Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Are nihilism & the sphere of nothingness different or the same?
dear friends of the dharma
i have promoted my inquiry into 'nihilism' to the Advanced Ideas subforum
the doctrine of nihilism in the original teachings is described & regarded as unwholesome:
metta
i have promoted my inquiry into 'nihilism' to the Advanced Ideas subforum
the doctrine of nihilism in the original teachings is described & regarded as unwholesome:
There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no other world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly, proclaim this world and the other after having directly known and realized it for themselves.yet the original teachings also describe the sphere of nothingness as a state of liberation:
Of those those contemplatives who hold this doctrine, hold this view, it can be expected that, shunning these three skillful activities — good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, good mental conduct — they will adopt & practice these three unskillful activities: bad bodily conduct, bad verbal conduct, bad mental conduct.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.060.than.html
And what is the nothingness awareness-release [liberation of mind]? There is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, [perceiving,] 'There is nothing,' enters & remains in the dimension of nothingness. This is called the nothingnessawareness-release.are nihillism & the sphere of nothingness the same? are they different? how do they differ? how are they similar? or are the original teachings in contradiction?
The limitless awareness-release, the nothingness awareness-release, the emptiness awareness-release, the theme-less-awareness-release: There is a way of explanation by which these qualities are different in meaning & different in name and there is a way of explanation by which these qualities are one in meaning and different only in name.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html
metta
0
Comments
I confess I'm a little puzzled by it all.
Is knowing about this very important for my practice, do you think ?
with metta,
D
'emptiness' in this particular teaching shares the same description as Nibbana
This is from the same sutta and appears to show that "nothingness" here refers to the ending of 3 "somethings", ie passion, aversion and delusion:
"Passion is a something. Aversion is a something. Delusion is a something. In a monk whose fermentations are ended, these have been abandoned, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Now, to the extent that there is nothingness awareness-release, the unprovoked awareness-release is declared the foremost"
One can cling to Nihilism or Eternalism.
But direct experience communicates nothing about nihilism and eternalism.
These are just concepts that we cling to.
Even the sphere of nothingness is an image or an experience that is clung to. How does the sphere of nothingness relate to the seeming appearance of something.
So this is where the absolute and relative truth is the same and both are met with the correct understanding of emptiness which negates eternalism and the correct understanding of dependent origination which negates nihilism.
Form is emptiness and emptiness is form. Form is form. Emptiness is emptiness.
The suchness of form implies that it is ungraspable, unlocatable. Yet it dependently originates into the appearances.
So I think it comes down to where there is clinging. One can cling to the sphere of nothingness and abide in Nihilism. Or one can move beyond that and see that yes everything is nothing, but that doesn't deny the relative world of appearances. There was no true split to begin with.
This is the seeming problem with duality. The mind clings to one extreme or another.
But I don't feel like debating about duality. This is just my philosophical view.
I sounds like the sutta is infering the nothingness awareness-release is inadequate for ending or even perceiving these 'somethings'. In other words, although the mind may sense: "There is nothing", these three "somethings" may still remain dormant & not uprooted.
I think it is important for the thread to not equate nothingness with emptiness (sunnata).
Metta
http://www.lamayeshe.com/otherteachers/hhdl/happinesskarma.shtml
...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.
Of these two aspects, viz. the ultimate true nature of mind and a knowledge of that ultimate true nature, the former is the base, the latter an attribute. Mind (self) is the basis and all its different states are attributes. However, the basis and its attributes have from the first pertained to the same single essence. The non-self-created (depending on a cause other than itself) mind entity (basis) and its essence, sunyata, have unceasingly existed as the one, same, inseparable essence from beginningless beginning. The nature of sunyata pervades all elements. As we are now and since we cannot grasp or comprehend the indestructible, natural, ultimate reality (sunyata) of our own minds, we continue to commit errors and our defects persist....
-MN 111
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.111.than.html
Read the whole thing ... your mind will be blown
Anyways, to the op, the sphere of "nothingness" is not the same as a doctrine of belief in "nothing." Nihilists do not believe that there is such thing as a sphere of nothingness. They believe in nothing. they are without belief. They see the world as pointless and random and that there is no such thing as action or consequence.
The sphere of nothingness is a state of deep formless meditation whereby there is a cessation of the perception of the sphere of infinite consciousness and once there is met the cessation of the perception of the sphere of nothingness the meditator enters upon the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception.
It's just a stepping stone toward deeper meditation absorption giving rise eventually to the emergence from the attainment of the cessation of feeling and perception (it is impossible to perceive the cessation of feeling and perception becasue it implies the cessation of perception so it can only be perceived through mindful reflection) which grants a powerful, albiet impermanent, ending of the mental fermentation and completely clear and lucid awareness of the world. This lucidity is used in vippisanna to grants clear comprehension and direct realization of the 3 marks of existence and thus liberation and release from suffering.
The latter is the temporary absorption in the sphere of nothingness. It is not a view, but a meditative state/sphere that can be entered and left.
I.e. a person who enters/have experienced the sphere of nothingness can still believe in karma and rebirth.
karma, yes. results of karma, yes. but post-mortem rebirth, very hard to imagine when 'perceptualized reality' has broken down & the only perception left is 'there is nothing'
putting forth such views is the purpose of this inquiry but, I, myself, view a contraction here. buddha taught the sphere of nothingness is a [temporary] state of liberation where as rebirth belief is a state of bondage & attachment (upadi). these seems to be a difference between the sphere of nothingness & the non-nihilistic asavic morality based right view
Ten Ox-herding Pictures - Stage 8
PERSON AND OX BOTH FORGOTTEN
It is the same fact manifested in Dôgen Zenji's statement, "My body and mind have fallen away," which he presented to his own master, TENDÔ Nyojô Zenji [1162-1227], after he had come to great realization upon hearing the words of his master, "Practicing Zen is the falling away of body and mind." You have forgotten yourself, you have forgotten all others, you have forgotten everything; there is only one round circle without any substance whatsoever. This is what is meant by "person and ox both forgotten."
If you have passed beyond both the world of buddhas and that of no buddhas, you are in a world which even Shakyamuni or Manjusri with their clairvoyance cannot perceive. It's because there is not even a thing there. The basis of Zen is to grasp this world of nothingness through experience. Zen without this experience is merely a conceptual Zen and amounts to nothing more than playing around with plastic models of Zen.
http://www.tarrdaniel.com/documents/ZenBuddhizmus/oxherding.html
The view being spoken here is not merely the belief in rebirth, but the view that "I want to acquire merits for a favourable rebirth". You are thus siding with merits, resulting in wholesome karma which results in a virtuous rebirth. This leads to further becoming than the cessation of becoming, and therefore is not the path to liberation.
However there is obviously those arhants who as the suttas state, know (not just believe) for themselves the fact of karma and rebirth. ("arahants who know the next world") Plus afterall, karma and rebirth are the first two of Buddha's three knowledges. It just so happens that while they know for a fact that there is such things as karma and rebirth, nonetheless there is no effluents tied to them, there is no craving for further becoming, there is no identification to becoming as 'I, me, mine', or as something desirable. They have seen and actualized the path that leads to knowledge, disenchantment, dispassion, and the cessation of becoming.
Plus, the view that there is no afterlife, no next world, etc etc... are taught to be nihilistic wrong view rejected by Buddha. These nihilist views are even more detrimental than eternalist views.
your post above is just your opinion interpreted on the side of materialism
firstly, the words in the Pali 'paraloka' mean 'other world' rather than 'next world'. The other worlds are the hungry ghost, hell, animal & godly worlds, which are mental states & the results of karma. Thus, naturally, arahants know for themselves the 'other worlds'.
about the Buddha's first knowledge, i agree with Achariya Buddhaghosa, who, in his Vissudhimagga, explained the word 'birth' here to mean 'becoming'. 'becoming' is a mental state or asava. further, the word 'past lives' does not exist in this verse. the word in Pali is literally 'past homes' or 'dwellings'. this is acknowledge by every learned Buddhist scholar
about the Buddha's second knowledge, this was certainly about karma & its results. but your interpretation of the language Buddha used is just your own
but, for me, for example, when a human being has sex, they have a mind-body conditioned by sexual craving & excitement. then when that 'mind-body' ends, they reap the results of the death of that kaya (group, both nama kaya and rupa kaya) in the form of loneliness, sexual longing, frustration, even despair & heartbreak
so my interpretation is valid & based in real insight of Dependent Origination. where as your interpretation is also valid but based in blind faith about things not verified. my interpretation is proven to be absolutely true & cannot ever be refuted. where as your interpretation is unproven & speculative
as for your opinion that: "nihilist views are even more detrimental than eternalist views" this true for ordinary people but untrue for enlightened people
MN 60, a sutta specifically spoken for householders, agrees with you. but there are lokuttara suttas which state of all of the views the nihilistic view comes closest to the lokuttara dhamma
Buddha taught two levels of dhamma: lokiya & lokuttara and it seems you are attracted to lokiya. Buddha taught human beings have attraction due to their dispositional elements
all the best with your Dhamma practise
Unproven and speculative is only for the untrained, and does not apply to someone like Buddha who has the three knowledges including knowledge of past lives and karma.
i can only suggest to diligently apply your mind to the following Buddhist verse: