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.
There is no reality in a dream but nevertheless we believe in the reality of the things seen in a dream. After waking up, we recognize the falsity of the dream and we smile at ourselves. In the same way, the person deep in the sleep of the fetters (saṃyojananidra) clings (abhiniviśate) to the things that do not exist; but when he has found the Path, at the moment of enlightenment, he understands that there is no reality and laughs at himself. This is why it is said: like in a dream.
Moreover, by the power of sleep (nidrābala), the dreamer sees something there where there is nothing. In the same way, by the power of the sleep of ignorance (avidyānidrā), a person believes in the existence of all kinds of things that do not exist, e.g., ‘me’ and ‘mine’ (ātmātmīya), male and female, etc.
Moreover, in a dream, we enjoy ourselves although there is nothing enjoyable there; we are irritated although there is nothing irritating there; we are frightened although there is nothing to be afraid of there. In the same way, beings of the threefold world (traidhātukasattva), in the sleep of ignorance, are irritated although there is nothing irritating, enjoy themselves although there is nothing enjoyable, and frightened although there is nothing to be afraid of.
— Nagarjuna - Mahaprajñaparamitopadesa – Chapter XI
Let us imagine you are reading these words. My imagination is empty of reality but your reading from the emptiness of my imagination. The words are just marks, empty in some form and their form becomes meaning.
Yes although dukkha is empty. It takes on a pretty solid form for those who are experiencing it. Unless you really have conquered it. I always cringe at this picture of this boddhisattva
The heart of the path is SO simple. No need for long explanations. Give up clinging to love and hate, just rest with things as they are. That is all I do in my own practice. Do not try to become anything. Do not make yourself into anything. Do not be a meditator. Do not become enlightened. When you sit, let it be. When you walk, let it be. Grasp at nothing. Resist nothing. Of course, there are dozens of meditation techniques to develop samadhi and many kinds of vipassana. But it all comes back to this - just let it all be. Step over here where it is cool, out of the battle.
- Ajahn Chah STILL FOREST POOL
“For those standing in the middle of a lake, when a fearful flood has arisen, for those overcome by old age and death, speak about an island, dear Sir, you must explain an island to me, so there will be no more after this.”
“For those standing in the middle of a lake, when a fearful flood has arisen, for those overcome by old age and death, I speak about an island, Kappa: Having nothing, no attachment, this is the island with nothing beyond, this is called Nibbāna, I say, the end of old age and death. Knowing this, those who are mindful, who are emancipated in this very life, come not under Māra’s control, they are not servants to Māra.”
"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one."
So right discernment is seeing things in terms of dependent arising, aka emptiness.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Therefore, in the Emptiness there are no Forms, No Feelings, Perceptions, Volitions or Consciousness No Eye, Ear, Nose, Tongue, Body or Mind; No Form, Sound, Smell, Taste, Touch or Mind Object; No Realm of the Eye,
Yes, but what does that mean? I assume it doesn't mean that these things don't exist, rather it means that they are dependently arising and have no independent or inherent existence?
I would say so because saying none of it exists is nonsensical and only obscures the reality of DO.
Yes, good point. The next question is, how do we see this directly?
Maybe by not seeing it. Not being the subject nor object but the relation between.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
The "ear" (form) is empty ie. does not truly exist. There is hearing but no one who hears (hearer). Emptiness is same as anatta - an absence of inherent existence.
Oh, ears exist alright. They just do not exist by themselves and depend on all else.
Emptiness does not mean non-existent. Having no inherent existence only means a thing is subject to change, not that it isn't actually here.
What you have just done is determined it into existence!
"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one."
Therefore, in the Emptiness there are no Forms, No Feelings, Perceptions, Volitions or Consciousness No Eye, Ear, Nose, Tongue, Body or Mind; No Form, Sound, Smell, Taste, Touch or Mind Object; No Realm of the Eye,
Yes, but what does that mean? I assume it doesn't mean that these things don't exist, rather it means that they are dependently arising and have no independent or inherent existence?
What we call ear is actually a compounded thing (sankhara/fabrication) and does not actually describe anything. You cannot point to "that" thing and say that is the ear.
Sound is actually "vibrations". There is no "sound" inherently. Sound appears as images to a bat. Sound depends on "ear" and "ear object". You can simulate sounds by directly stimulating the nerves without there being actually a "sound vibration." So yes, there is no sound.
Sound is movement of air molecules in waves (or water, if the ear canal is full of fluid instead). Temperature is also movement. Eliminate all molecular motion to achieve absolute zero. The light we see is also movement of photons through space. About the only thing we can really know about the universe it that whatever it is, it is moving.
If only we can live up to the Great Bodhi Lobster of olde times, who placed himself in a pot of boiling water and stirred himself into oblivion for his farewell feast . . .
What an awful way to go @lobster... It just shows that you put yourself through all that, and in the end he can't taste nor have tasted the dish Great Bodhi lobster had created for himself. Do you think you could follow his example? perhaps I could take a photo as you do it. I'll share you with a few friends afterwards and say Om Ya Yum Yum for you.
Lot's of comments here. This is what I think. First of all this line comes from Mahayana texts, so whether it is really Buddha speech or not is debatable. Second of all, if the original text is Buddha speech, it's probably been mistranslated. The Buddha would probably have said: 'Physical matter is not-self, there is no self in physical matter.'
@Cinorjer said: About the only thing we can really know about the universe it that whatever it is, it is moving.
The question is therefore do you want it to stop? Theres this thing called dependent origination, and there is a root, dig out the root and see if it is still moving.
I've tried and the root keeps coming back, so I conjecture therefore that although I can understand the cause of this movement, and I know that all I have to do is remove the cause, but do I really. Is this ignorance something I delight in?
Hummm, I think not because I want it to stop. Or have I not put in place the right causes and conditions (the weed killer) yet to really get rid of ignorance. Now what do the teachings say about that. Oh yeah, the fourth noble truth is starting to ring true. My singing bowl sung a beautiful mantra last night. I pay homage to the sound deity for that, and to Avolokiteshvara for the lyrics, and every being who recites that mantra.
Wisdom (Sanskrit: prajñā, Pāli: paññā) 1. Right view 2. Right intention Ethical conduct (Sanskrit: śīla, Pāli: sīla) 3. Right speech 4. Right action 5. Right livelihood Concentration (Sanskrit and Pāli: samādhi) 6. Right effort 7. Right mindfulness 8. Right concentration
Lot's of comments here. This is what I think. First of all this line comes from Mahayana texts, so whether it is really Buddha speech or not is debatable. Second of all, if the original text is Buddha speech, it's probably been mistranslated into English. The Buddha would probably have said: 'Physical matter is not-self, there is no self in physical matter.'
I'm not really sure what you mean. Are you able to elaborate?
I think if you asked the average person, they would agree that all that stuff out there is not self. Not my self, has no self. Some might say that I have a self and everything in my world is a product of that self. Or everything is illusory except myself. Or matter is real but the self is not. Two simple statements. Form is emptiness. Emptiness is form. No view can stand up to it.
The "ear" (form) is empty ie. does not truly exist. There is hearing but no one who hears (hearer). Emptiness is same as anatta - an absence of inherent existence.
Oh, ears exist alright. They just do not exist by themselves and depend on all else.
Emptiness does not mean non-existent. Having no inherent existence only means a thing is subject to change, not that it isn't actually here.
What you have just done is determined it into existence!
"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one."
No, I can't determine anything into existing. I can't determine cancer is cured in a friend and have it work.
You seem to be taking an extreme view but it isn't about existing or not existing. It's about how to co-exist by understanding that we inter-are.
You are missing the point. By determining "things" into existence, we then think we can solve problems that doesn't really exist.
Eg. Old age is a "disease" and needs to be managed by means of Botox and cosmetic surgery. My country is under threat and needs to be protected from the "others". My view alone is right and I will defend it to not look foolish.
The bell is a series of processes as is the "one" who makes contact with the "bell". There is only the "eye" that sees, "ear" that hears, "hand" that touch the bell.
Therefore, in the Emptiness there are no Forms, No Feelings, Perceptions, Volitions or Consciousness No Eye, Ear, Nose, Tongue, Body or Mind; No Form, Sound, Smell, Taste, Touch or Mind Object; No Realm of the Eye,
Yes, but what does that mean? I assume it doesn't mean that these things don't exist, rather it means that they are dependently arising and have no independent or inherent existence?
What we call ear is actually a compounded thing (sankhara/fabrication) and does not actually describe anything. You cannot point to "that" thing and say that is the ear.
Sound is actually "vibrations". There is no "sound" inherently. Sound appears as images to a bat. Sound depends on "ear" and "ear object". You can simulate sounds by directly stimulating the nerves without there being actually a "sound vibration." So yes, there is no sound.
Sound is movement of air molecules in waves (or water, if the ear canal is full of fluid instead). Temperature is also movement. Eliminate all molecular motion to achieve absolute zero. The light we see is also movement of photons through space. About the only thing we can really know about the universe it that whatever it is, it is moving.
About the only thing we can really know about the universe is that we can only know it exist through our 6 senses. Beyond them, we cannot say anything. BTW air molecules, photons, molecular motion would fall under intellect and ideas.
The Blessed One said: "And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact.
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
The "ear" (form) is empty ie. does not truly exist. There is hearing but no one who hears (hearer). Emptiness is same as anatta - an absence of inherent existence.
Oh, ears exist alright. They just do not exist by themselves and depend on all else.
Emptiness does not mean non-existent. Having no inherent existence only means a thing is subject to change, not that it isn't actually here.
What you have just done is determined it into existence!
"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one."
No, I can't determine anything into existing. I can't determine cancer is cured in a friend and have it work.
You seem to be taking an extreme view but it isn't about existing or not existing. It's about how to co-exist by understanding that we inter-are.
You are missing the point. By determining "things" into existence, we then think we can solve problems that doesn't really exist.
Eg. Old age is a "disease" and needs to be managed by means of Botox and cosmetic surgery. My country is under threat and needs to be protected from the "others". My view alone is right and I will defend it to not look foolish.
The bell is a series of processes as is the "one" who makes contact with the "bell". There is only the "eye" that sees, "ear" that hears, "hand" that touch the bell.
Does the bell exist or not?
Of course it does. How does pretending a bell doesn't exist ease suffering? Go tell a cancer sufferer their cancer doesn't exist and see if it helps their peace of mind... I dare you.
I am not sure why you offered the examples of selfish pride however.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html
So if the ear and sounds are simply part of the all how do you figure they don't exist?
You will never cease suffering by negating the first noble truth.
The "ear" (form) is empty ie. does not truly exist. There is hearing but no one who hears (hearer). Emptiness is same as anatta - an absence of inherent existence.
Oh, ears exist alright. They just do not exist by themselves and depend on all else.
Emptiness does not mean non-existent. Having no inherent existence only means a thing is subject to change, not that it isn't actually here.
What you have just done is determined it into existence!
"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one."
No, I can't determine anything into existing. I can't determine cancer is cured in a friend and have it work.
You seem to be taking an extreme view but it isn't about existing or not existing. It's about how to co-exist by understanding that we inter-are.
You are missing the point. By determining "things" into existence, we then think we can solve problems that doesn't really exist.
Eg. Old age is a "disease" and needs to be managed by means of Botox and cosmetic surgery. My country is under threat and needs to be protected from the "others". My view alone is right and I will defend it to not look foolish.
The bell is a series of processes as is the "one" who makes contact with the "bell". There is only the "eye" that sees, "ear" that hears, "hand" that touch the bell.
Does the bell exist or not?
Of course it does. How does pretending a bell doesn't exist ease suffering? Go tell a cancer sufferer their cancer doesn't exist and see if it helps their peace of mind... I dare you.
I am not sure why you offered the examples of selfish pride however.
I have cancer - a non-hodgkins lymphoma.
Understanding the difference between that cancer's relative and ultimate exitence and having a practice that allows me to work with that has actually been very helpfull and has enabled considerable equanimity.
4
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
The "ear" (form) is empty ie. does not truly exist. There is hearing but no one who hears (hearer). Emptiness is same as anatta - an absence of inherent existence.
Oh, ears exist alright. They just do not exist by themselves and depend on all else.
Emptiness does not mean non-existent. Having no inherent existence only means a thing is subject to change, not that it isn't actually here.
What you have just done is determined it into existence!
"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one."
No, I can't determine anything into existing. I can't determine cancer is cured in a friend and have it work.
You seem to be taking an extreme view but it isn't about existing or not existing. It's about how to co-exist by understanding that we inter-are.
You are missing the point. By determining "things" into existence, we then think we can solve problems that doesn't really exist.
Eg. Old age is a "disease" and needs to be managed by means of Botox and cosmetic surgery. My country is under threat and needs to be protected from the "others". My view alone is right and I will defend it to not look foolish.
The bell is a series of processes as is the "one" who makes contact with the "bell". There is only the "eye" that sees, "ear" that hears, "hand" that touch the bell.
Does the bell exist or not?
Of course it does. How does pretending a bell doesn't exist ease suffering? Go tell a cancer sufferer their cancer doesn't exist and see if it helps their peace of mind... I dare you.
I am not sure why you offered the examples of selfish pride however.
I have cancer - a non-hodgkins lymphoma.
Understanding the difference between that cancer's relative and ultimate exitence and having a practice that allows me to work with that has actually been very helpfull and has enabled considerable equanimity.
That's great to hear. It's good to understand the difference instead of just pretending it isn't there.
A relative existence is a far cry from non-existence.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Umm... The beginning of my last post there doesn't sound right.
It is obviously not good to hear but I am glad that you are able to work through it and that the middle way of existence helps. I say the middle because you brought up the relative vs. ultimate and so I assume you can see both.
The reason I brought up the cancer is because I lost my first wife to a very aggressive cancer 6 years ago. I was the primary care giver til the end and so it's something I can relate to.
To say to someone dying, without context, 'Emptiness is form and form emptiness' is as patronising as 'Jesus loves you' or 'Allah knows best' but . . .
someone facing death, which is all of us, who has looked into and lived through and contemplated the depths of their spiritual tradition . . . is able to as @chaz says, 'enable considerable equanimity'
That is one of many reasons we practice, not be an empty form but an emptying of the forms of delusion. Fear, frustration, anger, self and world hatred for the injustice? Empty. So we find what form to fill the space of our clinging to empty form . . .
This is why I am a Mahayanist because the meaning and contemplation of 'Emptiness is form and form is emptiness' yields so many never ending rewards, despite the difficulties of its contemplation . . .
Still lot's of interesting comments. I have another thought I would like to add. I think the second line is saying the same thing as the first, but in a different order, the same way some languages have different sentence structures. For instance, In English, we would say 'That apple is red,' but in other languages they might say 'Red is that apple.' They both still mean the same thing, just said in a different order. So really it should be translated as 'Form is empty, empty is form,' or 'Physical matter is empty, empty is physical matter,' or 'Physical matter is not-self, not-self is physical matter.'
Still lot's of interesting comments. I have another thought I would like to add. I think the second line is saying the same thing as the first, but in a different order, the same way some languages have different sentence structures. For instance, In English, we would say 'That apple is red,' but in other languages they might say 'Red is that apple.' They both still mean the same thing, just said in a different order. So really it should be translated as 'Form is empty, empty is form,' or 'Physical matter is empty, empty is physical matter,' or 'Physical matter is not-self, not-self is physical matter.'
I neither agree nor disagree with you on that one @tikaL206
Shariputra, form does not differ from emptiness, emptiness does not differ from form. That which is form is emptiness, that which is emptiness form. The same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses, consciousness.
Still lot's of interesting comments. I have another thought I would like to add. I think the second line is saying the same thing as the first, but in a different order, the same way some languages have different sentence structures. For instance, In English, we would say 'That apple is red,' but in other languages they might say 'Red is that apple.' They both still mean the same thing, just said in a different order. So really it should be translated as 'Form is empty, empty is form,' or 'Physical matter is empty, empty is physical matter,' or 'Physical matter is not-self, not-self is physical matter.'
I neither agree nor disagree with you on that one @tikaL206
I also understand your moniker, and distorted avatar: Tihkal 26.
Umm... The beginning of my last post there doesn't sound right.
It is obviously not good to hear but I am glad that you are able to work through it and that the middle way of existence helps.
dude, I totally got your meaning. No worries.
I say the middle because you brought up the relative vs. ultimate and so I assume you can see both.
I'm not so sure I "see" both. I think I have a fair intellectual grasp of both, but the intellectual isn't sufficient.
What I do see, and the teachings I've recieved agree is that the relative is pretty damned real.
Relatively speaking ...
I have cancer. It doesn't hurt today. Someday I'll have to go through chemo and that will suck. Odds are that this cancer will eventually lead to me death.
All that is relative. Pretty real, too.
To say there is no birth old age, sickness and death without a realization of emptimess to accompany it, to say there is no anything is simply nonsense. Intelectual tomfoolery. Utterly meaningless.
4
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Shariputra, form does not differ from emptiness, emptiness does not differ from form. That which is form is emptiness, that which is emptiness form. The same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses, consciousness.
People often imply that this is strictly talking about the inner world of perceptions but that is included in the last sidenote.
I believe Buddha saw what particle physics has now discovered (by now I mean in the last 100 years). That matter is made of space and that space is made of matter. Space and matter are the same thing materialising differently. Virtual/potential particles are pulled out of space itself when the actualized particles no longer fill it. They live for a few nano seconds and collapse back into space while a few more take its place. Some will say they appear from nothing but that isn't true. It shows that space itself has properties.
In fact in trying to create a vacuum we see a continual dance of form becoming emptiness and emptiness becoming form.
This is why we have or try for compassion. Metta practice is all very well but what when your marriage is failing, or your battle with [insert one difficulty after another]? What can you offer the person frustrated with work, life, ignorance?
Nothing. Yet something. Words are empty. Words are something.
The "ear" (form) is empty ie. does not truly exist. There is hearing but no one who hears (hearer). Emptiness is same as anatta - an absence of inherent existence.
Oh, ears exist alright. They just do not exist by themselves and depend on all else.
Emptiness does not mean non-existent. Having no inherent existence only means a thing is subject to change, not that it isn't actually here.
What you have just done is determined it into existence!
"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one."
No, I can't determine anything into existing. I can't determine cancer is cured in a friend and have it work.
You seem to be taking an extreme view but it isn't about existing or not existing. It's about how to co-exist by understanding that we inter-are.
You are missing the point. By determining "things" into existence, we then think we can solve problems that doesn't really exist.
Eg. Old age is a "disease" and needs to be managed by means of Botox and cosmetic surgery. My country is under threat and needs to be protected from the "others". My view alone is right and I will defend it to not look foolish.
The bell is a series of processes as is the "one" who makes contact with the "bell". There is only the "eye" that sees, "ear" that hears, "hand" that touch the bell.
Does the bell exist or not?
Of course it does. How does pretending a bell doesn't exist ease suffering? Go tell a cancer sufferer their cancer doesn't exist and see if it helps their peace of mind... I dare you.
I am not sure why you offered the examples of selfish pride however.
Wisdom needs to go with compassion. You don't tell a cancer sufferer about emptiness. Especially if the sufferer is not rooted in the Buddhadhamma.
You cannot pretend that the bell doesn't exist - that would be self deception. It has to come from a direct realisation.
Have a look at what Sariputta taught lay disciple Anandapindika as he lay dying and the response from the dying man. It is a teaching on emptiness.
[Anathapindika:] "I am not getting better, venerable sir. I am not comfortable. My severe pains are increasing, not lessening. There are signs of their increasing, and not of their lessening. Extreme forces slice through my head, just as if a strong man were slicing my head open with a sharp sword... Extreme pains have arisen in my head, just as if a strong man were tightening a turban on my head with a tough leather strap... Extreme forces carve up my stomach cavity, just as if an expert butcher or his apprentice were to carve up the stomach cavity of an ox with a sharp butcher's knife... There is an extreme burning in my body, just as if two strong men, seizing a weaker man with their arms, were to roast and broil him over a pit of hot embers. I am not getting better, venerable sir. I am not comfortable. My severe pains are increasing, not lessening. There are signs of their increasing, and not of their lessening."
[Ven. Sariputta:] "Then, householder, you should train yourself in this way: 'I won't cling to the eye; my consciousness will not be dependent on the eye.' That's how you should train yourself. 'I won't cling to the ear... nose... tongue... body; my consciousness will not be dependent on the body.' ... 'I won't cling to the intellect; my consciousness will not be dependent on the intellect.' That's how you should train yourself.
"Then, householder, you should train yourself in this way: 'I won't cling to forms... sounds... smells... tastes... tactile sensations; my consciousness will not be dependent on tactile sensations.' ... 'I won't cling to ideas; my consciousness will not be dependent on ideas.' That's how you should train yourself.
When this was said, Anathapindika the householder wept and shed tears. Ven. Ananda said to him, "Are you sinking, householder? Are you foundering?"
"No, venerable sir. I'm not sinking, nor am I foundering. It's just that for a long time I have attended to the Teacher, and to the monks who inspire my heart, but never before have I heard a talk on the Dhamma like this."
"This sort of talk on the Dhamma, householder, is not given to lay people clad in white. This sort of talk on the Dhamma is given to those gone forth."
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html
So if the ear and sounds are simply part of the all how do you figure they don't exist?
You will never cease suffering by negating the first noble truth.
Someone born blind or deaf will have no direct experience of sound or colour. To someone who has no direct experience of World War 2 nor any knowledge of it through papers, books, word of mouth etc. WW2 never occurred.
Things are dependently coarisen. That is not the same as saying they don't exist! All that one can say is that they are empty of inherent existence.
The 1st noble truth states that in summary the 5 clinging aggregates are dukkha.
You will never cease suffering without understanding this statement.
When the Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara Was coursing in the deep Prajna Paramita, He perceived that all Five Skandhas are empty. Thus he overcame all ills and suffering
To say there is no birth old age, sickness and death without a realization of emptimess to accompany it, to say there is no anything is simply nonsense. Intelectual tomfoolery. Utterly meaningless.
'Physical matter is not-self, not-self is physical matter.'
The way I undertand it, sunyata ( emptiness of all phenomena ) is basically an extension of anatta ( emptiness of the aggregates, ie the person ). Is that right?
'Physical matter is not-self, not-self is physical matter.'
The way I undertand it, sunyata ( emptiness of all phenomena ) is basically an extension of anatta ( emptiness of the aggregates, ie the person ). Is that right?
Yep, but if you want to get into something really mind-boggling consider the wording "Form is emptiness. Emptiness is form." Simply put, form and emptiness are inseparable. They are the same. No difference.
I'm not sure how to do that. Actually I've been reciting the Heart Sutra daily, so maybe something will sink in eventually!
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
The "ear" (form) is empty ie. does not truly exist. There is hearing but no one who hears (hearer). Emptiness is same as anatta - an absence of inherent existence.
Oh, ears exist alright. They just do not exist by themselves and depend on all else.
Emptiness does not mean non-existent. Having no inherent existence only means a thing is subject to change, not that it isn't actually here.
What you have just done is determined it into existence!
"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one."
No, I can't determine anything into existing. I can't determine cancer is cured in a friend and have it work.
You seem to be taking an extreme view but it isn't about existing or not existing. It's about how to co-exist by understanding that we inter-are.
You are missing the point. By determining "things" into existence, we then think we can solve problems that doesn't really exist.
Eg. Old age is a "disease" and needs to be managed by means of Botox and cosmetic surgery. My country is under threat and needs to be protected from the "others". My view alone is right and I will defend it to not look foolish.
The bell is a series of processes as is the "one" who makes contact with the "bell". There is only the "eye" that sees, "ear" that hears, "hand" that touch the bell.
Does the bell exist or not?
Of course it does. How does pretending a bell doesn't exist ease suffering? Go tell a cancer sufferer their cancer doesn't exist and see if it helps their peace of mind... I dare you.
I am not sure why you offered the examples of selfish pride however.
Wisdom needs to go with compassion. You don't tell a cancer sufferer about emptiness. Especially if the sufferer is not rooted in the Buddhadhamma.
You cannot pretend that the bell doesn't exist - that would be self deception. It has to come from a direct realisation.
Ah, and from direct experience must we see how the bell exists along with absolutely everything else.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Someone born blind or deaf will have no direct experience of sound or colour. To someone who has no direct experience of World War 2 nor any knowledge of it through papers, books, word of mouth etc. WW2 never occurred.
Things are dependently coarisen. That is not the same as saying they don't exist! All that one can say is that they are empty of inherent existence.
Yep, but if you want to get into something really mind-boggling consider the wording "Form is emptiness. Emptiness is form." Simply put, form and emptiness are inseparable. They are the same. No difference.
Meditate on that!
Personally I think emptiness is a mistranslation and leads to much confusion. "Form is emptiness. Emptiness is form." "Things are nothing. Nothing are things" is better described as "Things are without essence (no-thing)."
Sabbe sankhara anicca - All conditioned things are impermanent Sabbe dhamma anatta - All things are without a self.
How can you abandon that attachment to the five (sic six) senses? By seeing through them, by seeing what they really are. Once you get into jhana that truth becomes quite obvious. Until then, you need a little bit of insight to motivate yourself to let go in the first place. Otherwise you’ll be sitting in meditation and you’ll be dreaming or fantasizing about a nice monastery, or nice food, or girls or boys. Why do people fantasise about these things? Because they feel there is going to be some happiness there. Whenever there is a thought that doing this is going to lead to happiness, it leads to craving. Craving comes from the delusion that there is happiness here, and therefore you want it.
Yes, lack of essence, lack of independent ( inherent? ) existence, things not existing "from their own side". Dependent arising, conditionality, interdependence, and so on.
The thing is, emptiness as a concept along with no-self is only a tool that needs to be applied to your self-understanding. There's nothing magical about it. Once you know that the skandhas are empty, what then?
The thing is, emptiness as a concept along with no-self is only a tool that needs to be applied to your self-understanding. There's nothing magical about it. Once you know that the skandhas are empty, what then?
I think this verse from the Heart Sutra is quite revealing, particularly the phrase "holding to nothing whatever":
"So know that the Bodhisattva, holding to nothing whatever, but dwelling in Prajna wisdom, is freed of delusive hindrance, rid of the fear bred by it, and reaches clearest Nirvana."
Comments
Moreover, by the power of sleep (nidrābala), the dreamer sees something there where there is nothing. In the same way, by the power of the sleep of ignorance (avidyānidrā), a person believes in the existence of all kinds of things that do not exist, e.g., ‘me’ and ‘mine’ (ātmātmīya), male and female, etc.
Moreover, in a dream, we enjoy ourselves although there is nothing enjoyable there; we are irritated although there is nothing irritating there; we are frightened although there is nothing to be afraid of there. In the same way, beings of the threefold world (traidhātukasattva), in the sleep of ignorance, are irritated although there is nothing irritating, enjoy themselves although there is nothing enjoyable, and frightened although there is nothing to be afraid of.
— Nagarjuna - Mahaprajñaparamitopadesa – Chapter XI
The words are just marks, empty in some form and their form becomes meaning.
and now back to the void . . .
- Ajahn Chah STILL FOREST POOL
You seem to be taking an extreme view but it isn't about existing or not existing. It's about how to co-exist by understanding that we inter-are.
Mettha
I've tried and the root keeps coming back, so I conjecture therefore that although I can understand the cause of this movement, and I know that all I have to do is remove the cause, but do I really. Is this ignorance something I delight in?
Hummm, I think not because I want it to stop. Or have I not put in place the right causes and conditions (the weed killer) yet to really get rid of ignorance. Now what do the teachings say about that. Oh yeah, the fourth noble truth is starting to ring true. My singing bowl sung a beautiful mantra last night. I pay homage to the sound deity for that, and to Avolokiteshvara for the lyrics, and every being who recites that mantra.
Wisdom (Sanskrit: prajñā, Pāli: paññā)
1. Right view
2. Right intention
Ethical conduct (Sanskrit: śīla, Pāli: sīla)
3. Right speech
4. Right action
5. Right livelihood
Concentration (Sanskrit and Pāli: samādhi)
6. Right effort
7. Right mindfulness
8. Right concentration
Now which of these can I tick off the list.
Kshitigarba whispers none of them.
mettha
Some might say that I have a self and everything in my world is a product of that self.
Or everything is illusory except myself.
Or matter is real but the self is not.
Two simple statements.
Form is emptiness.
Emptiness is form.
No view can stand up to it.
Eg. Old age is a "disease" and needs to be managed by means of Botox and cosmetic surgery.
My country is under threat and needs to be protected from the "others".
My view alone is right and I will defend it to not look foolish.
The bell is a series of processes as is the "one" who makes contact with the "bell". There is only the "eye" that sees, "ear" that hears, "hand" that touch the bell.
Does the bell exist or not?
BTW air molecules, photons, molecular motion would fall under intellect and ideas.
I am not sure why you offered the examples of selfish pride however.
You will never cease suffering by negating the first noble truth.
Understanding the difference between that cancer's relative and ultimate exitence and having a practice that allows me to work with that has actually been very helpfull and has enabled considerable equanimity.
A relative existence is a far cry from non-existence.
Umm... The beginning of my last post there doesn't sound right.
It is obviously not good to hear but I am glad that you are able to work through it and that the middle way of existence helps. I say the middle because you brought up the relative vs. ultimate and so I assume you can see both.
The reason I brought up the cancer is because I lost my first wife to a very aggressive cancer 6 years ago. I was the primary care giver til the end and so it's something I can relate to.
someone facing death, which is all of us, who has looked into and lived through and contemplated the depths of their spiritual tradition . . .
is able to as @chaz says, 'enable considerable equanimity'
That is one of many reasons we practice, not be an empty form but an emptying of the forms of delusion. Fear, frustration, anger, self and world hatred for the injustice? Empty.
So we find what form to fill the space of our clinging to empty form . . .
This is why I am a Mahayanist because the meaning and contemplation of 'Emptiness is form and form is emptiness' yields so many never ending rewards, despite the difficulties of its contemplation . . .
Here is the whole verse.
Shariputra,
form does not differ from emptiness,
emptiness does not differ from form.
That which is form is emptiness,
that which is emptiness form.
The same is true of feelings,
perceptions, impulses, consciousness.
Mettha
What I do see, and the teachings I've recieved agree is that the relative is pretty damned real.
Relatively speaking ...
I have cancer.
It doesn't hurt today.
Someday I'll have to go through chemo and that will suck.
Odds are that this cancer will eventually lead to me death.
All that is relative.
Pretty real, too.
To say there is no birth old age, sickness and death without a realization of emptimess to accompany it, to say there is no anything is simply nonsense. Intelectual tomfoolery. Utterly meaningless.
I believe Buddha saw what particle physics has now discovered (by now I mean in the last 100 years). That matter is made of space and that space is made of matter. Space and matter are the same thing materialising differently. Virtual/potential particles are pulled out of space itself when the actualized particles no longer fill it. They live for a few nano seconds and collapse back into space while a few more take its place. Some will say they appear from nothing but that isn't true. It shows that space itself has properties.
In fact in trying to create a vacuum we see a continual dance of form becoming emptiness and emptiness becoming form.
Metta practice is all very well but what when your marriage is failing, or your battle with [insert one difficulty after another]? What can you offer the person frustrated with work, life, ignorance?
Nothing. Yet something.
Words are empty. Words are something.
You cannot pretend that the bell doesn't exist - that would be self deception. It has to come from a direct realisation.
You will never cease suffering by negating the first noble truth.
Someone born blind or deaf will have no direct experience of sound or colour. To someone who has no direct experience of World War 2 nor any knowledge of it through papers, books, word of mouth etc. WW2 never occurred.
Things are dependently coarisen. That is not the same as saying they don't exist! All that one can say is that they are empty of inherent existence.
The 1st noble truth states that in summary the 5 clinging aggregates are dukkha.
You will never cease suffering without understanding this statement.
Emptiness is form means that without form we cannot perceive "emptiness".
Not sure if thats been said already
Is that right?
Yes.
Meditate on that!
Actually I've been reciting the Heart Sutra daily, so maybe something will sink in eventually!
"Form is emptiness. Emptiness is form."
"Things are nothing. Nothing are things" is better described as "Things are without essence (no-thing)."
Sabbe sankhara anicca - All conditioned things are impermanent
Sabbe dhamma anatta - All things are without a self.
Dependent arising, conditionality, interdependence, and so on.
"So know that the Bodhisattva, holding to nothing whatever, but dwelling in Prajna wisdom, is freed of delusive hindrance, rid of the fear bred by it, and reaches clearest Nirvana."