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.
Drinking a Mirage
JaySon
Florida Veteran
in Philosophy
From the King of Concentrations Sutra:
Although water does not exist in a mirage at all, a deluded being wants to drink it. It is false and undrinkable. Know that all phenomena are this way.
Everyone and everything seems to have self-nature, permanent and independent. Know that it's only because of your imprints of ignorance on your mental continuum and karma that you see anyone or anything as having self-nature. Know that, although things appear to you as false, they are actually empty of Self-Nature.
This is the union of Appearance and Emptiness. Everything is like a magician's illusion.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Are you asking us or telling us....?
To who?
What do you mean by self nature?
Neither. Just sharing part of a sutra I like then putting in my little commentary.
To non-Buddhas who still have obscurations to keep them from seeing the true nature of objects and beings. For us, everything appears to have intrinsic nature, permanent and independent. But, we practitioners know that everything lacks intrinsic nature. This is why it helps to see everything as a magician's illusion. Everything appears to be permanent and independent, but we know everything is actually impermanent and interdependent.
Permanent and independent, existing from its own side, not interconnected, existing by its own power.
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
That is Buddhism.
I really have no idea precisely what you're referring to. But I've never come across the terminology you use, before....
Permanent and independent = the opposite of impermanent and dependent.
Existing from its own side = a term often used in Tibetan Buddhism that means something that, in theory, exists without being dependent on anything else. It's especially applicable regarding Subtle Dependent Arising in which, for something to exist, it must also exist as a label merely imputed by the mind onto the its base. So, Dependent Arising says things exist because of causes and conditions, by the sum of its parts, and by a mind that imputes a label onto it.
Not interconnected = not interdependent, not dependent on anything else for its existence.
Existing by its own power = is similar to "existing from its own side" and is a term used in Tibetan Buddhism. It means that nothing exists independently, by it's own power. Instead everything exists because of causes and conditions, being the sum of its parts, and existing nominally/a label merely imputed by the mind onto the base.
Forgot to add this...
I would argue that it's beyond the concept of self-nature, which is the object to be refuted. So, when meditating on Emptiness, for example, it's not meditating on the emptiness of all concepts. It is specifically meditating on the emptiness of the concept of self-nature, intrinsic nature.
The reason I say that is because, in the time of Je Tsongkhapa, there was a Chinese Buddhist who taught all people to meditate on the emptiness of all concepts. Je Tsongkhapa refuted this by saying emptiness is not the emptiness of all concepts but the emptiness only of self-nature.
Well, I am no actualized Buddha but I don't remember anything ever appearing to be permanent or independent. Things always appeared to be changing over time due to whatever is happening.
The illusion I suffered for a long time was that I was separate. It took a while to dawn on me that cause and effect is a binding agent of sorts. Self awareness is like an illusion but it can be used as a tool. Without it, we can't distinguish between anything or have a point of reference, never mind an infinite amount of possible points of reference.
And waking up? Forget it.
Ok. When most people think of self nature, we think of identification. That which can rightly say I am here now. It doesn't have to be a permanent designation to be considered a self view I don't think. Buddhist lingo is what it is but this whole "empty of self" bit causes more confusion than it helps methinks.
When I think of emptiness, I think of potential. Without emptiness, no thing or event is possible so when you say the self is empty, it doesn't negate it in any way even as it brings the temporal nature to mind. As it also brings the 5 remembrances to mind and the 5th of those brings the whole process into focus.
But I mean... there are so many ways to look at it all.
I would argue that emptiness is not the emptiness of all concepts, but the emptiness of only inherent existence. So, within the emptiness of inherent existence, all things are actually made possible, not the opposite.
If something were permanent and independent, you would have no cause and effect. Nothing would change. Nothing would form. Nothing would have any function.
So, where I respectfully believe you are confused is where you believe emptiness is the emptiness of all concepts instead of what it is, which is the emptiness of self-nature. If anything had self-nature, it could not exist at all. Not even a spec of self-nature exists on the aggregates or on anything.
This is where it gets the trickiest. The focal point of the existence of beings and objects exists in name only, merely imputed by mind onto various interdependent bases. So, this is how we distinguish conventional reality, in name only. This is Subtle Dependent Arising.
There is not one particle of self-nature on the aggregates. This is clear upon analysis of the aggregates. "David" exists in name only as a mere label by the mind onto David's base, which are the interdependent and impermanent aggregates. David does not exist anywhere on or within the aggregates.
tsk, tsk
Maybe some of us, me for example, are drunk on our own mirage. Tsk, tsk.
and now back to King Tut or whatever ...
I'm not into Tibetan Buddhism in any great or deep measure, so I'll leave this discussion to those who are.
Mantras are my limit. I enjoy the recitations, it's a calming and nourishing process.
Other than that, I'm done.
Here, you are not arguing with me really except I don't know why you made the distinction. I didn't say anything about the emptiness of concepts.
No offense taken as that made no sense to me. I didn't say anything about emptiness of concepts.
No. We name things because we perceive them. We don't perceive things because we have named them. The illusion of seperation gives the ability to distinguish.
None of that counters what I've presented you. Maybe reread and try to understand my points instead of trying to counter them.
Thing is... Chandrakiri especially defined emptiness with perfect logic and reason, so it's worth studying. All of the various ways he subjected reality to absolute scrutiny made for a perfect system of deepening understanding of emptiness.
@lobster
You don't understand my intention here.
@David
My apologies. I was tired last night when reading your reply.
By >Without emptiness, no thing or event is possible
I thought you meant the opposite. From what I can tell based on your replies, your view is perfect.
I meant no disrespect by arguing. I only meant to debate. It seems this forum doesn't want to share Dharma nor have logical debate. So what is this forum for?
The Buddha said to subject all of his teachings to absolute scrutiny. That's what I believe the great Indian philosophers Nagarjuna and Chandrakiri did. And that's what I believe Je Tsongkhapa and Shantideva did.
If you three are offended, you should be thanking me for helping the object to be negated, inherent existence, arise in your mind stream so you can identify it and slice it to pieces using the logic of Dependent Arising.
Since this place is neither one to share Dharma nor debate Dharma, I will be leaving. But not before making my final post for the enlightenment of all mother beings.
Thank you and goodbye.
@Jayson There is debate and disagreement all the time here. If people are objecting I believe it has more to do with an unconscious attitude you have of view superiority. I've spent plenty of time among Tibetan Buddhists and frankly, I find it to be a pretty common attitude towards their views. Honestly, I do find their views very thorough and generally well reasoned, but also very insular. They refute most other views in a strawman, indirect sort of way that makes other views too easy to dismiss along the lines that John Stuart Mill warns against.
Also, if you do decide to continue I have never come across the idea of emptiness of concepts and would like to know more. To me concepts are just as interdependent and relative as material reality.
Well I'm glad you've found what works for you.
Personally, some folks love Hip Hop and Rap.
me, I'm into Rachmaninov and Glenn Miller.
But hey, you go your way, I'll go mine, ok?
If we could understand what the heck you were actually talking about, it might be easier to debate Dhamma. Your comments are obscure and your arguments unintelligible.
We're all for discussion and learning - we do after all, have hundreds - not to say thousands - of threads, pages and topics on diverse aspects of the Dhamma - so for you to make such an accusation is both misguided and wholly inaccurate. I've been here 15 years, I should know....
Still, if you're going, don't let the doorknob hitcha....