I meant to add these as a resource for what may be unfamiliar terms.
Nirguna: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirguna prajnaparamita: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prajnaparamita sunyata: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunyata On Apr 6, 2011, at 5:01 AM, MarshaV wrote: > > > Imho, this book offers very valuable insight into the Eastern side of the > Perennial Philosophy, and this quote in particular offers a view why the > "different and inconsistent interpretations." But of course, we may all > choose a different simile, analogy, or interpretation. > > > "The well-known simile of water and waves may be used to show how the same > experience can be subject to different and inconsistent interpretations. > Which is real, the water or the waves? Water here represents the empty > (nirguna) Absolute, and waves are its phenomenal manifestation "in" time and > space. In these terms, the prajnaparamita claim that "form is no other than > emptiness" means that the waves never lose their intrinsic nature as water, > since they have no self-nature of their own, being simply a form or > manifestation of the water. Yet it is also true that "emptiness is no other > than form": to emphasize only the immutability of water is to miss the fact > that water never exists in an undifferentiated state but appears only as > waves, current, clouds, and so on. So what _really_ exists? Many answers > are possible; the important point is that the difference between these > answers is not a disagreement about what is perceived but about how one > chooses to interpret it. > One might say that there is only on thing, the water, and the waves do not > really exist, since they are just the forms that water takes. Conversely, > one might claim that there are only waves, since there is no such thing as > undifferentiated, formless water. The answer one gives also determines > whether or not there is permanence. If there is only the water, and the > waves are dismissed as mere forms, then there is no change; water remains the > same despite any oscillations that may occur. But if there are only waves > and if the immutability of water is reject as a thought-construction, then > there is only change and no permanence. > > "Of course, this analogy has its limitations. We can identify water because > we can differentiate if from other things (earth, air), where as the sunyata > of Buddhism and the Nirguna Brahman of Vedanta cannot be characterized in any > way. The simile would work better if water were so all-pervasive that we > were completely _in_ it and _of_ it, and thus unable to distinguish it as an > _it_. And this suggests another analogy---which may or may no be something > more than an analogy." > > (Loy, David, 'Nonduality: A Study in Comparative Philosophy', p.262) > ___ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
