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.
Mindfulness and compassion meditation are just as important in the Tibetan tradition.
Please excuse my ignorance. I am in just a bit of a quandry and don't know which way to go. I love Thai Forest tradition and its emphasis on the Sutras. Having the Chagdud Gonpa center so close to me though is really geat. The time I spent with the Lama was wonderful, I have never had the experience of being able to talk with a teacher and recieve their guidance. It was meaningful and insightful. In fact under her instruction I have begun Hung mantra practice. Red Tara practice is something that they practice here as well ( I have not practiced that and know little about it) as it was a practice of their founder H.E. Chagdud Tulku Rinpoche. It is a place and tradition I feel very comfortable in. Any advice you could give regarding Tibetan practice would be very appreciated.
Yours in the Dharma,
Todd
Pure Land tradition - I drawn to the relative simple and focus of developing Buddha mind based on Buddha strength embedded as an integral part of life. A tradition that is suitable for many walks of life - the illiterate, literate, deform, old folks, feeble, disable, blind, deaf among others:) especially low graded living beings like myself.
Om Mani Padme Hum
Maybe I'm confused; I thought the Buddha's original goal was the eradication of suffering, and not becoming empty. Is becoming empty the end goal of practice or is the achievement of enlightenment the end goal of practice?
Hi Engyo I see "becoming empty" and "getting enlightenment" as the same thing.
Also, how does one "become empty"?
If individuals and phenomena are by nature empty, how does one "become" what one already is?
The way I see it. One "becomes empty" by realizing that the belief that one is not-empty to begin with is false and by realizing that there was never a "one" to begin with. It is not possible to "become" what one already is, I agree. But we as human beings believe that we are something that we are not. So the term, to me, of "becoming empty" is simply a casting off of these false beliefs, as I see it. But it is not necessarily a "becoming" so to speak. But if one is going to talk about it, one has to call it something. One could call it "getting enlightenment". But, if one calls it "getting enlightenment", you run into the same problem because how can one "get" what one already has? Especially if there is no one to do the "getting" and nothing to "get" to begin with?
This is why I find words to be such a problem because words themselves, by their very nature, create distinctions when there really are no distinctions to begin with. But if we are going to communicate, we have to use words because that is the only method we have to communicate. One can not just sit there any say nothing. Or maybe you can, but then you are not really communicating. You're just sitting there.
So to me, the words "becoming empty", "getting enlightenment", "entering nirvana", "realizing the truth" etc, etc. To me, they all mean the same thing.
One "becomes empty" by realizing that the belief that one is not-empty to begin with is false and by realizing that there was never a "one" to begin with.
Emptiness in Buddhism is realizing that the five aggregates are not self, empty of self and anything belonging to self
Please excuse my ignorance. I am in just a bit of a quandry and don't know which way to go. I love Thai Forest tradition and its emphasis on the Sutras. Having the Chagdud Gonpa center so close to me though is really geat. The time I spent with the Lama was wonderful, I have never had the experience of being able to talk with a teacher and recieve their guidance. It was meaningful and insightful. In fact under her instruction I have begun Hung mantra practice. Red Tara practice is something that they practice here as well ( I have not practiced that and know little about it) as it was a practice of their founder H.E. Chagdud Tulku Rinpoche. It is a place and tradition I feel very comfortable in. Any advice you could give regarding Tibetan practice would be very appreciated.
Yours in the Dharma,
Todd
Hi Todd,
Chagdud Tulku was a great teacher and the sangha he established is an excellent choice for anyone interested in getting started with Vajrayana.
Vajrayana maintains and transmits a HUGE variety of practices that can be chosen by the practitioner. Even if its a deity or mantra practice mindfulness and concentration are essential.
Personally I see little to no contradiction between the early scriptures and the meaning and intent of the methods of Vajrayana. If you ask me they go hand in hand.
FYI the Red Tara practice is extraordinary, it was composed by the great Nyingma master Dudjom Rinpoche and is a complete path in and of itself.
Having a daily practice is very important and the structure provided by the "Tibetan style" has been greatly beneficial for me.
Feel free to ask any questions you may have.
You generally summed up emptiness of self, but the emptiness of phenomena is also pretty important. The recognition of the emptiness of external phenomena can be utilized as an excellent stepping stone for realizing the emptiness of self.
Emptiness in Buddhism is realizing that the five aggregates are not self, empty of self and anything belonging to self
I agree and I think we are essentially saying the same thing, just using different words. Because realizing that there is "no self" happens simultaneously upon realizing that the 5 aggregates are not self. Because what else is there that is left that is not part of the five aggregates that can be called a self, upon realizing that the 5 aggregates are not self? I understand that the Buddha taught "not-self" as opposed to "no-self", but is there anything more than the 5 aggregates that one can associate as a self after the associations with the 5 aggregates are "cut", so to speak?
I agree and I think we are essentially saying the same thing, just using different words. Because realizing that there is "no self" happens simultaneously upon realizing that the 5 aggregates are not self. Because what else is there that is left that is not part of the five aggregates that can be called a self, upon realizing that the 5 aggregates are not self? I understand that the Buddha taught "not-self" as opposed to "no-self", but is there anything more than the 5 aggregates that one can associate as a self after the associations with the 5 aggregates are "cut", so to speak?
shenpen nangwa is not questioning your view of self but is saying your explanation of emptiness pertaining to self is only part of emptiness... it also includes the emptiness of external phenomenon... He is simply stating that realizing the emptiness of external phenominon in turn aids in the realization of the emptiness of self...
shenpen nangwa is not questioning your view of self but is saying your explanation of emptiness pertaining to self is only part of emptiness... it also includes the emptiness of external phenomenon... He is simply stating that realizing the emptiness of external phenominon in turn aids in the realization of the emptiness of self...
That makes sense. But I think shenpen was questioning deshy, not me. Not that it really matters though. But the way I see it, external phenomena is part of the 5 aggregates. So by realizing that the 5 aggregates are not self, there is the simultaneous realization that the 5 aggregates are empty, since the only thing that is creating non-emptiness of the 5 aggregates is the association with self. Would this be correct? I don't see where the distinction is since external phenomena is part of the 5 aggregates.
You generally summed up emptiness of self, but the emptiness of phenomena is also pretty important. The recognition of the emptiness of external phenomena can be utilized as an excellent stepping stone for realizing the emptiness of self.
Would you care to elaborate more pls? Emptiness is "all phenomena is empty of self and anything belonging to self". You said "emptiness of phenomena". What do you mean to imply that the phenomena is empty of?
None, because they are all corruptions of the original practice. What tradition was Gautama practicing when he sat down under the Bodhi tree?
Buddha said he followed the tradition of previous Buddhas.
As for the specific practice he used, tradition says it was a 6-fold breathing method. Bhikshu Dharmamita gives some of the old texts that refer to this method, including Buddhagosha:
This listing of the six gates is a direct quote from a “life-of-the Buddha” scripture entitled: the Origins Sutra on the Prince’s Auspicious Response(太子瑞應本起經 – T02.185.476c). This scripture was translated by Zhiqian between 223 and 253 ce. The parenthetically-included original Sanskrit for the six gates is per De la Valleé Poussin as supplied in his translation of L’Abhidharmakośa de Vasubandhu.
This same list is discussed in the Vibhāṣā of Kātyāyaniputra, circa 200 bce (T28.1546.105b29–6a01), at greater length in the Mahā-vibhāṣāof Vasumitra (T27.1545.134c26–35b20), and in the Abhidharma-kośabhāṣyam of Vasubandhu (Pruden, p. 922–3). Pruden references Pali scripture locations: Dīgha, ii.291; Majjhima, i.425 (p. 1049, note 89).
Finally, Buddhaghosa’s much later Pali-tradition commentary preserves the same list in a slightly altered version (Path of Purification, VIII: 189–225, p. 300–309).
My point here is to demonstrate that this six-gate meditation method is not a later-period Mahāyāna construct, but rather a meditation cultivation formula rooted in the earliest period of Indian Buddhism. A closer examination of this formula will help us develop a much more refined view of traditional Buddhist meditation, one which goes beyond the very simplistic assumptions generally prevailing in the West which tend to look upon the tradition as consisting primarily in a very rudimentary form of ānāpāna (breath) meditation only later overlaid with doctrinally sophisticated calming-and-insight elaborations of the same sort as we see in this six-gate schema.
Would you care to elaborate more pls? Emptiness is "all phenomena is empty of self and anything belonging to self". You said "emptiness of phenomena". What do you mean to imply that the phenomena is empty of?
Phenomena are "empty" of any inherent, intrinsic, permanent quality.
The same is of course true of persons, selves, thoughts, emotions...everything, which you already know.
Just as no permanent "self" can be found in persons, no permanent intrinsic quality can be found in external phenomena.
to say:
"Emptiness in Buddhism is realizing that the five aggregates are not self, empty of self and anything belonging to self"
is an over-simplification. The statement would make more sense if you had said, "The emptiness of persons is that the five aggregates are not self, empty of self and anything belonging to self"
One problem with applying the argument about the skanda's to external phenomena is that we cant really claim that inanimate objects posses the skanda's of vedana, samskara, and vijnana.
Thus the differentiation of the emptiness of persons and the emptiness of phenomena is useful.
I know it might be nit-picky, but I think this kind of stuff is fun.
One problem with applying the argument about the skanda's to external phenomena is that we cant really claim that inanimate objects posses the skanda's of vedana, samskara, and vijnana.
Of course they are. But they are still "persons" and the emptiness of persons and inanimate phenomena are slightly different in terms of composition and discussion.
It is occasionally worth remembering that emptiness and non-self are viewed from the eternal perspective. The Buddha did not teach that no self ever exists; he taught that no permanent, unchanging self exists.
It is occasionally worth remembering that emptiness and non-self are viewed from the eternal perspective. The Buddha did not teach that no self ever exists; he taught that no permanent, unchanging self exists.
Right, the teachings on the two truths are quite instructive on this point.
Buddha said he followed the tradition of previous Buddhas.
As for the specific practice he used, tradition says it was a 6-fold breathing method. Bhikshu Dharmamita gives some of the old texts that refer to this method, including Buddhagosha:
Thanks, Will. This practice sounds interesting. Can you point me to a description of it?
Porpoise, I think what Shenpen's trying to say here is that inanimate phenomena should be seen in terms of not having a permanent entity worth clinging to. Like your car, your favorite whatever which is bound to fade and decay and will cause suffering if clung to as "me" or "belonging to me". Thus they don't have a permanent quality worth clinging to.
When it comes to persons where the delusion of self is created by all the five aggregates, emptiness should be viewed as "just the five clinging aggregates, which are not to be taken as an unchanging entity called a self".
They are both the same but slightly different in composition as he says. It is more descriptive to differentiate the two rather than just saying "all phenomena is empty of self and anything belonging to self". Plus, reflecting on the impermanent quality is important when contemplating not-self.
Porpoise, I think what Shenpen's trying to say here is that inanimate phenomena should be seen in terms of not having a permanent entity worth clinging to. Like your car, your favorite whatever which is bound to fade and decay and will cause suffering if clung to as "me" or "belonging to me". Thus they don't have a permanent quality worth clinging to.
When it comes to persons where the delusion of self is created by all the five aggregates, emptiness should be viewed as "just the five clinging aggregates, which are not to be taken as an unchanging entity called a self".
I'm not sure I see a real difference here. Basically we have the delusion that ourselves, others and external phenomena have a lasting essence which we cling to.
Of course they are. But they are still "persons" and the emptiness of persons and inanimate phenomena are slightly different in terms of composition and discussion.
Inanimate phenomena have less aggregates - apart from that I can't see a difference.:)
Aggregates is a relative term. There is always larger, and always smaller. Organs are an aggregate within the body, cells are aggregates within the organ, atoms are aggregates within the cell...
Human beings are aggregates within a species. Species (plural) are aggregates within an ecosystem. Many types of ecosystems are aggregates within a planetary body. Planetary bodies are aggregates within a solar system. Solar systems are aggregates within galaxies...
A rock has Buddha-nature. This is an uncontested statement that is taken as a truism in Buddhism. A rock will not always be a rock. "Inanimate" is an illusion of attaching permanence to that rock.
It depends what you mean. I thought we were talking about the 5 traditional aggregates, ie form, feeling, perception, formations and consciousness.
Form is traditionally described in terms of the 4 elements.
I took vows in the Chinese Mahayana tradition. The eightfold path is my method.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
Comments
Yours in the Dharma,
Todd
Om Mani Padme Hum
Hi Engyo
The way I see it. One "becomes empty" by realizing that the belief that one is not-empty to begin with is false and by realizing that there was never a "one" to begin with. It is not possible to "become" what one already is, I agree. But we as human beings believe that we are something that we are not. So the term, to me, of "becoming empty" is simply a casting off of these false beliefs, as I see it. But it is not necessarily a "becoming" so to speak. But if one is going to talk about it, one has to call it something. One could call it "getting enlightenment". But, if one calls it "getting enlightenment", you run into the same problem because how can one "get" what one already has? Especially if there is no one to do the "getting" and nothing to "get" to begin with?
This is why I find words to be such a problem because words themselves, by their very nature, create distinctions when there really are no distinctions to begin with. But if we are going to communicate, we have to use words because that is the only method we have to communicate. One can not just sit there any say nothing. Or maybe you can, but then you are not really communicating. You're just sitting there.
So to me, the words "becoming empty", "getting enlightenment", "entering nirvana", "realizing the truth" etc, etc. To me, they all mean the same thing.
Emptiness in Buddhism is realizing that the five aggregates are not self, empty of self and anything belonging to self
Thats part of the story.
Chagdud Tulku was a great teacher and the sangha he established is an excellent choice for anyone interested in getting started with Vajrayana.
Vajrayana maintains and transmits a HUGE variety of practices that can be chosen by the practitioner. Even if its a deity or mantra practice mindfulness and concentration are essential.
Personally I see little to no contradiction between the early scriptures and the meaning and intent of the methods of Vajrayana. If you ask me they go hand in hand.
FYI the Red Tara practice is extraordinary, it was composed by the great Nyingma master Dudjom Rinpoche and is a complete path in and of itself.
Having a daily practice is very important and the structure provided by the "Tibetan style" has been greatly beneficial for me.
Feel free to ask any questions you may have.
I agree and I think we are essentially saying the same thing, just using different words. Because realizing that there is "no self" happens simultaneously upon realizing that the 5 aggregates are not self. Because what else is there that is left that is not part of the five aggregates that can be called a self, upon realizing that the 5 aggregates are not self? I understand that the Buddha taught "not-self" as opposed to "no-self", but is there anything more than the 5 aggregates that one can associate as a self after the associations with the 5 aggregates are "cut", so to speak?
shenpen nangwa is not questioning your view of self but is saying your explanation of emptiness pertaining to self is only part of emptiness... it also includes the emptiness of external phenomenon... He is simply stating that realizing the emptiness of external phenominon in turn aids in the realization of the emptiness of self...
That makes sense. But I think shenpen was questioning deshy, not me. Not that it really matters though.
None that I know of
But the five aggregates are also not to be called a self. The five aggregates are empty of self
Would you care to elaborate more pls? Emptiness is "all phenomena is empty of self and anything belonging to self". You said "emptiness of phenomena". What do you mean to imply that the phenomena is empty of?
Buddha said he followed the tradition of previous Buddhas.
As for the specific practice he used, tradition says it was a 6-fold breathing method. Bhikshu Dharmamita gives some of the old texts that refer to this method, including Buddhagosha:
Phenomena are "empty" of any inherent, intrinsic, permanent quality.
The same is of course true of persons, selves, thoughts, emotions...everything, which you already know.
Just as no permanent "self" can be found in persons, no permanent intrinsic quality can be found in external phenomena.
to say:
"Emptiness in Buddhism is realizing that the five aggregates are not self, empty of self and anything belonging to self"
is an over-simplification. The statement would make more sense if you had said, "The emptiness of persons is that the five aggregates are not self, empty of self and anything belonging to self"
One problem with applying the argument about the skanda's to external phenomena is that we cant really claim that inanimate objects posses the skanda's of vedana, samskara, and vijnana.
Thus the differentiation of the emptiness of persons and the emptiness of phenomena is useful.
I know it might be nit-picky, but I think this kind of stuff is fun.
Although other people are external phenomena too.
P
Thanks, Will. This practice sounds interesting. Can you point me to a description of it?
When it comes to persons where the delusion of self is created by all the five aggregates, emptiness should be viewed as "just the five clinging aggregates, which are not to be taken as an unchanging entity called a self".
They are both the same but slightly different in composition as he says. It is more descriptive to differentiate the two rather than just saying "all phenomena is empty of self and anything belonging to self". Plus, reflecting on the impermanent quality is important when contemplating not-self.
Bu yeah, you could say it's picky picky
I'm not sure I see a real difference here. Basically we have the delusion that ourselves, others and external phenomena have a lasting essence which we cling to.
P
Inanimate phenomena have less aggregates - apart from that I can't see a difference.:)
P
Human beings are aggregates within a species. Species (plural) are aggregates within an ecosystem. Many types of ecosystems are aggregates within a planetary body. Planetary bodies are aggregates within a solar system. Solar systems are aggregates within galaxies...
A rock has Buddha-nature. This is an uncontested statement that is taken as a truism in Buddhism. A rock will not always be a rock. "Inanimate" is an illusion of attaching permanence to that rock.
No, the principle is the same.
P
It depends what you mean. I thought we were talking about the 5 traditional aggregates, ie form, feeling, perception, formations and consciousness.
Form is traditionally described in terms of the 4 elements.
P
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">