Author Topic: Please can the method behing Madhyamaka be explained in simple terms.  (Read 14623 times)

Offline White Lotus

  • Member
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
Re: Please can the method behing Madhyamaka be explained in simple terms.
« Reply #180 on: July 21, 2011, 07:39:31 am »
Francis,

Hi White Lotus, I think you are looking for something that doesn’t really exist.  When we wipe away the defilements from the window we call a mind, we get a clean luminous window.

what and where is there anything for dust to cling to. only emptiness, and yet this computer is a little dusty and could do with a polish!

yes, Francis, we can say that not a thing really exists, even emptiness does not exist. there is not a thing. no name whatsoever for it. not a thing to name, not a thing to be named, so i call it emptiness. (which is a provisional name).

is this experience reality? i dont know, it seems like a dream to me, nothing seems truly real. but i still feel pain.

best wishes, Tom.

Offline Sunya

  • Member
  • Posts: 241
    • View Profile
Re: Please can the method behing Madhyamaka be explained in simple terms.
« Reply #181 on: July 21, 2011, 07:41:27 am »
Ultimate reality is emptiness, relative reality is ordinary. But dividing things into ultimates and relatives is itself a relative view.

"The highest sense of the truth is not taught apart from practical behavior, And without having understood the highest sense one cannot understand nirvana" (MMK 24.10)

:namaste:

Offline White Lotus

  • Member
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
Re: Please can the method behing Madhyamaka be explained in simple terms.
« Reply #182 on: July 21, 2011, 07:49:07 am »
Ultimate reality is emptiness, relative reality is ordinary. But dividing things into ultimates and relatives is itself a relative view.

this was an attempt to reconcile Francis's negative and positive, however i can easily say that both are empty. i can also say that nothingness is empty and that everythingness is empty. thats all i can say with a degree of ease.

yes, much to learn, much to understand. talk of fundamental and obvious is not helpful. since both are empty.

why say that not this, it is not, is nihilism, especially when nothingness does not exist. it is a duality, emptiness is not a duality. reality and unreality are dualities, both are empty.

best wishes, Tom.

i refute the existence of anything whatsoever, including nothingness.

Offline Karma Dondrup Tashi

  • Member
  • Posts: 448
    • View Profile
Re: Please can the method behing Madhyamaka be explained in simple terms.
« Reply #183 on: July 21, 2011, 07:50:13 am »
Ultimate reality is emptiness, relative reality is ordinary. But dividing things into ultimates and relatives is itself a relative view.

"The highest sense of the truth is not taught apart from practical behavior, And without having understood the highest sense one cannot understand nirvana" (MMK 24.10)

:namaste:

I'm down wid it.

 :cheesy:
[size=90]what I want is a view. Hannibal Lecter[/size]

Offline Sunya

  • Member
  • Posts: 241
    • View Profile
Re: Please can the method behing Madhyamaka be explained in simple terms.
« Reply #184 on: July 21, 2011, 07:52:57 am »
i refute the existence of anything whatsoever, including nothingness.

And the existence of the non-existence of nothingness? Do you refute that?

The teacher Gautama has taught that a "becoming" and a "non-becoming" (vibhava) are destroyed; Therefore it obtains that: Nirvana is neither an existent thing nor a non-existent thing. (MMK 25.10)

Offline TashiNyima

  • Member
  • Posts: 182
  • namo kalyanamitraya
    • View Profile
Re: Please can the method behing Madhyamaka be explained in simple terms.
« Reply #185 on: July 21, 2011, 10:37:37 am »
"All is empty" is an absolute.

A non-implicative negation is an assertion of nothing.

Self-emptiness is empty of self-emptiness.

All words can be refuted with other words. It is perhaps better to practice than to speculate...

Be kind; be compassionate; rejoice in the happiness of others; regard all without bias.

Practice generosity, morality, and patience.

Through diligent effort, be mindful and cultivate wisdom.

mangalam
Tashi Nyima

Offline Sunya

  • Member
  • Posts: 241
    • View Profile
Re: Please can the method behing Madhyamaka be explained in simple terms.
« Reply #186 on: July 21, 2011, 10:45:27 am »
"All is empty" is an absolute.

A non-implicative negation is an assertion of nothing.

Self-emptiness is empty of self-emptiness.

All words can be refuted with other words. It is perhaps better to practice than to speculate...

Be kind; be compassionate; rejoice in the happiness of others; regard all without bias.

Practice generosity, morality, and patience.

Through diligent effort, be mindful and cultivate wisdom.

mangalam
Tashi Nyima

This is precisely what I feel Nagarjuna was attempting to illustrate in his writings.

:anjali:

Offline White Lotus

  • Member
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
Re: Please can the method behing Madhyamaka be explained in simple terms.
« Reply #187 on: July 22, 2011, 08:33:28 am »
And the existence of the non-existence of nothingness? Do you refute that?

i refute any kind of existence! if the mechanism of the watch is empty, so too is the face, so too is the ticking.

A non-implicative negation is an assertion of nothing.

not a thing to assert. sorry to be so boring, but there isnt much to say!.. and yet it radiates all the time, this emptiness, which is all things.

All words can be refuted with other words. It is perhaps better to practice than to speculate...
all words can be refuted logically, however experience cannot be refuted. speculation is not always helpful, but it serves a purpose, when grounded in experience. speculation when grounded in logic is misleading. it may not be logical to say that everything is emptiness, however... that is my experience, the way i see things.

many people wish for balance. they want emtiness to be balanced by an opposite, and so they say that if you assert nothing (non being), you must assert something (being). negative must be balanced by positive. but emptiness goes beyond all the oppositions of philosophy and is not balanced. this may seem negative, but it is not. emptiness is not nihlistic nothingness, nor is it something, it glows and radiates and yet, it is not, being not, it is all things.

going beyond being (everything) and non being (nothingness). it is not a thing and there is not a thing to assert.

best wishes, Tom.

Offline Ben Yuan

  • Member
  • Posts: 261
    • View Profile
Re: Please can the method behing Madhyamaka be explained in simple terms.
« Reply #188 on: July 22, 2011, 03:26:05 pm »
i refute any kind of existence! if the mechanism of the watch is empty, so too is the face, so too is the ticking.
"When  this  exists,  that exists, as 'long' exists, when 'short' exists. On the arising of this, that arises, as light arises on the arising of a lamp."
In dependent origination things exist: In emptiness things exist. They lack inherent existence and self hood, hence they are empty.

A 'non-assertion assertion', however plausible it may appear, fails to carry any conviction. For the disproof of that which one rejects, even if valid, does not necessarily establish one's own position as true, for one's view may be false as well.
Quote
it glows and radiates
Are we not getting unnecessarily mystical now? Let's keep this in common parlance. Concepts generally are not radiant things. :fu:

Offline White Lotus

  • Member
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
Re: Please can the method behing Madhyamaka be explained in simple terms.
« Reply #189 on: July 24, 2011, 08:59:48 am »
Ben, regards,

"When  this  exists,  that exists, as 'long' exists, when 'short' exists. On the arising of this, that arises, as light arises on the arising of a lamp."
In dependent origination things exist: In emptiness things exist. They lack inherent existence and self hood, hence they are empty.


in conventional terms things can be said to exist, including dependence and causality, but as i see things these are only appearances. magical apparitions. dreams, illusions, bubbles. the horn of a rabbit, the hair of a tortoise, nothing more. i know this is terrifying for some people, let alone the teaching of no self, but the idea of complete emptiness, not a thing; is bound to be difficult for most people. especially rational reasoning people. this emptiness is a seeing, not a logical deduction.

there are levels to Siddharta's teaching, he tells someone what they need to hear at that given moment... even if this does imply contradictions. one of my teachers told me, you need to seek nothing, that enlightenment is nothing. and when i had attained that he changed his teaching to take me further... drop nothing! same with the Baudhaluka sutra amongst others it is helpful for those who are conventional seekers. Dependent origination is a great teaching, but eventually like my own words one recognises that the Buddha wasn't saying anything. the words were empty.

the fact of dependent origination points towards the emptiness of all things. if i were to say to you that things exist that would to me be like saying that this computer is a donkey. i honestly dont see any existence whatsoever. though i have tried to persuade myself that i do... in present analysis i am unable to.

i am reading the Awakening of Faith, by Ashvaghosa at the moment. it is said by Suzuki Roshi to have had a profound effect on the Northern School of Ch'an (Zen). Ashvaghosa is clear that emptiness is not absolute, he talks about the non empty in balance with the empty (a typical philosopher). i however disagree with him. i also disagree that the mind must be polished until it is clear of defilements. mind is always pure. this is since mind is empty. there is no mind to be defiled.

there is an intellectual approach and this may conflict with the experiential approach. intellectual concepts are not always helpful, and it is terribly difficult to say much or anything about emptiness. it has to be seen, not understood. when seen it probably wont be understood.

if you wish to see the emptiness of all things first you must be able to see the sameness of all things. the next stage is to see your own nature, the true nature of Mind... this is emptiness. when you see original nature you see that within and without are the same. there is no longer a subject and object (at least until the subject is annihilated.).

there are many who water down the implictions of emptiness... including myself at times; wanting to believe that something exists. however... seeing, brings one back to ''reality''... that there is none, only emptiness.

And yet as an appearance ''existence'' is quite real, but to me only 'quite'. i cant say that this is reality, i can only say that this is empty. i am but a bubble, not even that. it has popped.

I hope this is not confusing, but there have always been those who insist upon an intsy wintsy bit of something beyond or attached to emptiness. no there is only emptiness.

''concepts'' are not radiant, though they may have the 'zing' of truth about them. emptiness and seeing is radiant, it has a warmth to it. it is not cold nor discomforting.

best wishes, Tom.

Offline santamonicacj

  • Member
  • Posts: 2268
    • View Profile
Re: Please can the method behing Madhyamaka be explained in simple terms.
« Reply #190 on: July 24, 2011, 09:43:21 am »
in conventional terms things can be said to exist, including dependence and causality, but as i see things these are only appearances. magical apparitions. dreams, illusions, bubbles. the horn of a rabbit, the hair of a tortoise, nothing more.
Actually the analogies of "horns of a rabbit" and "hair of a tortoise" refer to complete non-existence. In the same way horses can be said to exist, but unicorns do not. There is no such thing as a unicorn, or the horns of a rabbit, or the hair of a tortoise. They are NOT of the nature of emptiness, because they do not exist at all (at least as interpreted by the Gelug presentation).

The other analogies are used to describe the simultaneous appearance and emptiness of the apparent world.
Warning: I'm enough of a fundamentalist Tibet style Buddhist to believe that for the last 1,000 years Tibet has produced a handful of enlightened masters in every generation. I do not ask that YOU believe it, but it will greatly simplify conversations if you understand that about me. Thanks.

Offline Ben Yuan

  • Member
  • Posts: 261
    • View Profile
Re: Please can the method behing Madhyamaka be explained in simple terms.
« Reply #191 on: July 25, 2011, 12:33:22 am »
Tom,
Quote
dependence and causality, but as i see things these are only appearances
Dependence and causality are not the appearances, they are synonyms of emptiness. The appearance is substantiality (svabhava) and selfhood (atman), the problem is that one does not see the conditionality and dependence, but the svabhava and atman which are the appearances, &c.
Quote
but the idea of complete emptiness, not a thing
That is, complete dependency of thing upon thing. Recall: not a substantial or self-like thing.
Quote
like my own words one recognises that the Buddha wasn't saying anything. the words were empty.
Actually you are making a sceptical assertion which is exactly the same as that made by the Buddha's predecessor Sanjaya. Yes, words are empty or else they would be impossible to arise. That does not mean he is saying nothing. That is a nihilistic denial of that which has arisen. When something arises you note 'this has arisen', and so forth when it ceases. The Buddha's theory of language was much more intelligent than scepticism. Whereas Sanjaya was reluctant to make any positive pronouncements through fear of falling into error, the Buddha was willing to recognize the limitations of human knowledge and provide a reasonable description of truth and reality without reaching out for ultimate objectivity. This approach allowed him t avoid any ontological or metaphysical commitments and deal with language in a more meaningful way.
"Whatever be the phenomena that arise from causes, the Tathagata has expounded their causation as well as their cessation. The great recluse is such a theorist." (D 3. 134)
Quote
if i were to say to you that things exist that would to me be like saying that this computer is a donkey.
The language rejected by Nagarjuna with regards to existing phenomena is that which exists with substantiality, as opposed to that which has arisen due to causes and conditions and that which has ceased due to causes and conditions. Quite a large difference. Your argument about the computer and the donkey is a false equivalency. One object and another object, is not analogous to one mode of being (svabhava) and another (pratityasamudpada or sunyata).
Quote
i also disagree that the mind must be polished until it is clear of defilements. mind is always pure. this is since mind is empty. there is no mind to be defiled.
How is this relevent? May we discuss the topic, namely "Please can the method behing Madhyamaka be explained in simple terms"?
Quote
intellectual concepts are not always helpful, and it is terribly difficult to say much or anything about emptiness. it has to be seen, not understood. when seen it probably wont be understood.
I am not sure anyone ever claimed that it can be known through philosophical methods. But it is general principle in Classical Buddhist practice that one have superficial intellectual understanding first, which is later internalised and intuited through meditation upon the topic at hand.
Quote
if you wish to see the emptiness of all things first you must be able to see the sameness of all things.
Nagarjuna, nor any Madhyamika philosopher that I am aware of, claimed non-duality. In fact non-duality is illogical. If all is one, nothing would move, nothing would change, you wouldn't think, and the laugh would last forever, there would be only one moment of existence and it would not be sensed. On the other hand, as far as we can intuit, the world is a random series of arisings and passings away with no unifying meaning. Any attempt at monism or holism are just delusional attempts to reconcile oneself with the flux of reality, which is ever changing, ever arising and passing away.
Quote
the next stage is to see your own nature, the true nature of Mind... this is emptiness. when you see original nature you see that within and without are the same. there is no longer a subject and object
Thank you for laying out clearly the method of Upanishadic bhavana (raja yoga) which was rejected by the Buddha. If there were no issue with this the Buddha would have stayed with Alara Kalama and taught Brahmanism. Not that there is anything wrong with that, it is just not true to the words of the Buddha - that is, unless you would be keen to provide a quote where the Buddha states that Nirvana did not result from knowledge into the arising and cessation of phenomena and consequent waning of influxes.
Quote
at least until the subject is annihilated
I would be most keen to see a dissection of this term subject. What is it that is being annihilated? Form? Feeling? Perception? etc...
And how does this sit with the Buddha's rejection of the question as to whether the Tathagata exists after death or not due to it's inadequacy as a question in it's understanding of knowledge?
Quote
there are many who water down the implictions of emptiness... including myself at times; wanting to believe that something exists. however... seeing, brings one back to ''reality''... that there is none, only emptiness.

And yet as an appearance ''existence'' is quite real, but to me only 'quite'. i cant say that this is reality, i can only say that this is empty. i am but a bubble, not even that. it has popped.

I hope this is not confusing, but there have always been those who insist upon an intsy wintsy bit of something beyond or attached to emptiness. no there is only emptiness.
In short, "there is (not) emptiness of all things (that don't exist)." Not even Nagarjuna forced conventional and unconventional in one string of claims.

Best Regards,
Ben Yuan

Offline White Lotus

  • Member
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
Re: Please can the method behing Madhyamaka be explained in simple terms.
« Reply #192 on: July 26, 2011, 07:14:37 am »
Ben, i cant fault your logic! you have a clear argument, as do you also Sanatamonicaj. i stand by my proposition, that nothing exists whatsoever. all is maya, mereley majic like dreams. i am so sorry, but i just cant get away from what i see. i know it sounds crazy... not a thing... well who then is typing at the computer? no one.

this one is emptiness.

you have a faultless argument, both of you. i have very little to argue, only what i see. some have said that rigpa is not empty because it glows. i say that even this glowing is merely a phantomlike appearance. there is not a thing. and yet this not a thing is most productive in producing the 10,000 forms and names.

thank you for your patience.

i deliberately speak of sameness and not non duality this is since the sameness is merely the uniformity of emptiness. speaking of oneness is not helpful. i only speak of emptiness. nothing to be one nor many.

best wishes, Tom.

Ben, which of your points would you like to discuss in more detail, too many for me to address in this post especially since i am using a difficult keypad.

the horns of a rabbit dont exist, neither does this. all a city of the Ghandharvas. illusion, mirage.

Offline White Lotus

  • Member
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
Re: Please can the method behing Madhyamaka be explained in simple terms.
« Reply #193 on: July 26, 2011, 09:07:00 am »
Ben, i have come in to my local internet kiosk in order to address your points, seeing as you have obviously made an effort to address what i have said, i dont want to show you any disrespect by leaving your points unanswered...

so, it may not be easy for me to answer all your points logically since i am relying on my own experience and that is difficult to express in words. i hope very much that my answer will not simply be a logical refutation of what you have written, but rather a clear expression of what i actually see.

Dependence and causality are not the appearances, they are synonyms of emptiness.
talk of emptiness itself is an appearance. there are no synonmys of emptiness, only emptiness itself. since all things are empty and all things are emptiness. thats how i see it.

That is, complete dependency of thing upon thing
 "not a thing", only words, this 'thing' depended upon is not a thing, it is not to be depended upon, since it is not.

that the Buddha wasn't saying anything.
just paraphrasing the Buddhas own words, something like "for these past fifty years i have not uttered a single word of teaching."

Tathagata has expounded their causation as well as their cessation.
the buddha said that (paraphrase) "all things in the triple world are mind only". that is emptiness, they dont exist, except conventionally; but to someone who does not see this they exist objectively and are real.

that which has arisen due to causes and conditions
dependent origination. an illusory cookie factory producing illusory cookies (not to sound disrespectful). an illusory mechanism in an illusory world. not even mind. dependent origination is only emptiness, so are all things that are dependent. only empty.

i also disagree that the mind must be polished until it is clear of defilements
this is relevant to a discussion of the middle way, since the middle way is always complete and the emptiness that the middle way signifies requires no polishing by meditative absorption (see wei lang [southern dialect]/hui neng: dhyana is prajna (wisdom)).

it is general principle in Classical Buddhist practice that one have superficial intellectual understanding first, which is later internalised and intuited through meditation upon the topic at hand.
yes. i prefer seeing (prajna).

the sameness of all things.
is not the oneness of all things. all things are empty and so all things have the same taste... that is when you are able to see and explore the nature of emptiness. the sensation in my mind when i look at this computer is no different from the sensation i experience within myself. the same... not one, not two. etc etc.

the true nature of Mind... this is emptiness.
this is not raja yoga, the yogis would do well to see this, but they dont, lacking in knowledge and insight of the Buddha.

the arising and cessation of phenomena and consequent waning of influxes.
we all see this dependent arising and ceasing, but when you taste original nature, you realize that this arising and ceasing is only an illusion. it is not.

What is it that is being annihilated?
there is no annihilation, only the appearance of a conditioned cessation of a once arisen subject. illusions, bubbles, dreams, rabbits with horns. less than real. a ''film show''. (puppet projection: an allusion from the lankevatara sutra.)

whether the Tathagata exists after death or not
whether or not i exist now? the answer is no. but you see me! at least my words. only emptiness.

In short, "there is (not) emptiness of all things (that don't exist)." Not even Nagarjuna forced conventional and unconventional in one string of claims.
to put it more clearly... there is only emptiness. not even that. yet, i appear to see, hear, taste. there is inception, preservation, change, and destruction. causeality, and dependence seem very real to someone who has not seen original nature.

when you see emptiness, you cant get away from it, even in ordinary viewing, the world is no more, nor less real than a dream.

thank you Ben,
and respects. Very thorough.

Tom.

ps. Zen master Suzuki warned that people who rely on logic would complain about those that see with Prajna. logic and Prajna are incompatible. we will be accused of Nihlism, but are not nihilists, we have gone beyond non being and being. what can we say? its impossible to express in words other than those used in our daily lives.

what is it?

have a cup of tea! (emptiness).



















Offline Ben Yuan

  • Member
  • Posts: 261
    • View Profile
Re: Please can the method behing Madhyamaka be explained in simple terms.
« Reply #194 on: July 26, 2011, 10:37:56 pm »
Tom,

Thank you for your reply.

Firstly,
Quote
Zen master Suzuki warned that people who rely on logic would complain about those that see with Prajna.
Of course Suzuki is talking from his own tradition's point of view about a method used by all other traditions including the Buddha in the sutras. You see, what the Buddha said regarding rejecting logic is that the problem lies with those who rely on 'logic alone' without experience, who as a result of their attachment to logic will reject the reality of various forms of experience, and will almost always come to wrong conclusions. The best example is probably Sanjaya.

Of course the Buddha uses logic in almost all sutras - where needed for clarification.

And of course, Suzuki uses logic himself in his books, and you have been using logic in most of your posts.

Every claim has logical justification, unless one is being silly, writing poetry, or literary Ch'an, i.e. Kungans, or Koans.
Quote
talk of emptiness itself is an appearance. there are no synonmys of emptiness, only emptiness itself. since all things are empty and all things are emptiness. thats how i see it.
Well, one would reply that since all things are empty, all things are synonymous with emptiness, and since all things are dependently arisen, dependent origination is a synonym of emptiness.
Quote
"not a thing", only words, this 'thing' depended upon is not a thing, it is not to be depended upon, since it is not.
Generally, a thing could be said to be that which is experienced or known, and the experience and knowledge of it arise through dependent origination, and thus because they neither have self nature nor any form of inherent nature, but arise dependent upon causes and conditions, they are empty of inherent existence.
Quote
just paraphrasing the Buddhas own words, something like "for these past fifty years i have not uttered a single word of teaching."
Yes it is indeed a common Ch'an saying linked to the practice. Quite useful - one should not conclude that they are indeed the words of the Buddha, as they are not found elsewhere except in 'sayings'. All is very well though.
Quote
the buddha said that (paraphrase) "all things in the triple world are mind only". that is emptiness, they dont exist, except conventionally; but to someone who does not see this they exist objectively and are real.
Indeed, in the Lankavatara that is stated. This is of course a 4th century text, intended to expound the Yogacara position. Normally in Yogacara the reason for emptiness is also dependent origination, not origination from mind (since that would be the 'other creation', a logical impossibility). Indeed the dependently originated objects in Yogacara are not real, but for a different reason than for their emptiness. They are not real because they are productions of the mind, whereas in Classical Buddhism the existence and non-existence is not actually claimed, though that which is arisen and experienced is normally referred to as existing.
Quote
dependent origination. an illusory cookie factory producing illusory cookies (not to sound disrespectful). an illusory mechanism in an illusory world. not even mind. dependent origination is only emptiness, so are all things that are dependent. only empty.
Haha, no disrespect taken. Yes, this is the Yogacara position, and you are correct, dependent origination is only emptiness, that is, a synonym of emptiness. This is for a different reason than the non-reality of phenomena in the Yogacara perspective however, it is because of the nature of dependent origination and the resulting lack of self-nature or inherent nature (atman and svabhava). Dependent origination as illusory is a claim that would be hard to sustain, since it's true - though it all depends on what you mean by illusory. If you mean by illusory that dependent origination is a dependently originated object of mind and therefore is devoid of self nature and thus empty and illusory in apparent inherent existence, then yes indeed, dependent origination is quite the illusion.
Quote
this is relevant to a discussion of the middle way, since the middle way is always complete and the emptiness that the middle way signifies requires no polishing by meditative absorption (see wei lang [southern dialect]/hui neng: dhyana is prajna (wisdom)).
Yes, though usually the Yogacarins and the derivative Chinese variations would have implied the polishing to be done to reveal Buddhanature or a pure mind, often alaya (8th) consciousness, or for some Indian Yogacarins the 9th consciousness. But as you see, Huineng uses the Madhyamika methods and understandings, to catch a possible true meaning of the Yogacara claims, thus allowing for them to avoid positing a truly existent mind, or self.
Quote
yes. i prefer seeing (prajna).
Prajna is wisdom, Darshana is seeing. They're not mutually exclusive of course.
Quote
is not the oneness of all things. all things are empty and so all things have the same taste... that is when you are able to see and explore the nature of emptiness. the sensation in my mind when i look at this computer is no different from the sensation i experience within myself. the same... not one, not two. etc etc.
Yes, this is different from being 'identical' and is different from annihilating subject and object in the literal non-dual sense however.
Quote
this is not raja yoga, the yogis would do well to see this, but they dont, lacking in knowledge and insight of the Buddha.
When it is a process of destroying or removing subject and object, or seeing them as the same, then it is indeed raja yoga, unless you meant by your first mention the same in the 'all being empty' sense.
Quote
we all see this dependent arising and ceasing, but when you taste original nature, you realize that this arising and ceasing is only an illusion. it is not.
Why is it 'original?' Be careful, this seems to imply some sort of 'ultimate reality.' Of course an attached to and percieved as permanent, self-imbued arising and cessation would be illusion. For the 'actual' and 'experienced' empty process to be so would be a nihilism.
Quote
there is no annihilation, only the appearance of a conditioned cessation of a once arisen subject.
Right, it is all appearance and experience, no substantial inherent nature.
Quote
whether or not i exist now? the answer is no. but you see me! at least my words. only emptiness.
So the answer is neither yes, nor no, nor both yes and no, nor neither.
Quote
to put it more clearly... there is only emptiness. not even that. ... original nature
I think most would say it is 'ineffable'. Yet, why 'original,' does this not carry connotations of time? Surely not 'fundamental' for that would be an ultimate or transcendent reality.

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal