The Void

General forum on the teachings of all schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism. Topics specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
Post Reply
Relinquish
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 9:15 pm

The Void

Post by Relinquish » Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:14 pm

In truth, any given 'particular thing' (for example, a 'tree') exists in a state of constant change, which is to say that 'the tree' is in fact a 'process' rather than a 'thing'. This process can ONLY be occurring if the necessary conditions are present. These conditions are 'not the tree', and are naturally comprised of 'other processes', ALL of which can ONLY be occurring if the necessary conditions are present. These conditions are 'not those other processes', and are naturally comprised of 'other other processes', ALL of which can ONLY be occurring if the necessary conditions are present, and so on, ad infinitum.

Therefore, 'the tree' could not possibly be occurring in exactly the way that it is without the ENTIRETY of 'not the tree' (i.e. the rest of the universe) occuring in exactly the way that it is. In this way, 'the tree' naturally includes the entirety of the rest of the universe within it's own existence, and so there is no REAL difference between 'the tree' and 'not the tree'. As such, neither 'the tree' nor 'not the tree' exist in Reality. Exactly the same is true of ALL 'particular processes', including 'Me' and 'Not Me' (and 'You' and 'Not You').

This means that the fundamental distinctions between all the different processes are purely conceptual, and so, do not ACTUALLY exist in any way at all.

Fundamentally, all the different processes are actually arbitrarily delineated, impermanent 'features' of the eternally cyclic Process of Being (the only Process that ever actually occurs in Reality, commonly known as the universe).

If the ceaseless change that is this Process had an absolute beginning, that beginning would also be the ending of a prior 'beginningless absence of change'. If it had an absolute ending, that ending would also be the beginning of a subsequent 'endless absence of change'. Such a situation is an absolute impossibility.

Therefore, the Process of Being MUST be eternally cyclic.

An eternal 'state of non-being' would ALWAYS be a completely structureless, ever-changeless and infinitely symmetrical state. For this reason, the Process of Being can ONLY be the 'structured ever-changing asymmetry' that It is.

Ultimately, the Process is most accurately defined as the eternal activity of Reality Itself.

However, the TRUE nature of Reality (that is to say, the actual reason why It is eternally active rather than eternally inactive, why 'experiencing' apparently happens at particular 'times' and 'places' within It's activity, and in turn, why an illusion of multiplicity, separateness and duality seems to arise in the most complex of these experiences) is absolutely unknowable....


Thanks for reading. :)

muni
Posts: 4305
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: The Void

Post by muni » Sun Nov 05, 2017 2:31 pm

why 'experiencing' apparently happens at particular 'times' and 'places' within It's activity, and in turn, why an illusion of multiplicity, separateness and duality seems to arise in the most complex of these experiences) is absolutely unknowable....
Hi :smile:
Yes, why.
But now, what about grasping thoughts and we are believing them and identifying with them, as habit, by what the illusion of I arises and by that the illusion of multiplicity, separatedness and duality seems to arise?
Buddha said all is empty like my brain.
Let’s make a selfie!

Having meditated on love and compassion, I forgot the difference between myself and others. Yogi Milarepa.

User avatar
jkarlins
Posts: 555
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2016 10:58 am
Location: Amesbury, MA USA

Re: The Void

Post by jkarlins » Sun Nov 05, 2017 2:42 pm

It's funny you mention trees.

When I was in college getting my BA, I got heavily into philosophy and theology for a year or so. And trees were often used as an example by thinkers writing about the whole nature of reality thing.

I guess trees are just cool and interesting!

Jake

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 15180
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: The Void

Post by Grigoris » Sun Nov 05, 2017 4:25 pm

Relinquish wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:14 pm
This means that the fundamental distinctions between all the different processes are purely conceptual, and so, do not ACTUALLY exist in any way at all.
They do have an existence: an ultimate level of existence (ie they are empty) and a relative level of existence (their impermanent manifestations). Things exist at a relative level because they are empty, not in spite of being empty
Fundamentally, all the different processes are actually arbitrarily delineated, impermanent 'features' of the eternally cyclic Process of Being (the only Process that ever actually occurs in Reality, commonly known as the universe).
They quite clearly are not arbitrary. They are anything but arbitrary. If they were arbitrary they would not arise from causes and conditions. Sardines would sprout from orange trees.
Ultimately, the Process is most accurately defined as the eternal activity of Reality Itself.
Here you are going to need to define "Reality".
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
Vasana
Posts: 1375
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:22 am

Re: The Void

Post by Vasana » Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:39 pm

Now the million dollar question is how to apply that intellectual view in to a liberating direct realization.

If nothing is there or not there, why do we desire some things and dislike others? How does that desire and aversion keep beings locked in a succession of cyclic conditioning? The tendency to actually experience things as empty illusions is obviously much much weaker than our innate tendency to see dharmas as self -contained even if we are well versed in all of the words.
"The changing cycle of joy and sorrow, like the changing seasons –
As a time of suffering will surely come around to me,
May I truly practice the sublime teachings."
- Dudjom Rinpoche

User avatar
PuerAzaelis
Posts: 826
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 1:37 pm

Re: The Void

Post by PuerAzaelis » Mon Nov 06, 2017 3:37 pm

IMHO: Why ask why? Just rest in attention and do nothing. Return, rest, return, rest. Forever.
And nobody in all of Oz. No Wizard that there is or was.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 25517
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Void

Post by Malcolm » Mon Nov 06, 2017 3:41 pm

PuerAzaelis wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 3:37 pm
IMHO: Why ask why? Just rest in attention and do nothing. Return, rest, return, rest. Forever.
This is an excellent way to wind up in the āyatana of infinite consciousness.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


The knowledge imparted through the guru’s instructions that formerly was unknown (avidyā) is vidyā.


—Treasury of the Supreme Vehicle, Longchenpa.

User avatar
PuerAzaelis
Posts: 826
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 1:37 pm

Re: The Void

Post by PuerAzaelis » Mon Nov 06, 2017 3:47 pm

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Kidding, I am kidding ...
And nobody in all of Oz. No Wizard that there is or was.

User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 6713
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: The Void

Post by Astus » Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:21 pm

Relinquish wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:14 pm
In truth, any given 'particular thing' (for example, a 'tree') exists in a state of constant change, which is to say that 'the tree' is in fact a 'process' rather than a 'thing'.
A process is no less an illusion than a thing. For something to be a process you need past, present, and future. For a process you need something to change from one moment to the other. So, a "process tree" is as absurd as a "thing tree".
This process can ONLY be occurring if the necessary conditions are present.
Here the process is already used as a thing that is in relation with other things.
In this way, 'the tree' naturally includes the entirety of the rest of the universe within it's own existence, and so there is no REAL difference between 'the tree' and 'not the tree'.
That's saying that the child includes the entirety of its ancestors, however, a child is not the parents, so such a statement is nonsense.
Fundamentally, all the different processes are actually arbitrarily delineated, impermanent 'features' of the eternally cyclic Process of Being (the only Process that ever actually occurs in Reality, commonly known as the universe).
While a simple tree may be called conceptual, fabricating capitalised terms like "Process of Being" is only drawing legs on a painted snake.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"

White Lotus
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: The Void

Post by White Lotus » Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:38 pm

If we get fixated on emptiness perhaps we will miss the beauty and integrity of our universe in all it's complexity. Any position requires an assumption. Being is an assumption as is emptiness. Some assert being without emptiness, just as some assert emptiness without being. These positions are both based on prajna, though different. Yes, the tree is 1, all is 1. Its really quite simple. I like trees too! Astus please be patient with my ignorance in this matter. I have so much to learn. Tom.
in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], topazdreamz and 42 guests