Is Emptiness Holy?

ozen

In the "Is Buddhism Holy?" topic a few people mentioned an interest in starting a topic about emptiness. The moderator in the other topic was getting upset about the emptiness talk in that discussion so I've started this topic to 'circumvent' that problem.

ozen

In my opinion, philosophizing about emptiness may have value. I'm not sure. But I believe it does have value in an experiential way. That is via meditation, the usual method to approach it.

Tosh

I agree, meditation is the usual method, but a wise Geshi teaches that we start with the concept; an understanding of Emptiness; and deepen that conceptual understanding with meditation to reach the realisation of Emptiness.

Just a thought; I don't know much about other traditions; could there be a doctrinal difference between traditions?

My understanding of Emptiness comes from the Heart Sutra; is that just a Mahayana text?

Amelia

Nothing holy. Nothing unholy.

ozen

Is that your experience or merely the Treeleaf litany?

taiyaki

Emptiness is in my opinion the hallmark of the Buddhas teachings.

Everything experienceable is ungraspable, yet it appears, abides, then disappears. There is nothing substantial at all, yet that doesn't deny its apparent function and appearance.

The point of emptiness teachings is to work the mind to all of its conclusions. Its a non affirmative negation, so the point is to take away everything that is asserted. In that sense emptiness is about the lack of something rather than nothing.

That function as a teaching is important to some but to others it is irrelevant. It in essence is just another means to help sentient beings to release their clench on inherently existent things.

To be honest with you the teachings of impermanence are even more direct than emptiness. But they both imply the same thing, which is nothing is graspable.

But heres where it gets interesting. If everything is impermanent. And if there are no things but only impermanence. Then there is no impermanence because everything is unborn. This is where emptiness and impermanence meet.

But this is all for discussions sake.

Amelia

Is that your experience or merely the Treeleaf litany?

I was referring to something like this:

I think nihilism is an unfortunate consequence of partial philosophical reading of Buddhism. I think it is a weakness in the Buddhist philosophical system, but it isn't a problem that Buddhists typically ignore or accept.

Buddhist philosophy has long recognized this problem and typically confronts it through a philosophical construct known as the tetralemma. You can find repeated examples of the tetralemma in Buddhist scriptures (as well as in classical Greek and Hindu philosophy), and it boils down to a four-part logical construct something like:

1. It is wrong* to say something exists.
2. It is wrong to say that something does not exist.
3. It is wrong to say that something both exists and does not exist.
4. It is wrong to say that something neither exists nor does not exist.

Also this:

"Subhuti, when people begin their practice of seeking to attaining total Enlightenment, they ought to see, to perceive, to know, to understand, and to realize that all things and all spiritual truths are no-things, and, therefore, they ought not to conceive within their minds any arbitrary conceptions whatsoever."

Jeffrey

True or false, emptiness is holy?



I just took a bubble bath after mowing the lawn. Is that empty? Is it holy?

:dunce:

Jeffrey

My friend, Barbara Hartman, made some turkey dressing with a high mineral content.

Is that empty? Is it holy?

note: the name is fictious

ozen

Is that your experience or merely the Treeleaf litany?

I was referring to something like this:

I think nihilism is an unfortunate consequence of partial philosophical reading of Buddhism. I think it is a weakness in the Buddhist philosophical system, but it isn't a problem that Buddhists typically ignore or accept.

Buddhist philosophy has long recognized this problem and typically confronts it through a philosophical construct known as the tetralemma. You can find repeated examples of the tetralemma in Buddhist scriptures (as well as in classical Greek and Hindu philosophy), and it boils down to a four-part logical construct something like:

1. It is wrong* to say something exists.
2. It is wrong to say that something does not exist.
3. It is wrong to say that something both exists and does not exist.
4. It is wrong to say that something neither exists nor does not exist.

Also this:

"Subhuti, when people begin their practice of seeking to attaining total Enlightenment, they ought to see, to perceive, to know, to understand, and to realize that all things and all spiritual truths are no-things, and, therefore, they ought not to conceive within their minds any arbitrary conceptions whatsoever."

I wasn't asking an arbitrary question. I asked if that was your experience or Treeleaf litany. The question is relevant to the discussion but you may certainly ignore it without any complaint from me.

ozen

My friend, Barbara Hartman, made some turkey dressing with a high mineral content.

Is that empty? Is it holy?

note: the name is fictious

I don't know. How do you feel about the turkey dressing?

Jeffrey

@ozen, my point was that emptiness discussions are very lofty and pristine, but the world is a mess with inuendo and sex and emotions. My examples show that emptiness is not serenity.

David

Is that your experience or merely the Treeleaf litany?

I was referring to something like this:

I think nihilism is an unfortunate consequence of partial philosophical reading of Buddhism. I think it is a weakness in the Buddhist philosophical system, but it isn't a problem that Buddhists typically ignore or accept.

Buddhist philosophy has long recognized this problem and typically confronts it through a philosophical construct known as the tetralemma. You can find repeated examples of the tetralemma in Buddhist scriptures (as well as in classical Greek and Hindu philosophy), and it boils down to a four-part logical construct something like:

1. It is wrong* to say something exists.
2. It is wrong to say that something does not exist.
3. It is wrong to say that something both exists and does not exist.
4. It is wrong to say that something neither exists nor does not exist.

Also this:

"Subhuti, when people begin their practice of seeking to attaining total Enlightenment, they ought to see, to perceive, to know, to understand, and to realize that all things and all spiritual truths are no-things, and, therefore, they ought not to conceive within their minds any arbitrary conceptions whatsoever."

Nhilism has nothing to do with Buddhism except that it is something that must be overcome prior to awakening. In many cases, nhilism can lead to awakening when the seed of compassion grows out of it.

The only true nhilist is a dead nhilist and if not for awakening, that's precisely where Sidhartha was headed.

Amelia

I wasn't asking an arbitrary question. I asked if that was your experience or Treeleaf litany. The question is relevant to the discussion but you may certainly ignore it without any complaint from me.

Yes. "Nothing holy. Nothing unholy." is part of my own experience.

David

No thing is holier than any other.

This is why to me, to worship Buddha is to miss the Buddha.

lamaramadingdong

It's holey.

ozen

@ozen, my point was that emptiness discussions are very lofty and pristine, but the world is a mess with inuendo and sex and emotions. My examples show that emptiness is not serenity.

I didn't know that emptiness was supposed to be serenity.

ozen

I wasn't asking an arbitrary question. I asked if that was your experience or Treeleaf litany. The question is relevant to the discussion but you may certainly ignore it without any complaint from me.

Yes. "Nothing holy. Nothing unholy." is part of my own experience.

Awesome, now back to the holy and unholy...

ozen

The only true nihilist is a dead nihilist

I'm afraid to ask, but what does that mean?

RichardH

Emptiness is just half of it. There is no thing or non-thing called "Emptiness", there is only Emptiness/Form. The view of 'Emptiness" as "The" Absolute (akin to the "causeless cause" ) is off the mark.
Emptiness is not other than Form, Form is not other than Emptiness. Form/Emptiness is single and experiential.
Emptiness/Form is a descriptor of "Suchness". "Suchness" is both the holy and the non-holy... While not negating the holiness of holiness and non-holiness as of non-holiness. It is the very "suchness" of those relative qualities as well.


This sounds like a bit of word play but it is a straight telling.

Floating_Abu

Yes there is emptiness

Floating_Abu

In my opinion, philosophizing about emptiness may have value. I'm not sure. But I believe it does have value in an experiential way. That is via meditation, the usual method to approach it.

I agree @ozen

You can spot the emptiness theorists a world away

Did you ever get what 'bringing attention to peace' actually meant?

Abu

RichardH

Yes there is emptiness

go back to your teacher. go..

Floating_Abu

But heres where it gets interesting. If everything is impermanent. And if there are no things but only impermanence. Then there is no impermanence because everything is unborn. This is where emptiness and impermanence meet.

But this is all for discussions sake.

I think this is a good example of the 'problem' with emptiness as a theory.

Just because we can theorise it and analyse it, people might also believe it is the same as realising it/genuinely knowing it.

And on the points made, 'And if there are no things but only impermanence. Then there is no impermanence because everything is unborn' -- Ahh, no, I don't believe this is the way it is taught in Buddhism at all.

Best wishes,
Abu

Floating_Abu

Yes there is emptiness

go back to your teacher. go..

Emptiness is just the way things are. I am sorry you cannot see that, Richard.

Best wishes,
Abu

RichardH

Yes there is emptiness

go back to your teacher. go..

Emptiness is just the way things are. I am sorry you cannot see that, Richard.

Best wishes,
Abu

You didn't read my post. It went right past. Take my post (anonymously) to your teacher and ask for an explamation. Xabir can probably explain it.

seeker242

If you attach a label of "holy" to "it", is it still empty? What is emptiness anyway?

ozen

Emptiness is just half of it. There is no thing or non-thing called "Emptiness", there is only Emptiness/Form. The view of 'Emptiness" as "The" Absolute (akin to the "causeless cause" ) is off the mark.
Emptiness is not other than Form, Form is not other than Emptiness. Form/Emptiness is single and experiential.
Emptiness/Form is a descriptor of "Suchness". "Suchness" is both the holy and the non-holy... While not negating the holiness of holiness and non-holiness as of non-holiness. It is the very "suchness" of those relative qualities as well.


This sounds like a bit of word play but it is a straight telling.

It doesn't sound like word play. It sounds like typical zen litany, which can't be construed in any other way than "straight telling."

ozen

In my opinion, philosophizing about emptiness may have value. I'm not sure. But I believe it does have value in an experiential way. That is via meditation, the usual method to approach it.

I agree @ozen

You can spot the emptiness theorists a world away

Did you ever get what 'bringing attention to peace' actually meant?

Abu

I believe that I know what they mean. I just question the efficacy.

ozen

Efficacy in breaking habits, that is.

Floating_Abu

Yes there is emptiness

go back to your teacher. go..

Emptiness is just the way things are. I am sorry you cannot see that, Richard.

Best wishes,
Abu

You didn't read my post. It went right past. Take my post (anonymously) to your teacher and ask for an explamation. Xabir can probably explain it.

Hi Richard

I read your post, it's a word play off the Heart Sutra.

And my response, which you didn't like was, 'There is emptiness'

You said 'There is no thing called 'Emptiness', there is only Emptiness/Form'

Which is: no, sorry there is Emptiness.

Hence why the Heart Sutra says

'Form is emptiness
Emptiness none other than form'

But also

'Form is form'
And
'Emptiness is emptiness'

The only reason you can even say Form is emptiness, emptiness is none other than form, is because there is emptiness.

There is also more to the sutra:

'Here, Sariputra, all dharmas are marked with emptiness; they are not produced or stopped, not defiled or immaculate, not deficient or complete.

Therefore, Sariputra, in emptiness there is no form, nor feeling, nor perception, nor impulse, nor consciousness; No eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind; No forms, sounds, smells, tastes, touchables or objects of mind; No sight-organ element, and so forth, until we come to: No mind-consciousness element; There is no ignorance, no extinction of ignorance, and so forth, until we come to: there is no decay and death, no extinction of decay and death. There is no suffering, no origination, no stopping, no path. There is no cognition, no attainment and non-attainment.

i.e. There is emptiness - as per the Buddha's teachings.

xabir reads from some blog which I wouldn't credit.

I am happy you find agreement in him though.

Abu

Floating_Abu

You didn't read my post. It went right past. Take my post (anonymously) to your teacher and ask for an explamation. Xabir can probably explain it.

And so, @RichardH, that you do not ask me to ask my teacher anything again - perhaps in this instance you can be referred to Suzuki Roshi to shortcut your process instead

There are four ways of understanding the relationship of form and emptiness: form is emptiness, emptiness is form, form is form, and emptiness is emptiness. “Form is emptiness” may not be so difficult to understand, but it will be misunderstood by some advanced, hasty people. “Yes, form is emptiness. There is no need for us to attach to some particular thing. Form is emptiness.” This looks very clear, and this view of life is better than attaching to some particular form or color, because in it there are actually many, many views of life. And this view of non‑existence is deeper than the view of seeing many things which actually look per­manent and which look like they have some self‑na­ture. But as we explained already, and as you have already understood, there is no special self‑nature for anything, and everything is changing. As long as everything is changing, nothing is permanent. So this [form is emptiness] may be a more advanced view of life.

But “emptiness is form” is rather difficult to understand. The empti­ness which is the absolute goal we will attain, which is enlightenment itself, is form. So whatever you do is enlightenment itself. This is rather difficult to understand, or to accept, because you think emptiness is some unusual thing. Something unusual is something very common. This is rather difficult to understand, especially when you practice zazen. Even though your practice is not perfect, that is enlightenment. This statement is very difficult to accept. “No, my practice is not perfect.” But when we under­stand form is emptiness, and emptiness is form, back and forth in this way, and form is form, and emptiness is emptiness, when emptiness comes, everything is emptiness, and when form comes, form is form, and we accept things as it is.

So when we come to the understanding of, “Form is form and emptiness is emptiness,” there is no problem. This stage, or this understanding, is what Dōgen-zenji means by, “When the moon is in the water, the water will not be broken, nor will the moon be wet.” Moon is moon, and water is water. This is “form is form, emptiness is emptiness.” But here there is the possibility of the misunderstanding that there is no need to practice Zen. “Form is form, and emptiness is emptiness. If this is true, why do we practice zazen?” You will have this kind of misunderstanding. But each of the four statements also includes the other three, so there are four ways of understanding each statement. If it is not so, it is not true understanding. So all four state­ments are actually the same. Whether you say form is form or emptiness is emptiness, or form is emptiness, or emptiness is form, one statement is enough for you. This is true understanding of Prajñāpāramitā.

Full teaching

Floating_Abu

If you attach a label of "holy" to "it", is it still empty? What is emptiness anyway?

Something people try to pin down, but is almost impossible to do.

Best wishes,
Abu

Floating_Abu

In my opinion, philosophizing about emptiness may have value. I'm not sure. But I believe it does have value in an experiential way. That is via meditation, the usual method to approach it.

I agree @ozen

You can spot the emptiness theorists a world away

Did you ever get what 'bringing attention to peace' actually meant?

Abu

I believe that I know what they mean. I just question the efficacy.

I also think I know what they mean, but I am not sure that they actually do, or that it is appropriate to the context of breaking habits either.

Abu

xabir

Yes there is emptiness

Abu

Emptiness in Buddhism means the lack or absence of an inherent existence that can be pinned down. Emptiness is not some formless absolute or ultimate reality. To posit an inherently existing absolute would be to contradict the principle of "lacking inherent existence". Emptiness is also empty (of real existence). All claims of existence and non-existence are rejected, and even "emptiness" is not established as a "true positions". There is no positions.

I like what Loppon Namdrol said here: "The great 11th Nyingma scholar Rongzom points out that only Madhyamaka accepts that its critical methodology "harms itself", meaning that Madhyamaka uses non-affirming negations to reject the positions of opponents, but does not resort to affirming negations to support a position of its own. Since Madhyamaka, as Buddhapalita states "does not propose the non-existence of existents, but instead rejects claims for the existence of existents", there is no true Madhyamaka position since there is no existent found about which a Madhyamaka position could be formulated; likewise there is no false Madhyamaka position since there is no existent found about which a Madhyamaka position could be rejected."


For a longer discussion I have posted in http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/15638/nirvana-and-moksha#Item_67

xabir

Emptiness is the absence of "is" or "is not", or "existence"/"non-existence", "being"/"non-being".

And why? The Buddha explained: Nothing can be established or pinned down as a (substantial) truth or reality.

ozen

Emptiness in Buddhism means the lack or absence of an inherent existence that can be pinned down. Emptiness is not some formless absolute or ultimate reality. To posit an inherently existing absolute would be to contradict the principle of "lacking inherent existence". Emptiness is also empty (of real existence). All claims of existence and non-existence are rejected, and even "emptiness" is not established as a "true positions".

Isn't everything universally empty? And if it is, isn't that an absolute?

There is no positions.

Believe it or not that is a position.

xabir

Everything is empty by nature, and this emptiness is also not established in any way - emptiness is empty (of an "itself" as an absolute), and emptiness is a nonaffirming negation of "existence" (and likewise nonexistence or other extremes) in self and objects.

You can say that emptiness is the ultimate truth, yet it cannot be equated as an ultimate reality or an absolute.

The absence of position is not a position, just like the absence of apple is not an apple. There is no position to be defended, picked up, etc through realizing emptiness. It should however lead to the giving up of all positions.

xabir

Furthermore the Buddha commented on his view of dependent origination:

"If you were not to adhere to this view — so pure, so bright — if you were to not to cherish it, not to treasure it, not to regard it as 'mine,' would you understand the Dhamma taught as analogous to a raft, for crossing over, not for holding on to?"

"Yes, lord."

...

Nonetheless to learn and establish right view (for the purpose of crossing over) is still important at the beginning.

ozen

The absence of position is not a position, just like the absence of apple is not an apple.

If the apple is not absent then where is it?

xabir

If the apple is not absent then where is it?

"Where" does not apply because apple is empty of apple-ness, being a mere convention or imputation on a dependently arisen appearance that has no core. But I'm not sure what you are getting at.

ozen

But I'm not sure what you are getting at.

Your position.

Floating_Abu

There is no positions.

Nice position, buddy, I like how all the theorists contradict themself immediately.

@xabir, no offence, but I am not interested enough to debate you, please keep your positions as you deem them to be right.

I have already responded including in the Heart Sutra, which is a classic Mahayana text of sufficient depth to know what emptiness is, or is not.

'In emptiness, there is no form...'

'Form is emptiness, emptiness is none other than form'

None of these contradict themself because in practice, all contradictions are resolved.

That is the penultimate beauty of practice, and the eternal limitation of theorists only.

We can say and debate and pole the word #happy# but are we yet? Intellectual analysis will always be limited.

I'm also a theorist so no offence, my friend

Best wishes,
Abu

PS If my interest is piqued, I can play with your points, but please know it is so not necessary.

Floating_Abu

With respect, @xabir, I know those theories and philosophies are interesting to the so inclined, but I've always loved practice leaning texts. They are so less roundabout

I agree with Ajahn Sumedho here --

I first met Ajahn Sumedho at the Centre for Higher Tibetan Studies in Switzerland in the spring of 1979. He had just finished giving a ten-day course in the mountains near Berne, and was invited to spend a couple of days at the Centre by its Abbot, Geshe Rabten.

One person who attended Bhikkhu Sumedho's course liked to be around him because 'he is just such a nice guy'. It was heartening for me to see a monk who kept strictly the rules of discipline, the Vinaya, yet maintained a softness and naturalness behind his observance of them.

To illustrate Sumedho's resoluteness about the importance of practice and meditation: While we were both walking around the hillside near the Centre, overlooking the French and Swiss Alps with Lake Geneva below, he asked me whether I had a desire to return to India. I answered that I would go if it were for the purpose of improving my Tibetan. I could then return to the West and act as an interpreter for a Tibetan master or work as a translator of Tibetan texts. His only response to that was: 'Why don't you just get enlightened?'

Interview

Floating_Abu

OK @xabir, I have time, I will play.

Floating_Abu

Let's take this one at a time --

Emptiness in Buddhism means the lack or absence of an inherent existence that can be pinned down.

The bolded part is what I agree to as one version-teaching of emptiness - yes. But that is not the complete story.

Reference:

Emptiness, the ultimate nature of Dharmakaya, the Absolute Body, is not a simple nothingness. It possesses intrinsically the faculty of knowing all phenomena. This faculty is the luminous or cognitive aspect of the Dharmakaya, whose expression is spontaneous. The Dharmakaya is not the product of causes and conditions; it is the original nature of mind.

Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche

Here, Sariputra, all dharmas are marked with emptiness; they are not produced or stopped, not defiled or immaculate, not deficient or complete.

Therefore, Sariputra, in emptiness there is no form, nor feeling, nor perception, nor impulse, nor consciousness; No eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind; No forms, sounds, smells, tastes, touchables or objects of mind; No sight-organ element, and so forth, until we come to: No mind-consciousness element;

- Heart Sutra

In the discussion of emptiness, the Diamond Sutra says that there is nothing in this world that has the character of never changing, the character of substantial being, and the character of independent existence. In fact, the so-called "emptiness" in the Diamond Sutra has the meaning of cause and condition.

Emptiness is very difficult to comprehend. It is a truth which is difficult to understand. What is emptiness?

Emptiness is the essence of the universe, the origin of human life, and the source of the phenomenal world.

..The truth of emptiness that is discussed in the Diamond Sutra has to be experienced in our everyday cultivation and practice. Only then can we truly understand the true meaning of emptiness.

How can we truly understand emptiness? It is only when we have realized prajna paramita (the perfection of wisdom) that we can perceive the five aggregates (the five components of existence: form, feeling, perception, mental formation, and consciousness) are empty. Without prajna, we cannot understand emptiness.


Hsing Yun

Bodhidharma, the twenty-eighth Indian patriarch and first Chinese patriarch of Chan, once remarked, “The Buddhas expound the Dharma of emptiness in
order to eradicate the myriad false views. But should you then cling to emptiness, even the Buddhas will be unable to do anything to help you"

From Ta-mo lun, in Yanagida Seizan, ed. Daruma no goroku. Zen no goroku 1
(Tokyo: Chikuma shoten, 1969), p. 58.

i.e. your representation is one version only and seems heavily theorised by philosophical leanings and dances, which is not my preference personally.

Floating_Abu

Emptiness is not some formless absolute or ultimate reality

I never said this by the way so your words are projected - but perhaps you could read the Masters/sutras -

Emptiness is the essence of the universe, the origin of human life, and the source of the phenomenal world. - Hsing Yun

In this way, Sariputra, all things are emptiness; they are without defining characteristics; they are not born, they do not cease, they are not defiled, they are not undefiled. They have no increase, they have no decrease.

"Therefore, Sariputra, in emptiness there is no form, no sensation, no discrimination, no conditioning, and no awareness. There is no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind. There is no form, no sound, no smell, no taste, no texture, no phenomenon. There is no eye-element and so on up to no mind-element and also up to no element of mental awareness. There is no ignorance and no elimination of ignorance and so on up to no aging and death and no elimination of aging and death. Likewise, there is no suffering, origin, cessation, or path; there is no wisdom, no attainment, and even no non-attainment.

- Heart Sutra

In expressing the essential quality of the Great Mother, emptiness, it is said: 'Though you think of expressing the nature of the Heart Sutra you cannot put it into words'. It is totally beyond utterance, beyond thought, beyond concept. It was never born. It has never died. If you ask what it is like, it is like the sky. You can never find the limit of the sky. You can never find the center of the sky. So this sky-like nature is symbolic of emptiness: it is spacious, limitless, and free, with infinite depth and infinite expanse.

- His Holiness Dudjom Rinpoche

But each of the four statements also includes the other three, so there are four ways of understanding each statement. If it is not so, it is not true understanding. So all four state­ments are actually the same. Whether you say form is form or emptiness is emptiness, or form is emptiness, or emptiness is form, one statement is enough for you. This is true understanding of Prajñāpāramitā.

- Shunryu Suzuki

To posit an inherently existing absolute would be to contradict the principle of "lacking inherent existence". Emptiness is also empty (of real existence).

What is lacking inherent existence is the world of form. The world of form is completely interdependent, relying on each particle and atom for its own definition, ever changing. It is also, correctly, none other than emptiness. No-one is positing an 'inherently' existing absolute BUT the reality of the world is -- there is emptiness. That is what I said and that is just a fact. Re-read above. Emptiness is also empty of inherent existence sounds like philosophical mirings. First you would have to know what emptiness is....Emptiness is. Take it from the teachers. (above scattered throughout this thread)

The Heart Sutra is probably the deepest our sutras go to in terms of expounding its truth. I also feel that it is very brilliant, and a very honest text.

All claims of existence and non-existence are rejected, and even "emptiness" is not established as a "true positions". There is no positions.

That's clearly a position xabir
If you arrive at this through meditation, that would be infinitely more treasureful.

I like what Loppon Namdrol said here:

The greatest theorist of the internet forums? Sorry, let's not even bother going there.

Best wishes,
Abu

Floating_Abu

Emptiness is the absence of "is" or "is not", or "existence"/"non-existence", "being"/"non-being".

Learn to do this without words

Floating_Abu

Everything is empty by nature, and this emptiness is also not established in any way - emptiness is empty (of an "itself" as an absolute), and emptiness is a nonaffirming negation of "existence" (and likewise nonexistence or other extremes) in self and objects.

You can say that emptiness is the ultimate truth, yet it cannot be equated as an ultimate reality or an absolute.

The absence of position is not a position, just like the absence of apple is not an apple. There is no position to be defended, picked up, etc through realizing emptiness. It should however lead to the giving up of all positions.

Complicating things perchance with word substitution?

How about --
The absence of milk (in the fridge) is not milk (in the fridge) :shake:

Does that prove your assertion? I doubt it.

Let's simplify it and turn it so it is standing up again more clearly --

Stating that no position is the correct position IS a position.

There are no 2 ways about that no matter what you say. You cannot intellectualise this theory no matter how much bad influence you have in doing so.

Your quote from the Buddha was merely his encouragement, in teaching DO, to not cling to that view -- as we know for all of Buddha's teachings, so too is it a raft to help us cross only. It does not validate your view or position in this case that there should be no positions, please don't misquote the meaning in that long long sutta

The rest is just word games -
Tomato or tomatoe?

I do like some debate when I have time on my hands though, my own bad weakness

These positions though are not bad or wrong per se, but are infinitely more interesting if arrived through meditative insights and awareness i.e practice, practice, practice.

Thanks for trying to help @xabir, much appreciated

Namaste,
Abu

xabir

That emptiness is empty (of real existence) is a well known teaching. If you say that there is (exists) an "emptiness", then that has contradicted the principle of emptiness since emptiness is the absence of extremes (existence, non, both, neither)

The spacious quality of luminous mind is just relative formlessness and not the same as the emptiness that is the absence of extremes (existence that can be pinned down), and you are confusing the two to be the same. This space-like luminous mind (which has the potentiality of manifesting) is very often reified into an atman-brahman due to the lack of insight into anatta and emptiness. This problem is common even among Buddhist teachers.

The spacious quality of mind is discovered even in the I AM phase of insight. It is not the same as the twofold emptiness of anatta in persons and shunyata in dharmas.

And by the way, this is far from theoretical - I.e. http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html

This is not only Thusness's experience, but also my experience, as I described in my e-book posted in that blog.

Also, the Dalai Lama puts it thus in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/07/happiness-karma-and-mind.html :

"Through the gates of the five sense organs a being sees, hears, smells, tastes and comes into contact with a host of external forms, objects and impressions. Let the form, sound, smell, taste, touch and mental events which are the relations of the six senses be shut off. When this is done the recollection of past events on which the mind tends to dwell will be completely discontinued and the flow of memory cut off. Similarly, plans for the future and contemplation of future action must not be allowed to arise. It is necessary to create a space in place of all such processes of thought if one is to empty the mind of all such processes of thought. Freed from all these processes there will remain a pure, clean, distinct and quiescent mind. Now let us examine what sort of characteristics constitute the mind when it has attained this stage. We surely do possess some thing called mind, but how are we to recognize its existence? The real and essential mind is what is to be found when the entire load of gross obstructions and aberrations (i.e. sense impressions, memories, etc.) has been cleared away. Discerning this aspect of real mind, we shall discover that, unlike external objects, its true nature is devoid of form or color; nor can we find any basis of truth for such false and deceptive notions as that mind originated from this or that, or that it will move from here to there, or that it is located in such-and-such a place. When it comes into contact with no object mind is like a vast, boundless void, or like a serene, illimitable ocean. When it encounters an object it at once has cognizance of it, like a mirror instantly reflecting a person who stands in front of it. The true nature of mind consists not only in taking clear cognizance of the object but also in communicating a concrete experience of that object to the one experiencing it.* Normally, our forms of sense cognition, such as eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, etc., perform their functions on external phenomena in a manner involving gross distortion. Knowledge resulting from sense cognition, being based on gross external phenomena, is also of a gross nature. When this type of gross stimulation is shut out, and when concrete experiences and clear cognizance arise from within, mind assumes the characteristics of infinite void similar to the infinitude of space. But this void is not to be taken as the true nature of mind. We have become so habituated to consciousness of the form and color of gross objects that, when we make concentrated introspection into the nature of mind, it is, as I have said, found to be a vast, limitless void free from any gross obscurity or other hindrances. Nevertheless, this does not mean that we have discerned the subtle, true nature of the mind. What has been explained above concerns the state of mind in relation to the concrete experience and clear cognizance by the mind which are its function, but it describes only the relative nature of mind.

There are in addition several other aspects and states of mind. In other words, taking mind as the supreme basis, there are many attributes related to it. Just as an onion consists of layer upon layer that can be peeled away, so does every sort of object have a number of layers; and this is no less true of the nature of mind as explained here; it, too, has layer within layer, slate within state.

All compounded things are subject to disintegration. Since experience and knowledge are impermanent and subject to disintegration, the mind, of which they are functions (nature), is not something that remains constant and eternal. From moment to moment it undergoes change and disintegration. This transience of mind is one aspect of its nature. However, as we have observed, its true nature has many aspects, including consciousness of concrete experience and cognizance of objects. Now let us make a further examination in order to grasp the meaning of the subtle essence of such a mind. Mind came into existence because of its own cause. To deny that the origination of mind is dependent on a cause, or to say that it is a designation given as a means of recognizing the nature of mind aggregates, is not correct. With our superficial observance, mind, which has concrete experience and clear cognizance as its nature, appears to be a powerful, independent, subjective, completely ruling entity. However, deeper analysis will reveal that this mind, possessing as it does the function of experience and cognizance, is not a self-created entity but Is dependent on other factors for its existence. Hence it depends on something other than itself. This non-independent quality of the mind substance is its true nature which in turn is the ultimate reality of the self."

xabir

"Stating that no position is the correct position IS a position."

No, there is no true/correct positions. That is the point. "Is" is a position. "Is not" is a position. "There is emptiness" is a position. "Emptiness does not exist" is a position. Why? Because non-existence can only be established in reference to an existing thing which becomes non-existence.