thuscomeone

Ok, good. Now, when you have the thought that "no such self can be found", do you want the experience of having that thought to continue? Do you feel afraid if it does not continue? Do thoughts opposite to that thought ("such a self CAN be found") ever arise in your experience, whether in your own mind or from others?

Lets start with this. What is a background to you? Would you agree that it is clinging to permanence?

I read his post. He was critiquing things which have become irrelevant to the discussion as we haved moved on from them and have started to talk about suffering.

Xabir, what are you most concerned with? Ending suffering or finding a permanent background/self to rest in? From your extremely long winded posts, it seems as if it is the latter. What you want is to find a view/certain mind state I.e. "all is empty" and rest in it undisturbed. And you will fear ever encountering the opposite of your view. For that matter, what do you consider to be suffering? You are the one who continuously talks about not clinging to an inherent background. Yet here you are doing it yourself.

You are right, that is a contradiction. You know, I am humble enough to admit that I am learning a lot from this discussion. I am seeing my own beliefs come out and changing them accordingly. Let me restate. It is not having a view that is wrong. It is clinging to your view and never wanting the opposite view to intrude, which it inevitably will. Your last paragraph is pretty much nonsense and just sounds like something you've heard and repeated without thinking about it yourself. If you don't cling to happiness as permanent, then you see that suffering is inevitable. Then what is there to be afraid of?

How am I contradicting myself? Not sure what you mean about "skanda of seeing forms." All I am saying is that it is our tendency to want things to be permanent that causes suffering. Period. That is the Buddha's whole insight on suffering. What you are seeking, and what you believe the buddha and nagarjuna taught, is that we should seek and rest in some permanent ground of being. That is the definition of samsara. Ajahn Amaro: "The Buddha, in the Theravada tradition, is always pulling away from creating a metaphysical description of Nibbana, the Beyond, Ultimate Reality. Instead he always comes right back to the focus of: “If there is suffering, it’s because there is clinging to something. An identity is being created.” That’s all we need to know. The rest is whipped cream. Over and over again such abstruse philosophical questions were put to the Buddha, and over and over again he would bring it back to: “I teach only dukkha and the ending of dukkha.” It’s not a matter of creating the perfect philosophical model (and then getting lost in it) but looking at how we feel now, what’s happening within our heart right now. As we recognize that, as we see dukkha being created, we trace it back. We realize there’s been some clinging; the clinging came from craving; the craving came from feeling; and the feeling came from that contact. We realize, “Aha! It was that thought that triggered this.” We see that and let it go. This is dukkha-nirodha, the ending of suffering. The ending of suffering is not some kind of Armageddon, a cosmic healing at the ending of time. The ending of suffering occurs at exactly the place where the suffering is generated. When we trace back some particular event of dukkha, when we see where it has arisen from and let go of it right there, then there is no suffering." From "Theravada Buddhism in a Nutshell" As a side note, I think one of the best books for understanding suffering is Wuthering Heights I think Emily Bronte may have had a little Buddha in her...

Right, it is a stateless state, a viewless view. The realization you speak of is itself a mental state -- a view. Thus it is clinging and suffering. My point is that emptiness is not about resting in a realized mind state. It is seeing that that tendency is the cause of suffering. That quote from the MMK does not mean what you think it means. Otherwise nagarjuna would not advocate abandoning clinging to the view of emptiness. He would say "cling to it." Anything which is dependent is inconstant ( even your "realization" of emptiness") and thus should not be clung to. That's what it means. And goldisheavy brought up the heart sutra. I was just commenting on what he said.

You are arguing semantics to prove that you are right. The Buddha clearly speaks of emptiness in the pali canon, which I have just shown you. If it is not the kind of emptiness you wanted, too bad. As you have said, these quotes are about anatta, the emptiness of self. The only emptiness that is relevant to suffering. And yes, I admit my mistake with the quotes.

What, do you think I forged the Buddha's words? I copied and pasted the links. Nevertheless, you can see from the parts that are there that he does directly speak of emptiness in the pali canon. Google them if you must have further confirmation.

The Blessed One said to venerable Sàriputta. `Sàriputta, your mental faculties are bright, skin colour is pure, in which abiding, do you spend your time mostly? Venerable sir, I spend my time mostly in voidness (suññatāvihārena = emptiness abiding). It's good Sàriputta, you abide mostly in the abiding of great beings. http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-...isuddhi-e.html Whatever contemplatives and priests who at present enter & remain in an emptiness that is pure, superior & unsurpassed, they all enter & remain in this very same emptiness that is pure, superior & unsurpassed. Therefore, Ananda, you should train yourselves: 'We will enter & remain in the emptiness that is pure, superior & unsurpassed.'" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....121.than.html "And what is the nothingness release of mind? There is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, [perceiving,] 'There is nothing,' enters & remains in the dimension of nothingness. This is called the nothingness release of mind. "And what is the emptiness release of mind? There is the case where a monk, having gone into the wilderness, to the root of a tree, or into an empty dwelling, considers this: 'This is empty of self or of anything pertaining to self.' This is called the emptiness release of mind. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....043.than.html Again, please think before you post. I never said the heart sutra and the pali canon were the same. I was replying to gold. You are only showing your ignorance. Meditating on emptiness is not quieting the mind. It is simply being aware of bad tendencies. So it isn't a path of practice? Again, hypocritical. Xabir's blog is pointing to a very specific practice and cultivation which leads to very specific experiences.

...

Sunnata is not a view, it is the pacifying of all views. Ever heard of the emptiness of emptiness? That statement does not mean what you think it means. It means that form is inconstant so making images out of it and trying to rest in them is the cause of suffering I.e, the heart sutra says "no eye, no ear..."Please read the pali canon. A view of emptiness still involves a view of self and thus clinging. All views lead to suffering. Yes it most certainly is a specific experience. It is a mind state which is cultivated. You are a hypocrite as what you claim to be truth above is itself a specific experience/mind state/belief. "As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress." Your view of emptiness involves a self - an ultimate ground from which phenomena come. Thus it will only lead to suffering as the buddha states above. no self, all self, empty self -- its all self and all suffering.

I freely admit that I made previous errors in speculating on ontology. But I am not very concerned with dwelling on them. There is no limitation in following the path outined by the buddha for ending suffering. That is all I am doing. I have not said that there is continuity or discontinuity.

...

The Buddha was concerned with ontology only so far as it relieves suffering. Yes there is a bit of ontology, but the teaching isn't about resting contently in some ultimate ground of being. It is medicine to cure a disease. Part of that disease ends up being ontological views. You are trying to justify suicide in the context of being detached. People do not commit suicide because they are detached in the way you describe. They do so because of suffering resulting from strong attachment. Think about what you write before you do it. Frankly I am pretty offended by some of your careless views, the unpleasant way you often come across, and your insistence that I don't believe in rebirth. It is all very annoying.

We were discussing ontology. That will lead nowhere. I am trying to do us a favor and cut the fat out of this discussion and focus on on what is really important: suffering. What a sick view that is. So this life only matters because of the supposed next life. You are only living to get to the next life? That is just the kind of mind created suffering and delusion that the Buddha spoke of. No offense, but you need to examine both your head and the Buddha's teachings. Personally, this life is the only one I know for sure. So I would like to be happy during it. And I never said I didn't believe in a next life. Any view about it is a view and thus causes suffering.

I am not interested in your questions on my views. As I said, I have seen that that is all speculation that does not lead to the end of suffering. They are different realizations but they are connected. If you would like to continue talking suffering, I'm game. As I said before, in the context of this topic, I believe that enlightenment = knowing and abandoning the causes of suffering.

I told you that I am_not_concerned_with_ontology here. an is a prefix for no. atta means permanence/permanent self. Atman means soul, eternal self. What do you think anatta and anatman therefore mean? Is this difficult? I said that impermanence is only important in the context of ending suffering. If you want to understand suffering, you must understand impermanence. I am not "nit picking", I am discussing the three characteristics. Possibly Buddha's most important teaching along with the 4NT.

In my experience, emptiness is not an ontological view, but a state of mind which has no clinging to concepts and permanence. In the Buddha quote above, I would say that "neither earth nor fire nor water nor wind..." and so on, only refers to the absence of these things as mental concepts. So is nirvana permanent? It is difficult to say. On the one hand it is a state of mind and is thus subject to change like all states of mind. On the other hand, it is typically a permanent realization. But nirvana, in terms of the content of the mind state, takes no heed of notions such as permanence and impermanence. It is my view that the self is thought, which creates the illusion of permanence. Seeing through this illusion, one realizes anatta (absence of atta or permanence) in context with ending suffering.

I should actually restate my position here. What I am most concerned with is ending suffering. Yet again and again I find myself getting tangled in the thicket of ontological views, as this topic shows. Let me restate that I believe impermanence is only important in the context of suffering. The most important thing to know about impermanence is that nothing lasts forever. What I have found so far is that dukkha/suffering (fear, anxiety, stress, hate, etc.) arises when we seek permanence. Concepts create permanence. So we cling to our thoughts -- our little island in the middle of this vast ocean. And we hope that we will never be disturbed. But the ocean inevitably washes over us (annica) and then we cling tighter to that island and grow more afraid. The way out is not through ontology, but through awareness of our conceptual clinging, and letting go of it (anatta). Then that dimension in the quote opens up and there is Nirvana.

Thank you very much for sharing. Yes, it is certainly easy to mistakenly believe that someone else will understand perfectly what one believes oneself. Empathy is the key, I believe.

I apologize if I come across as preachy. But I don't apologize for presenting it as fact. It is a fact. I have seen it. At least until someone can convince me otherwise. Which they haven't thus far.

gold, the problem, like I said, lies in the establishment of identity. If we are going to continue this, we need to start with that. The problem I see with your position is that you are starting by assuming entities and thus identity. From there, everything goes astray. For example, you assume from the start that there is something substantial that can be called thought. I don't, because what we call thought is never the same. I think this is partly a language problem too because language presumes solid entities. You are starting by assuming that there are entities and then arguing that they are the same or different. Whereas impermanence reveals ultimately there are no entities in the first place to be the same or different. "There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support [mental object]. This, just this, is the end of stress." — Ud 8.1 (note that this is not nihilism)

Sameness and difference are labels that imply permanence, stability and the absence of change. There is change. Ergo, those labels do not apply. Have fun during your stay in samsara.

No. Difference (with some similarity) from moment to moment (impermanence) is correct conventional truth while sameness is not. This belief in sameness -- continuity, permanence, atta, atman -- is the result of all our misery. As long as you cling to any thought, any view, you are clinging to a subtle atta and will suffer. Yes difference and sameness are both conventional and ultimately both get dissolved in the end. But one is a much better map than the other.