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.
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.
Revising my terminology, I feel the ground of being and sunyata is the dance, not emptiness or form because they are not different.
One truth objectivity, the other relativity.
The absolute of the Two Truths is the Middle way between them.
Hopefully that makes more sense but it's just another way of saying the same thing I said before.
The original question is what is the unconditioned... In my view the unconditioned is the emptiness of form.
Just as the conditioned is the form of emptiness.
The subjective truth is from the point of view of the conditioned and the objective truth is non-separation and that subjectivity is just as real and a useful tool when understood as such.
Sunyata/ground of being is not a lone dancer, nor a pair and it is not a ballroom.
@David said: The original question is what is the unconditioned... In my view the unconditioned is the emptiness of form.
I don't think the unconditioned is "compatible" with sunyata. It seems that with a Theravada view Nirvana and samsara are seen as distinct, while with a Mahayana view they are seen as identical.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@David said: The original question is what is the unconditioned... In my view the unconditioned is the emptiness of form.
I don't think the unconditioned is "compatible" with sunyata. It seems that with a Theravada view Nirvana and samsara are seen as distinct, while with a Mahayana view they are seen as identical.
For myself it's somewhere in the middle of those two assertions. There is ultimately either non-separation or there isn't.
In Mahayana they are the same thing but not the same perspective. In other words there is nowhere to go only delusions to shed.
It's really the same place (for lack of a better word)
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@David said: In Mahayana they are the same thing but not the same perspective. In other words there is nowhere to go only delusions to shed. It's really the same place (for lack of a better word)
Agreed, though it's different in Theravada where traditionally Nibbana is seen as quite distinct from samsara, unconditioned v. conditioned.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@David said: Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. This is sunyata.
OK. But sunyata / emptiness describes the conditioned, not the unconditioned.
In Mahayana it describes the unconditioned and the conditioned as different states of the same process and sunyata is a Mahayana term.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@David said: In Mahayana they are the same thing but not the same perspective. In other words there is nowhere to go only delusions to shed. It's really the same place (for lack of a better word)
Agreed, though it's different in Theravada where traditionally Nibbana is seen as quite distinct from samsara, unconditioned v. conditioned.
I see. That doesn't seem to make much sense to me but I guess that's why there are different ways to look at it.
Sunyata is a Mahayana term and it is through Mahayana understanding that sunyata is non other than the wholly objective view where the conditioned and unconditioned are two aspects of the same process. That process is seen as the ground of being and any description I've ever heard of the ground of being is the same as describing the void if we do not take subjectivity into account.
It is not seen as a rejection of Theravadan understanding but an expounding of it.
@David said: Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. This is sunyata.
OK. But sunyata / emptiness describes the conditioned, not the unconditioned.
In Mahayana it describes the unconditioned and the conditioned as different states of the same process and sunyata is a Mahayana term.
Sunyata is certainly a Mahayana term but I don't think it includes the unconditioned. Sunyata is conditionality.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Sunyata doesn't allow for absolutes like the unconditioned.
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:
Sunyata doesn't allow for absolutes like the unconditioned.
What makes you think the unconditioned is absolute?
The unconditioned is the objective truth, not the absolute truth in the way you are using "absolute".
When Nagarjuna used "absolute truth" the better translation would be "objective truth". When it is said even the absolute is not absolute it is because the objective truth is inclusive of the subjective truth and people foolishly used "absolute" instead of "objective".
Truth.
Could you please describe the unconditioned without it sounding like you are describing the objective truth of the 2 Truths now?
My hair when it needs washing or @SpinyNorman hair when he had some.
... and now back to the blow dry ...
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:
To put it simply the unconditioned would be eternal and unchanging, so it would an absolute.
That has to be taken with a leap of faith because it is illogical and there would be no way to even know it is there if it is beyond even the objective truth.
It just doesn't make any sense, sorry.
The only thing that never changes is the fact of change.
Form is emptiness and emptiness is form.
When did it begin?
There is no first cause of the conditioned either.
@David said: That has to be taken with a leap of faith because it is illogical and there would be no way to even know it is there if it is beyond even the objective truth.
I wouldn't say illogical, because it makes sense for there to be an unconditioned to "escape" to ( look at the first OP quote again ). It's really just a different model, a different way of thinking about enlightenment.
If there is only change, then logically enlightenment too is changing and transient. Yes?
If everything is empty, then logically enlightenment too is empty. Yes?
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@David said: That has to be taken with a leap of faith because it is illogical and there would be no way to even know it is there if it is beyond even the objective truth.
I wouldn't say illogical, because it makes sense for there to be an unconditioned to "escape" to ( look at the first OP quote again ). It's really just a different model, a different way of thinking about enlightenment.
That's precisely why it is illogical. You cannot escape to anywhere that exists independently unless you're already there. If you can cross over, it is connected.
If there is only change, then logically enlightenment too is changing and transient. Yes?
If waking up to change then yes, we would go with the flow with suffering behind us.
We wake up and escape from the exclusively subjective experience to objectivity which is inclusive of subjective experience.
I don't get why there needs to be something more than that.
If there is only change then all is transient, so waking up would be temporary too.
As I said earlier the suttas talk in terms of turning away from the conditioned and towards the unconditioned, which has always been there. It's similar to the way some Mahayana schools talk about Buddha Nature, something eternal to be "uncovered".
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:
If there is only change then all is transient, so waking up would be temporary too.
We all die sometime.
As I said earlier the suttas talk in terms of turning away from the conditioned and towards the unconditioned, which has always been there.
The conditioned has always been there as well though. The unconditioned is not some kind of original cause as there is no original cause.
It's similar to the way some Mahayana schools talk about Buddha Nature, something eternal to be "uncovered".
That's sunyata, lol.
Anyhow, it's bed time for me, this is getting nowhere.
Sunyata is all-embracing conditionality and relativity, and is therefore not compatible with absolutes like the unconditioned.
But if enlightenment is conditioned then it is transient and temporary and will disappear when conditions change.
Something of a paradox.
I suspect that the introduction of Buddha Nature and storehouse consciousness ( alaya-vijnana ) were attempts to square the circle.
1
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:
Sunyata is all-embracing conditionality and relativity, and is therefore not compatible with absolutes like the unconditioned.
The unconditioned is not an absolute or there would be no conditionality.
I fail to see your logic. I know you want the unconditional to be absolute but it simply isnt.
But if enlightenment is conditioned then it is transient and temporary and will disappear when conditions change.
@David said:> The unconditioned is not an absolute or there would be no conditionality.
No, the unconditioned is an absolute because it is permanent and unchanging. It exists independently. Absolutes are beyond relativity and duality.
Sunyata is all embracing conditionality and relativity.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@David said:
The unconditioed is not an absolute because it is not permanently unconditioned. The unconditioned is a stage of conditionality.
That makes no sense at all. The unconditioned is by definition permanent and independently existing. Entirely distinct and separate from conditionality, not a stage of anything, not relative to anything.
As I said, the concept of the unconditioned isn't compatible with emptiness/sunyata, which is viewed as all-embracing in the Mahayana. That's why the Mahayana had to introduce the concept of Buddha Nature, sort of sneaking in the unconditioned through the back door.
2
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@David said:
The unconditioed is not an absolute because it is not permanently unconditioned. The unconditioned is a stage of conditionality.
That makes no sense at all. The unconditioned is by definition permanent and independently existing. Entirely distinct and separate from conditionality, not a stage of anything, not relative to anything.
Listen to what you are saying here. You are claiming the unconditional is completely independent and not related in any way to the conditioned while at the same time say there is an escape from the conditioned to the unconditioned.
And you don't see how that is clearly illogical?
I give you an A for effort but you just don't get it.
I can see now that this is a feeble attempt to claim a superior school.
And here I thought maybe you actually wanted to learn something but you are just trying to bash Mahayana.
Once there was a man carrying a bunch of pebbles in a basket on his back. Having inspected all the pebbles for himself, he was certain they were all very valuable indeed.
Sometime passed and a traveler said "hey, you don't have a pebble like this one yet!" ... a friend (who looked like a stranger to the gentleman) tried to hand him a big diamond.
What good will that one do me?! cried the gentleman. It is so very different from the pebbles I already have, how could it be of any value?
It is all-too-easy to become a "Dharma thick-skull" where not even the teachings can help you. The Dharma is intended to reveal to you a magic long forgotten -- one that most people don't even know exists.
So, in furthering each other's understanding, I encourage you all to look not for what is lacking in your friends' assertions, but to look what will further your own understanding.
There is an interesting effect -- if you focus on any one person and make an effort -- try -- to believe that there is a teaching there that they are bequeathing ... well, I won't spoil the surprise.
We are all friends and companions here. The flock moves better together, just like all the cells in your arm help you sip your coffee. From the ordinary, the extraordinary.
There is more to be said, more to be learned, more to be known, but what if we turn our interest to the unknown?
Emptiness is beyond permanence and impermanence.
The conditioned seems to persist because our attention is not precise yet.
Like dew drops and a lightning flash...
All conditioned dharmas
Are like dreams, illusions, bubbles, shadows,
Dew drops and a lightning flash.
Contemplate them thus.
The unconditioned is by definition permanent and independently existing. Entirely distinct and separate from conditionality, not a stage of anything, not relative to anything.
Listen to what you are saying here. You are claiming the unconditional is completely independent and not related in any way to the conditioned while at the same time say there is an escape from the conditioned to the unconditioned.
And you don't see how that is clearly illogical?
I give you an A for effort but you just don't get it.
I can see now that this is a feeble attempt to claim a superior school.
And here I thought maybe you actually wanted to learn something but you are just trying to bash Mahayana.
I'm not trying to bash Mahayana, I'm trying to explain that that there are different interpretations. You've been trying to force the unconditioned of the Theravada into the emptiness of the Mahayana, this is simply not going to work because they are from different traditions and not intended to be compatible. As I explained earlier, in Theravada Nirvana and samsara are viewed as distinct, in Mahayana they are viewed as the same.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
The unconditioned is by definition permanent and independently existing. Entirely distinct and separate from conditionality, not a stage of anything, not relative to anything.
Exactly what definition are you using?
Nothing is independent and the unconditioned is not nothing.
Can you show me where Buddha says the unconditional is totally unrelated to the conventional in no uncertain terms?
I'm not trying to bash Mahayana, I'm trying to explain that that there are different interpretations. You've been trying to force the unconditioned of the Theravada into the emptiness of the Mahayana, this is simply not going to work because they are from different traditions and not intended to be compatible.
Nagarjuna showed that they are compatible.
As I explained earlier, in Theravada Nirvana and samsara are viewed as distinct, in Mahayana they are viewed as the same.
And as I and others have explained earlier there is no contradiction there.
At Savatthi. "Bhikkhus, just as the river Ganges slants, slopes, and inclines towards the east, so too a bhikkhu who develops and cultivates the Noble Eightfold Path slants, slopes, and inclines towards Nibbana.
SN 45.91
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited January 2016
The unconditioned is the process of conditioning so is not subject to conditioning.
No contradiction.
I suppose there could be a ground of being aside from this eternal process but it just seems to pile on more duality rather than dispel it.
In MN 26 the Buddha said that the Dhamma that he attained is profound, hard to see and hard to understand, peaceful and sublime, unattainable by mere reasoning, subtle, to be experienced by the wise.
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
When you say the unconditional is absolute and completely independent of condition it would seem you cut off the escape route you feel must be there.
How can the conditioned turn towards the unconditioned if the unconditioned can not exist at the same time as the conditioned?
If the unconditioned must by definition be anything at all then it is conditional.
That's a bit odd, no?
Things change according to conditions but that things change is unconditional.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@bookworm said:
In MN 26 the Buddha said that the Dhamma that he attained is profound, hard to see and hard to understand, peaceful and sublime, unattainable by mere reasoning, subtle, to be experienced by the wise.
OP, I sat thru an explanation by Stephen Batchelor of the Unconditioned a few years ago, that was elegant in its simplicity, as is most of his stuff, and I wrote it down, but my notes are packed away. I remember he said, though, that the Buddha tended to take terms used in Hindu teachings and turn them upside down, give them a radical new meaning, like for example "Ground of Being". And I think The Unconditioned was an example of that.
I know this isn't very helpful. I'll see if I can find something about it from Batchelor online.
@Dakini said:> OP, I sat thru an explanation by Stephen Batchelor of the Unconditioned a few years ago, that was elegant in its simplicity, as is most of his stuff, and I wrote it down, but my notes are packed away. I remember he said, though, that the Buddha tended to take terms used in Hindu teachings and turn them upside down, give them a radical new meaning, like for example "Ground of Being". And I think The Unconditioned was an example of that.
I wouldn't expect Stephen to be comfortable with the traditional view of the unconditioned as transcendental.
@David said: How can the conditioned turn towards the unconditioned if the unconditioned can not exist at the same time as the conditioned?
I didn't say they don't exist at the same time, I said that they are separate and distinct. Though by definition the unconditioned isn't dependent on the conditioned.
Look at the first OP quote again, and set aside your ideas about emptiness while you do so.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited January 2016
There are only so many ways to explain this but this may be the most simple.
That the unconditional must be free of conditions is itself a condition.
Form is emptiness and emptiness is form.
No amount of appeals to any authority can shake the logic of that unconditional truth.
That unconditional truth is sunyata.
I understand this is not a Theravada viewpoint necessarily but it could be.
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:
Look at the first OP quote again, and set aside your ideas about emptiness while you do so.
I would ask you to do the same thing. If I didn't know about the void those passages still would have called it up.
I didn't say they don't exist at the same time, I said that they are separate and distinct.
You said the unconditioned is absolute. That is an extreme to be avoided. The only possible absolute is the act of conditionality of which the unconditioned is a needed aspect.
Without the unconditional aspect of conditionality there would be no potential for change within the conditioned.
Also, if the unconditioned were absolute, it would be so unconditionally which leaves no existence for the conditioned.
Brick drops on foot.
Though by definition the unconditioned isn't dependent on the conditioned.
There you go again trying to put limits on the unconditioned. You can only define the word, you cannot define the unconditioned because something without condition can not be nailed down.
They are inter-dependent aspects of conditionality. As soon as you define the unconditioned you are describing the conditioned by imposing limits.
Original mind? Void and open.
Ground of being? Void and open.
Objective truth? The whole picture.
The whole picture? Without borders.
@David said: Without the unconditional aspect of conditionality...
That's a contradiction in terms. The unconditioned is distinct from the conditioned and cannot be a part of it. Neither can the conditioned be a part of the unconditioned.
The first passage in the OP explains this clearly, there is also AN3.47 which explains that the conditioned is always changing while the unconditioned is unchanging, and therefore permanent. https://suttacentral.net/en/an3.47
It seems that you are still trying to force a Theravada concept ( the unconditioned ) into a Mahayana concept ( emptiness/sunyata ). It simply won't work, they are different models based on different assumptions.
Buddhism is vast, diverse and pluralistic, with many different sets of assumptions and methods. On some questions there will be no consensus. The best we can do here is to be clear about the differences and work out which set of assumptions works best for us.
In the Mahayana the ultimate truth is conditionality, ie sunyata.
The nearest thing to the unconditioned in the Mahayana is Buddha Nature, though interpretations vary. And then there is this kind of thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmakāya
The Buddha continued: I will now show you the nature which is beyond birth and death.
The Buddha asked: Great King, as you just said, you were older at twenty than at ten, and until you were sixty, as days, months and years succeeded one another, your (body) changed in every moment of thought. When you saw the Ganges at three, was its water (the same as it was) when you were thirteen?
The king replied: It was the same when I was three and thirteen, and still is now that I am sixty-two.
The Buddha said: As you now notice your white hair and wrinkled face, there must be many more wrinkles than when you were a child. Today when you see the Ganges, do you notice that your seeing is now while it was then?
The king replied: It has always been the same, World Honoured One.
The Buddha said: Great King, though your face is wrinkled, the nature of this essence of your seeing is not. Therefore, that which is wrinkled changes and that which is free from wrinkles is unchanging. The changing is subject to destruction whereas the unchanging fundamentally is beyond birth and death; how can it be subject to your birth and death?
Buddha:
Ananda since beginningless time sentient beings have been led astray by mistaking the uncondition to be the same as the nature of any other objects.
If the evolving mortal mind were of the same nature as the universal mind the cessation of the lower mind system would mean the cessation of the universal mind, but they are different, for the uncondition is not the cause of mortal mind.
There is no cessation of universal mind in its pure and essence nature.
Even open space is not nothingness. How can it be then that the wonderful Pure tranquil and enlighten mind, should have no essence of itself.
If you must niggardly grasp this perceptive mind of discriminating consciousness that is dependent upon the different sense organs as being the same as the uncondition, then the discriminated mind would have to forsake all those activities responding to any kind of form, sight, sound, odor, taste, touch, and seek for another and more perfect self nature.
If your mind, after the objects is removed from sight still has its discriminating nature, does it necessarily mean that your discriminating mind has lost its substantiality?
Does it not rather mean that you are now discriminating merely the shadows and reflections of unreal things which had their origin in objects in the presence of sight?
Objects certainly are not permanent; as they vanish, does your mind vanish also?
If your mind vanishes, then the Dharmakaya would be exterminated and who would be devoted to the practice of attaining perseverance in getting rid of the developements arising from the conceptions of phenomena.
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
In the Mahayana the ultimate truth is conditionality, ie sunyata.
It isn't just conditionality though and neither is sunyata which is what a few of us are trying to explain and why we are pretty much at an impasse.
The nearest thing to the unconditioned in the Mahayana is Buddha Nature, though interpretations vary.
Although that is incredibly vague, I'm not disagreeing with you here.
You asked what our thoughts were, not which authority we pledge allegiance to and since I have no interest in the pissing contest between sects I'll just leave it at that.
Comments
Revising my terminology, I feel the ground of being and sunyata is the dance, not emptiness or form because they are not different.
One truth objectivity, the other relativity.
The absolute of the Two Truths is the Middle way between them.
Hopefully that makes more sense but it's just another way of saying the same thing I said before.
The original question is what is the unconditioned... In my view the unconditioned is the emptiness of form.
Just as the conditioned is the form of emptiness.
The subjective truth is from the point of view of the conditioned and the objective truth is non-separation and that subjectivity is just as real and a useful tool when understood as such.
Sunyata/ground of being is not a lone dancer, nor a pair and it is not a ballroom.
It is the dance.
Just my thoughts.
I don't think the unconditioned is "compatible" with sunyata. It seems that with a Theravada view Nirvana and samsara are seen as distinct, while with a Mahayana view they are seen as identical.
For myself it's somewhere in the middle of those two assertions. There is ultimately either non-separation or there isn't.
In Mahayana they are the same thing but not the same perspective. In other words there is nowhere to go only delusions to shed.
It's really the same place (for lack of a better word)
It is though. Emptiness is form and sunyata is both, not just one without the other.
There is no greater objective view than sunyata but if you disagree I'd like to hear it.
Remember the objective truth must by definition include the subjective.
There is no bigger picture.
Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. This is sunyata.
OK. But sunyata / emptiness describes the conditioned, not the unconditioned.
Agreed, though it's different in Theravada where traditionally Nibbana is seen as quite distinct from samsara, unconditioned v. conditioned.
In Mahayana it describes the unconditioned and the conditioned as different states of the same process and sunyata is a Mahayana term.
I see. That doesn't seem to make much sense to me but I guess that's why there are different ways to look at it.
Sunyata is a Mahayana term and it is through Mahayana understanding that sunyata is non other than the wholly objective view where the conditioned and unconditioned are two aspects of the same process. That process is seen as the ground of being and any description I've ever heard of the ground of being is the same as describing the void if we do not take subjectivity into account.
It is not seen as a rejection of Theravadan understanding but an expounding of it.
Sunyata is certainly a Mahayana term but I don't think it includes the unconditioned. Sunyata is conditionality.
There is no conditionality without the unconditioned.
It just makes no sense.
Sunyata is the objective of the 2 Truths which makes the 2 Truths the same truth as objectivity includes subjectivity.
Sunyata doesn't allow for absolutes like the unconditioned.
What makes you think the unconditioned is absolute?
The unconditioned is the objective truth, not the absolute truth in the way you are using "absolute".
When Nagarjuna used "absolute truth" the better translation would be "objective truth". When it is said even the absolute is not absolute it is because the objective truth is inclusive of the subjective truth and people foolishly used "absolute" instead of "objective".
Truth.
Could you please describe the unconditioned without it sounding like you are describing the objective truth of the 2 Truths now?
To put it simply the unconditioned would be eternal and unchanging, so it would an absolute.
In Mahayana terms the objective truth would be that of emptiness. I don't think the Mahayana speaks in terms of the unconditioned.
My hair when it needs washing or @SpinyNorman hair when he had some.
... and now back to the blow dry ...
That has to be taken with a leap of faith because it is illogical and there would be no way to even know it is there if it is beyond even the objective truth.
It just doesn't make any sense, sorry.
The only thing that never changes is the fact of change.
Form is emptiness and emptiness is form.
When did it begin?
There is no first cause of the conditioned either.
I wouldn't say illogical, because it makes sense for there to be an unconditioned to "escape" to ( look at the first OP quote again ). It's really just a different model, a different way of thinking about enlightenment.
If there is only change, then logically enlightenment too is changing and transient. Yes?
If everything is empty, then logically enlightenment too is empty. Yes?
That's precisely why it is illogical. You cannot escape to anywhere that exists independently unless you're already there. If you can cross over, it is connected.
If waking up to change then yes, we would go with the flow with suffering behind us.
We wake up and escape from the exclusively subjective experience to objectivity which is inclusive of subjective experience.
I don't get why there needs to be something more than that.
If there is only change then all is transient, so waking up would be temporary too.
As I said earlier the suttas talk in terms of turning away from the conditioned and towards the unconditioned, which has always been there. It's similar to the way some Mahayana schools talk about Buddha Nature, something eternal to be "uncovered".
We all die sometime.
The conditioned has always been there as well though. The unconditioned is not some kind of original cause as there is no original cause.
That's sunyata, lol.
Anyhow, it's bed time for me, this is getting nowhere.
Sunyata is all-embracing conditionality and relativity, and is therefore not compatible with absolutes like the unconditioned.
But if enlightenment is conditioned then it is transient and temporary and will disappear when conditions change.
Something of a paradox.
I suspect that the introduction of Buddha Nature and storehouse consciousness ( alaya-vijnana ) were attempts to square the circle.
The unconditioned is not an absolute or there would be no conditionality.
I fail to see your logic. I know you want the unconditional to be absolute but it simply isnt.
One could always go back to sleep I suppose.
No, the unconditioned is an absolute because it is permanent and unchanging. It exists independently. Absolutes are beyond relativity and duality.
Sunyata is all embracing conditionality and relativity.
The unconditioned is not an absolute because it is not permanently unconditioned. The unconditioned is a stage of conditionality.
It is beyond duality because it has no opposite in the conditioned. They are complimentary aspects of conditionality.
No, sunyata is all embracing objectivity which includes the subjective/relative/conditioned as well as the unconditioned.
This is not hard.
That makes no sense at all. The unconditioned is by definition permanent and independently existing. Entirely distinct and separate from conditionality, not a stage of anything, not relative to anything.
As I said, the concept of the unconditioned isn't compatible with emptiness/sunyata, which is viewed as all-embracing in the Mahayana. That's why the Mahayana had to introduce the concept of Buddha Nature, sort of sneaking in the unconditioned through the back door.
Listen to what you are saying here. You are claiming the unconditional is completely independent and not related in any way to the conditioned while at the same time say there is an escape from the conditioned to the unconditioned.
And you don't see how that is clearly illogical?
I give you an A for effort but you just don't get it.
I can see now that this is a feeble attempt to claim a superior school.
And here I thought maybe you actually wanted to learn something but you are just trying to bash Mahayana.
Once there was a man carrying a bunch of pebbles in a basket on his back. Having inspected all the pebbles for himself, he was certain they were all very valuable indeed.
Sometime passed and a traveler said "hey, you don't have a pebble like this one yet!" ... a friend (who looked like a stranger to the gentleman) tried to hand him a big diamond.
What good will that one do me?! cried the gentleman. It is so very different from the pebbles I already have, how could it be of any value?
It is all-too-easy to become a "Dharma thick-skull" where not even the teachings can help you. The Dharma is intended to reveal to you a magic long forgotten -- one that most people don't even know exists.
So, in furthering each other's understanding, I encourage you all to look not for what is lacking in your friends' assertions, but to look what will further your own understanding.
There is an interesting effect -- if you focus on any one person and make an effort -- try -- to believe that there is a teaching there that they are bequeathing ... well, I won't spoil the surprise.
We are all friends and companions here. The flock moves better together, just like all the cells in your arm help you sip your coffee. From the ordinary, the extraordinary.
There is more to be said, more to be learned, more to be known, but what if we turn our interest to the unknown?
Emptiness is beyond permanence and impermanence.
The conditioned seems to persist because our attention is not precise yet.
The unconditioned is by definition permanent and independently existing. Entirely distinct and separate from conditionality, not a stage of anything, not relative to anything.
I'm not trying to bash Mahayana, I'm trying to explain that that there are different interpretations. You've been trying to force the unconditioned of the Theravada into the emptiness of the Mahayana, this is simply not going to work because they are from different traditions and not intended to be compatible. As I explained earlier, in Theravada Nirvana and samsara are viewed as distinct, in Mahayana they are viewed as the same.
Exactly what definition are you using?
Nothing is independent and the unconditioned is not nothing.
Can you show me where Buddha says the unconditional is totally unrelated to the conventional in no uncertain terms?
Nagarjuna showed that they are compatible.
And as I and others have explained earlier there is no contradiction there.
This passage gives a sense of scope.
SN 45.91
The unconditioned is the process of conditioning so is not subject to conditioning.
No contradiction.
I suppose there could be a ground of being aside from this eternal process but it just seems to pile on more duality rather than dispel it.
In MN 26 the Buddha said that the Dhamma that he attained is profound, hard to see and hard to understand, peaceful and sublime, unattainable by mere reasoning, subtle, to be experienced by the wise.
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn26
@SpinyNorman;
When you say the unconditional is absolute and completely independent of condition it would seem you cut off the escape route you feel must be there.
How can the conditioned turn towards the unconditioned if the unconditioned can not exist at the same time as the conditioned?
If the unconditioned must by definition be anything at all then it is conditional.
That's a bit odd, no?
Things change according to conditions but that things change is unconditional.
Thanks for the reminder.
OP, I sat thru an explanation by Stephen Batchelor of the Unconditioned a few years ago, that was elegant in its simplicity, as is most of his stuff, and I wrote it down, but my notes are packed away. I remember he said, though, that the Buddha tended to take terms used in Hindu teachings and turn them upside down, give them a radical new meaning, like for example "Ground of Being". And I think The Unconditioned was an example of that.
I know this isn't very helpful. I'll see if I can find something about it from Batchelor online.
I wouldn't expect Stephen to be comfortable with the traditional view of the unconditioned as transcendental.
I didn't say they don't exist at the same time, I said that they are separate and distinct. Though by definition the unconditioned isn't dependent on the conditioned.
Look at the first OP quote again, and set aside your ideas about emptiness while you do so.
There are only so many ways to explain this but this may be the most simple.
That the unconditional must be free of conditions is itself a condition.
Form is emptiness and emptiness is form.
No amount of appeals to any authority can shake the logic of that unconditional truth.
That unconditional truth is sunyata.
I understand this is not a Theravada viewpoint necessarily but it could be.
I would ask you to do the same thing. If I didn't know about the void those passages still would have called it up.
You said the unconditioned is absolute. That is an extreme to be avoided. The only possible absolute is the act of conditionality of which the unconditioned is a needed aspect.
Without the unconditional aspect of conditionality there would be no potential for change within the conditioned.
Also, if the unconditioned were absolute, it would be so unconditionally which leaves no existence for the conditioned.
Brick drops on foot.
There you go again trying to put limits on the unconditioned. You can only define the word, you cannot define the unconditioned because something without condition can not be nailed down.
They are inter-dependent aspects of conditionality. As soon as you define the unconditioned you are describing the conditioned by imposing limits.
Original mind? Void and open.
Ground of being? Void and open.
Objective truth? The whole picture.
The whole picture? Without borders.
That's a contradiction in terms. The unconditioned is distinct from the conditioned and cannot be a part of it. Neither can the conditioned be a part of the unconditioned.
The first passage in the OP explains this clearly, there is also AN3.47 which explains that the conditioned is always changing while the unconditioned is unchanging, and therefore permanent. https://suttacentral.net/en/an3.47
It seems that you are still trying to force a Theravada concept ( the unconditioned ) into a Mahayana concept ( emptiness/sunyata ). It simply won't work, they are different models based on different assumptions.
Buddhism is vast, diverse and pluralistic, with many different sets of assumptions and methods. On some questions there will be no consensus. The best we can do here is to be clear about the differences and work out which set of assumptions works best for us.
In the Mahayana the ultimate truth is conditionality, ie sunyata.
The nearest thing to the unconditioned in the Mahayana is Buddha Nature, though interpretations vary. And then there is this kind of thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmakāya
Surangama Sutta
The Buddha continued: I will now show you the nature which is beyond birth and death.
The Buddha asked: Great King, as you just said, you were older at twenty than at ten, and until you were sixty, as days, months and years succeeded one another, your (body) changed in every moment of thought. When you saw the Ganges at three, was its water (the same as it was) when you were thirteen?
The king replied: It was the same when I was three and thirteen, and still is now that I am sixty-two.
The Buddha said: As you now notice your white hair and wrinkled face, there must be many more wrinkles than when you were a child. Today when you see the Ganges, do you notice that your seeing is now while it was then?
The king replied: It has always been the same, World Honoured One.
The Buddha said: Great King, though your face is wrinkled, the nature of this essence of your seeing is not. Therefore, that which is wrinkled changes and that which is free from wrinkles is unchanging. The changing is subject to destruction whereas the unchanging fundamentally is beyond birth and death; how can it be subject to your birth and death?
Surangama Sutta
Buddha:
Ananda since beginningless time sentient beings have been led astray by mistaking the uncondition to be the same as the nature of any other objects.
If the evolving mortal mind were of the same nature as the universal mind the cessation of the lower mind system would mean the cessation of the universal mind, but they are different, for the uncondition is not the cause of mortal mind.
There is no cessation of universal mind in its pure and essence nature.
Even open space is not nothingness. How can it be then that the wonderful Pure tranquil and enlighten mind, should have no essence of itself.
If you must niggardly grasp this perceptive mind of discriminating consciousness that is dependent upon the different sense organs as being the same as the uncondition, then the discriminated mind would have to forsake all those activities responding to any kind of form, sight, sound, odor, taste, touch, and seek for another and more perfect self nature.
If your mind, after the objects is removed from sight still has its discriminating nature, does it necessarily mean that your discriminating mind has lost its substantiality?
Does it not rather mean that you are now discriminating merely the shadows and reflections of unreal things which had their origin in objects in the presence of sight?
Objects certainly are not permanent; as they vanish, does your mind vanish also?
If your mind vanishes, then the Dharmakaya would be exterminated and who would be devoted to the practice of attaining perseverance in getting rid of the developements arising from the conceptions of phenomena.
My hair.
It isn't just conditionality though and neither is sunyata which is what a few of us are trying to explain and why we are pretty much at an impasse.
Although that is incredibly vague, I'm not disagreeing with you here.
You asked what our thoughts were, not which authority we pledge allegiance to and since I have no interest in the pissing contest between sects I'll just leave it at that.