Tantra vs Sutra Emptiness

[conebeckham]

How could it not? if it is not, it is unknowable and unrealisable.

The unconditioned cannot be a direct object of the mind. It can only be inferred by the mind. Unconditioned space is an absence of obstruction. It cannot be directly perceived. Cessation is the absence of a cause. It also cannot be perceived directly. Likewise, emptiness— the absence of inherent existenc in your preferred parlance— cannot be directly perceived. All three of these types of unconditioned phenomena (there are no others in Buddhadharma) can only be inferred.

Therefore, the emptiness meditated upon below the path of seeing is merely a conceptual stand in for actual emptiness. The emptiness meditated above the path of seeing is not an object of the mind, since it is actual emptiness. That meditation is a nonmeditation because it is completely free from all objectification.

The unconditioned is a direct object of mind.
Absence of obstruction can be directly perceived (waves hand through empty space)

That "empty space" is not empty. Your perception of it is faulty. When you wave your hand, you displace gases, etc. There is no true "absence of obstruction" in this example, though the medium through which you move your arm is less dense than, say, water. Your example is also an inference, as you take your hand moving as the basis for deducing "empty space."

The absence of inherent existence can be directly perceived since it is mere absence of all the phenomena we normally see or perceive

Conceptually, one can understand the absence of an inherent table while still perceiving that phenomenon we label as "table." Again, this horse is glue, but just to be clear, it is not an "inherent table" we take as the normal phenomenon, it is the table.

The emptiness that is meditated upon below the path of seeing is a generic image of emptiness that leads, through familiarity, to the direct non-conceptual experience of emptiness. That meditation from the path of seeing onwards is not a non-meditation but a direct experience of the object emptiness in which experientially the perceiving subject does not appear, however there is still a subject/object relationship between emptiness and the mind realising emptiness. Emptiness does not realise itself!

This "generic image" is a construct of the conceptualizing mind, and is not a "direct perception of emptiness." You can call it a place holder, or a construct, or prapanca. From the Path of Seeing onwards, direct perception of emptiness occurs, during meditative concentration, while in post concentration phenomena appear while understood as illusions.

[Lukeinaz]

How could the unconditioned be an object of the mind?

How could it not? if it is not, it is unknowable and unrealisable.

The unconditioned cannot be a direct object of the mind. It can only be inferred by the mind. Unconditioned space is an absence of obstruction. It cannot be directly perceived. Cessation is the absence of a cause. It also cannot be perceived directly. Likewise, emptiness— the absence of inherent existenc in your preferred parlance— cannot be directly perceived. All three of these types of unconditioned phenomena (there are no others in Buddhadharma) can only be inferred.

Therefore, the emptiness meditated upon below the path of seeing is merely a conceptual stand in for actual emptiness. The emptiness meditated above the path of seeing is not an object of the mind, since it is actual emptiness. That meditation is a nonmeditation because it is completely free from all objectification.

Is unconditioned space all pervasive and not limited by obstructions? In the sense that all things are permeated by space.

[Sherab]

It is neither. It is free of these views including the view of itself.

That is just an assertion. Emptiness is free of views? What does it even mean? What about a car is free of views? What about the colour red is free of views?

This is something that each of us must contemplate deeply because there is no way to intellectualize all of this which your questions attempt to do. The questioner doesn't understand that he/she is a myth, and with that myth, everything else is generated. All thought is grasping for something to rest on, to continue its self generated interest. There is nothing to understand. All this is circular. Emptiness is a word. What you choose to do with it is our problem, not a solution.

You can be free of views. Your mind can be free of views. But emptiness????? Perhaps, emptiness is free of views just like a dead person is free of views?

[Sherab]

But this still does not resolve the dilemma of whether emptiness is conditioned or unconditioned.

Emptiness is the unconditioned nature of things. There are no appearances that are not conditioned and dependently arisen, therefore, there is no need to bracket appearance/emptiness as something distinct from dependent origination/emptiness, they are the same thing.

Why do we say emptiness is unconditioned? No one made emptiness, no one can increase emptiness, no one can decrease emptiness, no one can destroy emptiness. You might argue, well, what is the emptiness of a thing that has ceased to exist? Does that emptiness exist or not? If the emptiness of a given thing is conditioned, one should be able to describe how it arose. Merely stating that a thing's emptiness arose with the arising of thing itself is not adequate. When a thing perishes there is no need to discuss the nature of a nonexistent. When we examine the meaning of emptiness, we find that emptiness refers to the absence of four extremes of being in phenomena. Since all phenomena are free from four extremes, emptiness is therefore unconditioned.

When something is dependently arisen, it implies that the something is not unconditioned. If you assert that emptiness is dependent arising or dependent co-arising, and if you also assert that emptiness is empty as well, then you would be implying that emptiness is not unconditioned. Your reply did not address the logical problem raised.

My own understanding is that the terms conditioned and unconditioned are not suitable words for describing reality. This position is consistent with what is in the Samdhinirmocana Sutra.

Emptiness in my opinion, is best understood from the implication of the freedom from two extremes. The extreme of eternalism where no functions are possible, and the extreme of annihilation where continuity is not possible. The former is a dead zone. The latter is also a dead zone as there is no possibility of interconnections, something eminently required for existences as we know it. The region between these two extremes is where reality is. That is where emptiness or dependent arising is. This zone carries all possibilities of existences, both real but untrue and real but true. In this region, causality is possible, emergence is possible, true random fluctuations or arising is also possible. Here it is possible for existence that we can talk about (the realm of phenomena) and for existence that we cannot talked about (the realm of Buddhas). In this region, something conditioned is always functional. Something unconditioned does not imply non-functionality. Hence, using terms like conditioned and unconditioned thought not necessarily false, can be rather misleading. It is especially so for the term unconditioned as it can drag assumptions like permanence and therefore non-functionality along with it.

[Tolya M]

My own understanding is that the terms conditioned and unconditioned are not suitable words for describing reality. This position is consistent with what is in the Samdhinirmocana Sutra.

It is all about tirthikas, not buddhists even sravakas.

PS here it is: Two Commentaries on the Samdhinirmocana-Sutra by Asanga and Jñānagarbha. Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press.

[Anonymous X]

That is just an assertion. Emptiness is free of views? What does it even mean? What about a car is free of views? What about the colour red is free of views?

This is something that each of us must contemplate deeply because there is no way to intellectualize all of this which your questions attempt to do. The questioner doesn't understand that he/she is a myth, and with that myth, everything else is generated. All thought is grasping for something to rest on, to continue its self generated interest. There is nothing to understand. All this is circular. Emptiness is a word. What you choose to do with it is our problem, not a solution.

You can be free of views. Your mind can be free of views. But emptiness????? Perhaps, emptiness is free of views just like a dead person is free of views?

Depends what you mean by a 'dead person'. In a very real sense, emptiness is a death, a death of the knower, perceiver, and the subject-object paradigm that is believed in. There is a real physical change that takes place in such a one that is irreversible.

An interesting story that is told in Buddhist teachings is when the Buddha taught the (Heart Sutra?). It is said that 500 Arhats had heart attacks and died that were gathered there. Unbelievable? Perhaps. The point is you don't survive all of this to sit on the throne and intellectualize what emptiness is or isn't. Far gone. Can you be without your views?

[Tsongkhapafan]

That "empty space" is not empty. Your perception of it is faulty. When you wave your hand, you displace gases, etc. There is no true "absence of obstruction" in this example, though the medium through which you move your arm is less dense than, say, water. Your example is also an inference, as you take your hand moving as the basis for deducing "empty space."

Even insects know what lack of obstructive contact is. For example, an insect will walk across a table as long as it can sense the obstructive contact of the table’s surface, but will turn back when it reaches the edge of the table where the obstructive contact ceases. It seems that the insect knows what obstructive contact is and so can recognize its absence.

Conceptually, one can understand the absence of an inherent table while still perceiving that phenomenon we label as "table." Again, this horse is glue, but just to be clear, it is not an "inherent table" we take as the normal phenomenon, it is the table.

The table that we normally see does not exist because it is an inherently existent table and thus the creation of self-grasping ignorance. Although it appears it does not exist, like an illusion. The absence of the table that we normally see is emptiness.

This "generic image" is a construct of the conceptualizing mind, and is not a "direct perception of emptiness." You can call it a place holder, or a construct, or prapanca. From the Path of Seeing onwards, direct perception of emptiness occurs, during meditative concentration, while in post concentration phenomena appear while understood as illusions.

I agree, but the generic image of emptiness when meditated on with the union of tranquil abiding and superior seeing eventually fades and when we overcome all dualistic appearance in meditation, we experience a direct perception of emptiness. There is no other way to realise emptiness directly.

[Malcolm]

The unconditioned is a direct object of mind.
Absence of obstruction can be directly perceived (waves hand through empty space)

A for the first, no, the unconditioned cannot be a direct object of the mind. Mind is conditioned. You are confusing conditioned space (space as a cavity) with unconditioned space (space as absence of obstruction). The latter space permeates the hand that is waving. The hands waves in conditioned space. It stops waving as soon as it hits a tree limb, for example.

The absence of inherent existence can be directly perceived since it is mere absence of all the phenomena we normally see or perceive

I thought you would make this error. The absence of inherent existence is not the nonexistence of something (an affirming negation). It is a total negation of essence (a nonaffirming negation).

The emptiness that is meditated upon below the path of seeing is a generic image of emptiness that leads, through familiarity, to the direct non-conceptual experience of emptiness.

That is the theory.

That meditation from the path of seeing onwards is not a non-meditation but a direct experience of the object emptiness in which experientially the perceiving subject does not appear, however there is still a subject/object relationship between emptiness and the mind realising emptiness.

No. At this point the mind, when in equipoise, is in a nondual absorption, completely free of subject and object.

[aflatun]

The unconditioned cannot be a direct object of the mind. It can only be inferred by the mind. Unconditioned space is an absence of obstruction. It cannot be directly perceived. Cessation is the absence of a cause. It also cannot be perceived directly. Likewise, emptiness— the absence of inherent existenc in your preferred parlance— cannot be directly perceived. All three of these types of unconditioned phenomena (there are no others in Buddhadharma) can only be inferred.

Therefore, the emptiness meditated upon below the path of seeing is merely a conceptual stand in for actual emptiness. The emptiness meditated above the path of seeing is not an object of the mind, since it is actual emptiness. That meditation is a nonmeditation because it is completely free from all objectification.

I remember we had a discussion about cessation not being a possible object of experience...I think I get it now!!!

[aflatun]

The absence of inherent existence is not the nonexistence of something (an affirming negation). It is a total negation of essence (a nonaffirming negation).

Could you illustrate the distinction with an example ?

[Malcolm]

The absence of inherent existence is not the nonexistence of something (an affirming negation). It is a total negation of essence (a nonaffirming negation).

Could you illustrate the distinction with an example ?

An affirming negation is the negation of the presence of an existent, the example used by Asanga, for example, is a forest is empty of a city. The forest exists, but it is empty of something else, that is why we know it is a forest. It is a kind of apoha theory.

A nonaffirming negation is the direct negation of something that does not exist at all, in this case, essences. When we negate essence, we are not affirming the existence of anything else.

[StrangeGuy]

hmm...when I get into meditation (Anapanasati) I sometimes get into a state where the "I" feels dissolved and part of a larger "void" so to speak. Don't know if that makes any sense or if the experience is supposed to be like that.
With nada yoga I still wait for a similar experience, definitely harder for me. But the prisoners to whom I've taught that type of meditation, they reported quite often about not having the feeling of being behind bars anymore. Others reported spiritual experiences and old memories coming up.
But the methodological differences seem to fade behind the fence so to speak, so I guess it really is more up to the individual what kind of method (Sutra vs Tantra etc) gives "best" results.

[Minobu]

I'm amazed at how this discussion is so endless .

People are grasping at all sorts of vacuous experiments in discussing sunyata .

then there was this misconception that some Dzogchen emptiness thing a teacher was talking about had nothing to do with Sunyata but was confused into the discussion and caused grief for me, due to the fact i knew they were talking about something else. those were part of the high command here by the by, not malcolm , he straightened that one out after it run into a cul de sac.


Emptiness or Sunyata is nothing more or less than a view that the concept of inherent anything on any level even dharma is wrong view.
through various means over time a person realizes everything is co dependent, co arising, interdependent and this leads to a view.
It then leads to a beautiful philosophy which one of the high commands here said was wrong. Lambasted me for saying such a thing.

But when one realizes how interdependent everything is and what is needed for one to even exist in this illusion or dream of such, one realizes the nature of sharing and how we depend on so many things just to take in a breath. so philosophically if this does not bring out Bodhicitta i don't know what will.

oki doki carry on up that jungle you all are hacking your way through.

[CedarTree]

hmm...when I get into meditation (Anapanasati) I sometimes get into a state where the "I" feels dissolved and part of a larger "void" so to speak. Don't know if that makes any sense or if the experience is supposed to be like that.
With nada yoga I still wait for a similar experience, definitely harder for me. But the prisoners to whom I've taught that type of meditation, they reported quite often about not having the feeling of being behind bars anymore. Others reported spiritual experiences and old memories coming up.
But the methodological differences seem to fade behind the fence so to speak, so I guess it really is more up to the individual what kind of method (Sutra vs Tantra etc) gives "best" results.

I think this is common with breath meditation, I know I get to this point with Zazen now too if I have eyes closed. This can be a lead into Jhana if taken further I believe

Great to see your practice going so well!

I'm amazed at how this discussion is so endless .

People are grasping at all sorts of vacuous experiments in discussing sunyata .

then there was this misconception that some Dzogchen emptiness thing a teacher was talking about had nothing to do with Sunyata but was confused into the discussion and caused grief for me, due to the fact i knew they were talking about something else. those were part of the high command here by the by, not malcolm , he straightened that one out after it run into a cul de sac.


Emptiness or Sunyata is nothing more or less than a view that the concept of inherent anything on any level even dharma is wrong view.
through various means over time a person realizes everything is co dependent, co arising, interdependent and this leads to a view.
It then leads to a beautiful philosophy which one of the high commands here said was wrong. Lambasted me for saying such a thing.

But when one realizes how interdependent everything is and what is needed for one to even exist in this illusion or dream of such, one realizes the nature of sharing and how we depend on so many things just to take in a breath. so philosophically if this does not bring out Bodhicitta i don't know what will.

oki doki carry on up that jungle you all are hacking your way through.

Minobu makes a great point sometimes when we really delve into the depth of certain aspects of practice we have to make sure we don't lose context within the broader dhamma as presented by the Buddhas. Does it mean topics can't be explored and content explained of course not, that is literally what Mahayana is in contract to say the Pali canon which is systematic and extremely well presented but limited on some subjects where Mahayana expands but it has to find itself within the larger context of these authority of works

[Malcolm]

Minobu makes a great point sometimes when we really delve into the depth of certain aspects of practice we have to make sure we don't lose context within the broader dhamma as presented by the Buddhas. Does it mean topics can't be explored and content explained of course not, that is literally what Mahayana is in contract to say the Pali canon which is systematic and extremely well presented but limited on some subjects where Mahayana expands but it has to find itself within the larger context of these authority of works

If you are saying that the authority of Mahāyāna must bow to that of the Pali Canon, I completely disagree. It is the other way around.

M

[Minobu]

I'm amazed at how this discussion is so endless .

People are grasping at all sorts of vacuous experiments in discussing sunyata .

then there was this misconception that some Dzogchen emptiness thing a teacher was talking about had nothing to do with Sunyata but was confused into the discussion and caused grief for me, due to the fact i knew they were talking about something else. those were part of the high command here by the by, not malcolm , he straightened that one out after it run into a cul de sac.


Emptiness or Sunyata is nothing more or less than a view that the concept of inherent anything on any level even dharma is wrong view.
through various means over time a person realizes everything is co dependent, co arising, interdependent and this leads to a view.
It then leads to a beautiful philosophy which one of the high commands here said was wrong. Lambasted me for saying such a thing.

But when one realizes how interdependent everything is and what is needed for one to even exist in this illusion or dream of such, one realizes the nature of sharing and how we depend on so many things just to take in a breath. so philosophically if this does not bring out Bodhicitta i don't know what will.

oki doki carry on up that jungle you all are hacking your way through.

Minobu makes a great point sometimes when we really delve into the depth of certain aspects of practice we have to make sure we don't lose context within the broader dhamma as presented by the Buddhas. Does it mean topics can't be explored and content explained of course not, that is literally what Mahayana is in contract to say the Pali canon which is systematic and extremely well presented but limited on some subjects where Mahayana expands but it has to find itself within the larger context of these authority of works

Seriously , it's important to watch how we interact with each other.
I learn from me when it comes to this.

Once it becomes in thread after thread a division between understandings ....or in this case the subtle difference of exploring the same thing..and out comes the foil...well...

This forum offers me a place where through my interaction over time and on a daily basis , my dharma learning takes on a whole new venue in where to go.

so many coincidences with my Lotus Practice comes from this place of learning...

We need to cherish one another here...for we are all Buddhists.

Some think that because i follow The Lotus Sutra i think it is the only way and superior.
Not at all...all Buddhism is truth and there are no false doctrines...but The Lotus points to this defiled age and where the other practices lose what is needed in this time.

I think all this sectarian infighting is just the dandelion trying to sprout from an always shaded sidewalk in a urban setting.

[Tsongkhapafan]

A for the first, no, the unconditioned cannot be a direct object of the mind. Mind is conditioned. You are confusing conditioned space (space as a cavity) with unconditioned space (space as absence of obstruction). The latter space permeates the hand that is waving. The hands waves in conditioned space. It stops waving as soon as it hits a tree limb, for example.

Unproduced space is the nature of produced space. I experience lack of obstructive contact all the time when I walk around.

I thought you would make this error. The absence of inherent existence is not the nonexistence of something (an affirming negation). It is a total negation of essence (a nonaffirming negation).

It's not an error. Absence of inherent existence is the non-existence of inherent existence which is fine because inherent existence has never existed.

No. At this point the mind, when in equipoise, is in a nondual absorption, completely free of subject and object.

No. the experience of being in equipoise is the apparent freedom from the duality of subject and object but that is not actually the case unless you are asserting that mind is emptiness. Emptiness is always an object of mind because it is not clarity and cognizing.

The duality of subject and object is not what we are trying to eliminate as it is not mistaken; what we are trying to eliminate in meditation is the appearance of inherently existent emptiness (dualistic appearance)

[Malcolm]

A for the first, no, the unconditioned cannot be a direct object of the mind. Mind is conditioned. You are confusing conditioned space (space as a cavity) with unconditioned space (space as absence of obstruction). The latter space permeates the hand that is waving. The hands waves in conditioned space. It stops waving as soon as it hits a tree limb, for example.

Unproduced space is the nature of produced space. I experience lack of obstructive contact all the time when I walk around.

Until you walk into a wall. Unobstructed space, unlike you, is not impeded by the wall.

I thought you would make this error. The absence of inherent existence is not the nonexistence of something (an affirming negation). It is a total negation of essence (a nonaffirming negation).

It's not an error. Absence of inherent existence is the non-existence of inherent existence which is fine because inherent existence has never existed.

Then it cannot be perceived at all, like hair on a tortoise, horns on a rabbit, or the son of a barren woman.

No. At this point the mind, when in equipoise, is in a nondual absorption, completely free of subject and object.

No. the experience of being in equipoise is the apparent freedom from the duality of subject and object but that is not actually the case unless you are asserting that mind is emptiness. Emptiness is always an object of mind because it is not clarity and cognizing.

In equipoise on emptiness, there is no separate mind to find that is different from its emptiness at all. According to you, emptiness is something other than the mind. This is a very mistaken idea.

[CedarTree]

Minobu makes a great point sometimes when we really delve into the depth of certain aspects of practice we have to make sure we don't lose context within the broader dhamma as presented by the Buddhas. Does it mean topics can't be explored and content explained of course not, that is literally what Mahayana is in contract to say the Pali canon which is systematic and extremely well presented but limited on some subjects where Mahayana expands but it has to find itself within the larger context of these authority of works

If you are saying that the authority of Mahāyāna must bow to that of the Pali Canon, I completely disagree. It is the other way around.

M

Sorry Malcolm wasn't super clear on how I wrote that, I was saying in discussions within Mahayana frameworks we have to make sure our views and the points we assert find context and ring true within the Mahayana Sutras and Traditions.

However I am of the personal view that the Pali Canon is an Authoritative text though I don't assert this on anyone else.

[CedarTree]

I'm amazed at how this discussion is so endless .

People are grasping at all sorts of vacuous experiments in discussing sunyata .

then there was this misconception that some Dzogchen emptiness thing a teacher was talking about had nothing to do with Sunyata but was confused into the discussion and caused grief for me, due to the fact i knew they were talking about something else. those were part of the high command here by the by, not malcolm , he straightened that one out after it run into a cul de sac.


Emptiness or Sunyata is nothing more or less than a view that the concept of inherent anything on any level even dharma is wrong view.
through various means over time a person realizes everything is co dependent, co arising, interdependent and this leads to a view.
It then leads to a beautiful philosophy which one of the high commands here said was wrong. Lambasted me for saying such a thing.

But when one realizes how interdependent everything is and what is needed for one to even exist in this illusion or dream of such, one realizes the nature of sharing and how we depend on so many things just to take in a breath. so philosophically if this does not bring out Bodhicitta i don't know what will.

oki doki carry on up that jungle you all are hacking your way through.

Minobu makes a great point sometimes when we really delve into the depth of certain aspects of practice we have to make sure we don't lose context within the broader dhamma as presented by the Buddhas. Does it mean topics can't be explored and content explained of course not, that is literally what Mahayana is in contract to say the Pali canon which is systematic and extremely well presented but limited on some subjects where Mahayana expands but it has to find itself within the larger context of these authority of works

Seriously , it's important to watch how we interact with each other.
I learn from me when it comes to this.

Once it becomes in thread after thread a division between understandings ....or in this case the subtle difference of exploring the same thing..and out comes the foil...well...

This forum offers me a place where through my interaction over time and on a daily basis , my dharma learning takes on a whole new venue in where to go.

so many coincidences with my Lotus Practice comes from this place of learning...

We need to cherish one another here...for we are all Buddhists.

Some think that because i follow The Lotus Sutra i think it is the only way and superior.
Not at all...all Buddhism is truth and there are no false doctrines...but The Lotus points to this defiled age and where the other practices lose what is needed in this time.

I think all this sectarian infighting is just the dandelion trying to sprout from an always shaded sidewalk in a urban setting.

I like how you used the phrase "Cherish each other". Your right in the end we are all brothers and sisters trying to practice and benefit each other and all other sentient beings. A little love is important to always remember in how we speak and address each other