ultimate meaning of emptiness..

[Ceisiwr]

Are you referring to my use of "mutual interdependence"? I've neither studied nor been taught anything in the realm of Mahayana. However, auto-didactically, I engage Theravāda Buddhism, daily, as a means by which to live life. I "identify" as a Theravāda Buddhist, focusing upon what SG taught & said, Theravāda texts, & time spent in Pāli studies. Though no expert, neither am I, in any way, a proponent or product of Mahayana.

When I use mutual interdependence, I'm referring to "Dependent Origination," which is what, according to SG himself, catalyzed him to fully awaken. For me, the simplest way to succinctly define the implications of Dependent Origination is to use the two words, "mutual interdependence." My grasp of MI is underpinned by decades of study in western Philosophy (particularly logic), Psychobiology, Cosmology &, to lesser degrees, other fields of study. "Paṭiccasamuppāda" can literally be translated:

paṭicca="because of"
sam= "together"
uppāda="coming into existence," from ud="up" + pad= "to come."

So, Dependent Origination means all things, dependently, come into & out of existence (the process is equally valid in reverse). From this, summarizing Dependent Origination w the 2 English words, "Mutual Interdependence" seems sustainable to me within a Theravāda discussion.

Theravāda has never taught that everything effects everything else. This is more of a Titch Nan Han teaching.

Concerning your question: "What do you mean by essence?"

I’m still not sure what you mean by “essence”. If by essence you mean sabhāva then Theravāda doesn’t teach that dhammas are empty of sabhāva. The dhammas do have sabhāva in Theravāda. If they didn’t there wouldn’t be anything at all.

[Coëmgenu]

I "identify" as a Theravāda Buddhist, focusing upon what SG taught & said

Is "SG" "Samaṇa Gotama?"

[Coëmgenu]

Nevermind, it's likely "Siddhattha" at the beginning. I'm very bad with acronyms.

[auto]

dependent origination,

§ 2. The compendium of relations is twofold:—
A. The Law of Dependent Arising (2), and
B. The Law of Causal Relations. (3)
Of these, the law of Dependent Arising is marked by the
simple happening of a state dependent on its antecedent
state (4).
The Law of Causal Relations is said with reference to
the existence of conditions that relate to one another.
Teachers explain them by mixing both methods.

[Padipa]

Are you referring to my use of "mutual interdependence"? I've neither studied nor been taught anything in the realm of Mahayana. However, auto-didactically, I engage Theravāda Buddhism, daily, as a means by which to live life. I "identify" as a Theravāda Buddhist, focusing upon what SG taught & said, Theravāda texts, & time spent in Pāli studies. Though no expert, neither am I, in any way, a proponent or product of Mahayana.

When I use mutual interdependence, I'm referring to "Dependent Origination," which is what, according to SG himself, catalyzed him to fully awaken. For me, the simplest way to succinctly define the implications of Dependent Origination is to use the two words, "mutual interdependence." My grasp of MI is underpinned by decades of study in western Philosophy (particularly logic), Psychobiology, Cosmology &, to lesser degrees, other fields of study. "Paṭiccasamuppāda" can literally be translated:

paṭicca="because of"
sam= "together"
uppāda="coming into existence," from ud="up" + pad= "to come."

So, Dependent Origination means all things, dependently, come into & out of existence (the process is equally valid in reverse). From this, summarizing Dependent Origination w the 2 English words, "Mutual Interdependence" seems sustainable to me within a Theravāda discussion.

Theravāda has never taught that everything effects everything else. This is more of a Titch Nan Han teaching.

Concerning your question: "What do you mean by essence?"

I’m still not sure what you mean by “essence”. If by essence you mean sabhāva then Theravāda doesn’t teach that dhammas are empty of sabhāva. The dhammas do have sabhāva in Theravāda. If they didn’t there wouldn’t be anything at all.

Internet is only available to me via a local library: work is out of the question for this kind of recreation. I will respond when conditions allow me to do so. Thank you for your interest and questions: I look forward to exchanging view points & ideas. Best jt

[Padipa]

Nevermind, it's likely "Siddhattha" at the beginning. I'm very bad with acronyms.

Yes, I am too: my apology. I made that silly act of assuming, which is not good to do when clarity is vital, as it is here @ the forum. The reason I opt for SG (besides it saves typing time) is because it is his family name: it humanizes the man. I often feel too many people see this great man as something out of the ordinary. His 45 years of teaching were based upon his deeply felt belief that all humans could grow to the bars he set. Particularly in English, where the definite article always accompanies him ie., "The Buddha." I find this type of address to distract from his mission. Even Bho Gotama is better: preserves his humanity, but recognizes the respect such a man deserves.

[Padipa]

Theravāda has never taught that everything effects everything else. This is more of a Titch Nan Han teaching.

Concerning your question: "What do you mean by essence?"

I’m still not sure what you mean by “essence”. If by essence you mean sabhāva then Theravāda doesn’t teach that dhammas are empty of sabhāva. The dhammas do have sabhāva in Theravāda. If they didn’t there wouldn’t be anything at all.

Regarding your first concern:

I did not say that Theravāda teaches anything: can you explain?

Regarding your 2nd concern:

The meaning of a sabhāva nuanced (it is rare in the Pāli canon): initially it was a broad idea for the nature of dhammā, but subsequently became a more & more technical term, until, in post-canonical literature, it concretized, almost exclusively as a tool for exegetical dhamma investigation. From what I understand, the minds of Abidhamma who strove to systematize the practical & experiential teachings of the suttāni, picked up this term (sabhāva) &, in a catechetical manner, employed it to "more fully" expound the earlier & figurative teachings of the suttāni. However, I do not believe the term sabhāva can be found anywhere in the suttāni.

I say this because, technically, to answer your question, you must precisely define what you mean by the term sabhāva. I put a good deal of effort into explaining what I mean by essence. If you explain yourself, we will become likely to begin shedding light upon one another. At some points in Abhidhamma commentaries, sabhāva & dhamma are used, interchangeably. Given that dhamma is the most difficult Pāli term to translate, partly because it can mean so many diverse things, I really need to know what you mean by sabhāva. I'm pretty sure what you have in mind for sabhāva is nothing like what I have in mind for essence: I think you employ an ultimacy to the term sabhāva, whereas I employ just the opposite for the term essence. Can you explain?

jt

[Aloka]

.........Ajahn Buddhadasa

.

[Ceisiwr]

Regarding your first concern:

I did not say that Theravāda teaches anything: can you explain?

As this is the Classical Theravāda section I assumed you were giving what you thought was a Theravādin answer. If not it would be off topic.

Regarding your 2nd concern:

The meaning of a sabhāva nuanced (it is rare in the Pāli canon): initially it was a broad idea for the nature of dhammā, but subsequently became a more & more technical term, until, in post-canonical literature, it concretized, almost exclusively as a tool for exegetical dhamma investigation. From what I understand, the minds of Abidhamma who strove to systematize the practical & experiential teachings of the suttāni, picked up this term (sabhāva) &, in a catechetical manner, employed it to "more fully" expound the earlier & figurative teachings of the suttāni. However, I do not believe the term sabhāva can be found anywhere in the suttāni.

I say this because, technically, to answer your question, you must precisely define what you mean by the term sabhāva. I put a good deal of effort into explaining what I mean by essence. If you explain yourself, we will become likely to begin shedding light upon one another. At some points in Abhidhamma commentaries, sabhāva & dhamma are used, interchangeably. Given that dhamma is the most difficult Pāli term to translate, partly because it can mean so many diverse things, I really need to know what you mean by sabhāva. I'm pretty sure what you have in mind for sabhāva is nothing like what I have in mind for essence: I think you employ an ultimacy to the term sabhāva, whereas I employ just the opposite for the term essence. Can you explain?

Own-nature.

[Padipa]

The meaning of a sabhāva nuanced (it is rare in the Pāli canon): initially it was a broad idea for the nature of dhammā, but subsequently became a more & more technical term, until, in post-canonical literature, it concretized, almost exclusively as a tool for exegetical dhamma investigation. From what I understand, the minds of Abidhamma who strove to systematize the practical & experiential teachings of the suttāni, picked up this term (sabhāva) &, in a catechetical manner, employed it to "more fully" expound the earlier & figurative teachings of the suttāni. However, I do not believe the term sabhāva can be found anywhere in the suttāni.

I say this because, technically, to answer your question, you must precisely define what you mean by the term sabhāva. I put a good deal of effort into explaining what I mean by essence. If you explain yourself, we will become likely to begin shedding light upon one another. At some points in Abhidhamma commentaries, sabhāva & dhamma are used, interchangeably. Given that dhamma is the most difficult Pāli term to translate, partly because it can mean so many diverse things, I really need to know what you mean by sabhāva. I'm pretty sure what you have in mind for sabhāva is nothing like what I have in mind for essence: I think you employ an ultimacy to the term sabhāva, whereas I employ just the opposite for the term essence. Can you explain?[/quote]

Own-nature.

You provide a strict, denotative explanation for sabhāva: ie., "own nature." I'm seeking, in your words, a connotative explanation for what the word means, to you. As explained above & earlier, the word's meaning has nuanced. A more fruitful discussion, here, requires an attempt, by you, to explain what you understand sabhāva to mean. Own nature is something found in any Pali dictionary, particularly a Concise one. In my presentation of the word essence, I tried many ways & many words to convey the sense of that word, to & for, you.

I'm not being critical; rather, I'm trying to facilitate better discussion. jt