Emptiness and Objects

[The Fool]

Oh no Tiff, i didn't find your question offensive at all. Unveiling the Truth is a sharing process not a battle.

[Tiff]

Well said Fool.



Your name still cracks me up, lol.



I just come from a history of some telling me I was too direct and confrontational. So I take more pains to make sure I'm clear and understood these days. Because I want people to participate and feel good about it and not driven away. Probably no one feels this way, but I'll say it anyway for what its worth. I may often disagree or present another angle for consideration, but that's because I'm very analytical. And so are a lot of people and I like that.

[ninth octave]

The ogre outside shoves the door,
The ogre inside holds it fast.
Dripping sweat from head to tail
Battling for their very lives,
They keep it up throughout the night
Until at last when the dawn appears
Their laughter fills the early light-
They were friends from the first.

[Tiff]

Like that one too ninth.

[ninth octave]

lex icon wrote:

I don't experience God as you and never could because I can not be you on earth. Ninth
And neither can you be you!

The Buddha had left the community of the community of his followers with no single source of authority following his death, telling them instead to "be lamps unto [them] selves."The truth and rules of the orders which I have set forth and laid down for your all, let them, after I am gone, be the Teacher to you."
Despite these words which the Buddha delivered from his deathbed, many disciples came to believe that, although the physical Buddha was dead, his intelligence and his teachings remained in a form called the "Dharma Body." 
Although it was claimed that this transcendent form did not really exist( for that would contradict the Buddha's doctrine), still the Dharma Body is an expression of the ultimate reality, the true nature of things.
The Dharma Body came to be known by diverse terms, such as "Buddha-nature," "thusness", or "Suchness of Existents,"and its nature has been interpreted in many ways. Moggaliputtatissa transcendent nature of the Buddha by demonstrating that it is incompatible with the Buddha's historicity.
Nagarjuna dealt little with the theories of transcendentalism, but it became an important topic for later Madhyamikas.
The Perfection of Wisdom scriptures: are a collection of voluminous writings from 100 BC to 100 CE, which emphasize the ultimate incomprehensibility of the world. They utilized paradox and even nonsense to demonstrate that true wisdom is intuitive and cannot be conveyed or in intellectual terms.
The approach stifled the essence of the Buddha's teaching, which essence is that all doctrine are empty of reality and are but mental creations. According to the Prajnapanamitas, true wisdom consists, not in cataloging doctrines, but in intuitively understanding that the nature of the universe is this emptiness, sunyata.
The emphasis on emptiness as a characteristic of reality"revolutionized"Buddhism in all aspects.
While the intention of these writings was not to produce innovations in philosophy but just to teach with a different emphasis, their method of philosophizing was decidedly original. The Prajnapanamitas adopted a dialectic that was only implied in the original discourses, that of seeking the middle between all extremes, and utilized this dialectic to a much fuller extent. This rejection of extremes led to the assertion that all dualities are empty of reality. Notions whose basis is one half of a duality, such as existence and non-existence or atman  and  anatman, can be used to speak of common everyday truths but their applicability fails when referring to ultimate truths. THE ULTIMATE REALITY IS DEVOID OF ALL DUALITIES AND THUS IS WHOLLY IMPERVIOUS TO CONCEPTUAL THINKING. IT CAN ONLY BE ACCESSED IN NON-DUAL INTUITION, PRAJNA. THERE ARE TWO LEVELS OF TRUTH; THE EVERYDAY, RELATIVE TRUTH and the HIGHER ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
One should not be confused , the Prajnapanamitas taught the Buddha's use of words like "person"or verbs like "exist,"for he used these words only pragmatically, as a necessity  for discussing commonly perceived things. He is in no way intended for such relative concept to be reified or applied to the absolute sphere.

[lex icon]

XXVII
At that time again Mahamati the Bodhisattva-Mahasattva made a request of the Blessed One. Tell me, Blessed One, how all things are empty, unborn, non-dual, and have no self-nature, so that I and other Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas might be awakened in the teaching of emptiness, no-birth, non-duality, and the absence of self-nature, and, quitting the discrimination of being and non-being, quickly realise the highest enlightenment.
Then the Blessed One said this to Mahamati the Bodhisattva-Mahasattva: Now, Mahamati, listen well and reflect well upon what I tell you.
Replied Mahamati the Bodhisattva-Mahasattva, I will indeed, Blessed One. (74) The Blessed One said: Emptiness, emptiness, indeed! Mahamati, it is a term whose self-nature is false imagination. Because of one's attachment to false imagination, Mahamati, we have to talk of emptiness, no-birth, non-duality, and absence of self-nature. In short, then, Mahamati, there are seven kinds of emptiness: (1) The emptiness of individual marks (lakshana), (2) the emptiness of self-nature (bhavasvabhava), (3) the emptiness of no-work (apracarita), (4) the emptiness of work (pracarita), (5) the emptiness of all things in the sense that they are unpredicable (nirabhilapya), (6) the emptiness in its highest sense of ultimate reality realisable only by noble wisdom, and (7) the emptiness of mutuality (itaretara) which is the seventh.
Mahamati, what then is the emptiness of individual marks? It is that all things have no [such distinguishing] marks of individuality and generality. In consideration of mutuality and accumulation, [things are thought to be realities], but when they are further investigated and analysed, Mahamati, they are non-existent, and not predicable with individuality and generality; and because thus no such ideas as self, other, or both, hold good, Mahamati, the individual marks no longer obtain. So it is said that all things are empty as to their self-marks.
Again, Mahamati, what is meant by the emptiness of self-nature? Mahamati, it is that all things in their self-nature are unborn, hence the emptiness of self-nature, and it is therefore said that things are empty in their self-nature.
Again, Mahamati, what is meant by the emptiness of no-work? It is that the Skandhas are Nirvana itself and there is no work doing in them from the beginning. Therefore, one speaks of the emptiness of no-work.
(75) Again, Mahamati, what is meant by the emptiness of work? It is that the Skandhas are devoid of an ego and its belongings, and go on functioning when there is a mutual conjunction of cause and action. Thus one speaks of the emptiness of work.
Again, Mahamati, what is meant by the emptiness of all things in the sense that they are unpredicable? It is that the nature of the false imagination is not expressible, hence the emptiness of all things in the sense of their unpredicability. Thus one speaks of the emptiness of unpredicability.
Again, Mahamati, what is meant by the emptiness in its highest sense of ultimate reality realisable by noble wisdom? It is that in the attainment of an inner realisation by means of noble wisdom there is no trace of habit-energy generated by all the erroneous conceptions [of beginningless past]. Thus one speaks of the highest emptiness of ultimate reality realisable by noble wisdom.
Again, Mahamati, what is meant by the emptiness of mutual [non-existence]? It is this: when a thing is missing here, one speaks of its being empty there. For instance, Mahamati, in the lecture-hall of the Mrigarama there are no elephants, no bulls, no sheep, but as to the Bhikshus I can say that the hall is not devoid of them; it is empty only as far as they [i. e. the animals] are concerned. Further, Mahamati, it is not that the lecture-hall is devoid of its own characteristics, nor that the Bhikshu is devoid of this Bhikshuhood, nor that in some other places, too, elephants, bulls, and sheep are not to be found. Mahamati, here one sees all things in their aspect of individuality and generality, but from the point of view of mutuality (itaretara) some things do not exist somewhere. Thus one speaks of the emptiness of mutual [non-existence].
These, Mahamati, are the seven kinds of emptiness of which mutuality ranks the lowest of all and is to be put away by you.
(76) Again, Mahamati, not that things are not born, but that they are not born of themselves, except when seen in the state of Samadhi—this is what is meant by "all things are unborn." To have no self-nature is, according to the deeper sense, to be unborn, Mahamati. That all things are devoid of self-nature means that there is a constant and uninterrupted becoming, a momentary change from one state of existence to another; seeing this, Mahamati, all things are destitute of self-nature. So one speaks of all things having no self-nature.
Again, Mahamati, what is meant by non-duality? It means that light and shade, long and short, black and white, are relative terms, Mahamati, and not independent of each other; as Nirvana and Samsara are, all things are not-two. There is no Nirvana except where is Samsara; there is no Samsara except where is Nirvana; for the condition of existence is not of mutually-exclusive character.1 Therefore, it is said that all things are non-dual as are Nirvana and Samsara. For this reason, Mahamati, you should discipline yourself in [the realisation of] emptiness, no-birth, non-duality, and no-self-nature.
http://lirs.ru/do/lanka_eng/lanka-nondiacritical.htm

[Tiff]

This post is about imputing inherent essence to objects...



I was going through a desk drawer and throwing out paper, little notes of things written down, these notes were the size of a post its and such. I then had in my hand a banknote I picked up from the drawer. I held it in my left hand and kept throwing out the paper notes in my right. After I finished, I felt the paper note in my left hand and without looking at it (and forgetting what it was), I tossed it into the garbage. Upon seeing it was money, I pulled it out...it had value whereas the other paper notes didn't.



The act of imputing is powerful, it is done collectivly and this collective agreement seems to further validate it. Such as with money, lets face it, its only a piece of paper like the rest of the paper in my desk drawer, BUT...I know everyone will recognize it as money and impute value to it, so even though I see its paper, I see it as more than just paper because of what its collectively agreed as.



We do the same with cartoons (or any character). We watch them, say the Simpsons, and we may for a while think Homer is actually a person. We can remind ourselves he is not, that Dan Castellaneta is doing the voice over and an animator is drawing the character and then its all put together, but the act of imputing things to objects can make it all appear different then it is.



So to say objects are empty is to say that all that is being imputed to objects is only appearance of inherent essence when there is none.



Imputing is done collectively and this creates a sense of "realness", the mass support of belief in something. It does not make it true, it just creates a quality of inertia around such intending on objects.

[Tiff]

"So to say objects are empty is to say that all that is being imputed to objects is only appearance of inherent essence when there is none."



...just like one piece of paper appears to be money and another does not. Money is not a real thing of essence. Nothing imputed is! And the point of the story is that there are perceptual shifts of attention...learned ways of thinking and thus perceiving that are only mere appearances, not real as far as being essential in nature. Paper is not essentially money, its not essentially anything, because even tree is just a name, a label just as money was, but we cannot find the essence of tree just as we cannot find essence of money, it will never be apprehended. And we could from this point name all objects where they are not "something" but everyone strongly identifies it as such.

[ninth octave]

"Thinking in Buddhism" Nagarjuna the Middle Way from the Bahai Library/ part of epilogue:

The notion of emptiness may, at first, seem negative and limiting. It seems to deny the cosmos the option of having existence, of being real. When comprehended properly, though, the paradox of emptiness is seen as the most liberating of all possible teachings. In teaching that the self is empty and that the universe is empty, it demonstrates that both are one and the same, and that their distinction was based on nothing more than obscured understanding. The limitations caused by the notion of self-hood are destroyed. The true nature of the enlightened one is seen to be the true nature of the universe, for both are empty. In enlightenment, one becomes the universe.

[Gonzo]

Our sect has no words; in reality there is no doctrine to be given to mankind.

[Wei Shan Yang]

In this relative existence, we must do...so do what the heart urges, and then know it doesn't really amount to anything, only relatively speaking it does.



Any declaration...is false in the sense that change is the eternal constant, so nothing declared remains in an unchanged state (the state it was declared as). But that doesn't mean we can avoid day to day matters or things of practical value of which belong such declarations.



It just means we should know...nothing is ever completed and also it is complete in this very way. So we have to strive to achieve (the positive change we want) even though nothing truly reaches conclusion.



Ever notice how death aka "end" (of anything) is also simultaneously a beginning? Such as, retiring from work is the beginning of a new daily experience (retirement) or death of a person in your life is the beginning of your life without that person in it. So what seems to conclude never really concludes...it just begins a new experience, and one can say it never had a original beginning that can be located...such as, we don't remember our birth. We never have experienced birth (our own). And I say we never will experience death either...not truly. Only we can observe it happening around us...but we don't know what that experience is for the ones we observe it happening to. So there is an assumption of death as a termination, because that how it appears when we see it. But never have we actually experienced a true termination, nor a true beginning, ourselves (in our own consciousness).
"Things are not as they seem; nor are they otherwise."
"is all the we see or seem, but a dream within a dream?"

[lex icon]

and one can say it never had a original beginning that can be
located...such as, we don't remember our birth. We never have
experienced birth (our own). And I say we never will experience death
either...not truly. Only we can observe it happening around us...but we
don't know what that experience is for the ones we observe it happening
to. So there is an assumption of death as a termination, because that
how it appears when we see it. But never have we actually experienced a
true termination, nor a true beginning, ourselves (in our own
consciousness).
Wei Shan Wang.

Whew!

[Vrill]

We never have experienced birth (our own). And I say we never will
experience death either...not truly. Only we can observe it happening
around us...but we don't know what that experience is for the ones we
observe it happening to. So there is an assumption of death as a
termination, because that how it appears when we see it. But never have
we actually experienced a true termination, nor a true beginning,
ourselves (in our own consciousness).

Actually, via the process of meditation I recalled disparate memories of my birth or some part of the transition phase.
It was the scariest experience!  Like being in sucked though a complete vacuum, and the sounds and lights were particularly eerie.  This memories have no frame of reference really.  The way I look at it, is that I had these fairly clear impressions of what it's like to be born, fully conscious, with all of my senses completely out of tune.  Blurry eyes, new hearing and all of that.
But, I remember being conscious prior to birth, but I don't know when consciousness started, although it seemed to me like I had always been and always would be.
So... at some point between Death and Rebirth the slate gets wiped pretty clean.  Of course having a new physical brain, with no memories explains most of that.  Still this recollection of certainty of previous existence is somewhat disconcerting.
But in any case, this recollection, does not in anyway invalidate the Dharma teachings but rather strengthened it, in my view.

[Lex Silentio]

http://www.youtube.com/wa...juy0&feature=related

[ninth octave]

"Standing on the bare ground...a mean egotism vanishes. I become a transparent eyeball; I am nothing; I see all; the currents of the Universal Being circulate through me; I am part and particle of God."   Ralph Waldo Emerson

[Guest]

[Guest]

[Guest]