I Don't Get It..

14/10/2558
DharmaWheelViewtopicIdon'tgetit...
ABuddhistdiscussionforumonMahayanaandVajrayanaBuddhism
Search
Search
Advancedsearch
I don't get it...

Forumrules
Postareply
Searchthistopic
Search
11postsPage1of1
Reportthispost(./report.php?f=39&p=54274)
Replywithquote(./posting.php?mode=quote&f=39&p=54274)
I don't get it... (#p54274)
bydevilyoudontSunAug28,20114:08pm
Atman as described here (http://www.celextel.org/othervedantabooks/avadhutagita.html) differs

from Emptiness only by erring on the side of "is" more often than "is not", although it
vehemently defies both. Is this typical of Advaita?
PS. Perhaps a more careful reading will reveal some form of subtle reification. (I seriously
doubt they promote annihilation) Dunno.
Top
Re: I don't get it... (#p54281)
bydeepbluehumSunAug28,20115:07pm
devilyoudont wrote:
Atman as described here
(http://www.celextel.org/othervedantabooks/avadhutagita.html) differs from Emptiness
only by erring on the side of "is" more often than "is not", although it
vehemently defies both. Is this typical of Advaita?
PS. Perhaps a more careful reading will reveal some form of subtle reification,
or that these statements take themselves to be Truth. (annihilation) Dunno.
The Advaita philosophy of Sankara was heavily informed by Buddhist Madhyamaka philosophy,
its methods were too. Emptiness is not a ground of being, unlike the Brahman posited by
Advaita. To really get into the important difference you have to go beyond philosophy to the
method of practice. Emptiness can also be thought of as a name for a method. Here you don't
look, grasp, like, etc. Then, the practice of buddhist meditation and resulting bliss is easy to
understand.
Top
bydevilyoudontSunAug28,20115:59pm
http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=5144&p=54281#p54281
1/7
14/10/2558
deepbluehum wrote:
Emptiness is not a ground of being, unlike the Brahman posited by Advaita.
Nonetheless, dharmas can be said to abide in nonabidance. While Emptiness is not a ground
of being, it is not a nongroundofbeing either. Moreover, the Avadhuta Gita explicitly
rejects both "is" and "isn't", so how can its Atman be a onesided storehouse of "is"?
deepbluehum wrote:
To really get into the important difference you have to go beyond philosophy to
the method of practice. Emptiness can also be thought of as a name for a
method.
The Buddha indeed taught a set of skillful means without a Dharma since the Buddhadharma
cannot be taught, but Emptiness cannot be boiled down to a method of practice. Otherwise
"Emptiness" would be a dharma consisting of actions and/or inactions, perhaps with
accompanying mental states, and would thus transcend itself.
deepbluehum wrote:
Here you don't look, grasp, like, etc.
Provisionally, sure, but as a method, this can never be Emptiness, because where does it end?
Why is it that you do not look and yet you do breathe? Is Emptiness an arbitrary ritual? If, in
Emptiness, one neither looks nor breathes nor eats nor sleeps, then this statement reflects a
perfect understanding of Emptiness. Otherwise, this is not a perfect understanding because I
can say it's not so. If I can point at X and say it isn't Emptiness, X cannot be Emptiness. That is
why all ultimate negations of "Emptiness" (or anything else for that matter) represent a stage
in the realization of Emptiness, whereas Emptiness that even averts characterization as
"Emptiness(es)" can never be denied.
deepbluehum wrote:
Then, the practice of buddhist meditation and resulting bliss is easy to
understand.
Pardon my misunderstanding of your intent, because if things were as simple as you make
them appear to my clouded mind, Emptiness would be nothing more or less than a ritual of
inaction. Ultimately, Emptiness cannot be clarified by comparing it to sensory dharmas. Eg.
"Platonic Buddhism" is an understandable philosophy: ultimate Emptiness, relative Platonism.
But "Platonic Emptiness" is merely Platonism. This can be generalized to "X Emptiness" is X,
Emptiness being the negation of ultimate X. There is no way around this, because Emptiness
is simply that which cannot be negated.
Of course, all your statements can be understood as skillful means leading to the realization
of Emptiness, but so can the Avadhuta Gita. (especially my inadequate reading of it)
Top
2/7
14/10/2558
byLastLegendMonAug29,20111:27am
The mind cannot be conceptualized or imagined. You will immediately have an identity or self
when you imagine or conceptualize what emptiness of the mind is like. Language has its
limitation, as soon as we give a word to describe a state of mind such as emptiness, we are
falling under form. But since we communicate by language, we have to use it. So look at your
mind, it is empty. It cannot be grasped or seen. You cannot get behind it. But that's what you
have.
So if you conceptualize or imagine, you are giving it an identity or self.
Top
bydevilyoudontMonAug29,20119:26am
LastLegend wrote:
If you do not imagine, you are doing the same.

Are you talking about me or the AG? My question deals with what the AG, at least initially,
teaches about the nature of Atman. I myself have specifically rejected conceptualized
Emptiness(es) as perfect Emptiness. To my mind, Emptiness can be summed up as "no
definitive synthesis; no enduring analysis." (which ultimately negates itself) Emptiness is the
rejection, not just of conceptualized telicity, but of conceptualizable telicity. You can't hide
from it by deliberately shrouding your mind in unawareness, because absolutely anything can
be declared to be nonconceptual. Which, of course, they are: Since the mind is
nonconceptual, conceptualized Emptiness(es) are true Emptiness! Dogs are nonconceptual,
therefore dogs are Emptiness. Mu! If you understand these statements as ultimate negations
by way of relative affirmation, they are perfect reflections of true Emptiness. If not, you are
giving in to conceptual proliferation. An unthinking ritual cannot be Mahayana Emptiness, just
as a class of sentient organisms cannot.
Ritualized Zen can be understood as a kind of "Taoist Buddhism" that tends to favor praxis
over theoria at the level of relative truth. Emptiness, favoring nothing, rejects action too,
utterly destroying either, both and neither, dominating over realms of thought and
nonthought alike with its blazing adamantine sword of indiscriminate fury. Taking any
method or comparison to be Emptiness is to mistake the finger for the moon. There is no way
around this, and it's pointless to argue about it in a manner not aimed at the further
illumination of both minds. In the end, all conceptualization and ritual must be negated in
order to arrive at true understanding. This is why laying too much stress on thought or action
or Platonic ideal forms may ultimately become counterproductive.
None of the preceding words can tell you what Emptiness is, unless they are used as tools to
get at the intent behind them. Uncompassionate, uncharitable, nonempathetic minds cannot
reach that immeasurable field where all beings are Buddhas. Those unwilling to learn can be
brainwashed, but cannot be made to understand. They will invariably discover shady groves
3/7
14/10/2558
alongside the path that promise afternoons of blissful contentment. The Buddhadharma
cannot be taught.
Lasteditedbydevilyoudont(./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=822)onTueAug
30,20118:01am,edited11timesintotal.
Top
devilyoudont wrote:
LastLegend wrote:
If you do not imagine, you are doing the same.
Look at your mind, you will see it is empty.
Are you talking about me or the AG? My question deals with what the AG, at
least initially, teaches about the nature of Atman. I myself have specifically
rejected conceptualized Emptiness(es) as perfect Emptiness. To my mind,
Emptiness can be summed up as "no definitive synthesis; no enduring analysis."
Emptiness is the rejection, not just of conceptualized telicity, but of
conceptualizable telicity. You can't hide from it by deliberately shrouding your
mind in unawareness, because absolutely anything can be declared to be
nonconceptual. Which, of course, they are: Since the mind is nonconceptual,
conceptualized Emptiness(es) are true Emptiness! Dogs are nonconceptual,
therefore dogs are Emptiness. Mu! If you understand these statements as
ultimate negations by way of relative affirmation, they are perfect reflections
of true Emptiness. If not, you are falling under conceptualization. An
unthinking ritual cannot be Mahayana Emptiness, just as a class of sentient
organisms cannot.
No, you cannot get behind mind. You cannot get behind emptiness. But you have tried anyway
through reasoning. Reasoning cannot get behind the mind either.
Ritualized Zen can be understood as a kind of "Taoist Buddhism" that tends to

reject theoria in favor of praxis at the level of relative truth. Emptiness,
however, rejects action too, utterly destroying either, both and neither,
dominating over realms of thought and nonthought alike with its blazing
adamantine sword of indiscriminate fury. Taking any method or comparison to
be Emptiness is to mistake the finger for the moon. There is no way around
this, and it's pointless to argue about it in a manner not aimed at the further
illumination of both minds. In the end, all conceptualization and ritual must be
4/7
14/10/2558
negated in order to arrive at true understanding. This is why laying too much
stress on thought or action or Platonic ideal forms can ultimately become
misleading.
You are still imagining or reasoning what emptiness is.
None of the preceding words can tell you what Emptiness is, unless they are
used as tools to get at the intent behind them. Uncompassionate, uncharitable,
nonempathetic minds can never reach that immeasurable field where all beings
are Buddhas. Those unwilling to understand can be brainwashed, but cannot be
made to understand. They will invariably discover shady groves alongside the
path that promise afternoons of blissful contentment. The Buddhadharma
cannot be taught.
Therefore, you have said "I don't get it..."

Look at your mind or meditate.
Top
That's fine dude, you can keep to your Emptiness of unthinking bliss and I'll "keep to" my
inconceivable Buddhadharma. All I'm saying is, I can deny yours, but you literally cannot deny
mine. All you can do is try, and it's beneficial for all beings for you to do so. Keep it up.
Top
devilyoudont wrote:
That's fine dude, you can keep to your Emptiness of unthinking bliss and I'll
"keep to" my inconceivable Buddhadharma. All I'm saying is, I can deny yours,
but you literally cannot deny mine. All you can do is try, and it's beneficial for
all beings for you to do so. Keep it up.
Whatever you think about the mind or emptiness arises from your conditioned self of
thinking. This is the reason why you cannot get behind emptiness plus Western philosophy of
thinking. Too much reasoning is not good for you.
Top
5/7
14/10/2558
Thanks, I'll keep your kind words in mind.

Now, doesn't anyone have any opinions on the teachings of the AG? Read it, that's not that
bad. I kinda liked it.
LL, don't you have any opinions about the topic at hand? Or will having opinions violate your
Emptiness?
Top
devilyoudont wrote:
Thanks, I'll keep your kind words in mind.
Now, doesn't anyone have any opinions on the teachings of the AG? Read it,
that's not that bad. I kinda liked it.
LL, don't you have any opinions about the topic at hand? Or will having opinions
violate your Emptiness?
Right now Emptiness is not my concern and I am not bothered by it.

Top
Waaah, come back LL!

Top
Displaypostsfromprevious: Allposts
Sortby Posttime
Ascending
Go
Postareply
11postsPage1of1
ReturntoMahynaBuddhism
Jumpto: MahynaBuddhism
Go
Who is online
Usersbrowsingthisforum:Harimoo,websat11and8guests
2015DavidN.Snyder,Ph.D.,VipassanaFoundationinassociationwithTheDhammaEncyclopedia
6/7
14/10/2558
DharmaWheelisassociatedwithDhammaWheel.com,DhammaWiki.com,andTheDhamma.com..
Chatroom
>
7/7

I Don't Get It..

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

I Don't Get It..

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

14/10/2558

I don't get it...

I don't get it... (#p54274)

Atman as described here (http://www.celextel.org/othervedantabooks/avadhutagita.html) differs

Re: I don't get it... (#p54281)

Re: I don't get it... (#p54283)

Re: I don't get it... (#p54325)

Re: I don't get it... (#p54354)

If you do not imagine, you are doing the same.

Re: I don't get it... (#p54355)

If you do not imagine, you are doing the same.

Look at your mind, you will see it is empty.

Ritualized Zen can be understood as a kind of "Taoist Buddhism" that tends to

You are still imagining or reasoning what emptiness is.

Therefore, you have said "I don't get it..."

Re: I don't get it... (#p54356)

Re: I don't get it... (#p54357)

Re: I don't get it... (#p54359)

Thanks, I'll keep your kind words in mind.

Re: I don't get it... (#p54360)

Right now Emptiness is not my concern and I am not bothered by it.

Re: I don't get it... (#p54363)

Waaah, come back LL!

Вам также может понравиться