|
Post by Beingist on Jun 14, 2013 16:04:11 GMT -5
How philosophical. Here's my take: emptiness (countable and uncountable; plural emptinesses) 1. The state or feeling of being empty empty (comparative emptier, superlative emptiest) 1. Devoid of content; containing nothing or nobody You can't accept that the word is used to talk about something else for which there is no word? How literal. Not a matter of 'accepting' anything.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jun 14, 2013 17:27:24 GMT -5
So, Max, that description of emptiness seems to be pointing to 'unknown'. That dependent origination, when stepped through (backwards), points to an essence that can't be known. Is that how you read it? It looks to me like emptiness is pointing away from the known, as in, empty of any form of substance. An appearance that is not more than an appearance would qualify as empty, right? Dependent origination doesn't seem to refer to known or unknown. It just says everything 'exists' by virtue of everything else. In simple terms, everything is one 'thing'. There is just the dream of appearances, appearing whole and complete by virtue of it's singular nature. Interesting take. A couple of places I looked said that the teaching of dependent origination should only be looked at in terms of the Four Noble Truths, i.e. relating to the origins of suffering. Here's an interesting one, though: "Those who fail to understand the real significance of this all-important doctrine mistake it to be a mechanical law of causality, or even a simple simultaneous arising, nay a first beginning of all things, animate and inanimate. Be it remembered that there is no First Cause with a capital ‘F’ and capital ‘C’ in Buddhist thought, and dependent origination does not attempt to dig out or even investigate a first cause. The Buddha emphatically declared that the first beginning of existence is something inconceivable, and that such notions and speculations of a beginning may lead to mental derangement. If one posits a “First Cause” one is justified in asking for the cause of that “First Cause,” for nothing can escape the law of condition and cause which is patent in the world to all but those who will not see." Here's the whole thing that it's from: www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh015.pdfSo I've apparently tread where I not supposed to go. <---mental derangement
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 14, 2013 19:21:22 GMT -5
You can't accept that the word is used to talk about something else for which there is no word? How literal. Not a matter of 'accepting' anything. It is if there's any interest in understanding what is said.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 14, 2013 19:25:56 GMT -5
It looks to me like emptiness is pointing away from the known, as in, empty of any form of substance. An appearance that is not more than an appearance would qualify as empty, right? Dependent origination doesn't seem to refer to known or unknown. It just says everything 'exists' by virtue of everything else. In simple terms, everything is one 'thing'. There is just the dream of appearances, appearing whole and complete by virtue of it's singular nature. Interesting take. A couple of places I looked said that the teaching of dependent origination should only be looked at in terms of the Four Noble Truths, i.e. relating to the origins of suffering. Here's an interesting one, though: "Those who fail to understand the real significance of this all-important doctrine mistake it to be a mechanical law of causality, or even a simple simultaneous arising, nay a first beginning of all things, animate and inanimate. Be it remembered that there is no First Cause with a capital ‘F’ and capital ‘C’ in Buddhist thought, and dependent origination does not attempt to dig out or even investigate a first cause. The Buddha emphatically declared that the first beginning of existence is something inconceivable, and that such notions and speculations of a beginning may lead to mental derangement. If one posits a “First Cause” one is justified in asking for the cause of that “First Cause,” for nothing can escape the law of condition and cause which is patent in the world to all but those who will not see." Here's the whole thing that it's from: www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh015.pdfSo I've apparently tread where I not supposed to go. <---mental derangement Yeah, looks like the illusion of time is purposely omitted from the idea of dependent origination. Anyhoo, now we know how you got this way. Hehe.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 14, 2013 19:40:01 GMT -5
Not a matter of 'accepting' anything. It is if there's any interest in understanding what is said. ... or, if there's interest in thinking a lot about something.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2013 20:25:25 GMT -5
The essence of things can't be known, they're empty. However, as the opening line says this isn't a form of nihilism. The take away I'm getting is that nothing can be without the other, or there is only everything, the particlars having no real essence. Or everything is the consequence of everything else? something like that
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 14, 2013 23:06:41 GMT -5
It is if there's any interest in understanding what is said. ... or, if there's interest in thinking a lot about something. Yes, either one.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 14, 2013 23:09:02 GMT -5
Or everything is the consequence of everything else? something like that Axchuly, I always thought it was a silly idea.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 15, 2013 6:03:25 GMT -5
This is why I don't even play with ... philosophical stuff like this. So much depends upon definitions. At first glance, I can grasp the above, but I mean, c'mon. How can one be aware of emptiness? What is it that awareness can be aware of? It's all just ... silly talk. Mental masturbation. Emptiness in Buddhism has a specific definition (I'm sure you can Google it). It means that there is no independent origination. It means there is nothing that has permanent independent existence. Everything that is, is put together from other pieces, other stuff. Emptiness is form, form is emptiness. Emptiness (in Buddhism) doesn't mean absence, void of, like when he drank the coke the can was empty. Therefore, there is no permanent identity. Self is put together with stuff, and anything put together will fall apart. Therefore, there really isn't a self, no permanent self, no-self. sdp Bumped to comment on........ sdp
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 15, 2013 6:13:05 GMT -5
Carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, protons, electrons, neutrons, quarks, genes, memes, blue jeans, jelly beans, sunlight/photons, wood, hay, stubble, wheat, chaff, trees, forest, food, matter, energy, information, earth, wind, fire, yin, yang, s*it, symbols, imagination, illusions, delusions, roses, thorns, raindrops, time, space, mother, dad............music, notes, art, vision, friendship, love, hate, indifference.......he ain't heavy, he's my brother, Miles from Nowhere, Catch Bull at Four, Nowhere man, Nowhere man, [(no)where, (now)here].......a,b,c's.......1's, 2's, 3's.........stuff.......blood, sweat, tears......all & everything.......the kitchen sink.....gravity...quantum physics, relativity, entanglement, holograms, bread & butter, peas/little green balls of mushy poison, if you always do what you always did you'll always get what you always got, karma, garbage in-garbage out.......stuff......in ten minutes, two Hardee's steak biscuits for $3.00 and a senior drink (iced tea .. .:-).......and hearing the ice drop..... sdp So dependent origination means everything is made up of smaller particles? Sounds like science to me. How bout this; Everything is influenced by everything else. There's no first cause and so we talk about everything existing by virtue of everything else. From my perspective, this would be the nature of a dream in which all perceptions originate in precisely the same intelligence. Dreamscapes are formed such that every perception arises as a combined influence of all other perceptions, and so nothing exists independently. I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with 'other pieces/stuff', which is also arising dependently. Yea, I said that nothing has independent existence (bumped post) This means even the stuff listed has no independent origination (posts would get pretty long if we had to repeat everything we're already said). The most important aspect of this is that there isn't an independent existing by-and-in-and-of-itself "soul", no-self. And I think even the DL in the OP said that even emptiness is empty, that covers just about everything. sdp
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 15, 2013 6:17:36 GMT -5
Emptiness of emptiness. In The Art of Living (2001) the 14th Dalai Lama says, "As your insight into the ultimate nature of reality is deepened and enhanced, you will develop a perception of reality from which you will perceive phenomena and events as sort of illusory, illusion-like, and this mode of perceiving reality will permeate all your interactions with reality. [...] Even emptiness itself, which is seen as the ultimate nature of reality, is not absolute, nor does it exist independently. We cannot conceive of emptiness as independent of a basis of phenomena, because when we examine the nature of reality, we find that it is empty of inherent existence. Then if we are to take that emptiness itself is an object and look for its essence, again we will find that it is empty of inherent existence. Therefore the Buddha taught the emptiness of emptiness." Bumped as easy reference........... sdp
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 15, 2013 8:53:45 GMT -5
So dependent origination means everything is made up of smaller particles? Sounds like science to me. How bout this; Everything is influenced by everything else. There's no first cause and so we talk about everything existing by virtue of everything else. From my perspective, this would be the nature of a dream in which all perceptions originate in precisely the same intelligence. Dreamscapes are formed such that every perception arises as a combined influence of all other perceptions, and so nothing exists independently. I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with 'other pieces/stuff', which is also arising dependently. Yea, I said that nothing has independent existence (bumped post) This means even the stuff listed has no independent origination (posts would get pretty long if we had to repeat everything we're already said). The most important aspect of this is that there isn't an independent existing by-and-in-and-of-itself "soul", no-self. And I think even the DL in the OP said that even emptiness is empty, that covers just about everything. sdp I wasn't commenting on the idea that nothing has independent existence. I don't have an issue with that. I was commenting on the idea that dependent origination means everything is made up of smaller particles. It doesn't mean that.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 15, 2013 11:19:08 GMT -5
Yea, I said that nothing has independent existence (bumped post) This means even the stuff listed has no independent origination (posts would get pretty long if we had to repeat everything we're already said). The most important aspect of this is that there isn't an independent existing by-and-in-and-of-itself "soul", no-self. And I think even the DL in the OP said that even emptiness is empty, that covers just about everything. sdp I wasn't commenting on the idea that nothing has independent existence. I don't have an issue with that. I was commenting on the idea that dependent origination means everything is made up of smaller particles. It doesn't mean that. Everything that is, is made from other stuff. Yes? No? ........ I don't think I said what you think I said. I said, according to Buddhism, nothing has independent, or intrinsic existence, even stuff that exists is ultimately made of stuff that has no intrinsic existence. You asked me what self is made from. I said, other stuff. I had already said everything depends upon something else, nothing is independent. I don't have time right now to go back and read what I said for a tenth time.......... I said self is made of stuff. (June 13 8:47 PM & 9:58 PM) When you asked, what stuff, I was answering your question. If that's not the question you were asking you need to be more specific. Are you not made of stuff? sdp
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 15, 2013 20:46:04 GMT -5
I wasn't commenting on the idea that nothing has independent existence. I don't have an issue with that. I was commenting on the idea that dependent origination means everything is made up of smaller particles. It doesn't mean that. Everything that is, is made from other stuff. Yes? No? ........ I don't think I said what you think I said. I said, according to Buddhism, nothing has independent, or intrinsic existence, even stuff that exists is ultimately made of stuff that has no intrinsic existence. You asked me what self is made from. I said, other stuff. I had already said everything depends upon something else, nothing is independent. I don't have time right now to go back and read what I said for a tenth time.......... I said self is made of stuff. (June 13 8:47 PM & 9:58 PM) When you asked, what stuff, I was answering your question. If that's not the question you were asking you need to be more specific. Are you not made of stuff? sdp Actually, in reading it again, the whole paragraph isn't registering, so yes there's a lot of confusion on my part. I don't get how emptiness relates to dependent origination, and I don't get how dependent origination relates to 'no permanent independent existence'. Does stuff have temporary independent existence? The idea that everything is put together from other pieces doesn't seem to relate to emptiness, but you do seem to be relating it to dependent origination, which is where my comment came from that it doesn't relate. However, it sounds like I may have connected the dots incorrectly.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 15, 2013 21:09:48 GMT -5
Everything that is, is made from other stuff. Yes? No? ........ I don't think I said what you think I said. I said, according to Buddhism, nothing has independent, or intrinsic existence, even stuff that exists is ultimately made of stuff that has no intrinsic existence. You asked me what self is made from. I said, other stuff. I had already said everything depends upon something else, nothing is independent. I don't have time right now to go back and read what I said for a tenth time.......... I said self is made of stuff. (June 13 8:47 PM & 9:58 PM) When you asked, what stuff, I was answering your question. If that's not the question you were asking you need to be more specific. Are you not made of stuff? sdp Actually, in reading it again, the whole paragraph isn't registering, so yes there's a lot of confusion on my part. I don't get how emptiness relates to dependent origination, and I don't get how dependent origination relates to 'no permanent independent existence'. Does stuff have temporary independent existence? The idea that everything is put together from other pieces doesn't seem to relate to emptiness, but you do seem to be relating it to dependent origination, which is where my comment came from that it doesn't relate. However, it sounds like I may have connected the dots incorrectly. No it doesn't on it's face at all does it? Takes a few thousand years of slicing and dicing and some really nifty toys to get there!
|
|