no such thing as emptiness

[rene]

I call them 'ideas'.

[3bob]

...and what do you call joy Rene?

[Stosh]

None of these claims would survive Madhyamaka analysis.

Right now Im thinking that Madhyamaka analysis is flawed in at least four critical places , which you can potentially correct me on.

One, That its adherents dont take a position other than negation , ( the said negation not being a positon)

Negation is still a position relative to a point being made by others, that it affirms nothing other than the difference of views, still is an assertion -affirmative point. (vague as it is)

Once I choose put on a ghi, and step in a ring, and stand in opposition, Im a combatant just like the other guy, choosing to stand there and be beat up, doesnt constitute winning the fight,( it might constitute winning a loss though)

Two ,I disaree that it is the only logical view , to say that- because my ideas are born of my senses and my senses are flawed , that the things I sensed dont exist. One can still posit that my sensation is subjective but is responding to external objectively 'real' things.( it just says that my subjective experience isnt conclusively 'real')

Three , like others have pointed out , once you claim you dont exist , you have undermined every argument you make ..since you cant make an argument if you dont exist.

and fourthly , Though I like yall well enough , and some of the ideas youall keep .. I still think you abandon the philosophy you profess (as soon as you need to eat or pass water or sleep or go to work or pay a bill..... and so on.)

 

Be all that as it may , It has all been discussed since long ago and the repercussions are pretty much nil relative to mundane requirements of living , which subjectively I opine is the place one can benificently apply their brainpower.

[joeblast]

Is this a physics forum Joe? How does this relate to emptiness?

so its not just politics and agw...put it into practice and how does it translate?

[C T]

Belief systems BS are the problem and until belief systems are seen through, resolved, liberated etc. no realization occurs. Hiding behind any philosophical structure for fear of the unknown is futile!

What a silly postulation.

 

Spiritual questers employ philosophical constructs as wisdom-developing tools, just as tradespeople employ tools to lay foundations, build solid frameworks and add structural finish, or, for that matter, chefs with their uncanny instinct for using a mix of ingredients, optimal measurements and correct heat settings to create worthwhile meals which bring satisfaction to others. Are they hiding behind their abilities, or perhaps utilizing their skilled knowledge out of fear?

 

The measurement of any system or technique is the end-result. Whether one moves forward or remain stagnant, evaluation is constantly needed, and one needs to be sharp and present to notice obstacles. How could this be reasonably achieved without having some sort of philosophical layout in place?

 

Dont you have any philosophical maps to guide you on your spiritual rounds? Those who attempt with experimentation, dabblers and self-teachings may at best achieve accidental breakthroughs, which are few and far between, not to mention the frequent meetings with anti-results which compound mental inertia and physical stresses. This sort of happenings are (unfortunately) already so obvious on TTB. Should we not strive to become a little more aware from the stories we read here everyday? I would hope so.

[konchog uma]

madhyamaka emptiness doesn't claim nonexistence

 

im sure people will correct me if im wrong, but my understanding is that it says phenomena are empty of inherent existence, of nonexistence, of both and of neither. The emptiness is of any kind of conceptual framework that one could build around phenomena. It is a philosophy designed to inspire a direct relationship with phenomena rather than a relationship with your concepts about them.

[RongzomFan]

madhyamaka emptiness doesn't claim nonexistence

 

right

 

im sure people will correct me if im wrong, but my understanding is that it says phenomena are empty of inherent existence, of nonexistence, of both and of neither.

 

no, this inherent stuff is from Tsongkhapa.

[konchog uma]

no, this inherent stuff is from Tsongkhapa.

 

oh i see. If you take the word inherent out, is it correct according to Indian madhyamaka?

[RongzomFan]

Belief systems BS are the problem and until belief systems are seen through, resolved, liberated etc. no realization occurs. Hiding behind any philosophical structure for fear of the unknown is futile!

 

 

I'm not aware of a stronger anti-belief system than Madhyamaka.

 

Madhyamaka is like atheism on steroids, demolishing all the ancient Indian belief systems. Thats why Madhyamaka books need an appendix to describe all the ancient Indian religions.

[RongzomFan]

oh i see. If you take the word inherent out, is it correct according to Indian madhyamaka?

 

Gelugs focus only on the negation of inherent existence (svabhava). This is indeed part of Madhyamaka, but if you stop at that point, thats Gelug crypto-realism as Namdrol says

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4557&start=0#p46675

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=6423&start=120#p78294

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=6423&start=200#p79902

Edited April 10, 2013 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

If you read any Madhyamaka root text yourself, the emphasis is on nonarisal / illusion.

[Vmarco]

madhyamaka emptiness doesn't claim nonexistence

 

im sure people will correct me if im wrong, but my understanding is that it says phenomena are empty of inherent existence, of nonexistence, of both and of neither. The emptiness is of any kind of conceptual framework that one could build around phenomena. It is a philosophy designed to inspire a direct relationship with phenomena rather than a relationship with your concepts about them.

A contemporary example of emptiness would be 3D scaffling. Emptiness is not the perceived space between perceived phenomena, but the phenomena itself.

 

When that Empty, the Empty of Form, is realized, it uncovers another Empty, the Empty of of the non-phenomena of Paranirvana. Nirvana is the opposite of dukkha,...but paranirvana is not opposite of anything.

 

Of course, it is useless to discuss the Other Empty without first uncovering the Empty of Form,...however, I find it useful to mention, to encourage the uncovering of the emptiness of phenomena.

 

Wei Wu Wei said, “Phenomenally, we can know no present, as it must be in the ‘past’ before our senses can complete the process of recording it, leaving only a suppositional past and future; noumenally, there is no question of ‘past’ or ‘future,’ but only a presence that knows neither ‘time’ nor ‘space.’ ”

[Vmarco]

 

 

yeah sure. lol

From my many discussions with Ralis, he has shown to have broad, hands-on experiences with most traditions within Buddhism,...likely more than myself. I've found that his personal exposure to some of the contemporary greats of Buddhism,...Norbu, Keith Dowman, various rinpoche's, etc., brings an expansiveness to any dialogue with him. To sluff him off as you do, is like tossing away nuts because you think the shells are better.

[rene]

...and what do you call joy Rene?

 

Ineffable.

 

warmest regards

[ralis]

I'm not aware of a stronger anti-belief system than Madhyamaka.

 

Madhyamaka is like atheism on steroids, demolishing all the ancient Indian belief systems. Thats why Madhyamaka books need an appendix to describe all the ancient Indian religions.

 

 

To use a philosophical reductionist system such as Madhyamaka becomes another belief system or constructed position. Why? Your stated claim that Indian belief systems are demolished by deconstruction, posits an inferior/false as opposed to superior/true. What about all the gray area in between those two absolute opposites that you cherish?

 

As I have stated many times belief systems BS are absolute constructs of 'isness'. 'Isness' being a control and authoritarian mechanism. Positing an absolute order according to analysis by human senses which stops short of understanding.

Edited April 10, 2013 by ralis

[RongzomFan]

From my many discussions with Ralis, he has shown to have broad, hands-on experiences with most traditions within Buddhism,...likely more than myself. I've found that his personal exposure to some of the contemporary greats of Buddhism,...Norbu, Keith Dowman, various rinpoche's, etc., brings an expansiveness to any dialogue with him. To sluff him off as you do, is like tossing away nuts because you think the shells are better.

 

[RongzomFan]

To use a philosophical reductionist system such as Madhyamaka becomes another belief system or constructed position.

 

There is no philosophical position taken in Madhyamaka. This is pretty well known.

 

Nagarjuna said "If I had any position, I thereby would be at fault. Since

I have no position, I am not at fault at all."

 

Aryadeva said "Against someone who has no thesis of “existence,

nonexistence, or [both] existence and nonexistence,” it is not possible to

level a charge, even if [this is tried] for a long time."

[Stosh]

No thesis , is not the same as nonimplicative negation

since one has vector- duality and the other does not

Edited April 10, 2013 by Stosh

[ralis]

There is no philosophical position taken in Madhyamaka. This is pretty well known.

 

Nagarjuna said "If I had any position, I thereby would be at fault. Since

I have no position, I am not at fault at all."

 

Aryadeva said "Against someone who has no thesis of “existence,

nonexistence, or [both] existence and nonexistence,” it is not possible to

level a charge, even if [this is tried] for a long time."

 

To take an adversarial position such as demolishing Indian Vedanta or whatever, posits a position against. If you can't see that then you have not asked yourself serious questions but are just deferring to Nagarjuna et al. which offers no defense.

[RongzomFan]

To take an adversarial position such as demolishing Indian Vedanta or whatever, posits a position against. If you can't see that then you have not asked yourself serious questions but are just deferring to Nagarjuna et al. which offers no defense.

 

[RongzomFan]

There is no philosophical position taken in Madhyamaka. This is pretty well known.

 

Nagarjuna said "If I had any position, I thereby would be at fault. Since

I have no position, I am not at fault at all."

 

Aryadeva said "Against someone who has no thesis of “existence,

nonexistence, or [both] existence and nonexistence,” it is not possible to

level a charge, even if [this is tried] for a long time."

 

 

bump

[RongzomFan]

To take an adversarial position such as demolishing Indian Vedanta or whatever, posits a position against. If you can't see that then you have not asked yourself serious questions but are just deferring to Nagarjuna et al. which offers no defense.

 

First off, Vedanta didn't exist yet. I'm not aware of Madhyamaka addressing Vedanta.

 

Secondly, you don't take an adversarial position. You just extend their own argument. This is called consequentialism or prasangika.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

for being no such thing as.... emptiness sure has drummed up a lot of "things" to say!

[ralis]

First off, Vedanta didn't exist yet. I'm not aware of Madhyamaka addressing Vedanta.

 

Secondly, you don't take an adversarial position. You just extend their own argument. This is called consequentialism or prasangika.

 

I said "Vedanta or whatever" to cover the scope of Indian philosophy.

[3bob]

"ineffable", thus we could say more than just an idea to be wordy about it