what does this mean, "form is emptiness and emptiness is form"

[stirling]

17 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

The later teachings overstep the mark, IM(less than humble, I will admit)O. 

"Wider in scope", like Russell and Whitehead's attempt to put all of mathematics on an axiomatic basis--such a basis in mathematics will also give rise to paradoxes and contradictions (per Godel), and I would say there are similarly a lot of paradoxes and contradictions in the "later Emptiness teachings" (?).

 

The later teachings take cessation and "no-self" to their logical (and implied, IMHO) conclusions. Have you read Nagarjuna? I would think, as a math fan, that you might love his water-tight logic. He is commonly thought of as the "Einstein of Buddhism".

 

17 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

That's what I like about the four early Nikayas, though I try not to reference sermons attributed to Gautama's disciples, as I find them already "wider in scope" than Gautama's sermons. Gautama leaves things out, but maybe they don't need to be said, and attempts by his disciples to fill in the blanks in their sermons give rise to contradictions.

 

The Buddha applied "skillful means" in his teachings, so it is important to look at who his audience is for each, and at what level the topic is being pitched toward. 

 

17 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

The notion of emptiness as an entity doesn't feature in the early Buddhist texts, but Gautama did speak of (the concept of) emptiness: 
 

. [One] regards that which is not there as empty of it. But in regard to what remains [one] comprehends:  'That being, this is.' Thus, Ananda, this comes to be for [such a one] a true, not mistaken, utterly purified and incomparably highest realisation of (the concept of) emptiness.

 

(Culasunnatasutta, MN III 121  Pali Text Society vol III p 151-2; gender-neutral pronouns used to replace masculine pronouns in original)

 

"No-self" IS your notion of emptiness as an entity. "Self" is empty because it is comprised of impermanent phenomena arising and passing. 

 

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html

 

 

17 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

Regarding the "unborn" or the "deathless", here's a quick quote from Sugato Bhikkyu, regarding K.R. Norman's essay on "Mistaken Ideas about Nibbana" (https://discourse.suttacentral.net/uploads/short-url/gfAuYRNMnJLV8GVYIS1bxHmQDmd.pdf)
 

Norman points out that epithets such as ajāta or amata when applied to Nibbana don’t actually mean that Nibbana itself is “unborn” or “deathless”. Rather, they mean that it is the state where there is no being born or dying. A subtle distinction to be sure!

 

Sure. No problem with that. These are not states, though. States are temporary. Everything has always already been unborn and deathless. 

 

17 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

Your lineage, isn't it?

 

The person in the article is K.R. Norman. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._R._Norman

 

Looks like he is some English scholar. Maybe you were thinking of Norman Fischer?

 

17 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

 

It is not possible to continue (shikantaza) more than one hour, because it is intense practice to take hold of all our mind and body by the practice which include everything. So in shikantaza, our mind should pervade every parts of our physical being. That is not so easy.

(I have nothing in my mind, Shunryu Suzuki, July 15, 1969, San Francisco)

 

Sort of like Gautama's:
 

… (a person) steeps, drenches, fills, and suffuses this body with zest and ease, born of solitude, so that there is not one particle of the body that is not pervaded by this lone-born zest and ease.

(AN 5.28, tr. Pali Text Society vol. III pp 18-19, see also MN 119, tr. Pali Text Society vol. III pp 132-134)

 

Shikantaza is a formless practice. It is no practice at all, which ALL branches of Buddhism feature. It features in the Theravada practices (I don't know that it has a name there) and also in the Mahayana and Dzogchen/Tibetan traditions. There is a great article I read recently about this with a number of well-known and fairly well-known contemporary Buddhist characters. 

 

https://www.lionsroar.com/forum-formless-meditation/

 

This practice, whatever you might call it eventually becomes what the Tibetans call "non-meditation" or "post-meditation" where practice and complete insight mean that the mind is ALWAYS in meditation. Many might get a brief taste from this after being on retreat. 

 

The "steeps/fills/drenches" is a jhana instruction from the FIRST set of jhanas which are all firmly in the "form" realm. Shikantaza is very much a deeper "formless" practice, something like the last few jhanas EXCEPT that it is not a practice at all. It is simply "being", and therefore beyond any practice.

[dwai]

18 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

I guess the assumption is that whether we suffer in samsara or experience freedom from suffering in nirvana, it's really the same thing because "the Absolute is always present"? 

It means that (imho) once the absolute is realized, then suffering, pain, pleasure etc are no longer experienced through the mind of the limited entity (self). But it requires realization proper,  not an intellectual understanding. 

[stirling]

22 hours ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

that is your grouping.

 

my grouping is time space and form.  and yes those are all duality.

time space and form are not attributes of pure awareness.  

pure awareness is not duality.  and it is not non-duality. it is not one.  it is not not-one.

it is none of those.

 

I am actually attempting to say (clumsily) that ALL dualities are delusions. Awareness, the Absolute, HAS no attributes.

 

22 hours ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

in the framework i use.   I am seeing that we may be talking about two different states.

referenced in the first 4 lines chapter 42, Tao Te Ching

 

The framework i use, pure awareness is at the level of the Dao, before it begets the One.

Whereas the  One (which the Dao begets) may go by "unity" "wholeness" "One"  "All That Is".

A distinction is made between the Dao; and the One it begets.   Not everyone makes that distinction or sees them as any different.  That may explain why i see the Absolute (pure awareness, the Dao) as not including or having the characteristics of  time space and form.  While you see the One as yes including time space and form.    For me, the Dao alone is Absolute and all the rest are Relative meaning they are all mental constructs (One, Two, Three, 10,000 things). includes  time space form.

 

 

The Dao begets One.    

One begets Two.

Two beget Three.

Three beget the ten thousand things.

 

      ---from chapter 42, the Tao Te Ching:

 

I appreciate your clarifying your language-ing. I agree with Chapter 42. In Buddhism, "emptiness" is one way to look at seeing from enlightened mind - that all things lack an existence as separate things. Having said that, things are also "empty" of the CONCEPT of "emptiness". So, to parse that from the perspective of the Tao Te Ching: Things are "empty" begets the "One", or the "unity". The "emptiness" of "emptiness" is the Dao, looking at the primary, very deepest layer. They are both attempts at trying to discuss the same landscape.

 

You can see this in meditation practice, like all of these things - stillness of mind is the Dao. Describing the Tao creates "unity" or "One". Once you have one, the mind kicks in. To contextualize "One" you have to contrast it with something. This is where language comes in. Once you are using language, everything you discuss needs a supporting character, just as a tree needs the earth, the sun, perhaps a man who planted it, and then another who cuts it down, the table it eventually becomes, etc.etc. - and therefore the "10,000 things" a term used in both Buddhism AND Daoism. 

 

 

22 hours ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

and again, thank you for the in depth discussion.  On a favorite area for me. 

 

I'm sure I have bored many people with this discussion, but it is near and dear to my heart. Glad to engage.

[stirling]

20 hours ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

the difference in our framework (S. and B.) might also be a reflection of Buddhist compared to Taoist.  From what i understand (as explained to me by people on this forum who know far far more about Buddhism than I do) is that in Buddhism there is no "in the beginning" , that we sort of jump in the middle of the process.  Whereas the Tao Te Ching does indicate an "in the beginning" sequence (for instance chapter 42).   And other paths have an "in the beginning" creation type of sequence also (Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism I am aware of; could be others i am not aware of).

 

That comes to mind for me.  How the experience we have of the path we practice may be affected by the framework presented to us which we learn or follow.

 

I think a way to put this from my perspective is that there is ONLY process. No beginning or ending. If time is a delusion, and there can be even some limited experience of this (meditation AGAIN!) one can see this.

 

Different teachings and practices are pointed at different levels of readiness. Even Buddhism has cosmologies, etc., but these are "relative" teachings. There is a difference in flavor between those teachings and something like the Heart Sutra, or DDJ.

[stirling]

19 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

As far as I can tell, the literature of Zen has many references to being where one is, but not many references to being there "now".

 

This is what is being said here:

 

Quote

When you find your place where you are, practice occurs, actualizing the fundamental point. - Dogen, Genjo Koan

 

To find the "place where you are" you need: "self", found "now", and "here" (wherever that might be). He is saying here that awakening in this moment to emptiness always happens where you are, in the moment you occupy. Every time you sit and mind becomes still you awaken again.

 

There is a lot of present moment stuff, just in the Genjo Koan. 

 

https://www.sfzc.org/files/daily_sutras_Genjo_Koan

 

It is worth rereading!

 

Actually... I'm just going to post the whole brilliant thing:

 

Quote

As all things are buddha-dharma, there is delusion and realization, practice, birth and death, and there are buddhas and sentient beings. As the myriad things are without an abiding self, there is no delusion, no realization, no buddha, no sentient being, no birth and death. The buddha way is, basically, leaping clear of the many and the one; thus there are birth and death, delusion and realization, sentient beings and buddhas. Yet, in attachment blossoms fall, and in aversion weeds spread.

 

To carry yourself forward and experience myriad things is delusion. That myriad things come forth and experience themselves is awakening. Those who have great realization of delusion are buddhas; those who are greatly deluded about realization are sentient beings. Further, there are those who continue realizing beyond realization, who are in delusion throughout delusion. When buddhas are truly buddhas they do not necessarily notice that they are buddhas. However, they are actualized buddhas, who go on actualizing buddhas.

 

When you see forms or hear sounds fully engaging body-and-mind, you grasp things directly. Unlike things and their reflections in the mirror, and unlike the moon and its reflection in the water, when one side is illuminated the other side is dark. To study the buddha way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be actualized by myriad things. When actualized by myriad things, your body and mind as well as the bodies and minds of others drop away. No trace of realization remains, and this no-trace continues endlessly.

 

When you first seek dharma, you imagine you are far away from its environs. But dharma is already correctly transmitted; you are immediately your original self. When you ride in a boat and watch the shore, you might assume that the shore is moving. But when you keep your eyes closely on the boat, you can see that the boat moves. Similarly, if you examine myriad things with a confused body and mind you might suppose that your mind and nature are permanent. When you practice intimately and return to where you are, it will be clear that nothing at all has unchanging self. Firewood becomes ash, and it does not become firewood again. Yet, do not suppose that the ash is future and the firewood past. You should understand that firewood abides in the phenomenal expression of firewood which fully includes past and future, and is independent of past and future. Ash abides in the phenomenal expression of ash which fully includes future and past. Just as firewood does not become firewood again after it is ash, you do not return to birth after death. This being so, it is an established way in buddha-dharma to deny that birth turns into death. Accordingly, birth is understood as no-birth. It is an unshakable teaching in Buddha's discourse that death does not turn into birth. Accordingly, death is understood as no-death.

 

Birth is an expression complete this moment. Death is an expression complete this moment. They are like winter and spring. You do not call winter the beginning of spring, nor summer the end of spring. Enlightenment is like the moon reflected in the water. The moon does not get wet, nor is the water broken. Although its light is wide and great, the moon is reflected even in a puddle an inch wide. The whole moon and the entire sky are reflected in dewdrops on the grass, or even in one drop of water. Enlightenment does not divide you, just as the moon does not break the water. You cannot hinder enlightenment, just as a drop of water does not hinder the moon in the sky. The depth of the drop is the height of the moon. Each reflection, however long or short its duration, manifests the vastness of the dewdrop, and realizes the limitlessness of the moonlight in the sky.

 

When dharma does not fill your whole body and mind, you think it is already sufficient. When dharma fills your body and mind, you understand that something is missing. For example, when you sail out in a boat to the midst of ·an ocean where no land is in sight, and view the four directions, the ocean looks circular, and does not look any other way. But the ocean is neither round nor square; its features are infinite in variety. It is like a palace. It is like a jewel. It only looks circular as far as you can see at that time. All things are like this.

 

Though there are many features in the dusty world and the world beyond conditions, you see and understand only what your eye of practice can reach. In order to learn the nature of the myriad things, you must know that although they may look round or square, the other features of oceans and mountains are infinite in variety; whole worlds are there. It is so not only around you, but also directly beneath your feet, or in a drop of water. A fish swims in the ocean, and no matter how far it swims there is no end to the water. A bird flies in the sky, and no matter how far it flies, there is no end to the air. However, the fish and the bird have never left their elements. When their activity is large their field is large. When their need is small their field is small. Thus, each of them totally covers its full range, and each of them totally experiences its· realm. If the bird leaves the air it will die at once. If the fish leaves the water it will die at once. Know that water is life and air is life. The bird is life and the fish is life. Life must be the bird and life must be the fish. It is possible to illustrate this with more analogies.

 

Practice, enlightenment, and people are like this. Now if a bird or a fish tries to reach the end of its element before moving in it, this bird or this fish will not find its way or its place. When you find your place where you are, practice occurs, actualizing the fundamental point. When you find your way at this moment, practice occurs, actualizing the fundamental point; for the place, the way, is neither large nor small, neither yours nor others'. The place, the way, has not carried over from the past, and it is not merely arising now. Accordingly, in the practice-enlightenment of the buddha way, meeting one thing is mastering it; doing one practice is practicing completely. Here is the place; here the way unfolds. The boundary of realization is not distinct, for the realization comes forth simultaneously with the mastery of buddhadharma. Do not suppose that what you realize becomes your knowledge and is grasped by your consciousness. Although actualized immediately, the inconceivable may not be distinctly apparent. Its appearance is beyond your knowledge.

 

Zen master Baoche of Mount Mayu was fanning himself. A monk approached and said, "Master, the nature of wind is permanent and there is no place it does not reach. Why, then do you fan yourself?" "Although you understand that the nature of wind is permanent;" Baoche replied, "you do not understand the meaning of its reaching everywhere." "What is the meaning of its reaching everywhere?" asked the monk again. The master just kept fanning himself. The monk bowed deeply. The actualization of the buddha-dharma, the vital path of its correct transmission, is like this. If you say that you do not need to fan yourself because the nature of wind is permanent and you can have wind without fanning, you will understand neither permanence nor the nature of wind. The nature of wind is permanent; because of that, the wind of the Buddha's house brings forth the gold of the earth and makes fragrant the cream of the long river. - Dogen, Genjo Koan

 

[old3bob]

20 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

I think a way to put this from my perspective is that there is ONLY process. No beginning or ending. If time is a delusion, and there can be even some limited experience of this (meditation AGAIN!) one can see this.

 

Different teachings and practices are pointed at different levels of readiness. Even Buddhism has cosmologies, etc., but these are "relative" teachings. There is a difference in flavor between those teachings and something like the Heart Sutra, or DDJ.

 

or I'd say incomplete perception as the "genius" of Buddhism points out...

[SodaChanh]

1 sec in Presence is better than reading Nagarjuna and sutras. 

 

From Namkhai Norbu 

 

Quote

Before meeting my 
teacher Changchub Dorje 
I had already met impor-
tant teachers from whom I 
received many Dzogchen 
teachings in an intellectual 
way. In a formal teaching, 
you can read a book and 
everything seems very el-
egant and profound, or you 
can think you are receiving 
something fantastic, but 
you do not enter into your 
real condition and there is 
not much use. This is why 
my teacher Changchub Dorje said to me shortly after he met me, 
“Your mouth is logic, your nose is Madhyamika.”

 

[BigSkyDiamond]

Here are two of my favorite comments seen on Dao Bums:

 

"I find that the more I sit in practice, the less I want to read about Buddhism."

 

and
"I usually don't understand Buddhists."  

 

[Now that i have my own PPD section, i will start collecting these for myself.]

 

Edited 21 minutes ago by BigSkyDiamond

[BigSkyDiamond]

46 minutes ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

Here are two of my favorite comments seen on Dao Bums:

 

"I find that the more I sit in practice, the less I want to read about Buddhism."

and
"I usually don't understand Buddhists."  

 

which is pretty funny considering that i am the one that started this thread (on" form is emptiness, emptiness is form"), invited the discussion, and participated in the conversation myself to a large extent.

 

certainly i appreciate reading all the contributions and discussion and responses. People are sharing generously of their time and knowledge and subject matter expertise, and offering encouragement and recommendations.  Thank you everyone for this.  However it occurs to me (in observing myself), that if i am spending an inordinate amount of time trading out terms that don't fit for me for whatever reason, and substituting terms that do fit; and trying to"translate" in my head what is being talked about to a framework that i understand.  Then that may not be an optimal approach.  or a best fit. 

 

I will still continue to sit and practice (stillness silence spaciousness).  But set aside for now the explanations. This gives me a sense of relief, room to breathe.  yes, spaciousness.

 

 

Edited 3 minutes ago by BigSkyDiamond