Illusion and Emptiness

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Illusion and Emptiness

Post by tiltbillings »

5heaps wrote:They are fundamental because they have individual defining characteristic marks, ie. findable true existence, regardless of the fact that they do not endure in some impossible way.

Furthermore they are fundamental (ultimate) in the sense that when you analyze partless particles and partless moments of consciousness the cognition of them is not eliminated, whereas when you analyze a chair or a table simply focusing on their parts cancels the cognition of the chair and the table. In this way chairs and tables are deceptive truths. Furthermore, chairs and tables obstruct their ultimate truths, namely the physical ultimates they are comprised of.
You are using technical jargon here that is not necessarily familiar to Theravadins:

findable true existence

partless particles

partless moments of consciousness

deceptive truths

physical ultimates

I cannot agree or disagree with this statement until you give clearly stated definitions of these terms.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
5heaps
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:19 am

Re: Illusion and Emptiness

Post by 5heaps »

tiltbillings wrote:
Harvey, in his excellent INTRODUCTION TO BUDDHISM, characterizes the Theravadin position, page 87: wrote: "'They are dhammas because they uphold their own nature [sabhaava]. They are dhammas because they are upheld by conditions or they are upheld according to their own nature' (Asl.39). Here 'own-nature' would mean characteristic nature, which is not something inherent in a dhamma as a separate ultimate reality, but arise due to the supporting conditions both of other dhammas and previous occurrences of that dhamma. This is of significance as it makes the Mahayana critique of the Sarvastivadin's notion of own-nature largely irrelevant to the Theravada."
"not something inherent in a dhamma as a separate ultimate reality" just means that things "arise due to the supporting conditions both of other dhammas and previous occurrences of that dhamma", which mahayana emptiness has no problem with. What mahayana has a problem with is the very notion of "characteristic nature".

To a Theravadain (etc), saying that a thing is devoid of upholding its own characteristic nature (as a dependent arising) is simple unequivocated nihilism.
A Japanese man has been arrested on suspicion of writing a computer virus that destroys and replaces files on a victim PC with manga images of squid, octopuses and sea urchins. Masato Nakatsuji, 27, of Izumisano, Osaka Prefecture, was quoted as telling police: "I wanted to see how much my computer programming skills had improved since the last time I was arrested."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Illusion and Emptiness

Post by tiltbillings »

5heaps wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
Harvey, in his excellent INTRODUCTION TO BUDDHISM, characterizes the Theravadin position, page 87: wrote: "'They are dhammas because they uphold their own nature [sabhaava]. They are dhammas because they are upheld by conditions or they are upheld according to their own nature' (Asl.39). Here 'own-nature' would mean characteristic nature, which is not something inherent in a dhamma as a separate ultimate reality, but arise due to the supporting conditions both of other dhammas and previous occurrences of that dhamma. This is of significance as it makes the Mahayana critique of the Sarvastivadin's notion of own-nature largely irrelevant to the Theravada."
"not something inherent in a dhamma as a separate ultimate reality" just means that things "arise due to the supporting conditions both of other dhammas and previous occurrences of that dhamma", which mahayana emptiness has no problem with. What mahayana has a problem with is the very notion of "characteristic nature".
Why?
To a Theravadain (etc), saying that a thing is devoid of upholding its own characteristic nature (as a dependent arising) is simple unequivocated nihilism.
This sentence makes no sense. Please rephrase it.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
5heaps
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:19 am

Re: Illusion and Emptiness

Post by 5heaps »

tiltbillings wrote:
5heaps wrote:"not something inherent in a dhamma as a separate ultimate reality" just means that things "arise due to the supporting conditions both of other dhammas and previous occurrences of that dhamma", which mahayana emptiness has no problem with. What mahayana has a problem with is the very notion of "characteristic nature".
Why?
Because as Arya Nagarjuna argues, asserting characteristic natures creates ridiculous implications, which illustrates a further voidness of an impossible manner of existence much in the same way that an enduring own essence did. An example of this further illustration is analyzing one's hand in order to try and find the hand. One of the ridiculous implications this debunks is the innate notion that there is a standalone independently appearing hand (the object that the word 'hand' refers to) which is the object of engagement by humans, dogs, cats, cattle, titans etc alike. But, this is very subtle and needs to be properly understood after years of training under a qualified teacher.

Listen to this, it presents both of these flavors of dependent arising very nicely: http://www.dharmafriendship.org/audio/a ... 0624am.mp3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
To a Theravadain (etc), saying that a thing is devoid of upholding its own characteristic nature (as a dependent arising) is simple unequivocated nihilism.
This sentence makes no sense. Please rephrase it.
Dhammas uphold their own nature because they uphold a characteristic nature. To say there is no such thing as a characteristic nature is to deny dhammas altogether. So it would seem that mahayana emptiness is actually nihilism, because that's exactly what they deny.

The punchline however is that although they deny such characteristic natures entirely it does not mean that they deny commonsense objects and characteristics such as the ones we are continuously experiencing all around us. This is because their actual mode of existence (emptiness) actually manages to establish commonsense objects whilst uniquely maintaining the position of being completely free of bad views (ie. even a slight logical, empirical, observable etc contradiction or fault).
A Japanese man has been arrested on suspicion of writing a computer virus that destroys and replaces files on a victim PC with manga images of squid, octopuses and sea urchins. Masato Nakatsuji, 27, of Izumisano, Osaka Prefecture, was quoted as telling police: "I wanted to see how much my computer programming skills had improved since the last time I was arrested."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Illusion and Emptiness

Post by tiltbillings »

5heaps, You did not address this msgs. Please do:
tiltbillings wrote:
5heaps wrote:They are fundamental because they have individual defining characteristic marks, ie. findable true existence, regardless of the fact that they do not endure in some impossible way.

Furthermore they are fundamental (ultimate) in the sense that when you analyze partless particles and partless moments of consciousness the cognition of them is not eliminated, whereas when you analyze a chair or a table simply focusing on their parts cancels the cognition of the chair and the table. In this way chairs and tables are deceptive truths. Furthermore, chairs and tables obstruct their ultimate truths, namely the physical ultimates they are comprised of.
You are using technical jargon here that is not necessarily familiar to Theravadins:

findable true existence

partless particles

partless moments of consciousness

deceptive truths

physical ultimates

I cannot agree or disagree with this statement until you give clearly stated definitions of these terms.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Illusion and Emptiness

Post by tiltbillings »

tiltbillings wrote:
5heaps wrote:not something inherent in a dhamma as a separate ultimate reality" just means that things "arise due to the supporting conditions both of other dhammas and previous occurrences of that dhamma", which mahayana emptiness has no problem with. What mahayana has a problem with is the very notion of "characteristic nature".
Why?
5heaps wrote:Because as Arya Nagarjuna argues, asserting characteristic natures creates ridiculous implications, which illustrates a further voidness of an impossible manner of existence much in the same way that an enduring own essence did.
You show no evidence that the Theravada is talking about “characteristic natures” the same way Nagarjuna is using it. Also, you have told us what Nagarjuna asserts, but you have done so without presenting a carefully reasoned argument. As it stands, so far, what you have said is mere, unsupported assertion. And also, keep in mind Nagarjuna is not recognized as an authority within the Theravada, so what he says carries no weight. You will need to make your argument from a basis that the Theravada recognizes, which is consistent with traditional Buddhist debating standards.
An example of this further illustration is analyzing one's hand in order to try and find the hand. One of the ridiculous implications this debunks is the innate notion that there is a standalone independently appearing hand (the object that the word 'hand' refers to) which is the object of engagement by humans, dogs, cats, cattle, titans etc alike. But, this is very subtle and needs to be properly understood after years of training under a qualified teacher.
The Theravada, as has been carefully pointed out, does not ever assert “that there is a standalone independently appearing hand.”
Listen to this, it presents both of these flavors of dependent arising very nicely: http://www.dharmafriendship.org/audio/a ... 0624am.mp3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If you are trying to make a point here, you need to make the point.
Dhammas uphold their own nature because they uphold a characteristic nature. To say there is no such thing as a characteristic nature is to deny dhammas altogether. So it would seem that mahayana emptiness is actually nihilism, because that's exactly what they deny.
Read the Heart Sutra lately? What is the nature of characteristic nature according the Theravada?
The punchline however is that although they deny such characteristic natures entirely it does not mean that they deny commonsense objects and characteristics such as the ones we are continuously experiencing all around us.
You are not being clear here at all. Again, you seem to reading a prasanghika critique as being applicable to the Theravada without establishing that the Theravada even uses the terminology the same way the the Madhyamaka does. You seem to assume that it does, but assumption is not enough.
This is because their actual mode of existence (emptiness) actually manages to establish commonsense objects whilst uniquely maintaining the position of being completely free of bad views (ie. even a slight logical, empirical, observable etc contradiction or fault).
So you assert, but this statement actually makes no sense as written.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Prasadachitta
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
Contact:

Re: Illusion and Emptiness

Post by Prasadachitta »

mikenz66 wrote: I don't see any problem with dhammas (citta, etc) being "fundamental" in the sense of being "indivisible", but also "conditioned": arising and ceasing. Just because something is "indivisible" in some sense doesn't mean it lasts.

Metta
Mike
Hi Mike,

I dont really want to get technical about this but I would like to simply point out that I think this is one of the points Nagarjuna is disputing in the Mulamadhyamakakarika. The way I read it he shows how asserting indivisibility implies some sort of persistence. He does this without in any way negating the usefulness of discerning apparently indivisible moments of experience. I personally feel there is not a need to put forth a notion of inadvisability and I dont think there is a case to be made that the Buddha of the Pali cannon made any such assertion. I could be wrong.

Metta

Gabe
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Illusion and Emptiness

Post by tiltbillings »

gabrielbranbury wrote:
mikenz66 wrote: I don't see any problem with dhammas (citta, etc) being "fundamental" in the sense of being "indivisible", but also "conditioned": arising and ceasing. Just because something is "indivisible" in some sense doesn't mean it lasts.

Metta
Mike
Hi Mike,

I dont really want to get technical about this but I would like to simply point out that I think this is one of the points Nagarjuna is disputing in the Mulamadhyamakakarika. The way I read it he shows how asserting indivisibility implies some sort of persistence. He does this without in any way negating the usefulness of discerning apparently indivisible moments of experience. I personally feel there is not a need to put forth a notion of inadvisability and I dont think there is a case to be made that the Buddha of the Pali cannon made any such assertion. I could be wrong.

Metta

Gabe
The question is whether or not is it really reasonable to talk about the Theravadin notion of dhamma, as spelled out in the Abhidhamma Pitaka, as being indivisible, partless particles? From what I posted several msgs above, it would seem not.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Prasadachitta
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
Contact:

Re: Illusion and Emptiness

Post by Prasadachitta »

Hi Tilt,

You And I do not disagree. Because I have a certain amount of reverence for and confidence in the Sangha generally, I tend to take it for granted that the teachings of Abhidhamma are for the purpose of diminishing and ending suffering and not for establishing philosophical arguments. This conclusion does not arise out of intense study even though I do enjoy a good Dhamma book from time to time. :smile:

Gabe
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Illusion and Emptiness

Post by tiltbillings »

gabrielbranbury wrote:Hi Tilt,

You And I do not disagree. Because I have a certain amount of reverence for and confidence in the Sangha generally, I tend to take it for granted that the teachings of Abhidhamma are for the purpose of diminishing and ending suffering and not for establishing philosophical arguments. This conclusion does not arise out of intense study even though I do enjoy a good Dhamma book from time to time. Gabe
not for establishing philosophical arguments On the other hand it is worthwhile having some idea of what the teachings are actually saying, and it is worthwhile to respond to a gross misrepresentation of the Theravada idea of dhammas we are seeing in 5heap's msgs. The Mahayana/Madhyamaka critique of the ideas of dharmas as being ultimate partless particles with findable true existence does not really address what is found in the Theravadin texts.

The various Tibetan scholastic tenet systems developed by the various schools of Tibetan Buddhism serves a didactic purpose for those schools, but it is not a solid basis for understanding any extinct or extant school of Buddhism outside the one putting forth the tenet sustem.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Prasadachitta
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
Contact:

Re: Illusion and Emptiness

Post by Prasadachitta »

tiltbillings wrote:
gabrielbranbury wrote:Hi Tilt,

You And I do not disagree. Because I have a certain amount of reverence for and confidence in the Sangha generally, I tend to take it for granted that the teachings of Abhidhamma are for the purpose of diminishing and ending suffering and not for establishing philosophical arguments. This conclusion does not arise out of intense study even though I do enjoy a good Dhamma book from time to time. Gabe
not for establishing philosophical arguments On the other hand it is worthwhile having some idea of what the teachings are actually saying, and it is worthwhile to respond to a gross misrepresentation of the Theravada idea of dhammas we are seeing in 5heap's msgs. The Mahayana/Madhyamaka critique of the ideas of dharmas as being ultimate partless particles with findable true existence does not really address what is found in the Theravadin texts.

The various Tibetan scholastic tenet systems developed by the various schools of Tibetan Buddhism serves a didactic purpose for those schools, but it is not a solid basis for understanding any extinct or extant school of Buddhism outside the one putting forth the tenet sustem.

Hi Tilt,

Again I agree with your statements. I am not a fan of that particular didactic paradigm even though it appears to me to have been quite effective for many.

Metta

Gabe
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
catmoon
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 1:59 am

Re: Illusion and Emptiness

Post by catmoon »

not sure who said this but... wrote: The Mahayana/Madhyamaka critique of the ideas of dharmas as being ultimate partless particles with findable true existence does not really address what is found in the Theravadin texts.
Is Shantideva a valid Theravadin text? I may be reading him wrong, but he seems to shred the bolded concepts pretty thoroughly.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Illusion and Emptiness

Post by Cittasanto »

catmoon wrote:
not sure who said this but... wrote: The Mahayana/Madhyamaka critique of the ideas of dharmas as being ultimate partless particles with findable true existence does not really address what is found in the Theravadin texts.
Is Shantideva a valid Theravadin text? I may be reading him wrong, but he seems to shred the bolded concepts pretty thoroughly.
Shantideva is a person, not a text so no :tongue:

but it would still be no, I believe he was mahasangha not Theravadin.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Illusion and Emptiness

Post by tiltbillings »

Manapa wrote:
catmoon wrote:
not sure who said this but... wrote: The Mahayana/Madhyamaka critique of the ideas of dharmas as being ultimate partless particles with findable true existence does not really address what is found in the Theravadin texts.
Is Shantideva a valid Theravadin text? I may be reading him wrong, but he seems to shred the bolded concepts pretty thoroughly.
Shantideva is a person, not a text so no :tongue:

but it would still be no, I believe he was mahasangha not Theravadin.
Shantideva was a Madhyamika and one of the first great systematizers of the Mahayana.
but he seems to shred the bolded concepts pretty thoroughly.
Sure, however, he is not addressing the Theravada.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Post Reply