Interbeing ?

[PeterB]

So it is is a development not found in the Buddhas teachings ?

[PeterB]

So it is is a development not found in the Buddhas teachings ?

Lets demonstrate that...

.Parse the following in terms of The Buddhas teaching as found in the Pali Canon..


" Emptiness Is Form "........... while maintaining the Mahayana view...

[adeh]

I think it is a development based on the Buddha's teaching...I've only read a little of Nagarjuna, but I was quite surprised to read constant references to the Suttas in his writtings....and I'm sorry, but when it come to giving a Mahayana interpretation.....well I just don't know enough about the Mahayana view of things...

[kirk5a]

Fine....now how does that equate to the doctrine of Sunyata ?

What formulation of "the doctrine of Sunyata" are we considering?

[PeterB]

I think it is a development based on the Buddha's teaching...I've only read a little of Nagarjuna, but I was quite surprised to read constant references to the Suttas in his writtings....and I'm sorry when it come to giving a Mahayana interpretation.....well I just don't know enough about the Mahayana view of things...

So the Buddhas teachings were incomplete and needed adding to ? Clearly we are not just talking about a cultural adaptation here, we are talking about a whole new philosophy.

[adeh]

I'm sorry but I didn't say that...I said that I think it was a later development based on those earlier teachings...and that's all I'm saying on the matter.....chou

[meindzai]

So it is is a development not found in the Buddhas teachings ?

Lets demonstrate that...

.Parse the following in terms of The Buddhas teaching as found in the Pali Canon..


" Emptiness Is Form "........... while maintaining the Mahayana view...

See the Suñña Sutta, quoted above, and found here.

See the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta:, found here.

If all six sense bases, per the Suñña sutta are said to be empty (of a self) and the five aggregates are said to be without a self, then they too are empty (of a self). That's about as close as the heart sutra (at least the abridged, chanted version) as you get.

For more on emptiness though here are a couple of writings by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Emptiness

The Integrity of Emptiness

Mahayanists would probably argue that their definitions of emptiness, it's relationship to dependent origination and therefore "interbeing" can be inferred from all the suttas (including those above) even if it is not taught directly. It's just a matter of debate that is not likely going to be settled here and has most likely been going on longer than we have been around. Clearly it's not the position of classical Theravada. I think that much we know. But if you're looking for the matter to be settled outright on this thread, you're going to be waiting a long time.

-M

[PeterB]

So Meindzi what of " emptiness is form " expressed in terms of Classical Theravada. If it were simply a matter of extrapolation surely that should pose no problem ?

[meindzai]

So Meindzi what of " emptiness is form " expressed in terms of Classical Theravada. If it were simply a matter of extrapolation surely that should pose no problem ?

The question is "Empty of what?"

It is easy to extrapolate from the above that the aggregates are empty, but the Buddha specifically was talking about them being empty of a self. But the Mahayanist version of emptiness seems to expand this beyond simply "not self" to something like "inherent existence." One might say that this is simply an even further extrapolation from the fact that all conditioned things are impermanent, and I think the expanded definition of emptiness includes this feature as well.

Where I think Theravada starts to become uncomfortable with the heart sutra is when that emptiness is reflected bath upon the path itself, which seems to be saying there is no eightfold path. Certainly the path factors can be looked at as conditioned dhammas, and all conditioned dhammas are impermanant, but as a Theravadan practitioner I would say that this doesn't mean one jumps off the raftjust yet.

Or as Thanissaro Bhikkhu put it once, it makes logical sense, but not psychological sense.

-M

[PeterB]

Thanks....if we follow this Ariadnes Thread back aways we come to Interbeing...which no doubt for some Mahayanist practitioners is redolent with all sorts of positives . But from a Theravadin view it is difficult to see the term free from " Inherent Being "....as i said earlier it seems to substitute a collective atta for an individual one...Anatta becomes Superatta...
I remember a thread on ZFI where it became clear that Superatta and Collective Unconscious and Buddha Nature had all been rolled up into a big fuzzy ball which was in complete contradiction to the teaching of Anatta as I understood it...

[Nibbida]

I never understood interbeing to imply that there is a super-atta. The parts are empty of inherent existence, and if there is some "whole" that's empty too. That seems consistent with the Suñña Sutta.

[meindzai]

Thanks....if we follow this Ariadnes Thread back aways we come to Interbeing...which no doubt for some Mahayanist practitioners is redolent with all sorts of positives . But from a Theravadin view it is difficult to see the term free from " Inherent Being "....as i said earlier it seems to substitute a collective atta for an individual one...Anatta becomes Superatta...
I remember a thread on ZFI where it became clear that Superatta and Collective Unconscious and Buddha Nature had all been rolled up into a big fuzzy ball which was in complete contradiction to the teaching of Anatta as I understood it...

The problem is that people aren't taught that "not-self" really means "not-any-self-whatsoever" and not just "not an individual self." Upon hearing "not-self" people often jump to the conclusion that it's the great-big-whatever-mathingy that we're talking about. I usually respond with the maha-nidana Sutta where the Buddha talks about different self views which would include anything grand and cosmic:

"To what extent, Ananda, does one delineate when delineating a self? Either delineating a self possessed of form and finite, one delineates that 'My self is possessed of form and finite.' Or, delineating a self possessed of form and infinite, one delineates that 'My self is possessed of form and infinite.' Or, delineating a self formless and finite, one delineates that 'My self is formless and finite.' Or, delineating a self formless and infinite, one delineates that 'My self is formless and infinite.'"

It's just that unless people are specifically told "No, he really, really, really means no-self" then they come to that conclusion and get misled.

-M

[acinteyyo]

Thanks....if we follow this Ariadnes Thread back aways we come to Interbeing...which no doubt for some Mahayanist practitioners is redolent with all sorts of positives . But from a Theravadin view it is difficult to see the term free from " Inherent Being "....as i said earlier it seems to substitute a collective atta for an individual one...Anatta becomes Superatta...
I remember a thread on ZFI where it became clear that Superatta and Collective Unconscious and Buddha Nature had all been rolled up into a big fuzzy ball which was in complete contradiction to the teaching of Anatta as I understood it...

First of all "Interbeing" is a neologism, so there won't be no equivalent term in the Palicanon. And as I already said at the beginning of this thread:

I don't think that there can be found any formulation within the Pali Canon which equates to that particular term.

If I understood the passage I postet from THN correctly about what "Interbeing" means, then it means "everything is empty of self" or "void is the world". And only if we accept this to be the case we can find supporting evidence from the Suttapitaka.
SN35.85 Suñña Sutta

The world is empty... Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self."

TNH uses a piece of paper as a simile. The paper can be seen as an example for self. What appears to be an actual thing having selfnature (the piece of paper) actually originates dependently from "not-paper" (not-self) elements.

The fact is that this sheet of paper is made up only of “non-paper elements.” And if we return these non-paper elements to their sources, then there can be no paper at all. Without “non-paper elements,” like mind, logger, sunshine and so on, there will be no paper.

For example what appears to be a self for the puthujjana also originates dependently from not-self parts (i.e. the eye, the ear, the nose and so on... or form, feelings, consciousness...) not being a self nor belonging to a self. We know from Anatta-lakkhana Sutta SN 22.59

Bhikkhus, feeling is not-self... form is not-self... perception is not-self... determinations are not-self...

and from SN 22.7:

Here, monks, the uninstructed worldling, with no regard for Noble Ones, unskilled and untrained in the Dhamma of the Noble Ones, of those who are worthy regards body as the self...(similarly with 'perception,' 'the mental formations' and 'consciousness')

TNH further says: "Without "non-paper elements" ... there will be no paper." The same applies for the puthujjana, for him or her without not-self elements (five aggregates, six sensebase) there will be no self. Because these are the things he clings to and identifies with. I'm aware of the fact that this formulation is not very clever. Because it allows someone to assume that there actually is or can be paper or a self. But in fact nothing is said whether or not paper or a self exists. Actually here it's not about existence or nonexistence at all.

The worst formulation, as I see it comes at the very end, because the uninstructed worldling will in nearly all possible cases misunderstand it:

As thin as this sheet of paper is, it contains everything in the universe in it.

It seems TNH says that in the end everything is one, the "superatta" as PeterB said. But from another point of view things present themselves differently.
"The All" or "the wold" (this is what I assume what TNH means by "everything in the universe") is defined by the Buddha for example as the six sensebase (see SN 35.82 Loka Sutta). So "the paper contains (is made of) everything in the universe" means "self contains (is made of) the world" which just means "self contains (is made of) the six sensebase" and we saw above that the six sensebase are not-self or like TNH would probably say not-self elements (not-paper elements) where we can draw the line back to "the paper contains everything in the world".

I may be completely wrong, but this is how I see it.

best wishes, acinteyyo

[kirk5a]

It's just that unless people are specifically told "No, he really, really, really means no-self" then they come to that conclusion and get misled.

While others get misled by obsessing about views about "what is/is not" rather than the presence/absence of clinging, and therefore, suffering.

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self...
-MN 2

[cooran]

Hello kirk,

kirk said: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self...

The whole point of the quote you underline is in the use of the word 'I' .

with metta
Chris

[kirk5a]

Hello kirk,

kirk said: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self...

The whole point of the quote you underline is in the use of the word 'I' .

with metta
Chris

I take the point of the quote (that part is a small piece) to be appropriate attention.

If we take the view "there is no self" as true and established, is that attending appropriately?

[PeterB]

Taking a view is not attending...taking a view is taking a view.

[lojong1]

custard

[PeterB]

How droll.

[meindzai]

If we take the view "there is no self" as true and established, is that attending appropriately?

I agree with Pete that taking a view is not the same as attending in such a way "I do not have a self." Such a view is just a statement of fact, not a statement in relation to oneself. "Where is my self? Where did my self go if I do not have one?"

"Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

Bahiya Sutta

-M