically meaningless in this context.
Or perhaps they are relevant to the degenerate age.
queequeg wrote:Nichiren is not at odds with Nagarjuna. He very much relies on Nagarjuna through Tiantai/Tendai. If you're going to invoke Nichiren, it helps if you had a good grasp of what he taught. Nichiren did not teach essential self.
He also taught enlightenment of insentient objects which gives meaning to the very point I am posing.

As was the question about stupas.

Our existence involves the material world. Understanding emptiness while engaged in this dynamic is appropriate for the degenerate age. It is why IMHO older teachings are so difficult to grasp.
DharmaN00b
Posts: 384
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:12 pm

Re: My explanation of emptiness

Post by DharmaN00b »

Who are all these degenerates people keep talking about and why would they be interested in anything righteous or wholesome? :thinking:
tkp67
Posts: 1887
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 5:42 am

Re: My explanation of emptiness

Post by tkp67 »

Johnny Dangerous wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 7:02 pm
tkp67 wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:33 pm
Queequeg wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:21 pm

That may be a compelling explanation for yourself, but its not right view according to Buddha.
Which one? which tradition? which citation?
Any of them really. There are no Buddhist positions that assume for instance, that the qualia that we experience as phenomena come from something other than the mind, even the Skanhda model recognizes that what is termed "the world" is a continuum of subjective experiences. In modern terms, about all one can say about physical things which exist "outside" of appearances is that perhaps they are idk...probability fields of atoms or something...even that is iffy. Virtually everything about "the world" is imputed by mind, from colors to spatial relationships, to what we think of as "our bodies", which is actually just a gestalt we put together from sense experiences.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .olen.html
Thank you johnny for the thoughtful response.

Yet none of that can be divorced from the phenomenon of the physical world. Our mind imputes but it does not randomly create. It responds to either external, regardless of variation among individuals. Mental illness illness in ways is defined with improper reactions/interactions of external stimulus. The mind doesn't create its own interpretation of reality randomly but rather reactive to the world around it. The mind according to the realms is an example of external influence on our existence.

As I interpret my tradition keeping emptiness in mind while existing in the material world is the middle way. YMMV.

I understand that as a means to separate self from the material world many approaches make a deep divide of these concepts so it can be observed. If I understand correctly they aren't meant to be held that tightly after.


:anjali:
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 11345
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: My explanation of emptiness

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

tkp67 wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 7:21 pm
Johnny Dangerous wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 7:02 pm
tkp67 wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:33 pm

Which one? which tradition? which citation?
Any of them really. There are no Buddhist positions that assume for instance, that the qualia that we experience as phenomena come from something other than the mind, even the Skanhda model recognizes that what is termed "the world" is a continuum of subjective experiences. In modern terms, about all one can say about physical things which exist "outside" of appearances is that perhaps they are idk...probability fields of atoms or something...even that is iffy. Virtually everything about "the world" is imputed by mind, from colors to spatial relationships, to what we think of as "our bodies", which is actually just a gestalt we put together from sense experiences.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .olen.html
Thank you johnny for the thoughtful response.

Yet none of that can be divorced from the phenomenon of the physical world. Our mind imputes but it does not randomly create. It responds to either external, regardless of variation among individuals. Mental illness illness in ways is defined with improper reactions/interactions of external stimulus. The mind doesn't create its own interpretation of reality randomly but rather reactive to the world around it. The mind according to the realms is an example of external influence on our existence.

As I interpret my tradition keeping emptiness in mind while existing in the material world is the middle way. YMMV.

I understand that as a means to separate self from the material world many approaches make a deep divide of these concepts so it can be observed. If I understand correctly they aren't meant to be held that tightly after.


:anjali:
Yet none of that can be divorced from the phenomenon of the physical world.
There is no "physical world" per se in Buddhism, there is shared Karma of sentient beings, and in some philosophies insubstantial, constantly shifting Dharmas. Even in the various atomist philosophies, the "world" as such is pretty close to insubstantial. Like I said a modern comparison would be understand probability field and particle vs. wave based on observation etc. Even in those places, a reified "physical world" outside the observer - existing from it's own side- isn't really a thing.

I think you are deeply misunderstanding the primacy of mind in Buddhadharma, the above is basically a materialist view of the world, and ultimately cannot be reconciled with any Buddhist teachings that I'm aware of. Whether you believe matter/body or the mind is primary is a very important question in Dharma, not a minor thing.
"...if you think about how many hours, months and years of your life you've spent looking at things, being fascinated by things that have now passed away, then how wonderful to spend even five minutes looking into the nature of your own mind."

-James Low
User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 10876
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: My explanation of emptiness

Post by Queequeg »

Johnny Dangerous wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 7:27 pm There is no "physical world" per se in Buddhism, there is shared Karma of sentient beings, and in some philosophies insubstantial, constantly shifting Dharmas.

I think you are misunderstanding the primacy of mind in Buddhadharma, the above is a materialist view of the world, and ultimately cannot be reconciled with any Buddhist teachings that I'm aware of. Whether you believe matter/body or the mind is primary is a very important question in Dharma, it colors everything.
This.
tkp67 wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 7:04 pm Or perhaps they are relevant to the degenerate age.
You are quite welcome to speculate. You're on your own.
queequeg wrote:Nichiren is not at odds with Nagarjuna. He very much relies on Nagarjuna through Tiantai/Tendai. If you're going to invoke Nichiren, it helps if you had a good grasp of what he taught. Nichiren did not teach essential self.
He also taught enlightenment of insentient objects which gives meaning to the very point I am posing.

As was the question about stupas.

Our existence involves the material world. Understanding emptiness while engaged in this dynamic is appropriate for the degenerate age. It is why IMHO older teachings are so difficult to grasp.
Well, to judge that they are difficult to grasp, one might need to actually grasp them. Otherwise, its just speculation. "Oh, I can't know it because its too hard." "Well, did you try?" "No, its just too hard." :rolleye:

Enlightenment of insentient beings is not about materialism. Its a teaching that relates to the mutuality of the ten worlds. Its not going to make sense to most of the audience here, so, I'll leave it there. If you want to take up that, I would suggest starting a thread in the East Asian sub.

The fact that the karmic conditions of beings in the Degenerate Age of Dharma present a significant obstacle to awakening does not render the teachings of those like Nagarjuna false. If a person gets lost, is the road builder to blame? As the Maine Yankee would say, "Tha rowd don't go no-wheah."
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: 648
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:29 pm

Re: My explanation of emptiness

Post by SteRo »

Aemilius wrote: 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.
Belief - from my perspective - means imputing truth to the object believed in. So I don't say that from belief. Maybe 'faith in the appropriate linguistic expression' does apply. Truth cannot be experienced because it is a formation of ignorance. So experiencing truth is experiencing ignorance.
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 11345
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: My explanation of emptiness

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

At a retreat once one of my main teachers said something a long of the lines of "mind-only is very important to the meditator", and not from a philosophical standpoint, but a functional one. We had a group discussion on just what is "outside of mind". Maybe two or three people grokked it right away, most people were set in the idea that there are static physical objects somehow "outside" their perception, that they can simultaneously perceive, and were (at that time) unable to see the absurdity in that.

The idea that we are separate from a real, outside world totally independent of our observation is deeply ingrained in our worldview. It doesn't make sense at all. In fact it's absurd - there would be no "outside world" at all without our observation - this is essentially proved by inference even of modern science and physics findings, but it persists until you examine it deeply enough to realize it is total nonsense.
"...if you think about how many hours, months and years of your life you've spent looking at things, being fascinated by things that have now passed away, then how wonderful to spend even five minutes looking into the nature of your own mind."

-James Low
User avatar
PeterC
Posts: 2522
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: My explanation of emptiness

Post by PeterC »

Johnny Dangerous wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 11:30 pm The idea that we are separate from a real, outside world totally independent of our observation is deeply ingrained in our worldview. It doesn't make sense at all. In fact it's absurd - there would be no "outside world" at all without our observation - this is essentially proved by inference even of modern science and physics findings, but it persists until you examine it deeply enough to realize it is total nonsense.
I wouldn’t go as far as to call it nonsense. It’s a very understandable perspective. One person can describe their experience of a putative external world to the level of detail where a second person can, on the basis of those descriptions, independently find places and objects as described, and produce effects of great complexity that rely on the reported physical properties of objects. For them to infer that there is an objective physical reality “out there” due to the similarity of their described experiences is a very understandable reaction.
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 11345
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: My explanation of emptiness

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

PeterC wrote: Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:50 am
Johnny Dangerous wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 11:30 pm The idea that we are separate from a real, outside world totally independent of our observation is deeply ingrained in our worldview. It doesn't make sense at all. In fact it's absurd - there would be no "outside world" at all without our observation - this is essentially proved by inference even of modern science and physics findings, but it persists until you examine it deeply enough to realize it is total nonsense.
I wouldn’t go as far as to call it nonsense. It’s a very understandable perspective. One person can describe their experience of a putative external world to the level of detail where a second person can, on the basis of those descriptions, independently find places and objects as described, and produce effects of great complexity that rely on the reported physical properties of objects. For them to infer that there is an objective physical reality “out there” due to the similarity of their described experiences is a very understandable reaction.
"Nonsense" is not a qualitative judgement, but indicating that it's actually a nonsensical position when examined. I meant it as a kind of synonym for "absurd", rather than as a value judgement. Certainly at one time the idea of an objective outside world also made sense to me, in fact it seemed common sense. I now think the idea is nonsensical. ironically, I almost said "objectively nonsensical"...lol

Anyway, my point is that this is a default assumption in our society generally speaking, but it is contrary even to the findings of science...it's this weird inference that most of us make based on very little.
"...if you think about how many hours, months and years of your life you've spent looking at things, being fascinated by things that have now passed away, then how wonderful to spend even five minutes looking into the nature of your own mind."

-James Low
User avatar
PeterC
Posts: 2522
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: My explanation of emptiness

Post by PeterC »

Johnny Dangerous wrote: Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:14 am
PeterC wrote: Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:50 am
Johnny Dangerous wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 11:30 pm The idea that we are separate from a real, outside world totally independent of our observation is deeply ingrained in our worldview. It doesn't make sense at all. In fact it's absurd - there would be no "outside world" at all without our observation - this is essentially proved by inference even of modern science and physics findings, but it persists until you examine it deeply enough to realize it is total nonsense.
I wouldn’t go as far as to call it nonsense. It’s a very understandable perspective. One person can describe their experience of a putative external world to the level of detail where a second person can, on the basis of those descriptions, independently find places and objects as described, and produce effects of great complexity that rely on the reported physical properties of objects. For them to infer that there is an objective physical reality “out there” due to the similarity of their described experiences is a very understandable reaction.
"Nonsense" is not a qualitative judgement, but indicating that it's actually a nonsensical position when examined. I meant it as a kind of synonym for "absurd", rather than as a value judgement. Certainly at one time the idea of an objective outside world also made sense to me, in fact it seemed common sense. I now think the idea is nonsensical. ironically, I almost said "objectively nonsensical"...lol

Anyway, my point is that this is a default assumption in our society generally speaking, but it is contrary even to the findings of science...it's this weird inference that most of us make based on very little.
Understand. As Gendun Choepel said, the outside world isn't in danger of vanishing just because you attempt to logically refute it, and a refutation that leaves your external perceptions completely undisturbed isn't much use. I just made that comment because occasionally you see people get on the "it's all empty, dude, nothing really exists, that cup of coffee you're drinking is just in your mind" train, and end up attempting an equally nonsensical refutation of relative truth.
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 2689
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: My explanation of emptiness

Post by Aemilius »

Minobu wrote: 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.
Quite possible, I probably edited my post for half hour, can't remember exactly what there was to start with, I remember changing my mind.
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: 7652
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: My explanation of emptiness

Post by Simon E. »

PeterC wrote: Wed Jan 22, 2020 9:15 am
Johnny Dangerous wrote: Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:14 am
PeterC wrote: Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:50 am

I wouldn’t go as far as to call it nonsense. It’s a very understandable perspective. One person can describe their experience of a putative external world to the level of detail where a second person can, on the basis of those descriptions, independently find places and objects as described, and produce effects of great complexity that rely on the reported physical properties of objects. For them to infer that there is an objective physical reality “out there” due to the similarity of their described experiences is a very understandable reaction.
"Nonsense" is not a qualitative judgement, but indicating that it's actually a nonsensical position when examined. I meant it as a kind of synonym for "absurd", rather than as a value judgement. Certainly at one time the idea of an objective outside world also made sense to me, in fact it seemed common sense. I now think the idea is nonsensical. ironically, I almost said "objectively nonsensical"...lol

Anyway, my point is that this is a default assumption in our society generally speaking, but it is contrary even to the findings of science...it's this weird inference that most of us make based on very little.
Understand. As Gendun Choepel said, the outside world isn't in danger of vanishing just because you attempt to logically refute it, and a refutation that leaves your external perceptions completely undisturbed isn't much use. I just made that comment because occasionally you see people get on the "it's all empty, dude, nothing really exists, that cup of coffee you're drinking is just in your mind" train, and end up attempting an equally nonsensical refutation of relative truth.
Aye..alongside the equally fatuous ( in isolation) idea that the only thing we need do is ‘stop grasping’and everything magically resolves. :smile: It’s kind of true but but unhelpful.
“You don’t know it. You just know about it. That is not the same thing.”

Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 2689
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: My explanation of emptiness

Post by Aemilius »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: 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.
Not infinitely, the smallest unit of length is Planck's length

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
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 3990
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: My explanation of emptiness

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Aemilius wrote: Wed Jan 22, 2020 2:38 pm Not infinitely, the smallest unit of length is Planck's length
True. And there are other things, space, and awareness, which likewise cannot be subdivided into other types of components. If you divide space surging a given area, fill that space or empty it, it is still space. And the same with awareness.
Be kind.
Malcolm
Posts: 32412
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: My explanation of emptiness

Post by Malcolm »

tkp67 wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 7:04 pm
He [the Buddha] also taught enlightenment of insentient objects which gives meaning to the very point I am posing.
No, the Buddha did not teach this.
User avatar
well wisher
Posts: 436
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2018 3:57 am

Re: My explanation of emptiness

Post by well wisher »

SteRo wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 10:47 pm Belief - from my perspective - means imputing truth to the object believed in. So I don't say that from belief. Maybe 'faith in the appropriate linguistic expression' does apply. Truth cannot be experienced because it is a formation of ignorance. So experiencing truth is experiencing ignorance.
Hmm, I think this sentence "Truth cannot be experienced because it is a formation of ignorance" is a very dangerous statement, especially if applied too broadly. Because it would imply nothing in this physical world is true, no practices nor teachings would have any truth to it, and life on Earth / Saha World would have no meaning at all - leading to hopeless total nihilism.

If you mean this statement only applies to "blind faiths" that demands "total obedience without question", then I would agree - there is no point in such "blind faith" practices, it would be just ignorance and tyrannical slavery.

But in my view, this statement does not apply towards Buddhist practices. Because there definitely are noble beneficial purposes and results in doing so, with direct results one can directly experience and observe and know right away as the actual truth in reality. Such as ethics and towards lessening & eliminating the 3 root poisons (greed, hatred & ignorance), developing 8-fold noble path skills to beneficially help others and the temporary "self", meditations/calming of the mind for better health.... etc.
And hopefully some beneficial lessons, and maybe even skills, can be taken beyond death - this actually helps at least partially explain the difference in personalities right at childhood for different people etc.

Perhaps a better approach is: don't hold any presumptions beliefs and assumptions, then the truth shall gradually reveal itself.
And I think the more correct description is that this reality and this life is only "temporarily true". This world will not be true to the dead & deceased, but it is still truthful at least to those who are living. Best to move out completely out of Samsara then, to avoid pointless loops filled with sufferings!
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 2689
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: My explanation of emptiness

Post by Aemilius »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: 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”.
Nirvana is peace. That is a chrarcteristic or quality. And there are the 18 special qualities of the Dharmakaya. Nirvana is said to be the Unconditioned.
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
well wisher
Posts: 436
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2018 3:57 am

Re: My explanation of emptiness

Post by well wisher »

Aemilius wrote: Thu Jan 23, 2020 4:23 am
PadmaVonSamba wrote: 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”.
Nirvana is peace. That is a chrarcteristic or quality. And there are the 18 special qualities of the Dharmakaya. Nirvana is said to be the Unconditioned.
Well said, true to the simple observable truth: that ALL CONDITIONED EXISTENCE IS SUFFERING, like filled with too many unwanted forced bondage.
Only unconditioned existence (eg. after Nirvana) is fully satisfactory and acceptable. Only then will true total freedom be achieved.

Any samsaric conditioned existence are transitional, fleeting, and impermanent, and shall eventually be emptied out.
Nirvana liberation is inevitable for all sentient beings - it is just a matter of time, with many thanks to the many noble Buddhas and Bodhisattva at work.
Post Reply

Return to “Lounge”