[MD] emptiness

[MarshaV]

Hello Ham,

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 19, 2011, at 5:56 PM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

> 
> "O Saraputra, form is here emptiness, emptiness is form; form is no other than emptiness, emptiness is no other than form; what is form that is emptiness, what is emptiness that is form. The same can be said of sensation, thought, confection, and consciousness.
> 
> "O Saraputra, all things are here characterised with emptiness: they are not born, they are not annihilated, they are not stained, they are not immaculate; they do not increase, they do not decrease.  ...In the mind of the Badhisativa, who dwells depending on the Prajnaparamita, there are no obstacles; and, going beyond the perverted views, he reaches final Nirvana."
> 
> Perfectly clear, right?  Is this intended to be a description of ultimate reality?  How can anyone know for sure?  That emptiness (or what I would call "nothingness") defines form is understandable enough, and that the Absolute is formless seems reasonable to me.  But 'formlessness' does not mean "emptiness", and that, I suggest, is Marsha's problem.  As I asked her, what supports Nagarjuna's conclusion that "emptiness is not an essence"?
> 
>> Again, as I stated above, Emptiness is a condition.  We do not
>> experience "emptiness".  If we label our reaction to the concept of
>> emptiness, "emptiness" then I suppose we do, but this just complicates
>> the discussion.  Emptiness is a method of viewing the world in order
>> to move beyond that method.
> 
> Existence is a "conditional" system in that everything is subject to change. Although we do not experience emptiness (i.e., nothingness) directly; we experience differentiation which is the effect of nothingness on value sensibility.  But existence is only the phenomenal mode of reality -- the SOM aspect.  What light does this theory of emptiness shed on Ultimate Reality?
> 
>> From a personal point of view, "Emptiness" is experienced as both
>> relief and freedom.  Such experience can be arrived at through the
>> contemplation of causal form.  However, once the experience is
>> reached, the concept of emptiness is not needed.  It is just a method,
>> not the real thing.  Perhaps if I used the term "synchronicity in
>> harmony" you would better understand.  It means to experience the
>> world not as a confining place, but as a place being created at that
>> very moment, and moment to moment.  For indeed, if we are constantly
>> the result of a variety of causes (in real time), there is nothing
>> which we can grasp.  We become free-floating like an astronaut, and it
>> is really a remarkable feeling.  Remember, that the words used to
>> describe the philosophy are words.  These words are used for a
>> purpose, it is that purpose that we are after.
> 
> Yes, and it is precisely that purpose which Buddhist philosophy is lacking. When an intelligent person like Marsha is persuaded by Nagarjuna that reality is ultimately empty, Buddhism is doing us all a disservice in my opinion.

That is Ultimate Reality, Dynamic Quality, is empty of inherent existence.  Dynamic Quality, or the Buddhist's Ultimate Reality, are undivideabe, unknowable and undefinable.  Static quality, or conventional reality, is a tangle of ever-changing processes that pragmatically tend to persist and change within a stable, predictable pattern.   Within the MoQ, these patterns are categorized into a four-level, evolutionary, hierarchical structure:  inorganic, biological, social and intellectual.   These patterns, or conventional truths, exists in stable patterns relative to other patterns.  Patterns depend upon innumerable causes and conditions (patterns), depend upon parts and the collection of parts (patterns), depend upon conceptual designation (patterns). Patterns have no independent, inherent existence.  Further, these patterns represent "what works" depending upon on an individual's static pattern of life history. 

Persuasion has not been the primary source of my understanding, but seeing for myself.


Marsha 



___