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.
Yes. It is a way of fostering "awareness of awareness," for want of a better term. It points right at the intention of awareness without attachment, because there is nothing seen to attach to.
Yes. It is a way of fostering "awareness of awareness," for want of a better term. It points right at the intention of awareness without attachment, because there is nothing seen to attach to.
That's not philosophy in the sense I usually understand it. Perhaps this is simply a difference over semantics.
Your post could actually fit in quite well with a classic Prasangika-Madhyamaka argument.
There is no assertion of or definition of the ultimate truth, yet any inherent existence is negated.
This started with you saying that emptiness is a perfect example of an ontology. I am agnostic on the ontological question. It is irrelevant to my practice. The question I hold in practice has a practical effect. It is not an ontological question, and is unrelated to Buddhist philosophy. I am not interested in dismissing Buddhist philosophy outright, I just don't see the connection to practice.
This started with you saying that emptiness is a perfect example of an ontology. I am agnostic on the ontological question. It is irrelevant to my practice. The question I hold in practice has a practical effect. It is not an ontological question, and is unrelated to Buddhist philosophy. I am not interested in dismissing Buddhist philosophy outright, I just don't see the connection to practice.
The mind (citta) is perfectly peaceful in nature but this nature is obscured by the activity of the five senses and responsive thoughts driven by attachment, avoidance and restlessness.
If we remove the obscurations then we are left with just the perfectly peaceful mind underneath.
Part 2:
However - Is this perfectly peaceful mind the same as emptiness?
For instance, a story about Ajahn Chah:
Ajahn Chah asked one of his monks - "Why"
The Monk replied - "I don't know"
Ajahn Chah said - "Because there is nothing"
I'm of the understanding that "nothing" refers to emptiness. (In the heart of the 1000 petaled lotus is nothingness). But is it? Is it just nothing as in absolutely nothing?
I have a basic understanding of emptiness, but I have no direct (supramundane) experience of emptiness. Is it equivalent to experiencing absolutely nothing?
What I'm really struggling with (I now see after writing all this...) is - how is emptiness different from a nilhilistic nothingness? I know this Q has been asked before but I can't find a response that really nails it for me.
Thanks!
An intellectual response/answer etc ie an intellectual understanding will never be sufficient for the cessation of dukkha, if that is what one is interested in. Which is why any experience, any explanation and even any understanding is tentative, temporary, and most probably in my own estimate, unsatisfactory at best.
Comments
More classic Mahayana philosophy.
There is no assertion of or definition of the ultimate truth, yet any inherent existence is negated.
ok. your statement still fits in with certain Buddhist philosophic viewpoints.
Not sure why you so eagerly want to dismiss them.
alrighty then.
An intellectual response/answer etc ie an intellectual understanding will never be sufficient for the cessation of dukkha, if that is what one is interested in. Which is why any experience, any explanation and even any understanding is tentative, temporary, and most probably in my own estimate, unsatisfactory at best.
Blessings, dear friend.