Emptiness, the 3 marks, non-self

Jeffrey

Jeffrey: "i understand nirvana as free from dukkha because we stop grasping. in the madyamaka teachings of the mahayana dukkha is not real.. the occurence of dukka is due to a misunderstanding..

If dukkha were real then the self experiencing dukkha would have to be real."

Vincenzi: "the self is real... it is just impermanent, and "non-atomic"."

Jeffrey: "ok I think of it as unreal in a sense but I think I am talking about one thing. there is too many things I refer to with 'self'.

the skandas are unreal.. love is real

'non-atomic' is interesting. Do you mean it isn't an essence?"

Vincenzi: "it is inter-dependant with other fenomena, and there's no discernable limit within the functioning of the skandhas.

and yes, it isn't an essence..."

Jeffrey: "I like that.. sounds good"

To be continued..

Jeffrey

the swing is yellow: "This may be offtopic; I was following Vajarahearts and taiyaki's comments on emptiness. Could emptiness be defined or looked at as the emptiness of an intrinsic personal identity? I would contend we have an "I" in a conventional sense but this "I" is dependent upon the interelation of the body and mind, causes and conditions and as such this conventional "I" is everchanging. I would also suggest, from my limited understanding, that emptiness is impermenance with another name.
All the best,
Todd"

person: [responding to swing is yellows post] "I think thats right, its my understanding at least."

Vincenzi: "@Jeffrey

thanks

@The swing is yellow

emptyness is used in the description of anatta:
the self is empty of inherent existance (no essence, it isn't eternal nor atomistic).

Nagarjuna and later thinkers took the term, isolated it... and then put it on a pedestal."

Jeffrey: [link to Nagarjuna's life info]

Vincenzi: "I'm not saying Nagarjuna is without merit... just that overemphasizing emptyness (in itself) isn't healthy nor wise."

Jeffrey: smile

Vajraheart: [in reference to pedestal quote] I don't think so, as Nagarjuna said that anyone who clings to the concept of emptiness is lost.

He was very clear which is why he proposed the emptiness of emptiness as well.

Nagarjuna was not trapped, he saw the middle way. His teachings are very sophisticated though. I can understand misunderstanding them.

Vincenzi

emptiness follows from trilaksana, because it is used mostly in the explanation of anatta... and it is related to impermanence. some relate it to dukkha, as part of an explanation.

it is similar to tao, but instead of "everything goes back to emptyness" it is more "everything is contained by emptyness, or has emptyness as the only inherent characteristic".

Jeffrey

Vincenzi: "making up emptiness of emptiness is a weak argument for emptiness."

the swing is yellow: "We have a self that is empty of inherent existance,that is not the body or mind and certainy can't be separate from the body and mind. Could we not conclude that this "self" is just a component of the thinking mind? That this is a concept cobbled together from memories, causes and conditions, and ideas. That this intrinsic self has no existance whatsoever? I would still maintain we have a conventional "I" that is dependent upon the interelation of the body and mind, causes and conditions and is everchanging. This "I " is impermenance itself and cannot be regarded in any kind of fixed or set way. I would also regard everything in the same fashion.
All the best,
Todd"

Jeffrey: "Nagarjuna said that saying there is emptiness of self implies that there is a self to be empty of (self)...

Which is a flaw of conceptual view

Todd,

Dzigar Kongtrul says that its as if a phantom is doing things.. the dishes get done the laundry, but we don't really know what we mean by a self.. its confused we say I am sick.. but then we say the sickness isn't me which is what a sick person experiences when it is chronic and they are dealing."

Sanisthouk: "The title of this OP.."Consciousness without surface (outside space and time)" is referring to another form of consciousness that I'm not aware of. The only consciousness that I am aware of is conditioned in the realm of the living self, and is subject to clinging. "Awareness without surface (outside space and time)", sounds more appropriate to me. The consciousness that I know of is this:

At Savatthi. "Monks, eye-consciousness is inconstant, changeable, alterable. Ear-consciousness... Nose-consciousness... Tongue-consciousness... Body-consciousness... Intellect-consciousness is inconstant, changeable, alterable."

Vincenzi: [in reference to Jeffrey 'Nagarjuna said'...] no one is saying that. the self is empty of inherent existance / the self is without inherent existance.

emptiness of self is nonsense.

Jeffrey: "santhisouk I think that indeed it is a different view of consciousness than the senses and mind consciousness. Remember that the dharma is not always definitive. In some cases it is provisional and in need of judgement interpretation and correlation with life.

Thus both views of consciousness are mental masturbation if they don't correlate to life.

Vincenzi, it depends what one means by emptiness of self. I think nagarjuna was proposing a contradiction to refute someone elses understanding. Your interpretation does sound like it makes more sense. I cannot fit your statement into nagarjuna's rubric:

emptiness of inherency implies something inherent to be empty of? That is not a very strong compelling statement.

(I'm agreeing with you that stuff was hard to word unconfusing for me)

Vajraheart: [in refence to Vincenzi making up emptiness of emptiness is weak argument] "No, it just means that emptiness is also empty of inherent substance, that it too is dependently originated. Of course, that should be obvious, but subtly... it might not be."

Vajraheart: [in reference to Jeffrey 'it depends what you mean by emptiness of self'] A lot of his stuff was meant for use in debate. This it can be seemingly over stringent for someone who is already a Buddhist.

Jeffrey

Vajraheart: "@Vincenzi

Imagine you're like, "Oh... I've realized emptiness." You have this experience of realizing emptiness, now empty that too.

.....

This might be obvious to plenty, but not to others."

Sanisthouk: "everything correlates to life"

Theswingisyellow

We exist in a conventional sense, this is obvious.
Examine this idea of yourself. How many selves have you created? I have created many!!! Often on a daily basis. You have your body and mind. Is this self your body? Is this self your mind? Is it both? Is it existing in its own right?
If this self is sad, is this body sad?
If this self is kicked, is the mind kicked?
If the self is both, how is that possible? The body has mass and position, this does not describe the mind.
If this self stands alone, what happens to it when the body and mind are gone?
This concept of self, for me, is a mental formation, a concept. It does not exist apart from thinking. Neither do pink unicorns.
To have no reference point to this phantom, this to me is emptiness.
If I don't make me I don't make you. Your body, your mind, your joys and sorrows are no different from mine. You too are empty of an inherent self. We exist in an inconstant world, a groundless ground without a referent, unless we deny and subsequently fight reality.
Todd

Jeffrey

Its interesting to ponder why so many selfs are created? What is going on?

Theswingisyellow

Its interesting to ponder why so many selfs are created? What is going on?

It's a human compass, it gives us a reference point in a world we concieve of a random or chaotic, though I believe an ego can be both functional and useful as it promotes drive, survival ect. The problem is we come to believe our own propaganda and see others and use others through our self centered, distorted view of the world. The reality is there is nothing to defend, to prop up or fight for.
All the best,
Todd

santhisouk

@The swing is yellow

Good interpretation of anatta.

taiyaki

emptiness asserts the lack of essences. the essence is a permanent, independent, single quality or state.

so all things are marked with emptiness means all things are interdependent and impermanent.

and thus we project our beliefs, interpretations, assumptions onto reality thus coming into wrong view or ignorance.

through following the path we reduce anger, jealousy, and ignorance. with the shift from an object centered consciousness to a non dual consciousness we can realize the non dual emptiness.

emptiness is what is and is apparent when we see clearly. when we see with dualistic frameworks or assumptions we see based on our conditioning. when we have clear view from our conditioning, we have the potential to realize what is.

what is, is emptiness. we realize we project onto this emptiness, thus coming to a view.

and here we are trying to describe the non dual. hehehe.

santhisouk

@taiyaki

Why is it important if something dual or non dual? Just wondering.

taiyaki

its important to realize the distinction. dualism is thinking processes. non dual is beyond concept/language.

a lot of what spirituality deals with is non dual, thus you have to realize such truths.

how you interpret and put into framework such truths is based on your conditioning, thus your thinking.

it's like trying to describe the silence. Lol.

santhisouk

Thats exactly what we have to do. How else will people come to appreciate it though?

taiyaki

i suppose it deals with mere theory and praxis.

realization of truth isn't merely conceptual, though it can be expressed in concepts.
true realization is something that is holistic in that it encompasses all intelligence.

i can read form is emptiness and emptiness is form and i can somewhat understand it.

but the understanding is nothing compared to existentially realize such truth.

so all these maps and methods and paths exist to allow us to realize such truths rather than creating new belief structures through religion or philosophy.

santhisouk

Agreed. Cheers. :coffee:

taiyaki

then from realization we interpret such truth in all aspects of our whole human experience.

that is the real work. as realization of emptiness is easy. try upholding such realization when your boss is yelling at you for no reason. see what i mean? integrating you meditative realizations into real life is a whole other aspect.

but realization is important. imitating and eating off another's plate only goes so far.

santhisouk

I don't see the difficulty. If he yells you listen and think of metta. Then once you do that, it will hit him that he was wrong to act as such, but the good thing is that he will remember that you took that from him and so he is reminded of it when your performance evaluation comes up.

taiyaki

yeah metta is a safe response and bet, but there will always be a situation or rather test set up for you to actualize your realizations.

he could be yelling at you for a valid purpose as you could be royally fucking up. compassion arises naturally as we realize emptiness in ever single moment, rather than one realization of emptiness.

if we realize that our boss is empty then we can realize that interpretation of his/her action and clinging to such interpretation is what is causing us suffering. so when we see things as they are, they are merely empty processes. thus we realize there is only our projection onto such non dual reality. that gives us right view and correct action arises spontaneously from such realization of emptiness. compassion may arise or a complete acceptance of the other person. or i may suck it up and just listen to what they have to say. the expression and how the interaction becomes is infinite in that i cannot predict what will occur. but naturally what has to be done will arise and occur when i don't cling to outcomes. thus this is how emptiness moves about.

it truly is a fun thing to just watch. lol.

santhisouk

You are right. I mean its fun to watch other people getting angry when it doesn't affect you, but it's difficult to do that when they can put you in danger. The key is acceptance. Accept everything, and accept the empty self. The non clinging awareness always keeps everything neutral and balanced. There is nothing to fear. There is only blissfulness that comes from seeing the truth and accepting.

taiyaki

yes! and self only arises in relationship in the other. such self is empty, but such self is valid. and such self is totally individual in that each person embodies the same truth but expresses such truth differently.

thus compassion or expression of emptiness isn't something that is definable or predictable. for such expression arises in relationship to a given circumstance and conditioning of the individual.

i think that is what most of mahayana buddhism is doing. trying to interpret and frame emptiness into more of a positive framework/interpretation. true emptiness is beyond both positive/negative, thus accepting both interpretations. based on the capacity of the presenter and receiver is how emptiness is expressed.

but these are merely interpretations from me. it's all fun and games on my end hehehe.

thickpaper

Interconnected-Emptiness, often just termed emptiness, is another of the foundational principles of Dharma that states that all things are empty and interconnected. These are the same principles, one looking inwards, the other looking outwards.

Take the sentences on this digital page. We can divide them into letters and and spaces, and then we can divide those into pixels.... but we cant go any lower than that. The points that make up the words are nothing other than changes, they have no essence, or substance. If you read the words out loud, the same is true, only instead of points there are just sound waves, there is nothing to them. But points and waves can still be real.

According to emptiness, all things are like this in different ways, nothing is an independent object.

If we go back to the words on the page, and pick any part of any word, we can see that it is connected with all of the other parts on the page. But more than that, the words are connected to the air and the light and your eyes and the ground and the sky. From any point on the page we can trace an unbreakable line to any point in the room, on the planet and, ignoring the speed of light, to any point in the universe.

This interconnectivity is the same principle as emptiness, but instead of going "into the thing" it goes out of the thing.

This is so important to an understanding of life and dharma for two related reasons:

Firstly, if all things are really empty and without essence, then the idea that anything has an inherent value becomes meaningless.

Secondly, and more importantly, the notion of any of us having anything that makes us what we are is also vanished. There is no "me", there is just this empty stream of processes that give the illusion of "me" - a very negitavising illusion that Buddha showed, pretty conclusively, is the cause of most of life's real problems,

Emptiness is very simple to understand in itself and not that hard to understand in relation to experience via dependent origination.

Right View is Easy, Right Effort is Hard.

Jeffrey

:clap:

upekka

if we realize that our boss is empty then we can realize that interpretation of his/her action and clinging to such interpretation is what is causing us suffering.

'our boss' is a perception in the mind

if the mind can identify the perception as perception ..................

taiyaki

yes you're right our boss is a projection from us.

but then how do you engage with the world?

your boss sure isn't always your boss but in that moment he/she is your boss.

just like the sky is blue. emptiness doesn't assert that the sky isn't blue. it just means the sky itself isn't inherently blue, thus it can change into various other colors. but to say the sky is blue is valid.

absolute and relative truths are all valid if emptiness is realized.

thus we can engage fully with the world, while realizing that all things are empty.

taiyaki

but here is the thing, emptiness must be realized moment to moment. to make a non dual emptiness into a framework so that you can view everything as empty is wrong.

it's only useful in discussions such as this, but ultimately meaningless until you realize it moment to moment.

seeing clearly into reality we just see what is and what is, is interdependence. your boss is both empty of views and thus can be a certain view. the infinite accepts the finite.

just like we are empty of self, but such self exists as a constantly changing personality structure based on feelings, thoughts, beliefs, etc. and such self only exists in relation to the other.

it's because things are empty that all form is possible and vice versa.

seeing clearly, we totally accept all views, thus coming at a no view. we marry the absolute with relative, since there really is no true division other than the ones we project. thus we attain liberation.

santhisouk

'our boss' is a perception in the mind

if the mind can identify the perception as perception .................

I agree. Perception (Sañña) is just another aggregate for clinging, and there are four others... We must identify them in our minds and see all those five working simultaneously, and hold this awareness of these 5 till we come to a higher realization, until we feel the bliss and liberation from these five..........................................................

Very very far away for me indeed.:(