How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[thuscomeone]

None of your links work.

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.

Edited July 2, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

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

Ok...whew, I had to google those quotes...

 

That quote is from Sariputta quoting a section from the Buddha's teaching on liberating each states of jhanas.

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.106.than.html

 

"Then again, the disciple of the noble ones, 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.' Practicing & frequently abiding in this way, his mind acquires confidence in that dimension. There being full confidence, he either attains the dimension of nothingness now or else is committed to discernment. With the break-up of the body, after death, it's possible that this leading-on consciousness of his will go to the dimension of nothingness. This is declared to be the second practice conducive to the dimension of nothingness.

 

"Then again, the disciple of the noble ones considers this: 'I am not anyone's anything anywhere; nor is anything of mine in anyone anywhere.' Practicing & frequently abiding in this way, his mind acquires confidence in that dimension"

 

If you follow the discourse the part about emptiness is not used in the sense of Mahayanas, but as a stage in understanding the emptiness of self (anatta) when traversing the various janas, which is not why shunyata is revered as a realization in Mahayana. Shunyata is present in the pali canon, but so directly in the way Mayahana or the Heart Sutra, which you quoted, links it to dependent origination.

Edited July 2, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

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.

Whoa, no, no. It's kinda weird you wrote: "think before you post!" and then none of your links work. .

[Lucky7Strikes]

And the earlier link you quoted is not the emptiness propounded in the Heart Sutra. It rather has to do with concentration and a path to developing shamatha jhanas all the way to nothingness, then to perception or non-perception...

 

[The Buddha:] "Yes, Ananda, you heard that correctly, learned it correctly, attended to it correctly, remembered it correctly. Now, as well as before, I remain fully in a dwelling of emptiness. Just as this palace of Migara's mother is empty of elephants, cattle, & mares, empty of gold & silver, empty of assemblies of women & men, and there is only this non-emptiness — the singleness based on the community of monks; even so, Ananda, a monk — not attending to the perception[1] of village, not attending to the perception of human being — attends to the singleness based on the perception of wilderness. His mind takes pleasure, finds satisfaction, settles, & indulges in its perception of wilderness.

 

"He discerns that 'Whatever disturbances that would exist based on the perception of village are not present. Whatever disturbances that would exist based on the perception of human being are not present. There is only this modicum of disturbance: the singleness based on the perception of wilderness.' He discerns that 'This mode of perception is empty of the perception of village. This mode of perception is empty of the perception of human being. There is only this non-emptiness: the singleness based on the perception of wilderness.' Thus he regards it as empty of whatever is not there. Whatever remains, he discerns as present: 'There is this.' And so this, his entry into emptiness, accords with actuality, is undistorted in meaning, & pure."

 

The emptiness in the heart sutra is more in realizing the dependent nature of all phenomena..it has more to do with the "release" the Buddha speaks about in the end:

 

"He discerns that 'This theme-less concentration of awareness is fabricated & mentally fashioned.' And he discerns that 'Whatever is fabricated & mentally fashioned is inconstant & subject to cessation.' For him — thus knowing, thus seeing — the mind is released from the effluent of sensuality, the effluent of becoming, the effluent of ignorance. With release, there is the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'

 

That all states of awareness are mentally fabricated! Including any state to remain in abide in.

Edited July 2, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

And the earlier link you quoted is not the emptiness propounded in the Heart Sutra. It rather has to do with concentration and a path to developing shamatha jhanas all the way to nothingness, then to perception or non-perception...

 

[The Buddha:] "Yes, Ananda, you heard that correctly, learned it correctly, attended to it correctly, remembered it correctly. Now, as well as before, I remain fully in a dwelling of emptiness. Just as this palace of Migara's mother is empty of elephants, cattle, & mares, empty of gold & silver, empty of assemblies of women & men, and there is only this non-emptiness — the singleness based on the community of monks; even so, Ananda, a monk — not attending to the perception[1] of village, not attending to the perception of human being — attends to the singleness based oupn the perception of wilderness. His mind takes pleasure, finds satisfaction, settles, & indulges in its perception of wilderness.

 

"He discerns that 'Whatever disturbances that would exist based on the perception of village are not present. Whatever disturbances that would exist based on the perception of human being are not present. There is only this modicum of disturbance: the singleness based on the perception of wilderness.' He discerns that 'This mode of perception is empty of the perception of village. This mode of perception is empty of the perception of human being. There is only this non-emptiness: the singleness based on the perception of wilderness.' Thus he regards it as empty of whatever is not there. Whatever remains, he discerns as present: 'There is this.' And so this, his entry into emptiness, accords with actuality, is undistorted in meaning, & pure.

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.

Edited July 2, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

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.

....

 

Nice constructive criticism...

 

Look into the usage...

 

Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Treatise on the Middle Way):

 

Whatever is dependently co-arisen,

That is explained to be emptiness.

That, being a dependent designation,

Is itself the middle way. (Treatise, 24.18)

 

Something that is not dependently arisen,

Such a thing does not exist.

Therefore a nonempty thing

Does not exist. (Treatise, 24.19)

 

But anyways, I made too strong a statement by saying emptiness is not in the Pali canon (but I did say indirectly). I should've said the way emptiness as emphasized in the Mahayana (as in the Heart Sutra) and Vajrayana traditions is presented as dependent origination.

 

The point of this discussion was whether emptiness (as used in the Mahayana doctrine I presumed since you brought up the Heart Sutra) was a state to enter in. As the quotes discourse above shows, it is not. The Buddha says

 

He discerns that 'This theme-less concentration of awareness is fabricated & mentally fashioned.' And he discerns that 'Whatever is fabricated & mentally fashioned is inconstant & subject to cessation.'

 

Meaning all concentrative states, including the jhanas of nothingness/perception-nonperception, formless, themselves, or whatever arises due to mental fabrications. Recognizing it as such is realization of their "emptiness." Hence it is not a state, but a recognition, a realization.

Edited July 2, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

....

 

Nice constructive criticism...

 

Look into the usage...

 

Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Treatise on the Middle Way):

 

Whatever is dependently co-arisen,

That is explained to be emptiness.

That, being a dependent designation,

Is itself the middle way. (Treatise, 24.18)

 

Something that is not dependently arisen,

Such a thing does not exist.

Therefore a nonempty thing

Does not exist. (Treatise, 24.19)

 

But anyways, I made too strong a statement by saying emptiness is not in the Pali canon (but I did say indirectly). I should've said the way emptiness as emphasized in the Mahayana (as in the Heart Sutra) and Vajrayana traditions is presented as dependent origination.

 

The point of this discussion was whether emptiness (as used in the Mahayana doctrine I presumed since you brought up the Heart Sutra) was a state to enter in. As the quotes discourse above shows, it is not. The Buddha says

 

He discerns that 'This theme-less concentration of awareness is fabricated & mentally fashioned.' And he discerns that 'Whatever is fabricated & mentally fashioned is inconstant & subject to cessation.'

 

Meaning all concentrative states, including the jhanas of nothingness/perception-nonperception, formless, themselves, or whatever arises due to mental fabrications. Recognizing it as such is realization of their "emptiness." Hence it is not a state, but a recognition, a realization.

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.

Edited July 2, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

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.

Your understanding is more in line with the "neti, neti" approach. "Don't cling! Don't cling!"

 

Or you are simple trying to end the skanda of seeing forms. But after that you will just have flowing sensations, which is not any understanding or wisdom at all.

 

Also, you are contradicting yourself again as you did in the discussion about continuity.

 

"Yes it most certainly is a specific experience. It is a mind state which is cultivated." is what you said! And you followed that up with a out of context quote about abiding in "voidness" by sariputta...

 

It is seeing that that tendency is the cause of suffering.

But that is another "seeing" isn't it? Another view according to your line of thinking? Emptiness of emptiness? You see how your approach of "not this" "not that" is just a neurotic cycle?

 

Understand that you can't "cling" to that which always is. It is self-evident and effortless as it reveals its truth moment by moment. Infact, reality cannot be clung to at all, because it is by nature empty. That's why it is said that samsara has not even risen at all, but that it is nirvana itself. Understanding this leads to effortless recognition of all this arising, hence it is said that phenomena self-liberate upon arising, this is the simultaneousness of arising and passing away.

Edited July 2, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

Your understanding is more in line with the "neti, neti" approach.

 

Or you are simple trying to end the skanda of seeing forms. But after that you will just have flowing sensations, which is not any understanding or wisdom at all.

 

You are contradicting yourself again as you did in the discussion about continuity.

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...

Edited July 2, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

The "end of suffering" is just a by-product of enlightenment.

 

You can not be, 50, 75 or 99 per cent enlightened. To the few it occurs to, it is swift, sudden, and irreversible. There will be no further seeking after. It is the end of self. You will no longer believe yourself to be separate.

 

On the contrary. Delusion comes in degrees. You can be more grossly deluded or more subtly deluded. Enlightenment is not an all or nothing phenomenon and nor is its onset sudden. Enlightenment represents a profound change in how we view ourselves and the world, and that change is not something sudden. Enlightenment is only "sudden" in the sense that it occurs now, because now is the only time we have. So it's sudden in a kind of mystical sense, but not in a practical day to day sense. In a practical day to day sense enlightenment develops over the years or even lifetimes.

 

If you still see "Us vs Them", or any derivative of that, you are not enlightened.

If you still say "I am right, You are wrong", you are not enlightened.

 

You can say whatever you want once enlightened. Enlightenment strips limitations instead of endowing one with limitations.

 

There is only one thing you need to do - stop thinking. Your mind is incapable of knowing Truth. When you turn off the mental chatter, that space will instantly be filled with Stillness; like air rushing into an unsealed vacuum. Start with one second, then try for two. Escalate. Persistence is the key.

 

The mind is most definitely capable of knowing Truth, and in fact, since the mind is the seat of knowledge, if you ever know Truth, it will be your mind that will know it and not your foot or chair.

Edited July 3, 2011 by goldisheavy

[thuscomeone]

Your understanding is more in line with the "neti, neti" approach. "Don't cling! Don't cling!"

 

Or you are simple trying to end the skanda of seeing forms. But after that you will just have flowing sensations, which is not any understanding or wisdom at all.

 

Also, you are contradicting yourself again as you did in the discussion about continuity.

 

"Yes it most certainly is a specific experience. It is a mind state which is cultivated." is what you said! And you followed that up with a out of context quote about abiding in "voidness" by sariputta...

Io

 

But that is another "seeing" isn't it? Another view according to your line of thinking? Emptiness of emptiness? You see how your approach of "not this" "not that" is just a neurotic cycle?

 

Understand that you can't "cling" to that which always is. It is self-evident and effortless as it reveals its truth moment by moment. Infact, reality cannot be clung to at all, because it is by nature empty. That's why it is said that samsara has not even risen at all, but that it is nirvana itself. Understanding this leads to effortless recognition of all this arising, hence it is said that phenomena self-liberate upon arising, this is the simultaneousness of arising and passing away.

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?

Edited July 3, 2011 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

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.

No, the realization of emptiness is not a view.

 

The view must be distinguished from the realization, and from the practice.

 

I wish you guys could read the very long Chinese article (which I wrote to my local and Taiwanese dharma teacher - it is an article about my recent realization of emptiness) which explains all these in details... but I don't have the time to translate so I will write in short a few points.

 

View, realization, practice.

 

 

View: understand dependent origination, emptiness. An indispensible factor that leads to realization. Do not think 'viewless view is highest, therefore I should abandon all views' - view that leads to realization itself will be abandoned by the realization. In other words, before you ride the raft to the other shore, don't jump into the river or abandon ship. But when you reach the shore, it is natural that you would abandon the raft. But not prematurely.

 

 

Realization: realizing everything as being like an illusion but not an illusion. More later.

 

Practice: if everything is like an illusion but not an illusion, there is nothing to grasp, since nothing to grasp, there is nothing to abandon, nothing to cling and abandon... this is the 'practice'.

 

 

 

 

About the realization of emptiness: emptiness is twofold.

 

 

(glossary)

 

"Two emptinesses (二空) include (1) emptiness of self, the ātman, the soul, in a person composed of the five aggregates, constantly changing with causes and conditions; and (2) emptiness of selves in all dharmas—each of the five aggregates, each of the twelve fields, and each of the eighteen spheres, as well as everything else with no independent existence. No-self in any dharma implies no-self in a person, but the latter is separated out in the first category. Realization of the emptiness of self in a person will lead to attainment of Arhatship or Pratyekabuddhahood. Bodhisattvas who have realized both emptinesses ascend to the First Ground on their Way to Buddhahood."

 

 

 

How does emptiness of dharmas help, you ask? They are necessary for deepening liberation. You said: only emptiness of self is necessary for liberation. Yes this is true, BUT Emptiness of Dharma IS the Emptiness of Self, it is the same insight but taken a lot further - Bodhisattvas apply the wisdom of emptiness in all aspects of life and daily encounters so they remain liberated while fully engaged in samsara. They realize the emptiness not only of selves but of all dharmas and phenomena. Bodhisattvas do not seek a Nirvana over samsara, they remain and return to samsara and yet remain liberated engaging and liberating others. They abide in the Nirvana of non-abiding, neither steering towards the Arhat's cessation nor towards clinging of samsara. Master Shen Kai (my Mahayana master) writes: "Bodhisattvas enter the world to save beings as their appointment. They require the four (entering-world) patience: 1) The patience of birthless dharma, 2) The patience of cessation-less dharma, 3) The patience of obtaining causes and conditions, 4) The patience of non-abiding. All dharmas, it's nature is empty and quiescent, originally it is without birth; since it is without birth, there is no cessation; all dharmas, depend on the aggregation of causes and conditions for its arising, and depends on the meeting of causes and conditions for its cessation; Bodhisattvas live in the world of arising and subsiding dharmas, transforming beings according to conditions, saving them from sufferings and difficulties, saving the world and its beings, not abiding in any dharmas, therefore it is called non-abiding. Bodhisattvas are able to attain the four patience dharmas, therefore they are also able to transcend all breaking of precepts and transgressions, therefore this is called 'liberate beings dharma patience."

 

Because the nature of samsara is birthless, deathless, empty and quiescent, samsara is nirvana when rightly seen. This is the nirvana of bodhisattvas, not the cessation of feelings and perceptions (nirodha samapatti) that arhats enter after death.

 

 

Now, about the realization of emptiness, I set up a new section in my e-book dedicated to the realization of emptiness... recently.

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html

 

Realization is not view. Loppon Namdrol:

At base, the main fetter of self-grasping is predicated upon naive reification of existence and non-existence. Dependent origination is what allows us to see into the non-arising nature of dependently originated phenomena, i.e. the self-nature of our aggregates. Thus, right view is the direct seeing, in meditative equipoise, of this this non-arising nature of all phenomena. As such, it is not a "view" in the sense that is something we hold as concept, it is rather a wisdom which "flows" into our post-equipoise and causes us to truly perceive the world in the following way in Nagarjuna's Bodhicittavivarana:

 

"Form is similar to a foam,

Feeling is like water bubbles,

Ideation is equivalent with a mirage,

Formations are similar with a banana tree,

Consciousness is like an illusion."

 

...

 

"In other words, right view is the beginning of the noble path. It is certainly the case that dependent origination is "correct view"; when one analyzes a bit deeper, one discovers that in the case "view" means being free from views. The teaching of dependent origination is what permits this freedom from views. The teaching of dependent origination is what permits this freedom from views."

 

 

Thusness: The real purpose is the ‘freedom’ from ‘inherent’ view and then releases itself from any forming of ‘views’ so that the magic of functioning can be realized and directly experienced. However during the journey, there is always attachment here and there… therefore the ‘emptying of emptiness’. We go through step by step in dissolving the knot of ‘inherency’ till we see that ‘mind’ is the full embodiment of the immediate marvelous activity. Just eating, seeing, sensing, tasting, thinking...simply sound, thoughts, scenery and scents. Nothing within and without, only this spontaneous miraculous functioning, an interplay of dharma. When we entertain conceptual knowledge and seek unchanging Awareness or Self, the marvelous ‘interconnectedness’ of functioning is being misunderstood as ‘something’ being transformed into ‘something’ as if ‘winter’ has been transformed into ‘spring’.

 

It is also important to take note not to ascribe the functioning to a ‘higher’ power. That is because of ‘a thought of personality’ that creates the confusion. If there is no attachment to a self, identity, personality, then the functioning itself is marvellous without reification, or any form of personification.

Also, to truly get into this ‘magic’ of functioning, the doing away of the ‘how’ is also important. It arises when we penetrate and look deeply the where-about of anything. Just magical appearances.

 

 

 

My description of the realization:

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/06/unborn-dharma.html

I should say the realization of the unborn dharma (from shunyata) arose the day after you sent me this PM - the details of which can be found in the last ten to twenty pages of my ebook - new materials just added on sunday, in a new chapter called "shunyata". The realization arose spontaneously while simultaneously reading and contemplating an article from a highly experienced mahamudra practitioner/blogger, Chodpa, owner of the blog luminous emptiness.

 

The realization of unborn from the perspective of emptiness is the realization that everything experienced - thoughts and sensate perceptions are utterly unlocatable, ungraspable, empty. In investigation where did thought arise from, where is thought currently located, and where will thought go to, it is discovered that thoughts are indeed like a magician's trick! No source can be located, no destination can be found, and the thought is located nowhere at all - it is unfindable, ungraspable... Yet "it" magically and vividly appears! Out of nowhere, in nowhere, to nowhere, dependently originated and empty... A magical apparition appears, vividly luminously yet empty. When this is seen, there is an amazement, wonder, and great bliss arising out of direct cognition of the magic of empty luminosity. So how is this linked to unborn? It is realized that everything is literally an appearance, a display, a function, and this display is nowhere inherent or located anywhere - so like a dream, like a tv show, characters of the show may vividly appear to suffer birth and death and yet we know it is simply a show - it's undeniably there (vividly appearing) yet it's not really there. It has no actual birth, death, place of origin, place of abidance, place of destination, ground, core, substance.

 

...

 

Lankavatara Sutra:

Mahamati: How did the Bodhisattvas and Mahasattvas abandon the view of an absolute arising, dwelling, or dissolving?

 

[buddha]: They abandoned it in this manner. They cognized that all phenomena are like an ephemeral illusion and dream, that they are detached from the duality of self and others, and that they are therefore unborn [emptiness.] They focused on the mind's manifestations and cognized external reality as unreal. By perceiving the unreality of phenomena, they brought about the cessation of the outflowing sensory consciousness. Because they cognized the unreality of their psychosomatic aggregates and the interacting conditions of the three planes of cosmic existence as originating from their deluded mind, they saw external and internal phenomena as devoid of any inherent nature and as transcending all concepts. Having abandoned the view of an absolute arising [of phenomena,] they realized the illusory nature and thereby attained insight into the unborn Dharma [expanse of emptiness.]

 

The text further states that by abandoning the view of arising, dwelling or dissolving through the realization, you attain the first (or even to the eighth) bhumi's patience of the birthlessness of dharma.

....

 

Emptiness... emptiness....

 

In normal, everyday life, when someone uses the word “emptiness”, it usually has a negative connotion.

 

Like a 'lack of something'... like as if life is lacking something (e.g. "life feels so empty nowadays"). If anything, things lack ‘inherent, unchanging, independent existence’… yet they are wondrously, intensely vividly luminous and apparent!

 

Unfortunately, the teaching of 'emptiness', along with other teachings of Buddha (including the most common misperception of Buddha's teaching as 'Life is Suffering' which is certainly NOT what he said!*) gives the misconception of Buddhism as having a life-denying, pessimistic view of the world.

 

But this is NOT the Buddhist understanding of Emptiness!

 

Form is emptiness, emptiness IS form!

 

Emptiness IS Fullness!

 

I can assure you when you realize emptiness, you will marvel, be amazed, at the whole universe as a magical apparition... it's like Whoa, the universe is magic, luminous and empty, clearly manifest yet no-thing 'there'! No place of origin, place of abidance, and destination - to thoughts, to sensate experiences... just a clear display of luminous apparitions. Shunyata is a wonder.

 

This is a wonderful truth... This is nothing dreadful... and is nothing short of Great Bliss.

 

The luminous and empty universe is spontaneously perfected, lacking nothing, amazing!

 

 

*The Buddha taught that suffering is a part and parcel of life, or to put it more simply, 'there is suffering in life', and that there is a way to end suffering. He did NOT say "Life is Suffering" or "Life can only be suffering" even though sadly, this is what many teachers are promoting - their own distortion of Buddha's original words. For more info see this well-written article: Life Isn't Just Suffering by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

 

 

 

(update) p.s. found something from a great article,

 

http://www.ktgrinpoche.org/KTGR%20Buddhadharm%20Flashing%20Lances.pdf

 

"When you put the two truths together in this

way, you get Milarepa’s two lines:

 

E ma, the phenomena of the three realms

of samsara,

While not existing, they appear –

how incredibly amazing!

 

The three realms of samsara are dreamlike

– while not existing they appear, while appearing

they are empty of inherent nature, and so they

are miraculous."

Edited July 3, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

No, I really am not missing it. It is quite simple. Any view which contains a "self" contains within it the seeds of suffering. Any view of rebirth contains a view of self. It is cautioning against the thicket of views that lead to suffering.

 

It is not about finding the right view of self.

On the contrary, the Buddha clearly states that understanding there is rebirth is part of the right view.

 

Umm...

 

7. Whether the enlightened one exists after death,

 

 

8. or does not exist after death,

 

 

9. or both exists and does not exist after death,

 

 

10. neither exists nor does not exist after death

 

No, the Buddha denied there is an atman that can exist, or not exist after death.

 

He does not deny rebirth, which does not require a concept of soul. Right understanding of rebirth (as contrast to the Hindu understanding that posits an atman reincarnating) does not require a soul concept.

 

For example:

 

"What is it, Venerable Sir, that will be reborn?"

 

"A psycho-physical combination (//nama-rupa//), O King."

 

"But how, Venerable Sir? Is it the same psycho-physical

combination as this present one?"

 

"No, O King. But the present psycho-physical combination produces

kammically wholesome and unwholesome volitional activities, and

through such kamma a new psycho-physical combination will be

born."

 

~ Nagasena

 

 

Belief in karma and rebirth is one of the things in Buddhism that requires faith (until you have meditative experience of recalling past lives and tracing karma, which many people I know have). Take up the right view by faith first until you can verify it.

Edited July 3, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

[Vajrahridaya]

[thuscomeone]

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.

Edited July 3, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Vajrahridaya]

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 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?

 

Did you not read his post? Your comment here is not reflective of understanding a thing he has posted here. So, why even comment?

[xabir2005]

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 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?

There is no such permanent background/self. That is an illusion that is seen through for almost a year.

 

I do not cling to any views: I simply state that you need a view, the right view, in order to attain realization, which then dissolves the view.

 

By the way, emptiness has nothing to do with a background... I think you don't quite understand what emptiness means, you should read this: http://www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html

Edited July 3, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Did you not read his post? Your comment here is not reflective of understanding a thing he has posted here. So, why even comment?

Yeah. Thuscomeone didn't quite get what I said.

[xabir2005]

You asked me what I am concerned with.

 

I am not even concerned about suffering. Concerning is a form of suffering.

 

See highlighted:

 

When Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara was practicing the profound Prajna Paramita, he illuminated the Five Skandhas and saw that they are all empty, and he crossed beyond all suffering and difficulty.

 

Shariputra, form does not differ from emptiness; emptiness does not differ from form. Form itself is emptiness; emptiness itself is form. So too are feeling, cognition, formation, and consciousness.

 

Shariputra, all Dharmas are empty of characteristics. They are not produced, not destroyed, not defiled, not pure; and they neither increase nor diminish. Therefore, in emptiness there is no form, feeling, cognition, formation, or consciousness; no eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, or mind; no sights, sounds, smells, tastes, objects of touch, or Dharmas; no field of the eyes up to and including no field of mind consciousness; and no ignorance or ending of ignorance, up to and including no old age and death or ending of old age and death. There is no suffering, no accumulating, no extinction, and no Way, and no understanding and no attaining.

 

Because nothing is attained, the Bodhisattva through reliance on Prajna Paramita is unimpeded in his mind. Because there is no impediment, he is not afraid, and he leaves distorted dream-thinking far behind. Ultimately Nirvana! All Buddhas of the three periods of time attain Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi through reliance on Prajna Paramita. Therefore know that Prajna Paramita is a Great Spiritual Mantra, a Great Bright Mantra, a Supreme Mantra, an Unequalled Mantra. It can remove all suffering; it is genuine and not false. That is why the Mantra of Prajna Paramita was spoken. Recite it like this:

 

Gaté Gaté Paragaté Parasamgaté

 

Bodhi Svaha!

 

End of The Heart of Prajna Paramita Sutra

 

 

Copyright © 1997 Buddhist Text Translation Society,

For permission to reproduce in any format

whatsoever, contact:

 

The International Translation Institute

1777 Murchison Drive

Burlingame, CA USA, 94010-4504

 

(415) 692-5912 phone

(415) 692-5056 fax

Edited July 3, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

What you want is to find a view/certain mind state I.e. "all is empty" and rest in it undisturbed.

First of all, emptiness is not a view, second, it is not a state but the true nature of all selves and phenomena, third, it is not a background.

 

You really need to read this: http://www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html

 

Emptiness is not a substance

Emptiness is not a substratum or background

Emptiness is not light

Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness

Emptiness is not the Absolute

Emptiness does not exist on its own

Objects do not consist of emptiness

Objects do not arise from emptiness

Emptiness of the "I" does not negate the "I"

Emptiness is not the feeling that results when no objects are appearing to the mind

Meditating on emptiness does not consist of quieting the mind

Edited July 3, 2011 by xabir2005

[thuscomeone]

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.

[thuscomeone]

First of all, emptiness is not a view, second, it is not a state but the true nature of all selves and phenomena, third, it is not a background.

 

You really need to read this: http://www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html

 

Emptiness is not a substance

Emptiness is not a substratum or background

Emptiness is not light

Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness

Emptiness is not the Absolute

Emptiness does not exist on its own

Objects do not consist of emptiness

Objects do not arise from emptiness

Emptiness of the "I" does not negate the "I"

Emptiness is not the feeling that results when no objects are appearing to the mind

Meditating on emptiness does not consist of quieting the mind

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

Edited July 3, 2011 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

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

Yes. A background as in a self persisting throughout experience. No such self can be found to exist.

[thuscomeone]

Yes. A background as in a self persisting throughout experience. No such self can be found to exist.

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?

Edited July 3, 2011 by thuscomeone