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.
Impermanence does not mean non-existent
David
A human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First Nations Veteran
I've been reading posts here for a while now and it seems to me that many of us believe that because a thing is impermanent it doesn't exist... This doesn't make much sense because the fact that it changes is evidence that it exists.
No thing exists apart from everything else as separation is the illusion, not being.
There is a fundamental mistake in taking emptiness for nothingness.
No thing exists apart from everything else as separation is the illusion, not being.
There is a fundamental mistake in taking emptiness for nothingness.
7
Comments
Everything in our perception of reality is appearance. It's hearing, seeing, tasting touching, smelling and finally thinking. We don't experiece any phenomena directly. we experience appearance and that only. It's the appearance, which is emptiness, whose existence should be questioned.
So what is negated is an assumption so embedded into our perception of reality that everything is tainted. Like wearing rose tinted glasses.
In the emptiness teachings what is negated is a very specific form of ignorance.
People think of impermanence usually as "something" changing. So there is a thing that changes. A thing that retains its identity while changing. So an example would be a tire that has the essential quality called tire and it endures wear, etc (change).
Then there is the jump to just change no fixed tire. Just impermanence is a big jump in freedom.
Then even further is the non-arisen, unborn nature of impermanence. Impermanence is so completely flux that there is no "thing" that is changing, morphing, arising, abiding, and ceasing. Yet there is movement, change, dependencies, clarity, etc.
Reality cannot be formulated into nothingness or somethingness. Its odd because we can examine impermanence, which is the clarity of awareness(es) as our experience. We can see both interdependence and total absence at the same time. Each instant is the whole sum of everything past, future and present all in one total exertion, but it never actually amounts to anything because it requires everything else.
what I enjoy about the emptiness teachings is that if one has authentic realization then whats left is the conventional reality. its a free game of pure expression. everything is relational, free, and one can joyfully play with language like a poet.
anyways I'm going on a tangent now. people shouldn't approach emptiness unless they have enough merit and compassion. without the heart felt love and relating that genuinely pours from our practice, emptiness cannot penetrate and at best will be misunderstand the intention behind the teachings. At worse we will see it as nihilism and act outrageously on the basis of our delusion.
Reality is fluxional, it has a heart of experience, it is finely structured rather than an amorphous blob, and it is both manifest and non-manifest.
One could say that there exists a particle at so-and-so location.
One could say that there exists a property of impermanence in the world.
One could say that the particle exists at a new location.
Therefore, the first statement about the particle existing at so-and-so location is now false.
This suggests that the property known as "exists" could be made false for some things.
One could say that the particle has moved back to its original location.
Therefore, the first statement about the particle existing at so-and-so location is now true.
This suggests that the property known as "exists" could be made true for some things.
Therefore, this suggests that the property known as "exists" could be made true or could be made false for some things.
One could say that there is a person born.
One could say that this person has died.
Does this person, like the particle's location, have an "exists" property that dwells between both true and false?
Or is this person bound to a fate of permanent nonexistence?
These are questions that can only be answered through one's own inquiry, for existence only exists for sentient beings when one seeks information.
At what stage did the little girl turn into a teenager? At what point did she become elderly. Is the elderly lady the same person as the little girl? If not who is she now and who was the little girl?
It's very well done.
if there is passing away it does not exist
between the exist and the passing away there is nothing
so impermanence and non-self
In other words, there are no-things which is not the same as there is nothing.
(That question always gets me; it's a Two Truths thing right?)
Oh! And concept's inability to describe reality also directly implies that the sensory fields are inherently pure..That's another great road to go down. Soulless is probably not the best word to use here...it kind of implies that there is something inside of something else. The principle in the sutra applies equally to any 'thing' or any thing inside that thing and so on.
I think replace the words in your post 'self/essence' with the terms 'substance/characteristics' and you've got the dynamite. Vocabulary is very important here as the principle is very subtle. Seems to me that both are a mistake!
Neat!
Mostly its best to avoid saying that things don't exist, because people immediately get frightened, skeptical, confused, homicidal, etc... But we can accurately say this. it isn't the whole truth, so to speak.
I can say that whatever surface you are sitting, standing on, or lying, (or swimming in.. ) as you read this right now does not exist. It does not exist. As you summarily reject this assertion, look carefully at what your mind dutifully presents as evidence to the contrary.. sensation, concept, memory.
Whaddya think? Is it :screwy: or is it :wow: ?
:scratch:
"Lord, who makes contact?"
"Not a valid question," the Blessed One said. "I don't say 'makes contact.' If I were to say 'makes contact,' then 'Who makes contact?' would be a valid question. But I don't say that. When I don't say that, the valid question is 'From what as a requisite condition comes contact?' And the valid answer is, 'From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling.'" Phagguna Sutta
"Lord, who feels?"
"Not a valid question,"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.012.than.html
you would make an 3. Effort (viriya)
to maintain 4. mindfulness (sathi) and 5. wisdom (panna)
to Investigate Dhamma (dhamma vicaya) you have learned so far
using your own six sense bases (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind)
you will see when they contact with external sense bases
you get
a Feeling because the relevant consciousness occur
you have a Perception of the Feeling and Perception of the Form too
if at this point if you cannot bring up your mindfulness and wisdom
(for those who still are not with Right View but they have Faith in Buddha and His Teaching) you react (Volitional Activities-Sankhara) providing new home for Consciousness to live
Rather than writing more and more it is better to stop at this stage for you to use your six sense bases (rhis is the laboratory we have for our Noble Research) and see the answer to OP's question
@Pegembara Because a thing only exists in relation to everything else doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Yep. Many of us seem to think that because a thing has no inherent self it doesn't exist. We may not be permanent but we are here now. One cannot be here now and not exist at the same time.
I think the problem is with the wording... Exist is a funny word and simply means to be. One cannot be present, aware or even empty without being.
Just because we can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If you close your eyes and walk straight ahead, I'm willing to bet you will walk into something.
Duality isn't a bad thing, it's just that we misunderstand it for the most part.
I think we're coming around though.
We aren't prisoners of duality, we are exploration.
How did the words that we can all see get typed?
Are they not here? Am I imagining that other people can really see them?
The keys don't have individual selves but each one of them still serves a unique function. I can still read what I type and so can you...
It is very easy to claim it is all illusion but that doesn't actually help ease any suffering. Plus it doesn't even make sense.
Separation is the illusion, not existence.
There have been a relatively small number of people who have been able to talk about the two truths and emptiness effectively as far as I can tell. Nagarjuna and Shantideva to name a couple.
The upshot of it is that any claim of existence or non existence can be refuted.
I guess we need to struggle with each to arrive at the middle way. To just accept that neither view is correct without a fight would be to never really understand the middle way.
otherwise one would 'let go' of the post and there was no typing for anybody to see keys, words, screen, computer, you, me and others are all temporarily gathering of four basic elements namely, earth, air, water, and fire
'they' are in this space
and
we 'see' them when our consciousness arise
Eye+Form+Consciousness= seeing
which is arising and passing away
but
because of our ignorance we hold the concept like 'words' ,'keys' etc. as permanent and
and has inherent thing
& - from the perspective of awareness to the universe
$ - that's how the keys have such special relationships. If there was no structure there couldn't be this complex and compound universe.
There are plenty of teachers who can talk about the emptiness of phenomena, but few do in an open setting such as this. Most people don't really get Shunyata.
It's interesting to note that the Bodhisattva Vows include a precept to not teach emptiness to those who aren't ready for it.
Pema Chodron would not touch chapter nine in her commentary on The Way of the Bodhisattva, which speaks to what you said about the Bodhisattva vows.
Let me explain. I will say with the utmost immediacy that the words on your screen do not, will not can not exist.
As I have said earlier, your mind immediately consults memory, concept and perception to contradict the principle of emptiness. What it doesn't know, is that it has no basis to argue the reality of anything whatsoever. It doesn't exist at all.
What value does it have ? To most not much but to a few it means everything. Understanding emptiness is beyond profound..the complete energizing of matter and beauty of what remains is absolutely beyond description. Lin chi said it was like a farmer finding an immortality pill in the field and sharing it with his entire family. Ill say it's like a kid finding a starship in the woods, and it lets him fly it.
Funny thing is, as crazy, stupid unbelieveable as it sounds to you, that's how crazy, awesome, unbelievable it is and more.
You could torture me, beat me to death with your bare hands, and I might beg for you to stop, but it would not mute my understanding of the lack of being of all things.
This cryptic message and way of the emptiness of all things, it's the womb of the tathagata, it is the immutable truth in which a buddha dwells without remainder.
The actual truth of it is really simple, but it's the hardest thing in the world to see... I mean really really hard. anyone who tells you that it's easy is a charlatan. Basically, nothing exists, not you, not me not the words you are reading, and so on, up to and INCLUDING nothingness, and INCLUDING the very concept that i am conveying to you,( that nothing exists and all things are empty. ) and those last two things are very very important...its why what seeker was saying is right.
You say:
Ok...so what now? It's all a black hole? What are ya, some kinda idjiiot?
The most common reaction to this is, immediately you try to imagine how nothing exists, see a black wall. Then you'll think that its an abstract philosophical principle (an arguing point basically). Neither of these are correct though..imagery and conceptualization are of course no bearing on perception or reality. As a philosophical principle, you'll agree it flies in the face of logic. (Apparently)..why would anyone argue that standpoint ; it's absurd.
But really it's miraculously 100% true, as we can only define objects in very rough, temporary ways.
Also like you said all things are not seperate, (which is a daoist principal btw), and this is undeniable...but like I said before and ill say again, you haven't really understood all that means. It means that we can't separate any object from another..this means that since concept and thought depend on identifying seperate objects, concept and thought are temporary, innacurate descriptions. And like I said before, this means that fundamentally no object can be apprehended.
Ourself, I know you probably won't accept what I just said, but luckily my understanding is such that I can approach things from unorthodox ways, so here's one especially for you:
You are certain that everything exists, so then you should also be sure that there is no such thing as 'nothingness.' nothingness cannot exist because by very definition of what it is, it cannot. What do you think about that? Does that have any effect on you at all?
I beg you, #beg you# to contemplate the last paragraph.
Yep tough stuff. That's why all over the prajnaparamitas, and the lotus sutra they say "rare are those who are not frightened confused upon hearing. "
If you take a look at FreeSangha there was a recent thread there that went of forever about self. Well, you can't really talk about self without bringing Shunyata into the mix and you can't talk about that unless you bring in the Two Truths. Even then you really should know what you're talking about. Read the thread - I'll leave it to you decide on who knew what they were talking about.
Suffice it to say it was like blind people trying to discuss what an Elephant looks like.
The point is, that people in that discussion, as well as this one and others like it are so deeply entrenched in their opinions on the matter, that to try and correct those views is pretty much impossible. What's really sad, is some noob is going to stumble on this thread and if they're not totally confused by it, they'll most likely come away with some really screwed-up views.
Better to keep such threads from starting in the first place.
Also it feels amazing! I want everyone to know what that's like if they are interested and capable. Make no mistake I'm a bum, stupid and headstrong, but I owe a sacred duty to the carriers of prajnaparamita, and I will do my best to make it clearly available.
Signed some internet guy
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/spotlight/SpotlightCNGS-en.html
The world is within the 6 senses. Put in another way, the six senses create the world. There is really no-thing out there.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.044.than.html
To say they are not here is meaningless. Emptiness of what things? You just said they don't exist so how could they possibly be empty? There would be no thing to talk about and nobody to talk.
But we are talking. Ok, so show me this "nothing" you claim exists.
I wouldn't say anything of the kind. Even a black hole is not "nothing" because there is no such thing as "nothing". If they don't exist at all then they are not temporary. To be temporary or be anything at all is to be.
That doesn't mean they are not here, lol. As I said earlier no thing exists except in relation to everything else. To be in relation to anything (even everything) is to be.
Not really because since there is no such thing as "nothing", using the term "nothingness" is meaningless. It is a quality with no quality. Redundant. I'm starting to think you misunderstand my position.
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/spotlight/SpotlightCNGS-en.html
The world is within the 6 senses. Put in another way, the six senses create the world. There is really no-thing out there.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.044.than.html
What do you mean by "out there"?
There is no real "out there"... It is all right here.
The biggest illusion is the border between "out there" and "in here"
But we are talking. Ok, so show me this "nothing" you claim exists.
I wouldn't say anything of the kind. Even a black hole is not "nothing" because there is no such thing as "nothing". If they don't exist at all then they are not temporary. To be temporary or be anything at all is to be.
That doesn't mean they are not here, lol. As I said earlier no thing exists except in relation to everything else. To be in relation to anything (even everything) is to be.
Not really because since there is no such thing as "nothing", using the term "nothingness" is meaningless. It is a quality with no quality. Redundant. I'm starting to think you misunderstand my position.
Answers
1 it is not meaningless though it appears to be so.
2 emptiness is a synonym for non existence in this context. However as stated previously, the state 'non-existence' is also non existent, just name, empty; this is very important.
3 I do not claim that a thing called 'nothing' exists. I am telling you that there is not a single object, energy, concept, thought, person, etc which exists. This includes the concept and term and associated mental imagery called 'nothing' . I realize that this may seem like semantics, but if you really read what I'm saying, it all stays fast to a fundamental principle.
4no what I'm saying is 'name' is a temporary description of what cannot be described, is neither matter or non matter, is inherently lacking substance.
5 for reasons stated earlier it absolutely means 'they are not here'. We are not here. I cannot state this enough. Like I said, it seems crazy but it is the truth..anytime you're sure that it's all real, remember that it is all only a guess, a name, a temporary inaccurate description.
6 stating for the third time, we both agree that no thing exists seperate from another. This principle one basis for demonstrating that all name, concept, thought, cannot accurately describe any object. That principle in turn is a basis for stating that no thing can be said to exist. This is because fundamentally object is perception which is one with concept, thought, name.
6 on the last point, so then we agree that the term 'nothing' is inherently meaningless. Now with that in mind I would like you to analyze all mental imagery, concept, thought, conceptual framework tied into the erroneous (as we agreed) term 'nothing'. Please note that many human conceptual frameworks concerning 'death' are often erroneously associated with aforementioned inaccurate term 'nothing'.
Just to be clear, this last part, my last paragraph in last post is a roundabout, unorthodox way to elucidate the main principle and the topic of discussion. I am glad that we agree that the term is redundant as you say. Now I want you to make sure your mind isn't referencing any preexisting concept or imagery related to this term. This analysis is to be done carefully..make sure you look very carefully. Once you do this, tell me what you think, and ill tell you why this matters.
7 I completely understand your position.
You may as well tell me why it matters now as you seem to be repeating yourself and my points would then in turn stand.
1. It is meaningless because even if an obstacle isn't "really" there, we still have to navigate around it. Saying it isn't there doesn't solve anything. It may sound pretty but it is escapism.
2. I disagree that emptiness means non-existence. The label is just a label and cannot properly sum up what it describes but what it describes is there for the describing for all intents and purposes.
3. This has been covered. I have been saying no thing exists as a dependent thing all along. This doesn't mean it isn't here right now.
4. Covered in #2.
5. You would have to be able to back this up somehow.
6. Existing on its own is different than existing in relation to everything else.
Again, to be empty is to be. There is no being without emptiness... Even if it is only there in relation to everything else, it is there.
Thus what you see as reality is extremely malleable, far more than you think.
The extent to which this is true becomes staggering in it's implications upon reflection, especially when it comes to how you see yourself.
I can tell that you're just skimming my posts and not reading and that hurts, because talking about this even marginally accurately requires a lot of energy: youre not reading at all. Its like youre reading the first sentence and then giving up figuring out what I'm saying and blasting away.
I'm going to explain this one last time for the sake of others who might be reading.
We have found that all things are interdependent, not seperate. ------> since concepts, mental imagery and thoughts only address separate things-----> this leads us to understand that concepts, mental imagery and thought are not accurate in describing the world----->which means that all names and labels for existence are temporary definitions, not reflective of reality---->which means that the name 'real' or 'exists' is inaccurate----->which is very meaningful/has depth according to the capabilities of the learner. (Even if you're extremely dull you should still be able to see that there is an influence upon pure sense data by conceptual boundaries we base on framework and imagery. and I didn't even begin to discuss memory .)
click here for video
So ill just give you a little something to think about based on the topic of the thread;
You say that everything is not separate, but I think we can agree that most people see things as separate. Can you tell us how we manage to seperate things? What is it that separates them? What happens when these boundaries between objects change? To what extent can we change these boundaries?
Can you see any value or implications in these questions ? or are these things that also do not interest you.
Next I shall post sections of various prajnaparamita sutras. You can also refute those if you like.
Śāfiputra: What is the transparent luminosity of thought?
Subhuti: It is a thought which is neither conjoined with greed, nor
disjoined from it (P122), which is neither conjoined with hate, delusion,
obsessions, coverings, unwholesome tendencies, fetters, or what makes
for views, nor disjoined from these.
*Śāriputra: That thought which is a nonthought, is that something
which is?
Subhuti: Does there exist, or can one apprehend, in this state of
absence of thought either a "there is" or a "there is not?"
Śāriputra : No, not that.
Subhuti: Was it then a suitable question when the Ven. Śāriputra
asked whether that thought which is a nonthought is something which
i s ? ,
Śāriputra : What then is this state of absence of thought?
Subhuti: It is without modification or discrimination. It is the true
nature of all dharmas.7 This is called the unthinkable8 No-thoughthood.*
Śāriputra: And just as that no-thoughthood is without modification
or discrimination, in the same way also form, and all dharmas up to
enlightenment, are without modification or discrimination?
Subhuti: So it is, Sariputra.
*Śāriputra: Well said, well said, Subhuti, for you are the Lord's
legitimate son, born from his mouth, a child of the Dharma
8000 lines again
13g. THE OBJECT, ASPECT, AND DISTINCTION FOR STRONG HEAT.
Moreover, the reality corresponding to "Bodhisattva" taken as a
conventional term for a thing, as a concept of a thing, cannot be
expressed by anything, from form to (PI27) the Buddhadharmas. (The
reality corresponding to) a dream cannot be expressed by anything,
nor that of an illusion, an echo, a mirage, the reflection of the moon in
the water, or a magical creation of the Tathagata. (The reality corresponding
to) space, earth, and the other physical elements, to Suchness,
No-falsehood, unaltered Suchness, Dharma-Suchness, Dharma-element,
the Constant Sequence of Dharma, the Reality limit, the perfection of giving and the other perfections, to morality, concentration, wisdom,
emancipation, the vision and cognition of emancipation, to the Streamwinner,
etc. to: to the Fully Enlightened One, cannot be expressed
by anything, be it wholesome or unwholesome, faulty or faultless,
permanent or impermanent, ease or ill, self or not self, calm or uncalm,
isolated or not isolated, existent or nonexistent. For this reason I say
that "it would surely be regrettable if I, unable either to apprehend or
review the arising and passing away of any thing, would bring about
(only) the designation of something, i.e., of "Bodhisattva" and "perfect
Wisdom"." Moreover that designation is not continuous or discontinuous,
and it has no stability anywhere. And why? Because of the fact
that it has no existence (apart from ignorance).
Subhuti: Deep, O Lord, is the perfection of wisdom.
the Lord: Because all things are isolated in their essential original
nature.
Subhuti: I pay homage, O Lord, to the perfection of wisdom!
The Lord: For the perfection of wisdom is unmade, it has not been
brought about, and so it has not been fully known by anyone.
Subhuti: Hard to know fully are all things.
The Lord: Because they have the essential nature of Buddhadharmas.
Their nature is a no-nature. May a Bodhisattva thus cognize and see the
essential nature as a no-nature which has not been brought about. All
points of attachment will then be abandoned.
IV5,lc,8. THE COGNITION THAT (THE BUDDHA) CAN SHOW THAT WHICH
IS IMPERCEPTIBLE. 8000 lines
Subhuti: If all dharmas, O Lord, are unknowable and imperceptible,
how can the perfection of wisdom be the genetrix of the Tathagata and his
instructress in this world?
The Lord: So it is, so it is. All things are unknowable and imperceptible.
And why are they so? Because all things are empty, worthless,
insignificant, void, and insubstantial. In this way all things are unknowable
and imperceptible. Moreover, Subhuti, all things are unknowable
and imperceptible because they are unsupported and unincluded. It is thus
that the perfection of wisdom is the genetrix of the Tathagata and his instructress
in this world. And she is an instructress because form, etc.
P 335-336 AAIV 5, 1 355
to : the knowledge of all modes cannot be viewed. It is thus that the perfection
of wisdom is the Tathagata's genetrix and his instructress in this
world.
Subhuti: How does she become the instructress through the nonviewing
of form, etc. ?
The Lord: Where, Subhuti, there arises an act of consciousness which
has none of the skandhas for an objective support, there she becomes an
instructress through a nonviewing of the world. It is thus, Subhuti, that
this deep perfection of wisdom is the genetrix of the Tathagata and his
instructress in the world.
IV5,lc,9. THE COGNITION OF THE WORLD FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF
EMPTINESS.
Furthermore how is the perfection of wisdom the genetrix of the
Tathagata and his instructress in the world? Here the perfection of wisdom
indicates that the world is empty. And why does she do so? Here in the
world the five skandhas are empty, the 12 sense fields are empty, etc. to:
the knowledge of all modes is empty. It is thus that the perfection
of wisdom is the genetrix of the Tathagata and his instructress in this
world.
3 treasures prajnaparamita
The Bodhisattvas Courage in Difficulties
Sariputra: Translucently...in this core and substance of things course these Bodhisattvas coursing in perfect wisdom!
Subhuti: Translucently as well, Sariputra...devoid of any center or boundary, in dharmas devoid even of substantiality course theseBodhisattvas coursing in perfect wisdom.
vajrasamadhi sutra
The Buddha replied, "Bodhisattva, the principle is free from either acceptance or
rejection. If there is acceptance or rejection, all kinds of thoughts would be created. All
conceptions and mentations are subject to arising and demise. Bodhisattva, contemplate
the self-nature and characteristics [of the tathagatagarbha] and the principle will be
perfected in and of itself. All the conceptions and mentations do not augment the
principles of the path. They instead agitate [the mind,] so that one loses (forgets) the
basic mind-king [of the One-Mind]. With neither conception nor mentation, there will be
no creation or extinction [of the mind]. The mind will not arise and be in Reality. All
[eight] consciousnesses will be peaceful and calm. The currents [of desire, existence, and
ignorance] will not arise. [One then] accesses the purity of the five dharmas [relating to
the five aggregates of form, feeling, perception, formation and consciousness]. This is called the Mahayana.
"Bodhisattva, by accessing the purity (void nature) of the five dharmas [of the five
aggregates], the mind is free from delusions. When delusions vanish, one immediately
accesses the base of the tathagata's self-enlightened, noble-wisdom. One who accesses
this wisdom fully knows that everything is uncreated originally. Knowing that everything
is uncreated originally, one is free from [all] illusory conceptions."
vajrasamadhi
Apratisthia Bodhisattva asked, "As every one of the eight consciousness arises [through
co-origination] vis-a-vis the sense-realms, how could they be still?"
The Buddha answered, "All the sense-realms are basically devoid [of independent
existence]. [Similarly] all consciousnesses are basically void. Since the nature of the void
is not affected by co-origination, how can they (sense-realms) be created by coorigination
?"
Apratisthia Bodhisattva asked, "If all the sense-realms are void, how can there be
perception?"
The Buddha replied, "Perception is [ultimately] a delusion. Why? All the tens of
thousands of manifestations are [ultimately] unborn and without form. Originally they are
without names. They are all void and calm. The characteristics of all dharmas are the
same. The bodies of all sentient beings are also the same. Since the bodies do not
[ultimately] exist, how can perception exist!??"
Apratisthia Bodhisattva said, "If all the sense-realms are void, all bodies are void, and all
consciousnesses are void, then enlightenment must also be void."
The Buddha replied, "The One-Enlightenment is beyond both destruction and decay since
it is the Absolute. It is neither void nor non-void as it is free from being void or non-void"
Apratisthia Bodhisattva remarked, "It is the same for all the sense-realms. They are not
characterized by being void or non-void."
The Buddha agreed, "So it is. The nature of all the sense-realms is basically within the
Absolute [void]. The base of the Absolute [void] has no abode."
Apratisthia Bodhisattva said, "Enlightenment is also the same: it is not located
anywhere."
The Buddha agreed"So it is. The nature of all the sense-realms is basically within the
Absolute [void]. The base of the Absolute [void] has no abode."
Apratisthia Bodhisattva said, "Enlightenment is also the same: it is not located
anywhere."
The Buddha agreed, "So it is. As enlightenment has no abode, it is pure [and void]. Being pure, it is free from [any sign of] enlightenment. Sense-objectification has no abode, it is pure. Being pure, it (purity) is free from [any characteristic of] sense-object."
Apratisthia Bodhisattva remarked, "The mind and eye consciousness are also the same.
This is inconceivable!".......................
.and so on and on
The Lord: For what reason does a Bodhisattva not lose heart as the isolatedness of all dharmas is thus taught?
Subhuti: Due to isolatedness no dharma can ever lose heart. For one cannot get at any dharma as loses heart, nor at any dharma which makes a dharma lose heart.
The Lord: So it is, Subhuti. It is quite certain a Bodhisattva courses in perfect and natural wisdom as this is being taught, demonstrated, expounded and pointed out...one does not lose heart, is neither cast down nor depressed, is not cowed or stolid, does not turn one's mind away from this, does not have one's back broken, and remains unafraid.
Quote Buddha saying that we subjectively do not exist and we can talk. The brain. The brain is what distinguishes one process from the next.
No brain, no pain. If there are no objects, how can there be boundaries? To be honest I just don't find them all too compelling. There is no reason to get upset.
Buddha said "I am awake"... Was he delusional to think the non-existent could wake up?