Page 1 of 2

Why the emphasis on voidness and passing away?

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 10:00 pm
by m0rl0ck
I seem to sense an emphasis on the negative in alot of buddhism. The emphasis on voidness and impermanence and things passing away. I dont see much about the arising of things. To me it seems pretty miraculous that the universe, consciousness, mind, whatever you want to call the world, arises spontaneously, it all its fullness, out of "nothing" every instant. I suppose to see the arising is also to see the passing, but does it seem to anyone else that there is an emphasis on the negative?

Re: Why the emphasis on voidness and passing away?

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 10:05 pm
by kirk5a
I think because we are already fixated upon (clinging to) all the arisings. So the passing, ceasing, requires emphasis.

Re: Why the emphasis on voidness and passing away?

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 11:23 pm
by retrofuturist
Greetings Morlock,

My understanding is that "arising" in the context of the Dhamma doesn't refer to all those wonderfully exciting things in the universe, but specifically to the arising of sankharas (i.e. formed/conditioned experience)

Sankharas can be rooted in either wholesome or unwholesome mindstates, and invariably, the experienced result of sankharas will be commensurate with the nature of the mindstate in question. That is kamma in action.

To me personally, there's not too much emphasis on passing away, other than to see and know that there is passing away, of each and every sankhara. Thus you can know sankharas to be both impermanent and not-self. Seeing this, it can be seen that sankharas are unsatisfactory as security from suffering, whenever one calls this wisdom of anicca and anatta to mind.

So there's two (not-mutually exclusive) ways forward as I see it... go straight to trying to quell the arising of sankharas by following the Buddhist N8P as your exclusive focus in life and charge at it hardcore (dedicating your livelihood to satipatthana & jhana practices for example), or learn to make each and every sankhara positive by training the mind to generate sankharas based exclusively on wholesome states, which will make one's existence heavenly. Yet, even that heavenly existence will not be perfect either, and there will be a further yearning for a happiness and bliss that is independent of the generation of wholesome sankharas... namely the bliss of nibbana, which being asankhata is unformed, unconditioned, and thus is independent of arising/cessation (aka birth/death). Thus, the orientation of the mind will shift from the generation of wholesome sankharas, to the non-generation of sankharas.

I hope that post did not focus on the negative. :D

Metta,
Retro. :)

Re: Why the emphasis on voidness and passing away?

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 11:40 pm
by m0rl0ck
Maybe there is a third way. Just to see the process as what it is (including the conceptual nature of wholesome and unwholesome) and live in it.

Re: Why the emphasis on voidness and passing away?

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 11:43 pm
by retrofuturist
Greetings,
m0rl0ck wrote:Maybe there is a third way. Just to see the process as what it is (including the conceptual nature of wholesome and unwholesome) and live in it.
Is this third way you venture forth one that involves Right Effort?
SN 45.8 wrote:"And what, monks, is right effort?

"There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen.

[ii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen.

[iii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen.

[iv] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort."

It is only with the Noble Eightfold Path (not a Noble Onefold Path nor a Noble Sevenfold Path) that nobility is possible.

Metta,
Retro. :)

Re: Why the emphasis on voidness and passing away?

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 11:52 pm
by mikenz66
And of course there is "transcendental dependent arising":
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=11701

:anjali:
Mike

Re: Why the emphasis on voidness and passing away?

Posted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 12:14 am
by m0rl0ck
mikenz66 wrote:And of course there is "transcendental dependent arising":
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=11701

:anjali:
Mike
Ty, interesting thread :)

Re: Why the emphasis on voidness and passing away?

Posted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 12:28 am
by xabir
m0rl0ck wrote:I seem to sense an emphasis on the negative in alot of buddhism. The emphasis on voidness and impermanence and things passing away. I dont see much about the arising of things. To me it seems pretty miraculous that the universe, consciousness, mind, whatever you want to call the world, arises spontaneously, it all its fullness, out of "nothing" every instant. I suppose to see the arising is also to see the passing, but does it seem to anyone else that there is an emphasis on the negative?
The stress, at least in original Buddhism, seems to be on dispassion, and the insight into impermanence (passing away), stress, and not-self leads to dispassion which leads to release:

"And what, lord, is the cause, what the requisite condition, for the defilement of beings? How are beings defiled with cause, with requisite condition?"

"Mahali, if form were exclusively stressful — followed by stress, infused with stress and not infused with pleasure — beings would not be infatuated with form. But because form is also pleasurable — followed by pleasure, infused with pleasure and not infused with stress — beings are infatuated with form. Through infatuation, they are captivated. Through captivation, they are defiled. This is the cause, this the requisite condition, for the defilement of beings. And this is how beings are defiled with cause, with requisite condition.

"If feeling were exclusively stressful...

"If perception were exclusively stressful...

"If fabrications were exclusively stressful...

"If consciousness were exclusively stressful — followed by stress, infused with stress and not infused with pleasure — beings would not be infatuated with consciousness. But because consciousness is also pleasurable — followed by pleasure, infused with pleasure and not infused with stress — beings are infatuated with consciousness. Through infatuation, they are captivated. Through captivation, they are defiled. This is the cause, this the requisite condition, for the defilement of beings. And this is how beings are defiled with cause, with requisite condition."

"And what, lord, is the cause, what the requisite condition, for the purification of beings? How are beings purified with cause, with requisite condition?"

"Mahali, if form were exclusively pleasurable — followed by pleasure, infused with pleasure and not infused with stress — beings would not be disenchanted with form. But because form is also stressful — followed by stress, infused with stress and not infused with pleasure — beings are disenchanted with form. Through disenchantment, they grow dispassionate. Through dispassion, they are purified. This is the cause, this the requisite condition, for the purification of beings. And this is how beings are purified with cause, with requisite condition.
....(same goes for the other aggregates)


Mahali Sutta: To Mahali - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Re: Why the emphasis on voidness and passing away?

Posted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 12:32 am
by xabir
Arising and passing needs to be seen as a whole... without arising, there is no passing. Not seeing the passing away of phenomena, we become stuck and infatuated on them, delusioned, feeling like there is an I and certain things deemed as 'lasting' which can be 'owned'.

Re: Why the emphasis on voidness and passing away?

Posted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 1:10 am
by manas
sent.as.a.pm.
:anjali:

Re: Why the emphasis on voidness and passing away?

Posted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:58 am
by ground
m0rl0ck wrote:I seem to sense an emphasis on the negative in alot of buddhism.
Just watch the voidness and passing away of this sense and the voidness and passing away of the sense of "buddhism". Then, can you see that actually there is nothing? If not then it is due to the immediate arising (again) of something (else). :sage:

Re: Why the emphasis on voidness and passing away?

Posted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 4:23 am
by pegembara
If there is only arising and no passing away, this would render the Dhamma false. All beings want only the arising and are unable or unwilling to accept its opposite.
The way people think is that having been born, they don't want to die. Is that correct? It's like pouring water into a glass but not wanting it to fill up. If you keep pouring the water, you can't expect it not to be full. But people think like this: they are born but don't want to die. Is that correct thinking? Consider it. If people are born but never die, will that bring happiness? If no one who comes into the world dies, things will be a lot worse. If no one ever dies, we will probably all end up eating excrement! Where would we all stay? It's like pouring water into the glass without ceasing yet still not wanting it to be full. We really ought to think things through. We are born but don't want to die. If we really don't want to die, we should realize the deathless (amatadhamma), as the Buddha taught. Do you know what amatadhamma means?

It is the deathless - though you die, if you have wisdom it is as if you don't die. Not dying, not being born. That's where things can be finished. Being born and wishing for happiness and enjoyment without dying is not the correct way at all. But that's what people want, so there is no end of suffering for them. The practitioner of Dhamma does not suffer. Well, practitioners such as ordinary monks still suffer, because they haven't yet fulfilled the path of practice. They haven't realized amatadhamma, so they still suffer. They are still subject to death.

Amatadhamma is the deathless. Born of the womb, can we avoid death? Apart from realizing that there is no real self, there is no way to avoid death. ''I'' don't die; sankhāras undergo transformation, following their nature.

If you were to violate the law of the land and be sentenced to death, you would certainly be most distressed. Meditation on death is recollecting that death is going to take us and that it could be very soon. But you don't think about it, so you feel you are living comfortably. If you do think about it, it will cause you to have devotion to the practice of Dhamma. So the Buddha taught us to practice the recollection of death regularly. Those who don't recollect it live with fear. They don't know themselves. But if you do recollect and are aware of yourself, it will lead you to want to practise Dhamma seriously and escape from this danger.

If you are aware of this death sentence, you will want to find a solution. Generally, people don't like to hear such talk. Doesn't that mean they are far from the true Dhamma? The Buddha urged us to recollect death, but people get upset by such talk. That's the kamma of beings. They do have some knowledge of this fact, but the knowledge isn't yet clear.

Ajahn Chah

Re: Why the emphasis on voidness and passing away?

Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 4:50 pm
by Dennenappelmoes
There is no negativity in Buddhism. If you experience any, it is negativity in yourself that Buddhism managed to point out to you. :anjali:

Re: Why the emphasis on voidness and passing away?

Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 7:19 pm
by m0rl0ck
Dennenappelmoes wrote:There is no negativity in Buddhism. If you experience any, it is negativity in yourself that Buddhism managed to point out to you. :anjali:

That seems rather ad hominem of you. Ty nonetheless :)

Re: Why the emphasis on voidness and passing away?

Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:00 pm
by Dennenappelmoes
m0rl0ck wrote:
Dennenappelmoes wrote:There is no negativity in Buddhism. If you experience any, it is negativity in yourself that Buddhism managed to point out to you. :anjali:

That seems rather ad hominem of you. Ty nonetheless :)
Again, that's just your own projection :sage: No I'm sorry, it wasn't meant like that :embarassed: I know full well how Buddhism sometimes makes claims that feel inconvenient or uncomfortable. When not explained within the context of a positive, upbeat dhamma talk, points like these can have a rather depressing and counter productive effect. For example, I like Bikkhu Yuttadhammo's talks alot because he is so analytic and precise, but his dry, clinical approach can sometimes cause me to unnecessarily lose some spirit. Not his fault, I just need to obtain a higher degree of wisdom in order to not have that happen. So, I was speaking from my personal experience rather than criticizing anyone else :toilet:

I like to slap myself in the face with said realisation from time to time, so I just thought I should throw it at you as well :twisted:
:anjali: