What does Buddhadasa say about emptiness?

[Individual]

I am curious. For those familiar with Buddhadasa, what has he written, if anything, about emptiness?

I am particularly interested if he critiques Mahayana and Theravada views. Does he uphold the Five Aggregates as "paramatha" and defend the notion of "svabhava," as traditional monastics do?

[jcsuperstar]

Heartwood of the Bodhi Tree is all about this

http://www.amazon.com/Heartwood-Bodhi-Tree-Teaching-Voidness/dp/0861710355/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247280256&sr=8-1

"In this remarkable book, Ajahn Buddhadasa teaches us beautifully, profoundly, and simply the meaning of sunnata, or voidness, which is a thread that links every great school of Buddhism....He teaches us the truth of this voidness with the same directness and simplicity with which he invites us into his forest." — from the foreword by Jack Kornfield

[Individual]

Thanks. I found this as well:
http://www.dharmaweb.org/index.php/Empt ... sa_Bhikkhu

[mikenz66]

Yes, that's from the book. As it says in the introductory materail to the book, voidness was his particular "thing" and he was discouraged from teaching it to lay people. The book is certainly worth reading.

Mike

[tiltbillings]

Does he uphold the Five Aggregates as "paramatha" and defend the notion of "svabhava," as traditional monastics do?

Svabhava?

[Individual]

Does he uphold the Five Aggregates as "paramatha" and defend the notion of "svabhava," as traditional monastics do?

Svabhava?

Sorry if I was confusing. It seems that svabhava is the Sanskrit spelling. The Pali term is "sabhava".

sabhava\svabhava: intrinsic-nature, own-being, etc..

[tiltbillings]

Does he uphold the Five Aggregates as "paramatha" and defend the notion of "svabhava," as traditional monastics do?

Svabhava?

Sorry if I was confusing. It seems that svabhava is the Sanskrit spelling. The Pali term is "sabhava".

sabhava\svabhava: intrinsic-nature, own-being, etc..

I am well aware of that. Point is that you cannot correctly assume that that words is used the same way across schools.

[Individual]

I am well aware of that. Point is that you cannot correctly assume that that words is used the same way across schools.

What makes you certain I merely assumed the usage was the same?

[tiltbillings]

I am well aware of that. Point is that you cannot correctly assume that that words is used the same way across schools.

What makes you certain I merely assumed the usage was the same?

You threw the word out there without qualification, and now here is your opportunity to clarify your very unclear statement.

[Individual]

You can't fix a broken mirror by polishing it.

[Individual]

From Buddhadasa's essay...

Firstly, consider the point that the Buddha declared that every word that he, the Tathagata, (one who is gone to Suchness), spoke referred to the subject of emptiness. He spoke of no other matter, either directly or indirectly. Any talk unconnected with the subject of emptiness is not the speech of the Tathagata but of disciples of a later time who liked to speak at great length to show how clever and articulate they were.

all things = dhamma
all things = emptiness
dhammas = emptiness

The word "mind" (citta) is being used here in a specific way. Don't confuse it with the 89 cittas or 121 cittas of the Abhidhamma. They are a different matter. That which we call original mind, the mind that is one with panna refers to the mind that is empty of grasping at and clinging to self. Actually, this state shouldn't be called mind at all, it should be called emptiness, but since it has the property of knowing we call it mind. The various schools call it by various names but strictly speaking it's enough to say that the true fundamental nature of mind is satipanna, truth-discerning awareness, absence of grasping and clinging. Thus emptiness lies in perfect panna.

Buddhadasa is very interesting!

[tiltbillings]

You can't fix a broken mirror by polishing it.

He said obliquely.

[Present]

From Buddhadasa's essay...

Firstly, consider the point that the Buddha declared that every word that he, the Tathagata, (one who is gone to Suchness), spoke referred to the subject of emptiness. He spoke of no other matter, either directly or indirectly. Any talk unconnected with the subject of emptiness is not the speech of the Tathagata but of disciples of a later time who liked to speak at great length to show how clever and articulate they were.

all things = dhamma
all things = emptiness
dhammas = emptiness

The word "mind" (citta) is being used here in a specific way. Don't confuse it with the 89 cittas or 121 cittas of the Abhidhamma. They are a different matter. That which we call original mind, the mind that is one with panna refers to the mind that is empty of grasping at and clinging to self. Actually, this state shouldn't be called mind at all, it should be called emptiness, but since it has the property of knowing we call it mind. The various schools call it by various names but strictly speaking it's enough to say that the true fundamental nature of mind is satipanna, truth-discerning awareness, absence of grasping and clinging. Thus emptiness lies in perfect panna.

Buddhadasa is very interesting!

Individual

I was so inspired by your post. This is the way to stream-entry (that is, if your mind did not already attain stream entry when writing your post).

[Ngawang Drolma.]

I enjoyed excerpts from the essay too.