Hi Ham, Let me first say that I am comforted by the fact that you have read some about Buddhism, and I misspoke. I have always found you to be well read, so I guess I am not surprised. Now it could be that I misunderstood your points to Marsha, but it appeared that your impression of Emptiness was not as I understood it. It has only been recently that I have begun to study Buddhism again, and I had put that away for a couple of decades, so what I offer is my understanding. In light of improving that understanding, I present below my impression of how Emptiness is not an essence.
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Mark -- > > > Admittedly, my understanding of Buddhism doesn't extend much beyond A.J. > Bahm's 'Philosophy of the Buddha', Philip Kapleau's 'The Three Pillars of > Zen', and Beatrice Suzuki's 'Mahayana Buddhism', softback copies of which > rest on my library shelf. However, I'm not so much concerned with the Ways > of Enlightenment and the koans that are alleged to help get us there as I am > with the claim that ultimate truth is knowable and exists in two forms. The teachings of Buddhism are to present the concept of two truths in order to present the student with a dichotomy with which he can move forward in understanding Buddhism. They should not be taken literally as a reality, but simply as a path. This is no different from our separation of good and evil, which is a way in which we understand our reality. The necessity of creating the concepts of good and evil is a method of simplification, for the purposes of discussion. This is the same for the two truths. What it attempts to point out, is that the conceptual truth that we create is not all of the truth. Therefore it can be useful to try to understand another truth. We can call this "ultimate truth". What this means, is that such truth contains conventional truth as a subset, but is much more. What we mean by truth is difficult to ascertain, except that we seek some certainty. Something which does not vary from day to day. The ultimate truth is therefore presented in a logical way such that it cannot change, and that it becomes self-evident. This is probably the same way in which you see ultimate truth, but I thought I would just state that myself. It is through the logic which Buddhism has created, coupled with some "leaps" that presents this truth. After the leaps, one can look back and say that the truth one leaped to is now obvious, but that it was not a continuity with what we had thought before. Therefore, one of the purposes of meditation is to free up one's mind from that track is has been going down. Once free, the mind can create all sorts of things. Many of them will be nonsense, as one who has taken acid will tell you, but some of these things stick and are actually quite useful. The result is an ultimate truth which is knowable. If we are going to philosophize with man-made concepts, we must end up with a knowable concept. Else-wise we are just creating some kind of phantasm or "hidden" reality which is pure conjecture. So, when people say that we cannot know ultimate truth, I really do not know what they are saying. Truth is a concept, so how can we not know it? These same people will state that it is God's plan claiming that it is something we will not know. We create truth (it is a concept), therefore to say that we cannot know it is ridiculous; it is playing with shadows. Finally, there is no arrogance in Buddhism. That is, a true Buddhist will not say that the way they see things is the only way to see them. This is why Buddha never wrote anything; he realized that his words would become dogma, and then become useless to self-realization. Buddhism does teach, however, that in order to understand Buddhism, one must progress through "right" methods of which it presents eight. By right, they mean appropriate. It is a discipline, and there are easy ways to get to it. Buddhism presents such methods to anyone who is interested. > > > The Mahayanans don't speak of their two truths in terms of duality and > non-duality, but as "conventional" (Marsha's favorite term ) and "ultimate". > And because the "wisdom" of the ultimate is alleged to be revealed only in > the meditative state, nowhere do they describe what it is. Here, for > example, is what D.T. Suzuki (Beatrice's husband) says about "emptiness": > "When the Battisattava Avalokitesvara was engaged in the practice of the > deep Prajnaparamita he perceived: there are five Skandhas; and these he saw > in their self-nature to be empty. > > "O Saraputra, form is here emptiness, emptiness is form; form is no other > than emptiness, emptiness is no other than form; what is form that is > emptiness, what is emptiness that is form. The same can be said of > sensation, thought, confection, and consciousness. > > "O Saraputra, all things are here characterised with emptiness: they are not > born, they are not annihilated, they are not stained, they are not > immaculate; they do not increase, they do not decrease. ...In the mind of > the Badhisativa, who dwells depending on the Prajnaparamita, there are no > obstacles; and, going beyond the perverted views, he reaches final Nirvana." > > Perfectly clear, right? Is this intended to be a description of ultimate > reality? How can anyone know for sure? That emptiness (or what I would > call "nothingness") defines form is understandable enough, and that the > Absolute is formless seems reasonable to me. But 'formlessness' does not > mean "emptiness", and that, I suggest, is Marsha's problem. As I asked her, > what supports Nagarjuna's conclusion that "emptiness is not an essence"? Ham, such a reality is as ultimate as one wants to make it. It is not pointing at something, it is presenting an attitude. As you know, one's attitude colors the world. What emptiness means is that an object is not the endpoint, but that it is composed of its own causes. These causes are then composed of their causes. This regression goes endlessly back into the infinite past and will go forward into the infinite future. It is the same as pointing to waves. Waves do not exist on their own, but they are caused. To use this analogy, we can say that the waves are empty of true existence. There is no such thing as a wave if one takes the causes away. There are no such things as causes if one takes the causes for those causes away. Therefore, the wave is empty. Again, this is a logical technique to reach enlightenment. It is obvious that the end result of Buddhism is Good (selflessness), and everybody wants freedom, so it is a win win. It is the appreciation of this causality that brings in the attitude. Knowing that there is ultimately nothing to grasp implies that "the universe" is empty. There is no Essence, there is no subject, there is no object, all there is is causation, which can also be eliminated through this regression. Therefore there is "ultimately nothing". This does not actually mean that there is nothing since we see things all around us. What it means is that if one looks through the prism of Buddhism, these things do not exist on their own. The reason I brought in chemistry, is that such is the way that chemists think. When we get down to atoms then the physicists take over. They also cannot find any fundamental building blocks (although they claim to, but they are always changing their minds as to what they are. > > > Existence is a "conditional" system in that everything is subject to change. > Although we do not experience emptiness (i.e., nothingness) directly; we > experience differentiation which is the effect of nothingness on value > sensibility. But existence is only the phenomenal mode of reality -- the > SOM aspect. What light does this theory of emptiness shed on Ultimate > Reality? Emptiness is a construct derived from logic. We experience a construct when we think about it, in the same way we experience any concept. I experience something which we term "sadness". I experience it as sadness because that is the name we have given it. However, we could call it anything we want. If you take your conditionality of existence, and use that as your first and most important concept for reality, where does that take you. If you fully accept this premise, then I guarantee you will end up with Buddhism. Your construction of Essence, is something that inherently exists, therefore it is not conditional or changing. You are pointing to something on the other side of existence. Buddhism does not do this. It takes what is existent, not that which is not. The division of phenomenal and noumenal, is also an artificial split, these things do not really exist do they? They are simply presented as a form of understanding. It is the need to create something by comparing it to something it is not. Otherwise we would have nothing to talk about. It is this juxtaposition that gives a philosophy meaning. But, since we made it up, does it really exist? You tell me. I think I explained my understanding of why Emptiness is used to bring about enlightenment with Buddhists. Ultimate reality is something arrived at, it is not something one looks for. Emptiness is used as a tool to arrive there. As far as I am concerned, what we have right now IS ultimate reality. Why create something in addition? If we say that ultimate reality is something else, then what is this we are living in? It is as if this what we have is not enough. That is the definition of "suffering" as presented in Buddhism. If you need something more than this, then give Buddhism a try, and you won't have that need. Not because it satisfies that need, but because it removes it. Let me also say, that I study Buddhism, I do not live in its world. Principally because I like to keep seeking. > > > Yes, and it is precisely that purpose which Buddhist philosophy is lacking. > When an intelligent person like Marsha is persuaded by Nagarjuna that > reality is ultimately empty, Buddhism is doing us all a disservice in my > opinion. To be honest, I have no idea what Marsha thinks although I have been trying to discover what lurks beneath the words. So I will not speak for her. I still do not think you are using the word Empty quite right. It just means empty of inherent existence. This emptiness is firstly used to relieve one of the ego, then it is used to mediate on. Obviously it is not void. But I agree with you, the common conception of emptiness does not do us any good since it sounds like nihilism, which Buddhism if far from. > > Look, Mark, I understand that energy (or anti-matter) can be transformed to > substantive matter. But that isn't "starting from nothingess", is it? Even > physicists realize that in order to have a coherent universe, energy must be > created so as to conform to the system design. The Big Bang may have been > an event of great significance in the history of our universe, but it was > not the Creator nor the primary source of experiential beingness. Ham, there is nothing about transformation going on, and one thing is not turning to another, in my example. Things are being created from nothing, LITERALLY. That is, first there is nothing there, and then there is something there. The particle anti-particle pairs come out of NOWHERE. So yes, the starting point is Nothingness. It is like literally pulling a rabbit out of a hat. I have a lot of problem with the big bang as it is, so I will agree that it is no creator, it is simply a description provided by physics, since we like to think in terms of birth and death as coming from nowhere and going to nowhere. We need to think that our past contained a birth. In Buddhism, birth is the end of the cycle. There is no such thing as beginning and end, in my opinion, a circle describes existence much better than some linear model. That is why in space everything appears to circle. > > I'd be willing to read more on Buddhism if I thought it would enhance my > understanding of cosmology. As for recreating Buddhism for the Western > mind, I see no point to such efforts. What mankind needs is a belief system > whereby he can realize the full potential of his value sensibility, > understand his individuality as a rational agent, and exercise his authentic > role as the choice-maker of his universe. Buddhism is not for everyone, myself included. I do find it interesting to study however. I suppose that I like to keep learning. I also find a strand of determinism in Buddhism. However, I have been told by Buddhists that this is because I do not understand it properly. I can live with that. > > But thanks for the suggestion, Mark. I'll be anxious to explore your > ontology presentation. Yes, in progress. I am trying not to get stuck in endless logical circling. So bear with me. After Xmas when I have had a week off of work it should be ready to present to you. Don't expect too much, however. > > Happy holidays and a fulfilling new year to you and yours,. > Ham And you, Mark > > > > 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 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
