Dzogchen and Brahman....Same or Different?

[stefos]

Hi everyone!

 

Apparently, I was barred or stopped from posting here.

 

I don't know why as I've always tried to be respectful yet firm in my statements to people.

 

Anyway It's good to be back

 

 

So....Kadag & Lhundrub which IS the state of Dzogchen and Brahman......

How do YOU see the difference?

Is there one?

 

Note: I'm not talking about the way or "methodology" of "reaching" enlightenment.

 

Once the ego vanishes....Can one "navigate" through or within THAT sphere?

Would "one" want to?

 

This is both a Rhetorical questions and a non-Rhetorical question by the way.

 

Comments please!

 

Kadag & Lhundrub

Sat Chit Anand

 

P.S. The Dzogchen practice of "Self Liberation" and the self liberation of thoughts is also being taught by the Bihar school of yoga incidentally in their book Dharana Darshan albeit not by the name "Self Liberation."

 

It's interesting, when one does comparative religious studies, how Buddhist circles and Non-Buddhist Tantric & Higher levels of teaching, share the same practices. Of course, things are different in their framework.

Edited September 2, 2014 by stefos

[Seeker of Wisdom]

The difference between Brahman and Buddha-nature is that Brahman is considered to not be empty, but the absolute source and ground of all existence.

 

Buddha-nature

 

This causes a lot of confusion, often being taken in a way that contradicts anatta and emptiness. Buddha-nature is not a special, independent substantial thing hidden underneath all the other stuff.

 

Adapting an earlier Greg Goode quote:

 

"It is easy to misunderstand Buddha-nature by idealizing or reifying it by thinking that it is an absolute, an essence, or a special realm of being or experience. It is not any of those things. It is actually the opposite. It is merely the way the mind exists..."

 

When the mind is afflicted, there is a sentient being, when not afflicted, there is a Buddha. Therefore Buddhahood is the lack of afflictions. That means it is in the nature of the mind to be enlightened. Enlightenment is default! We are like paupers not knowing there are jewels sewn into our coats.

 

This important reality of the mind is Buddha-nature. It is a principle, not a thing, so cannot be considered substantial. That would be like 'brightness' existing apart from light. The nature of all things (including mind) is emptiness, and the mind's nature is also Buddha-nature. These two realities of the mind are of one taste...

Buddhism has no 'Sat', emptiness refers to the nature of all things as lacking 'Sat' or 'svabhava'.

 

Buddha-nature means that the nature of the mind is primordially awake 'lhundrub/chit+ananda' as well as empty 'kadag/not sat'.

 

Such is my understanding, anyway.

[C T]

Hi everyone!

 

Apparently, I was barred or stopped from posting here.

 

I don't know why as I've always tried to be respectful yet firm in my statements to people.

 

Anyway It's good to be back

Welcome back!

 

Just checked the mod logs and there is no record to show that you were suspended. I was just being nosey in wanting to know the reason behind the suspension.

 

There are many types of 'firmness' people can adopt. Some can & will cause conflict, and others, harmony. Some are sort of neutral. Just a thought that popped into my head, is all...

[3bob]

when death dies there is no mourning...

[3bob]

"mind" in Buddhism is not "mind" in Hinduism so the terms and meanings do not correlate.

Edited September 2, 2014 by 3bob

[3bob]

"There is an unborn, unoriginated, unproduced, unformed.

Were there not this unborn, unoriginated, unproduced, unformed,

there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, produced, formed.

Since there is an unborn, unoriginated, unproduced, unformed,

therefore is there an escape from the born, originated, produced, formed"

 

(The Gospel of Buddha - Sermon at the bamboo grove at Rajagaha
Udana 8:3)

 

If this were not "Sat" then would not Buddhism be a lie?

Edited September 2, 2014 by 3bob

[doc benway]

"There is an unborn, unoriginated, unproduced, unformed.

Were there not this unborn, unoriginated, unproduced, unformed,

there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, produced, formed.

Since there is an unborn, unoriginated, unproduced, unformed,

therefore is there an escape from the born, originated, produced, formed"

 

(The Gospel of Buddha - Sermon at the bamboo grove at Rajagaha

Udana 8:3)

 

If this were not "Sat" then would not Buddhism be a lie?

 

Quite the opposite - the empty aspect is exactly that which allows for escape, no?

 

To the OP -

Brahman and Dzogchen are the same and different.

They are both words and concepts born of the human mind in an effort to go beyond itself.

And both take subtly different approaches to do so.

At some point one must let go of these security blankets.

The degree of difference diminishes as one gets closer and closer to seeing through the conceptual and letting go of labels.

When simply resting in open, naked awareness in the absence of conceptual distraction, there is no difference.

Once the defining intellect enters into the equation, the distinctions and divisions multiply exponentially.

[3bob]

"Sat" means True (as a Sanskrit root) besides its "Brahman" connotation thus a kind of trick question to go beyond intellect as you say...

 

Btw, intellect doesn't really know what "empty" or "Brahman" are, (if we are agreed on that?) thus you wouldn't be insisting on empty or an "empty aspect" would you? (although I'd see being prone to it as being open to it, with either term)

Edited September 2, 2014 by 3bob

[dawei]

Welcome back!

 

Just checked the mod logs and there is no record to show that you were suspended. I was just being nosey in wanting to know the reason behind the suspension.

 

Me too

 

I PM'ed him to ask some more details as it could be an IP issue (ie: banned IP; I can clear up such issues if confirmed)

 

Carry on

[Seeker of Wisdom]

"There is an unborn, unoriginated, unproduced, unformed.

...If this were not "Sat" then would not Buddhism be a lie?

'Unborn, unoriginated, unproduced, unformed' are terms often used in relation to emptiness in Buddhism - as in, not truly born because not truly substantial in the first place. It's easy to pick out a few phrases from tradition X and interpret them in light of tradition Y in a way that practitioners of tradition X who know the tradition X view wouldn't (and vice versa).

 

Very easy to make this mistake with Buddha-nature. Teachings on this apparently contradicting emptiness, which actually just speaks poetically to try to point at the ineffable, have to be seen in light of the consistent theme of emptiness expressed in the sutras for everything to fit together. They are different sides of the same coin as emptiness teachings, expressed in different ways. There only appears to be contradiction if this isn't recognised.

 

Anyway, so long as a person is experiencing enlightenment, with no grasping onto any thing, idea or principle as refied or nihilistic, or any other dualistic extreme, the words they refer to it with don't matter. A Buddhist who experiences the jhana of nothingness and thinks it's nirvana and a Vedantin who experiences the jhana of infinite consciousness and thinks it's Brahman are both equally deluded.

[3bob]

'Unborn, unoriginated, unproduced, unformed' are terms often used in relation to emptiness in Buddhism - as in, not truly born because not truly substantial in the first place. It's easy to pick out a few phrases from tradition X and interpret them in light of tradition Y in a way that practitioners of tradition X who know the tradition X view wouldn't (and vice versa).

 

Very easy to make this mistake with Buddha-nature. Teachings on this apparently contradicting emptiness, which actually just speaks poetically to try to point at the ineffable, have to be seen in light of the consistent theme of emptiness expressed in the sutras for everything to fit together. They are different sides of the same coin as emptiness teachings, expressed in different ways. There only appears to be contradiction if this isn't recognised.

 

Anyway, so long as a person is experiencing enlightenment, with no grasping onto any thing, idea or principle as refied or nihilistic, or any other dualistic extreme, the words they refer to it with don't matter. A Buddhist who experiences the jhana of nothingness and thinks it's nirvana and a Vedantin who experiences the jhana of infinite consciousness and thinks it's Brahman are both equally deluded.

 

Intellect doesn't know what Buddha-nature is either... as for consistency (at times not) the Buddha was known to sometimes turn his monks up side down and inside out with various sayings. We also have small and big vehicles, sayings "outside transmission", Tibetan and many others. (?) Thus I'd say contradiction was/is a very common thing except to what Udana 8.3 is trying to point to. (which can not really be nailed down any more definitively with additional terms although such additional terms may be helpful to someone where it might not be to another)

 

edit: cleaned up my first version of this some

Edited September 2, 2014 by 3bob

[doc benway]

"Sat" means True (as a Sanskrit root) besides its "Brahman" connotation thus a kind of trick question to go beyond intellect as you say...

 

Btw, intellect doesn't really know what "empty" or "Brahman" are, (if we are agreed on that?) thus you wouldn't be insisting on empty or an "empty aspect" would you? (although I'd see being prone to it as being open to it, with either term)

 

Important point - what does intellect really know?

Tough to know - it is certainly good at chopping reality up into discreet pieces and labeling them.

Is that knowing?

I'm not insisting and emptiness is a very valuable perspective to entertain if one is pursuing an intellectual investigation, IMO.

[stefos]

The difference between Brahman and Buddha-nature is that Brahman is considered to not be empty, but the absolute source and ground of all existence.

 

 

Buddhism has no 'Sat', emptiness refers to the nature of all things as lacking 'Sat' or 'svabhava'.

 

Buddha-nature means that the nature of the mind is primordially awake 'lhundrub/chit+ananda' as well as empty 'kadag/not sat'.

 

Such is my understanding, anyway.

 

Hey Player...How are you?

 

Sat-Chit-Anand

 

Brahman is emptiness.....Consciousness-Being-Bliss

 

Shunya is what the Pali texts & their redactors say but the problem with them is that they just say Shunya.

 

The Buddha said, in the Pali texts, that there is "This Consciousness shining everywhere which is Unborn, unoriginated, unproduced, unformed...If It were not so, I would have not told you."

 

This is emphatically NOT just a mere void.....The Pali redactors who made their version of the Tripitaka slant it there own way.

 

Don't forget folks, the "24 schools period" happened approx. 100-150 yrs after the Buddha died...Not to mention the Schism that happened.

 

The Pali texts were NOT..NOT...NOT the only texts written...They are the only texts that survive.

 

Wake up those of you who are enamored with the Pali texts as being THE definitive word of the Buddha par excellence.

It just ain't so.

 

Why are you so afraid to admit this true fact? Be honest & don't B.S. me........Live your Dharma!!!

 

Comments?

 

Stefos

Edited September 2, 2014 by stefos

[3bob]

Important point - what does intellect really know? Tough to know - it is certainly good at chopping reality up into discreet pieces and labeling them. Is that knowing? I'm not insisting and emptiness is a very valuable perspective to entertain if one is pursuing an intellectual investigation, IMO.

 

I think the four-fold negation lets intellect know where it stands and that at some point one must trust in and follow the Noble Eight Fold Path to go further as a Buddhist...

 

"The Buddha established a monastic Order (the San.gha), with five basic Precepts: not to kill, not to steal, not to be unchaste, not to drink intoxicants, and not to lie. The monastic discipline soon involved many more rules, and the Five Precepts became simple moral injunctions that applied to the laity as well as to the monks and nuns -- until debate began about whether the Precepts needed to be observed at all. Practice and Enlightenment then lead one to Nirvâna, which the Buddha refused to positively characterize. Since Nirvâna means "Extinction," do we even exist when we achieve Nirvâna? The Buddha denied that we exist, denied that we do not exist, denied that we both exist and do not exist, and denied that we neither exist nor do not exist. This kind of answer is called the Four-Fold Negation and becomes a fundamental Buddhist philosophical principle to deal with attempts to characterize Nirvân.a or ultimate reality: we cannot either affirm or deny anything about them." (with just the intellect)

Edited September 2, 2014 by 3bob

[Seeker of Wisdom]

Why are you so afraid to admit this true fact? Be honest & don't B.S. me........Live your Dharma!!!

Why are you trying to teach Buddhists about Buddhism?

 

Buddhism doesn't propose an ontological absolute. That is the Buddhist position on the matter, based on all the teachings - not just a few cherry-picked misinterpreted quotes.

 

Of course the actual experience is beyond all this intellectual thought... but for the sake of being able to talk about it, Buddhism describes all things as empty, while Vedanta describes Brahman as an ontological absolute, and these descriptions are mutually exclusive. The experience doesn't fit in any description, but these descriptions are still pointing at two different things.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Seeker of Wisdom

[Seeker of Wisdom]

Interesting analysis of references to Buddha-nature which seem to contradict emptiness as looking at emptiness from a positive perspective (bold mine):

 

As we know, the 'Mahaparnirvana-sutra' is one of the most important 'sutras' which articulate the concept of Buddha nature. Just as the Ratnagotravibhaga claims that all sentient beings possess the 'tathagatagarbha', so the 'Mahaparinirvana Sutra' teaches that sentient beings have the Buddha nature. In explaining what it means by sentient beings' having the Buddha nature, the 'Mahaparinirvana Sutra' distinguishes three different ways of understanding the term "to have":

 

- Good son, there are three ways of having: first, to have in the future, Secondly, to have at present, and thirdly, to have in the past. All sentient beings will have in future ages the most perfect enlightenment, i.e., the Buddha nature. All sentient beings have at present bonds of defilements, and do not now possess the thirty-two marks and eighty noble characteristics of the Buddha. All sentient beings had in past ages deeds leading to the elimination of defilements and so can now perceive the Buddha nature as their future goal. For such reasons, I always proclaim that all sentient beings have the Buddha nature.(31)

 

Since the above passage identifies sentient beings' ways of having Buddha nature with the third way of having, i.e., having in the future, it is again a proof that the teaching of the universal Buddha nature does not intend to assert the existence of substantial, entity-like self endowed with excellent features of a Buddha. Rather, Buddha nature simply represents the potentiality to be realized in the future.

 

Elsewhere in the 'Mahaparinirana Sutra', Buddha nature is defined as the ultimate emptiness and the Middle Way. It says:

 

- Good son, Buddha nature is the ultimate emptiness ,which is 'prajna' itself. [False] emptiness means not to perceive emptiness or non-emptiness. The wise perceive emptiness and non-emptiness, permanence and impermanence, suffering and happiness, self and non-self. What is empty is 'samsara' and what is not empty is great 'nirvana' ... Perceiving the non-self but not the self is not the Middle Way. The Middle Way is Buddha nature.(32)

 

The essential point of this passage is that true emptiness, or in this case Buddha nature, trancends any dictomony�wbeing and non-being, self and non-self, suffering and happiness, etc. Ordinary people and the heterodox see only the existence of self, while 'Sravakas' and Pratyekabuddhas perceive only the non-self, but not the existence of a self. Clinging to one extreme or the other, they cannot realize the ultimate, and true emptiness and consequently cannot realize the Middle Way. Without the Middle Way, they are not able to comprehend Buddha nature. Trying to lessen the monistic flavour of the Buddha nature, the 'Mahaparinirvana Sutra' interprets Buddha nature as both emcompassing and transcending the notions of self and non-self. It makes the doctrine of the Buddha nature adhere closely to the Buddhist teaching of non-duality and the Middle Way. Thus Buddha nature should not be treated as equivalent to the monistic absolute. If it does seemly indicate the presence of a substantive self, it is actually a positive expression of emptiness.

 

In conclusion, when we try to interpret the thought of the 'tathagatagarbha', we should keep several points in mind:

 

1) The 'tathagatagarbha' symbolizes the potential for enlightenment (a principle) rather than a material "essence" of ultimate truth,

 

2) the 'tathagatagarbha' is based on the framework of the 'Mahayana' doctrine of 'sunyata-pratitys-amutpada'.

 

3) The development of the 'tathagatagarbha' doctrine signifies the ability of a religious tradition to meet the spiritual needs of the masses aiming at a given time.

 

That is to say the 'tathagatagarbha' thought was formed as an positive soterio-logical approach to counteract the "'sunyam sarvam'" (all is empty) view. The 'tathagatagarbha' which strongly articulates a devotional and experiential approach to salvation provides much to the hope and aspiration of the people at large. It is this positive aspect that was taken up and strongly emphasized in Chinese Buddhism.

 

4) The 'tathagatagarbha' doctrine is employed as a skill-in-means ('upaya'). This does not necessarily mean that the theory of the 'tathagatagarbha' is neyartha, a teaching requiring further qualifications -- rather, it is a skill-in-means in that it is taught to suit the needs of a certain kind of people and circumstances. This is why it is said in the 'sutra' that in order to teach the emptiness of all dharmas, the Buddhas preach sometimes by the doctrine of the 'tathagatagarbha', and sometimes by that of emptiness. Thus it is better to take the 'tathagatagarbha / Buddha nature' as representing "profound existence" derived from "true emptiness" rather than as a monistic self.

[3bob]

Of course the actual experience is beyond all this intellectual thought... but for the sake of being able to talk about it, Buddhism describes all things as empty, while Vedanta describes Brahman as an ontological absolute, and these descriptions are mutually exclusive. The experience doesn't fit in any description, but these descriptions are still pointing at two different things.

 

What good to put Vedanta in a box either and then have mutually exclusive boxes, (?) since any descriptions from any schools of any religions or systems are still basically in the same description boat although in different parts of it, whether using super-duper complex sayings or chopping wood and carrying water.

Edited September 3, 2014 by 3bob

[3bob]

Btw, a "potential" can be gained or lost, now or later, but Truth (or whatever terms one prefers to point to it with) does not answer to those laws.

Edited September 3, 2014 by 3bob

[doc benway]

I think the four-fold negation lets intellect know where it stands and that at some point one must trust in and follow the Noble Eight Fold Path to go further as a Buddhist...

 

"The Buddha established a monastic Order (the San.gha), with five basic Precepts: not to kill, not to steal, not to be unchaste, not to drink intoxicants, and not to lie. The monastic discipline soon involved many more rules, and the Five Precepts became simple moral injunctions that applied to the laity as well as to the monks and nuns -- until debate began about whether the Precepts needed to be observed at all. Practice and Enlightenment then lead one to Nirvâna, which the Buddha refused to positively characterize. Since Nirvâna means "Extinction," do we even exist when we achieve Nirvâna? The Buddha denied that we exist, denied that we do not exist, denied that we both exist and do not exist, and denied that we neither exist nor do not exist. This kind of answer is called the Four-Fold Negation and becomes a fundamental Buddhist philosophical principle to deal with attempts to characterize Nirvân.a or ultimate reality: we cannot either affirm or deny anything about them." (with just the intellect)

 

And, "...we cannot either affirm or deny anything about them" with anything other than the intellect.

This is the stepping off point for letting go of that particular tool, perhaps.

 

Your point about the 8fold path is an important one.

Realizing emptiness is a very valuable step but, in the absence of equal certainty regarding clarity, and the union of the two, it tends to lead to nihilism - I think we see a lot of that right here. The more humanistic aspects of the path seem to help cultivate the warmth and clarity, but without the realization of emptiness, this may lead to the error of eternalism.

Such is the beauty of the balance of the path - and this is different for everyone, we all have different needs and aptitudes.

[doc benway]

"There is an unborn, unoriginated, unproduced, unformed.

Were there not this unborn, unoriginated, unproduced, unformed,

there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, produced, formed.

Since there is an unborn, unoriginated, unproduced, unformed,

therefore is there an escape from the born, originated, produced, formed"

 

(The Gospel of Buddha - Sermon at the bamboo grove at Rajagaha

Udana 8:3)

 

If this were not "Sat" then would not Buddhism be a lie?

 

It occurred to me that I would like to circle back to this comment, in light of the fact that you referred to right speech in another thread we visited.

 

Was your choice of the word "lie" here intentional?

Do you mean to imply that Buddhism was intentionally designed and actively intends to mislead or deceive its followers?

 

I would hope that, at very least, we could agree that the motivation of the great masters and the expression of Samantabhadra or Sat-chit-ananda through their teachings is altruistic and wholesome.

 

If we cannot agree on that, no reason to discuss anything really.

 

So perhaps a phrase like "not ideal for my own way of understanding" would be preferable to calling Buddhism a lie.

[3bob]

It occurred to me that I would like to circle back to this comment, in light of the fact that you referred to right speech in another thread we visited.

 

Was your choice of the word "lie" here intentional?

Do you mean to imply that Buddhism was intentionally designed and actively intends to mislead or deceive its followers?

 

I would hope that, at very least, we could agree that the motivation of the great masters and the expression of Samantabhadra or Sat-chit-ananda through their teachings is altruistic and wholesome.

 

If we cannot agree on that, no reason to discuss anything really.

 

So perhaps a phrase like "not ideal for my own way of understanding" would be preferable to calling Buddhism a lie.

 

Actually I can see that my use of the word "lie" was a poor one (edit: if interpreted) in the way you've pointed out. My apologies. What I was trying to say goes right back to Udana 8.3 in that if that sutta (and or any parallel to it) was not true then wouldn't the struggles per the rest of Buddhist doctrine towards Udana 8.3 be futile or in vain...per what the Buddha was pointing out... (along with the idea that such a futile quandary could apply to any religion, system or cult that had untrue doctrine)

 

"I would hope that, at very least, we could agree that the motivation of the great masters and the expression of Samantabhadra or Sat-chit-ananda through their teachings is altruistic and wholesome." by Steve, (and agreed with by Bob)

Edited September 3, 2014 by 3bob

[3bob]

And, "...we cannot either affirm or deny anything about them" with anything other than the intellect.

This is the stepping off point for letting go of that particular tool, perhaps.

 

Your point about the 8fold path is an important one.

Realizing emptiness is a very valuable step but, in the absence of equal certainty regarding clarity, and the union of the two, it tends to lead to nihilism - I think we see a lot of that right here. The more humanistic aspects of the path seem to help cultivate the warmth and clarity, but without the realization of emptiness, this may lead to the error of eternalism.

Such is the beauty of the balance of the path - and this is different for everyone, we all have different needs and aptitudes.

 

"And, "...we cannot either affirm or deny anything about them" with anything other than the intellect." by Steve

 

I disagree with your sentence above and you may to if you reconsider its wording which ends with what sounds like a renege on the quote contained within it? (being that the intellect can only partially look or point, thus not really affirm or deny in an absolute way (especially to others) subjects like nirvana)

 

"This is the stepping off point for letting go of that particular tool, perhaps." by Steve. I agree with your sentence here but without adding the "perhaps" at the end.

Edited September 3, 2014 by 3bob

[Seeker of Wisdom]

...What I was trying to say goes right back to Udana 8.3 in that if that sutta (and or any parallel to it) was not true then wouldn't the struggles per the rest of Buddhist doctrine towards Udana 8.3 be futile or in vain...

Like Steve said, there's the 'clarity' side and the 'emptiness' side, and these are complementary.

 

What I've been saying here in a nutshell is that the 'clarity' statements have to be seen as not contradicting emptiness, to get the full flavour of the Buddhist view - terms that could easily be taken as pointers to an idea of an ontological absolute (which is mutually exclusive to emptiness teachings), taken instead as references to the sheer, vivid, dynamic potential of empty phenomena. Sort of dialectically resolving 'clarity' and 'emptiness' into harmony instead of conflict, enriching both of them, an interplay of yin and yang. This shatters realism and nihilism, and prevents grasping onto intellectual views.

 

To take that word 'unborn' as an example again. What does this mean considered in a way in accord with emptiness? That rules out 'without a beginning' in the way we would instinctively think. Is it subtler than that, straddling clarity and emptiness, presenting a vivid reality in which a 'beginning' cannot be grasped because of emptiness? Or is it just trying to poetically point towards an ineffable experience, rather than saying anything at all about origins or lack thereof in the first place? Or is it just a sword attacking intellectual certainty, preventing people from clinging to ideas of emptiness? I don't truly know - maybe that's the point.

 

The 'emptiness' stuff doesn't struggle against the 'clarity' stuff. They actually dance together, so fast you can't tell one from the other.

[3bob]

Like Steve said, there's the 'clarity' side and the 'emptiness' side, and these are complementary.

 

What I've been saying here in a nutshell is that the 'clarity' statements have to be seen as not contradicting emptiness, to get the full flavour of the Buddhist view - terms that could easily be taken as pointers to an idea of an ontological absolute (which is mutually exclusive to emptiness teachings), taken instead as references to the sheer, vivid, dynamic potential of empty phenomena. Sort of dialectically resolving 'clarity' and 'emptiness' into harmony instead of conflict, enriching both of them, an interplay of yin and yang. This shatters realism and nihilism, and prevents grasping onto intellectual views.

 

To take that word 'unborn' as an example again. What does this mean considered in a way in accord with emptiness? That rules out 'without a beginning' in the way we would instinctively think. Is it subtler than that, straddling clarity and emptiness, presenting a vivid reality in which a 'beginning' cannot be grasped because of emptiness? Or is it just trying to poetically point towards an ineffable experience, rather than saying anything at all about origins or lack thereof in the first place? Or is it just a sword attacking intellectual certainty, preventing people from clinging to ideas of emptiness? I don't truly know - maybe that's the point.

 

The 'emptiness' stuff doesn't struggle against the 'clarity' stuff. They actually dance together, so fast you can't tell one from the other.

 

my little brain will have to ponder on that big nutshell, also your last sentence sounds like a good summation.

[doc benway]

Like Steve said, there's the 'clarity' side and the 'emptiness' side, and these are complementary.

More than complementary - they are the same, inseparable, non-dual.

 

 

 

 

What I've been saying here in a nutshell is that the 'clarity' statements have to be seen as not contradicting emptiness, to get the full flavour of the Buddhist view - terms that could easily be taken as pointers to an idea of an ontological absolute (which is mutually exclusive to emptiness teachings), taken instead as references to the sheer, vivid, dynamic potential of empty phenomena. Sort of dialectically resolving 'clarity' and 'emptiness' into harmony instead of conflict, enriching both of them, an interplay of yin and yang. This shatters realism and nihilism, and prevents grasping onto intellectual views.

 

To take that word 'unborn' as an example again. What does this mean considered in a way in accord with emptiness? That rules out 'without a beginning' in the way we would instinctively think. Is it subtler than that, straddling clarity and emptiness, presenting a vivid reality in which a 'beginning' cannot be grasped because of emptiness? Or is it just trying to poetically point towards an ineffable experience, rather than saying anything at all about origins or lack thereof in the first place? Or is it just a sword attacking intellectual certainty, preventing people from clinging to ideas of emptiness? I don't truly know - maybe that's the point.

Unborn - it is a useful descriptive term, more than poetic, to communicate a direct, shared experience.

I don't know how instructive it i, however, in terms of helping someone to understand anything.

 

 

 

 

The 'emptiness' stuff doesn't struggle against the 'clarity' stuff. They actually dance together, so fast you can't tell one from the other.

Separating the two is just a convention to aid in our learning and understanding, there is no separation.