no such thing as emptiness

[Vmarco]

Now, there's a word. Suchness. I've read this word more than a few times in metaphysical literature, and I am still guessing at what it actually means.

 

My mind gets involved in catch-22 mode when I think about Suchness.

 

In Buddhism, "suchness" can only be understood through the realization of emptiness. Suchness could be a synonym for the Tao. "Suchness" cannot be observed through any or all of the 6 senses.

[RongzomFan]

Its embarrassing how wrong the wikipedia entry for sunyata is.

 

sunyata does not translate to openness or thusness.

 

This is just some Zen nonsense.

Edited April 9, 2013 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

"Other Emptiness" (Jonangpa) has only recently been recognized by the Dalai Lama,...thus labeling it a Tibetan invention is deceptive. Although the Mountain Doctrine was written by a Tibetan,...it draws from all known Buddhist sources of the time,...not as an invention,...but a scholarly review.

 

Jonangpas and their doctrine is not a recent thing.

 

Theres the whole self-empty vs other-empty "debate".

 

From the Indian POV, other-emptiness (and the debate around it) is a Tibetan invention. You don't have to take my word for it. Read "Center of the Sunlit Sky".

 

 

From the Indian POV, you have 3 options:

 

A. Madhyamaka

B. Yogacara

C. Tathagatagarbha Sutras

 

Option C was never considered in India as a separate option on the level of A. and B., but I'll give you that option.

 

Modern Zen/Chan people follow B. and C.

 

But the normative Indian tradition, represented by Atisa, Kamalashila etc., puts A. at the top.

Edited April 9, 2013 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

emptiness isn't the absence of perceptions. the concept is specifically buddhist and carries a particular meaning which doesnt mean the absence of phenomena.

 

philosophically, its the inherent suchness of reality which needs no mental elaboration or conceptual designation. So in that way, it could be the absence of thought, but thats a rigid definition if you ask me. If you look at discursive thoughts with the view of emptiness, they are empty too, and a display of emptiness in and of themselves.

 

whether one says "there is no emptiness" or "there is only emptiness" is just semantic. if a person thinks that reality needs to be elaborated upon conceptually, i think they are wrong, but it doesn't really matter. things are what they are regardless.

 

I don't agree with any of this.

 

Emptiness is this:

 

Everything is illusion. Concepts make things seem real.

[konchog uma]

I don't agree with any of this.

 

Emptiness is this:

 

Everything is illusion. Concepts make things seem real.

 

Same idea, different words. I was referencing Gen Lamrimpa's interpretation from "Realizing Emptiness" which is basic madhyamaka. If you read what I said again it was that concepts make things seem real.

[konchog uma]

Your way of saying it is better

[RongzomFan]

Same idea, different words. I was referencing Gen Lamrimpa's interpretation from "Realizing Emptiness" which is basic madhyamaka.

 

 

I learned to stay away from Tibetan Madhyamaka, due to repeated warnings of Namdrol even from Esangha days.

 

I just try to read root texts of Indians such as Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, Buddhapalita, Chandrakiri, Śāntarakṣita, Atisa, Kamalashila and Shantideva.

 

When I read "Center of the Sunlit Sky", I just read the translations of the Indians.

Edited April 9, 2013 by alwayson

[ragamor]

Emptiness is the other side of the coin that is perception.

[joeblast]

ON a practical level, what is emptiness?

Is it just an empty mind? Yet, perception is there.

 

Is it possible to have a mind without thoughts and without perception?

That would be something that I can call "emptiness".

 

Who can do this?

 

attenuate, attenuate, attenuate the force of habit-energy carries forth the requisite inertia to sufficiently obscure processes...

[ralis]

attenuate, attenuate, attenuate the force of habit-energy carries forth the requisite inertia to sufficiently obscure processes...

 

 

Is this a physics forum Joe? How does this relate to emptiness?

Edited April 9, 2013 by ralis

[Stosh]

I think he said that one can find emptiness but the inertia of their habits obscures the fact of it.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

ON a practical level, what is emptiness?

Is it just an empty mind? Yet, perception is there.

 

Is it possible to have a mind without thoughts and without perception?

That would be something that I can call "emptiness".

 

Who can do this?

 

Only when i sleep.

[ralis]

I think he said that one can find emptiness but the inertia of their habits obscures the fact of it.

 

That has nothing to do with it. To rid oneself of all habits is impossible. To understand and realize emptiness is not about making any changes whatsoever.

 

'To find' implies emptiness is an object or has a place in space.

 

What I am saying is to stop with the obsessive quest for the 'isness' of .........................ad infinitum.

Edited April 9, 2013 by ralis

[Immortal4life]

Nothing can't exist, nature abhors a vacuum. Wherever there is a void it will be filled. Whatever is needed in each place in the universe exists in it's proper place and order.

[Stosh]

That has nothing to do with it. To rid oneself of all habits is impossible. To understand emptiness is not about making any changes whatsoever.

Ok , Im listening ,

( but I am thinking that he hasnt said all habits have to be gone for good, just that one for the temporary moment lets go of Monkey -mind)

Then what do you think its about?

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

Nothing can't exist, nature abhors a vacuum. Wherever there is a void it will be filled. Whatever is needed in each place in the universe exists in it's proper place and order.

 

You dont realize the illogic of this?

 

 

 

A painting abhors a blank canvas no more, no less, than nature does a vacuum; if your statement were converted to binary, it would be code abhors a 0... and without 0 code could not exist!

[Immortal4life]

Code also can not exist without 1.

 

0 + 1 =1.

 

Nothing can't exist

Edited April 9, 2013 by Immortal4life

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

you cant have existence without the "emptyness" of nonexistence to support it.

Nothing exists as much as everything does.


In everything, nothing cannot be seen, in nothing, everything cannot be seen.


From the face of tails, heads does not exist, yet without heads, tales would have nothing to compare.


just as much as: without 0, 1 is meaningless; without 1, 0 is meaningless.

BOTH exist.

[RongzomFan]

Immortal4life,

 

Are you claiming something exists?

 

If so, read this thread:

http://thetaobums.com/topic/26462-being-a-realist-buddhist-definition-is-not-good/

Edited April 9, 2013 by alwayson

[Immortal4life]

The Universe exists.

 

The only true begotten son of the great principle called God.

[RongzomFan]

The Universe exists.

 

The only true begotten son of the great principle called God.

 

 

None of these claims would survive Madhyamaka analysis.

[Immortal4life]

Would've, could've, should've.

 

The Universe exists regardless of type of analysis used.

[RongzomFan]

The Universe exists

 

 

So you claim

[ralis]

So you claim

 

 

No one can prove or disprove the existence of any object because there will always be some contrarian point of view. Philosophers have been debating this for millennia. To posture certain philosophical discourse such as Buddhism misses the point.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

oh god...

universe 1

emptiness 0


10101110101001010111010100101010101


And you want to argue the nature of existence? UGH!