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.
I love the conversation. For myself, I got no idea what the writer of the the Sutta meant, or rather what Buddha meant. According to the intro to the Sutta, the monks were discussing "unbinding" and prompted Buddha to give this lecture. I think unbinding might be what we call "letting go" or detachment.
@robot said:
So, any distinction the Buddha made between what is conditioned and what is unconditioned should be viewed a provisional teaching? They are not-two.
Indeed.
They are provisional ... but also ultimate.
In other words the Buddha is conveying a conditioned and unconditional aspect of The Truth.
The dharma is conveyed and apprehended by the sleeper and the awakening.
This sutta is about not identifying with the aggregates as self because they are dependently arising. I don't see what it has to do with the unconditioned.
@David said:> The absolute is the water and the relative, the waves where the water represents the unconditioned.
I don't think this analogy works too well because it's apparent from that discussion I posted earlier that the conditioned cannot become the unconditioned, and vice versa.
The conditioned and unconditioned seem to be quite distinct and of fundamentally different natures.
@lobster said: Would for example 'the unconditioned is conditioned and the conditioned is unconditioned' have any meaning or use?
Or in other words samsara is nirvana and vice versa ... ?
Mahayana and Theravada interpretations are going to be different here. I don't get how the conditioned can be the same as the unconditioned though, it simply doesn't make sense.
According to the Buddha, the ordinary person sees and assumes that he sees.
But the reality is -
Eye see. Not I see. (Pun intended)
Eye consciousness is not self but arises and cease.
The same for all the consciousness ie. ear, nose, tongue, body and mind.
Can consciousness in the same way be declared, taught, described, set forth, revealed, explained, & made plain [with these words]: 'For this reason consciousness is not-self'?"
"It can... Doesn't eye-consciousness arise in dependence on the eye & forms?"
"Yes, friend."
"And if the cause & reason for the arising of eye-consciousness were to cease totally everywhere, totally in every way without remainder, would eye-consciousness be discerned?"
"No, friend."
"It's in this way, friend, that consciousness has been pointed out, revealed, and announced by the Blessed One [with these words]: 'For this reason consciousness is not-self.'
Yet there is the unborn, uncreated, the deathless or as in the Heart Sutra, no eyes, no ears etc. By not clinging to the six sense spheres, the mind inclines towards the unconditioned and is freed from all appearances.
That is what is revealed in meditation.
"In the same way, a monk assumes neither a self nor anything pertaining to a self in the six spheres of sensory contact. Assuming in this way, he doesn't cling to anything in the world. Not clinging, he is not agitated. Unagitated, he is totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"
@pegembara said: Yet there is the unborn, uncreated, the deathless or as in the Heart Sutra, no eyes, no ears etc. By not clinging to the six sense spheres, the mind inclines towards the unconditioned and is freed from all appearances.
No, the unconditioned is not sunyata. You seem to be muddling up Theravada and Mahayana interpretations here, it's a fudge.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
The void. The ground of being. Where potential exists before manifesting.
Do you mean the "absolute", and if so, can you express this in Buddhist terminology?
In this kind of discussion it's very helpful if you can stick with specifically Buddhist terminology, it gets very confusing if you don't.
I don't mean to confuse but Buddhist terminology is only as good as our understanding of the words which seem to mean different things to different people and schools.
I think it's best to try and use the best english counterpart to avoid confusion.
Even if we have to use a phrase to best translate a word, it is better than jumbling up the languages.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@David said:> The absolute is the water and the relative, the waves where the water represents the unconditioned.
I don't think this analogy works too well because it's apparent from that discussion I posted earlier that the conditioned cannot become the unconditioned, and vice versa.
I don't think it is but at any rate it seems illogical to suggest the conditioned does not go through a process of conditioning prior to being conditioned. The conditioned must be able to return to being unconditioned... We are conditioned and though we arise and fall, our energy doesn't go anywhere nor does it come into being.
The conditioned and unconditioned seem to be quite distinct and of fundamentally different natures.
They represent two different aspects of nature, that is all.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
This is just my understanding and the way I would describe the terms.
Conditioned- That which exists through conditioning.
Unconditioned - That which has always been and that which is full of the potential for conditioning. The void... The big empty or sunyata (http://www.britannica.com/topic/sunyata).
Subjectivity or conventional truth - The state of the conditioned from the point of view of the conditioned.
Objectivity or absolute truth - It's all the same process and/or stuff.
Middle way - To live accordingly (4NTs) using the conventional or illusory self as an expression of whatever we call that process and/or stuff (Buddhanature, original mind, yadda yadda yadda) to ease our suffering and help wake us up.
This sutta is about not identifying with the aggregates as self because they are dependently arising. I don't see what it has to do with the unconditioned.
Dependently arising from what?
The unconditioned... The void... The Big Empty... Sunyata, yes.
@pegembara said: Yet there is the unborn, uncreated, the deathless or as in the Heart Sutra, no eyes, no ears etc. By not clinging to the six sense spheres, the mind inclines towards the unconditioned and is freed from all appearances.
No, the unconditioned is not sunyata. You seem to be muddling up Theravada and Mahayana interpretations here, it's a fudge.
That is how I view of that particular verse the Heart Sutra. There is no conflict imho.
Therefore, in emptiness there is no form, feeling, cognition, formation, or consciousness; no eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, or mind; no sights, sounds, smells, tastes, objects of touch, or dharmas; no field of the eyes, up to and including no field of mind-consciousness; and no ignorance or ending of ignorance, up to and including no old age and death or ending of old age and death. There is no suffering, no accumulating, no extinction, no way, and no understanding and no attaining.
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited January 2016
@lobster said: @David do you feel that your understanding of the void has deepened or changed?
Would for example 'the unconditioned is conditioned and the conditioned is unconditioned' have any meaning or use?
I'm going to have to change my answer and go with the middle way response. The conditioned was unconditioned but as soon as we take up space, that's it... Time to change and decay. May as well enjoy life and maybe help make life a little better for others while we're at it.
So while the conditioned may be the unconditioned in the absolute sense and both words point to the same phenomenon the words still help make the distinction between different parts of the process.
Or in other words samsara is nirvana and vice versa ... ?
In the same way... Maybe? Emptiness is form and form is emptiness.
Is Samsara the obscuring of nirvana?
Objectively it's all the same place but objectivity must by definition also include the diversity of subjectivity.
Yes in my experience it is. We can in a sense operate from the conditions obscuring or the emptiness of conditional mind. In this sense the awake recognizes the 'dualistic' nature as separate but the dreamer thinks the conditional is real ... One could say the conditional is empty or the unconditioned is empty. Both are equally and partially true ...
Awareness of the unconditioned can only exist in some form. The empty is only 'formed' by filling.
Objectively it's all the same place but objectivity must by definition also include the diversity of subjectivity.
It does.
The important thing IMO is finding these as experiential truths, rather than intellectual mind games.
This sutta is about not identifying with the aggregates as self because they are dependently arising. I don't see what it has to do with the unconditioned.
indeed. one has to apply what is being said and then follow the implications completely in one's practice and life.
@pegembara said:> > Therefore, in emptiness there is no form, feeling, cognition, formation, or consciousness; no eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, or mind; no sights, sounds, smells, tastes, objects of touch, or dharmas; no field of the eyes, up to and including no field of mind-consciousness; and no ignorance or ending of ignorance, up to and including no old age and death or ending of old age and death. There is no suffering, no accumulating, no extinction, no way, and no understanding and no attaining. What do you think the above refers to?
It's explaining that all those things are dependently arising, ie empty of inherent existence. All conditional. Given that emptiness is conditionality, I still don't see how emptiness it the same as the unconditioned. It's a contradiction in terms, like saying A = not-A.
"There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned."
@lobster said: One could say the conditional is empty or the unconditioned is empty. Both are equally and partially true ...
How so? Since empty = conditional, this is like saying the conditional is conditional and the unconditioned is also conditional. It doesn't make sense because by definition the unconditioned is not conditional.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@pegembara said:> > Therefore, in emptiness there is no form, feeling, cognition, formation, or consciousness; no eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, or mind; no sights, sounds, smells, tastes, objects of touch, or dharmas; no field of the eyes, up to and including no field of mind-consciousness; and no ignorance or ending of ignorance, up to and including no old age and death or ending of old age and death. There is no suffering, no accumulating, no extinction, no way, and no understanding and no attaining. What do you think the above refers to?
It's explaining that all those things are dependently arising, ie empty of inherent existence. All conditional. Given that emptiness is conditionality, I still don't see how emptiness it the same as the unconditioned. It's a contradiction in terms, like saying A = not-A.
"There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned."
It is not an explanation, but a description of an experience of the unconditioned.
However, the unconditioned dhamma is not produced by causes and conditions. It has the opposite characteristics from the conditioned: it has no arising, no falling away and it undergoes no transformation. Nevertheless, it is an actuality, and the Buddha refers to Nibbana as an unconditioned Dhamma.
The Buddha also refers to Nibbana as an 'ayatana'. This means realm, plane or sphere. It is a sphere where there is nothing at all that correspond to our mundane experience, and therefore it has to be described by way of negations as the negation of all the limited and determinate qualities of conditioned things.
Nibbana Is Not The Mind, But Is Something Which The Mind Can Experience, or, as the Buddha put it, is a certain ayatana which wisdom can experience. Forms, sounds, odors, flavors, and tactile sensations are material or physical ayatana, things the body can experience. Akasanancayatana (the experience of endless space) up to and including nevasannanasannayatana are mental ayatana for the mind to experience.6 Then, Nibbana is a spiritual ayatana for mindfulness and wisdom to contact or realize. It should be considered something which Nature has provided for human beings at the highest level. We should know it so that Nibbana and our lives are not in vain. Every one of us has mindfulness and wisdom in order to touch Nibbana. Don't let it go to waste!
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
However, the unconditioned dhamma is not produced by causes and conditions. It has the opposite characteristics from the conditioned: it has no arising, no falling away and it undergoes no transformation. Nevertheless, it is an actuality, and the Buddha refers to Nibbana as an unconditioned Dhamma.
The Buddha also refers to Nibbana as an 'ayatana'. This means realm, plane or sphere. It is a sphere where there is nothing at all that correspond to our mundane experience, and therefore it has to be described by way of negations as the negation of all the limited and determinate qualities of conditioned things.
Right, so Nibbana is an unconditioned dhamma ( the only one ) and is a different realm, plane or sphere. But how does this support your assertion that the unconditioned is the same as emptiness?
However, the unconditioned dhamma is not produced by causes and conditions. It has the opposite characteristics from the conditioned: it has no arising, no falling away and it undergoes no transformation. Nevertheless, it is an actuality, and the Buddha refers to Nibbana as an unconditioned Dhamma.
The Buddha also refers to Nibbana as an 'ayatana'. This means realm, plane or sphere. It is a sphere where there is nothing at all that correspond to our mundane experience, and therefore it has to be described by way of negations as the negation of all the limited and determinate qualities of conditioned things.
Right, so Nibbana is an unconditioned dhamma ( the only one ) and is a different realm, plane or sphere. But how does this support your assertion that the unconditioned is the same as emptiness?
Read the entire passage and try to understand rather that getting hung up on words.
Anatta = empty of inherent existence as in "the 5 aggregates are empty"
Nibbana = empty of conditioned phenomenon as in " No eyes, ears, nose etc"
@pegembara said: Nibbana = empty of conditioned phenomenon as in " No eyes, ears, nose etc"
Again you're trying to say that Nibbana = the unconditioned = emptiness. I still don't see the basis for this assertion.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited January 2016
Emptiness is just a word describing a quality or the possibility for a quality to emerge.
The void is empty of all except the quality of emptiness.
The void is full of possibilities, probabilities and potential.
Nothing tangible but nothing to stress about.
Relative and Absolute
Another related doctrine is that of the Two Truths, absolute and relative truth. Relative truth is the conventional way we perceive reality; absolute truth is sunyata. From the perspective of the relative, appearances and phenomena are real. From the perspective of the absolute, appearances and phenomena are not real. Both perspectives are true.
There is some debate within the branch itself as to the true nature of sunyata but it comes from dual versus non dual view. Some say that to claim sunyata as absolute is to claim sunyata as true self which leads to the notion of not self which keeps us trapped into taking the relative for the absolute or the conventional for the non conditioned which keeps us entangled into mistaking duality for absolute reality.
That is an error in logic for it is still based on dualistic thinking. This ultimately puts the absolute, absolute truth out of reach and begs the question of whether there is an absolute, absolute, absolute truth.
Not one but not two or nothing... Just non-separation.
To claim that sunyata equals the absolute is to see beyond the illusion of opposition or duality. No ear, no eye, no rock, no self... But there is also no non-ear, no non-eye, no non-rock and no non-self.
We mistake labels for something real and so when not able to see through duality we conjure up all sorts of not-Is but when we do see through duality, we can use labels knowing there are no real opposites and only complimentary aspects of the same process.
True self has no opposite non-self, only the conventional idea of self can have opposition.
It really is the labels that trip us up. True self is just one of many labels but what the labels imply is eternally un-nameable and without opposition.
True self has no opposite non-self, only the conventional idea of self can have opposition.
It really is the labels that trip us up. True self is just one of many labels but what the labels imply is eternally un-nameable and without opposition.
Exactly so.
The condition of 'emptiness of emptiness' that @SpinyNorman links to is not different to the non-sense we attribute to Truth. In that sense we start rambling that, 'emptiness is form and form is emptiness'.
I think we are looking at two quite different interpretations here. With a traditional view the unconditioned is seen as an existing reality, a transcendent sphere or realm which one touches. Modern Buddhism sees it more as a subjective experience, the realisation of emptiness or whatever.
I think the suttas support both interpretations.
From your link:
"However, the unconditioned dhamma is not produced by causes and conditions. It has the opposite characteristics from the conditioned: it has no arising, no falling away and it undergoes no transformation. Nevertheless, it is an actuality, and the Buddha refers to Nibbana as an unconditioned Dhamma.
The Buddha also refers to Nibbana as an 'ayatana'. This means realm, plane or sphere. It is a sphere where there is nothing at all that correspond to our mundane experience, and therefore it has to be described by way of negations as the negation of all the limited and determinate qualities of conditioned things."
-This get's to my earlier comments on the unconditioned as Context.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Yes but that is precisely the argument I find illogical.
The problem with going beyond emptiness to find the ground of being is that it leads to form because emptiness is form and form is emptiness.
This no doubt leads to endless circles unless we understand it's all the same process of sunyata.
The middle way as prescribed by Buddha and expounded on by Nagarjuna is to live the relative knowing the absolute as one is no more real than the other.
Then people started saying there is an even absoluter absolute as to call off an opposite but calling off the opposite doesn't work by creating another level and more division, it works by realizing it's all the same process with complimentary aspects.
No One for that still implies a border and conjures some kind of not-One...
Just non-separation.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
True self has no opposite non-self, only the conventional idea of self can have opposition.
It really is the labels that trip us up. True self is just one of many labels but what the labels imply is eternally un-nameable and without opposition.
Exactly so.
The condition of 'emptiness of emptiness' that @SpinyNorman links to is not different to the non-sense we attribute to Truth. In that sense we start rambling that, 'emptiness is form and form is emptiness'.
That's almost my whole point.
The non-sense we attribute to truth is only non-sense because of seeming contradiction. When we overcome the paradox there is no contradiction and it all makes perfect sense.
@David said: The problem with going beyond emptiness to find the ground of being is that it leads to form because emptiness is form and form is emptiness.
Emptiness of emptiness just means that sunyata isn't an absolute, or ground of being, or whatever.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@David said: The problem with going beyond emptiness to find the ground of being is that it leads to form because emptiness is form and form is emptiness.
Emptiness of emptiness just means that sunyata isn't an absolute, or ground of being, or whatever.
I know but that's the argument. Some say sunyata is the absolute and some say it is not and both claim Nagarjuna as the source.
So I go with the one that actually gets rid of the notion of opposition instead of the one that perpetuates it.
If ground of being is different than sunyata then what is the ground of being?
Jury still out?
Every description I've ever heard is a description of the absolute of the Two Truths.
I'll ask again, do you know of a Buddhist school which teaches sunyata as an absolute or ground of being? I don't, and Nargajuna didn't talk about it like that.
The relevant line in the Heart Sutra is: "Emptiness is only form". It's not saying that form "comes out" of emptiness, it's saying that they are the same thing. This demonstrates that sunyata isn't a ground of being. In the teachings on sunyata there is no ground of being.
Read the second paragraph here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited January 2016
@SpinyNorman said:
I'll ask again, do you know of a Buddhist school which teaches sunyata as an absolute or ground of being? I don't, and Nargajuna didn't talk about it like that.
The relevant line in the Heart Sutra is: "Emptiness is only form". It's not saying that form "comes out" of emptiness, it's saying that they are the same thing. This demonstrates that sunyata isn't a ground of being.
Read the second paragraph here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine
The school is Madhyamaka
Central to Madhyamaka philosophy is sunyata, "emptiness." The term refers to the "emptiness" of inherent existence: all phenomena are empty of "substance" or "essence" (Sanskrit: svabhāva) or inherent existence, because they are dependently co-arisen. At a conventional level, "things" do exist, but ultimately they are "empty" of inherent existence. But this "emptiness" itself is also "empty": it does not have an existence on its own, nor does it refer to a transcendental reality beyond or above phenomenal reality.[4][5][6]
The exact meaning varies between the various Buddhist schools and traditions. The best-known is the Madhyamaka interpretation, which says that conventional reality is the only reality that exists (relative truth), but that ultimately everything that exists is "empty", sunyata, of an inherent, everlasting "essence" (ultimate truth). Sunyata itself is also "empty" of such an essence; it is not an Absolute, but a statement about the true condition of "things."
Now going back to my earlier post, why do you think sunyata is empty of the essence of permanence? I am not arguing this point but driving it home.
It is change itself. If the is no absolute beginning then there was never a time when there was no process going on.
I told you before I am non-sectarian but then you asked for our thoughts on the matter.
Would you prefer I just regurgitate some other persons understanding of it?
Now I will ask you again, if ground of being is not the absolute of the 2 truths then what is it?
You are doing a good job at asking what it is and denying the answers given but then how do you describe it without it sounding like the absolute of the Two Truths?
The Two Truths is not one truth and one lie, they are both true.
Sunyata is as much form as it is emptiness and this is what some seem to overlook.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Again, it is a label being tripped over. Not your fault as I didn't see it either.
Ok, so the absolute truth being called the absolute truth does not negate the conventional or subjective truth.
Please do me a favour and drop the label "absolute" and replace it with "objective". It is a bad translation.
In the proper meaning of the words of course the objective truth cannot be absolute or it would negate the subjective truth.
Sorry, that was bad wording on my part and I'm usually careful about that.
They are not really opposites so one cannot be absolute and the other unreal, they are both real but one is a subjective view and one is objective but the objective MUST by definition take subjectivity into account.
No original cause.
Thus Buddha stood up from his tree to help us start the path before he fell back.
Form is emptiness, emptiness is form... This is sunyata.
Comments
I love the conversation. For myself, I got no idea what the writer of the the Sutta meant, or rather what Buddha meant. According to the intro to the Sutta, the monks were discussing "unbinding" and prompted Buddha to give this lecture. I think unbinding might be what we call "letting go" or detachment.
Unbinding is both letting go and being let go of
So, any distinction the Buddha made between what is conditioned and what is unconditioned should be viewed a provisional teaching? They are not-two.
Indeed.
They are provisional ... but also ultimate.
In other words the Buddha is conveying a conditioned and unconditional aspect of The Truth.
The dharma is conveyed and apprehended by the sleeper and the awakening.
The Buddha is dead! Long live The Buddha!
I think it just depends on what you do. In the end it doesn't matter what you do with words or how you categorize anything.
It either helps end suffering or it doesn't.
Right. If it makes your head hurt, forget about it..
This sutta is about not identifying with the aggregates as self because they are dependently arising. I don't see what it has to do with the unconditioned.
The activity of the sense-bases only ceases at death, or temporarily if we're unconscious. I think the reference here is to mental fabrication.
What do you mean by "void"? It can't be sunyata because by definition the unconditioned is not characterised by sunyata ( conditionality ).
Do you mean the "absolute", and if so, can you express this in Buddhist terminology?
In this kind of discussion it's very helpful if you can stick with specifically Buddhist terminology, it gets very confusing if you don't.
I don't think this analogy works too well because it's apparent from that discussion I posted earlier that the conditioned cannot become the unconditioned, and vice versa.
The conditioned and unconditioned seem to be quite distinct and of fundamentally different natures.
Mahayana and Theravada interpretations are going to be different here. I don't get how the conditioned can be the same as the unconditioned though, it simply doesn't make sense.
Indeed. Yabba Dabba Do! [Lobsterian Yinyana mantra to calm the senses]
See following non jurrasic post by @pegembara for details ...
According to the Buddha, the ordinary person sees and assumes that he sees.
But the reality is -
Eye see. Not I see. (Pun intended)
Eye consciousness is not self but arises and cease.
The same for all the consciousness ie. ear, nose, tongue, body and mind.
Yet there is the unborn, uncreated, the deathless or as in the Heart Sutra, no eyes, no ears etc. By not clinging to the six sense spheres, the mind inclines towards the unconditioned and is freed from all appearances.
That is what is revealed in meditation.
No, the unconditioned is not sunyata. You seem to be muddling up Theravada and Mahayana interpretations here, it's a fudge.
http://www.britannica.com/topic/sunyata
The void. The ground of being. Where potential exists before manifesting.
I don't mean to confuse but Buddhist terminology is only as good as our understanding of the words which seem to mean different things to different people and schools.
I think it's best to try and use the best english counterpart to avoid confusion.
Even if we have to use a phrase to best translate a word, it is better than jumbling up the languages.
I don't think it is but at any rate it seems illogical to suggest the conditioned does not go through a process of conditioning prior to being conditioned. The conditioned must be able to return to being unconditioned... We are conditioned and though we arise and fall, our energy doesn't go anywhere nor does it come into being.
They represent two different aspects of nature, that is all.
@SpinyNorman;
This is just my understanding and the way I would describe the terms.
Conditioned- That which exists through conditioning.
Unconditioned - That which has always been and that which is full of the potential for conditioning. The void... The big empty or sunyata (http://www.britannica.com/topic/sunyata).
Subjectivity or conventional truth - The state of the conditioned from the point of view of the conditioned.
Objectivity or absolute truth - It's all the same process and/or stuff.
Middle way - To live accordingly (4NTs) using the conventional or illusory self as an expression of whatever we call that process and/or stuff (Buddhanature, original mind, yadda yadda yadda) to ease our suffering and help wake us up.
Dependently arising from what?
The unconditioned... The void... The Big Empty... Sunyata, yes.
That is how I view of that particular verse the Heart Sutra. There is no conflict imho.
What do you think the above refers to?
http://buddhaspace.blogspot.my/2013/04/the-unborn-by-ajahn-sumedho.html
I'm going to have to change my answer and go with the middle way response. The conditioned was unconditioned but as soon as we take up space, that's it... Time to change and decay. May as well enjoy life and maybe help make life a little better for others while we're at it.
So while the conditioned may be the unconditioned in the absolute sense and both words point to the same phenomenon the words still help make the distinction between different parts of the process.
In the same way... Maybe? Emptiness is form and form is emptiness.
Is Samsara the obscuring of nirvana?
Objectively it's all the same place but objectivity must by definition also include the diversity of subjectivity.
Yes in my experience it is. We can in a sense operate from the conditions obscuring or the emptiness of conditional mind. In this sense the awake recognizes the 'dualistic' nature as separate but the dreamer thinks the conditional is real ... One could say the conditional is empty or the unconditioned is empty. Both are equally and partially true ...
Awareness of the unconditioned can only exist in some form. The empty is only 'formed' by filling.
It does.
The important thing IMO is finding these as experiential truths, rather than intellectual mind games.
indeed. one has to apply what is being said and then follow the implications completely in one's practice and life.
so yes that is my personal extrapolation.
I truly don't know.
It is enough for me to know that it is the cessation of dukkha.
Well "I" most certainly am not, that's for sure
It is right here.
Some interesting perspectives here:
http://zennist.typepad.com/zenfiles/2013/02/from-the-conditioned-to-the-unconditioned.html
http://zennist.typepad.com/zenfiles/2015/09/conditioned-and-unconditioned.html
Curious. Which Buddhist school teaches sunyata as an absolute ground of being? I thought emptiness was also empty?
It's explaining that all those things are dependently arising, ie empty of inherent existence. All conditional. Given that emptiness is conditionality, I still don't see how emptiness it the same as the unconditioned. It's a contradiction in terms, like saying A = not-A.
"There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned."
Obviously. But who is playing intellectual mind games?
How so? Since empty = conditional, this is like saying the conditional is conditional and the unconditioned is also conditional. It doesn't make sense because by definition the unconditioned is not conditional.
That's Nagarjuna, it says so in the link. Sunyata is the void where potential is conditioned.
I don't see how emptiness could be empty. That's like saying prettiness is pretty.
Nargarjuna didn't teach sunyata as an absolute, or ground of being, quite the opposite in fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagarjuna#Sunyata
Emptiness is indeed empty!
The nearest thing I can think of to an absolute in Buddhism is the way that some schools interpret Buddha Nature, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature#Buddha-nature
It is not an explanation, but a description of an experience of the unconditioned.
Nibbana Is Not The Mind, But Is Something Which The Mind Can Experience, or, as the Buddha put it, is a certain ayatana which wisdom can experience. Forms, sounds, odors, flavors, and tactile sensations are material or physical ayatana, things the body can experience. Akasanancayatana (the experience of endless space) up to and including nevasannanasannayatana are mental ayatana for the mind to experience.6 Then, Nibbana is a spiritual ayatana for mindfulness and wisdom to contact or realize. It should be considered something which Nature has provided for human beings at the highest level. We should know it so that Nibbana and our lives are not in vain. Every one of us has mindfulness and wisdom in order to touch Nibbana. Don't let it go to waste!
http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/B - Theravada/Teachers/Buddhadasa/Messages of Truth From Suan Mokkh/Nibbana for Everyone.htm
redundant, sorry.
Right, so Nibbana is an unconditioned dhamma ( the only one ) and is a different realm, plane or sphere. But how does this support your assertion that the unconditioned is the same as emptiness?
Read the entire passage and try to understand rather that getting hung up on words.
Anatta = empty of inherent existence as in "the 5 aggregates are empty"
Nibbana = empty of conditioned phenomenon as in " No eyes, ears, nose etc"
Again you're trying to say that Nibbana = the unconditioned = emptiness. I still don't see the basis for this assertion.
Emptiness is just a word describing a quality or the possibility for a quality to emerge.
The void is empty of all except the quality of emptiness.
The void is full of possibilities, probabilities and potential.
Nothing tangible but nothing to stress about.
There is some debate within the branch itself as to the true nature of sunyata but it comes from dual versus non dual view. Some say that to claim sunyata as absolute is to claim sunyata as true self which leads to the notion of not self which keeps us trapped into taking the relative for the absolute or the conventional for the non conditioned which keeps us entangled into mistaking duality for absolute reality.
That is an error in logic for it is still based on dualistic thinking. This ultimately puts the absolute, absolute truth out of reach and begs the question of whether there is an absolute, absolute, absolute truth.
Not one but not two or nothing... Just non-separation.
To claim that sunyata equals the absolute is to see beyond the illusion of opposition or duality. No ear, no eye, no rock, no self... But there is also no non-ear, no non-eye, no non-rock and no non-self.
We mistake labels for something real and so when not able to see through duality we conjure up all sorts of not-Is but when we do see through duality, we can use labels knowing there are no real opposites and only complimentary aspects of the same process.
True self has no opposite non-self, only the conventional idea of self can have opposition.
It really is the labels that trip us up. True self is just one of many labels but what the labels imply is eternally un-nameable and without opposition.
See here for an explanation: http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/Nagarjuna/Dependent_Arising.htm#emptiness
Exactly so.
The condition of 'emptiness of emptiness' that @SpinyNorman links to is not different to the non-sense we attribute to Truth. In that sense we start rambling that, 'emptiness is form and form is emptiness'.
I think we are looking at two quite different interpretations here. With a traditional view the unconditioned is seen as an existing reality, a transcendent sphere or realm which one touches. Modern Buddhism sees it more as a subjective experience, the realisation of emptiness or whatever.
I think the suttas support both interpretations.
Interesting discussion in this Wiki article:
http://dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Nibbana
From your link:
"However, the unconditioned dhamma is not produced by causes and conditions. It has the opposite characteristics from the conditioned: it has no arising, no falling away and it undergoes no transformation. Nevertheless, it is an actuality, and the Buddha refers to Nibbana as an unconditioned Dhamma.
The Buddha also refers to Nibbana as an 'ayatana'. This means realm, plane or sphere. It is a sphere where there is nothing at all that correspond to our mundane experience, and therefore it has to be described by way of negations as the negation of all the limited and determinate qualities of conditioned things."
-This get's to my earlier comments on the unconditioned as Context.
Yes but that is precisely the argument I find illogical.
The problem with going beyond emptiness to find the ground of being is that it leads to form because emptiness is form and form is emptiness.
This no doubt leads to endless circles unless we understand it's all the same process of sunyata.
The middle way as prescribed by Buddha and expounded on by Nagarjuna is to live the relative knowing the absolute as one is no more real than the other.
Then people started saying there is an even absoluter absolute as to call off an opposite but calling off the opposite doesn't work by creating another level and more division, it works by realizing it's all the same process with complimentary aspects.
No One for that still implies a border and conjures some kind of not-One...
Just non-separation.
That's almost my whole point.
The non-sense we attribute to truth is only non-sense because of seeming contradiction. When we overcome the paradox there is no contradiction and it all makes perfect sense.
Emptiness of emptiness just means that sunyata isn't an absolute, or ground of being, or whatever.
I know but that's the argument. Some say sunyata is the absolute and some say it is not and both claim Nagarjuna as the source.
So I go with the one that actually gets rid of the notion of opposition instead of the one that perpetuates it.
If ground of being is different than sunyata then what is the ground of being?
Jury still out?
Every description I've ever heard is a description of the absolute of the Two Truths.
I'll ask again, do you know of a Buddhist school which teaches sunyata as an absolute or ground of being? I don't, and Nargajuna didn't talk about it like that.
The relevant line in the Heart Sutra is: "Emptiness is only form". It's not saying that form "comes out" of emptiness, it's saying that they are the same thing. This demonstrates that sunyata isn't a ground of being. In the teachings on sunyata there is no ground of being.
Read the second paragraph here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine
The school is Madhyamaka
This is the paragraph you linked;
Now going back to my earlier post, why do you think sunyata is empty of the essence of permanence? I am not arguing this point but driving it home.
It is change itself. If the is no absolute beginning then there was never a time when there was no process going on.
I told you before I am non-sectarian but then you asked for our thoughts on the matter.
Would you prefer I just regurgitate some other persons understanding of it?
Now I will ask you again, if ground of being is not the absolute of the 2 truths then what is it?
You are doing a good job at asking what it is and denying the answers given but then how do you describe it without it sounding like the absolute of the Two Truths?
The Two Truths is not one truth and one lie, they are both true.
Sunyata is as much form as it is emptiness and this is what some seem to overlook.
@SpinyNorman, Wait a minute, I get it now, lol.
Again, it is a label being tripped over. Not your fault as I didn't see it either.
Ok, so the absolute truth being called the absolute truth does not negate the conventional or subjective truth.
Please do me a favour and drop the label "absolute" and replace it with "objective". It is a bad translation.
In the proper meaning of the words of course the objective truth cannot be absolute or it would negate the subjective truth.
Sorry, that was bad wording on my part and I'm usually careful about that.
They are not really opposites so one cannot be absolute and the other unreal, they are both real but one is a subjective view and one is objective but the objective MUST by definition take subjectivity into account.
No original cause.
Thus Buddha stood up from his tree to help us start the path before he fell back.
Form is emptiness, emptiness is form... This is sunyata.
What could be deeper than that?