Emptiness of Buddhist currents

[DeadBuddha]

Hi

I would like to try to define a conception of emptiness common to all currents of Buddhism, and without using too complex and erudite terms. Here is my attempt:

♦ first of all I would say that conceptually we have to distinguish several levels of realities more or less deep:
1/ there is the sensory world, the sensory perceptions like taste, touch, apple perception, etc. (this is the lowest level of reality);
2/ there is the "solid" world lying behind the sensory perceptions, like the real material apple lying behind my sensory perception of apple (this is the intermediate level of reality);
3/ there is the substantial world lying beyond the solid world, and it is composed of substances like the soul, etc. (this is the deepest level of reality, the ultimate level)

♦ Now, here is my definition of emptiness: it is the idea that this or that substance does not exist.

So, for example, the Sarvastivadins will say that such and such a substance exists, but they will also say that such and such a substance does not exist (namely, the individual Self). This makes them accept the idea of emptiness in their own way, because they at least deny the existence of a certain substance.

And for example, the Madhyamaka will deny the existence of absolutely every substance imaginable. So of course the Mahayana also has the idea of emptiness in its own way, because it denies substances.

What do you think about this? Am I too naive in my definition of "substance"? I know it is rather vague, but I did it on purpose to avoid falling into a hyper-technical erudition that would make my brain smoke.

Thank you for your patience.

[confusedlayman]

Emptiness has nothing to doneith ezternal object or internal organs. It has to do with expereince as it is experience that gives you information.

If you see a apple, there is conciousness process of seeing apple. If you use VR, then apple look like orange. So even if younsee apple, you have conciousness of seeing orange.so previous conciousness or experience of seeing apple ends completly and new experience of seeing orange emerges due to condition of using VR. So old experience ceases without remainder and new experience comes from.sctrach and will end without remainer. So this complete cessation is possible because expereince it like a projector show. In movie projector, they show.asteriod hitting earth but if you rip open projector screen you wont see any asteriod or anything because the movie is just an appearance. Appearance gives experience but that experience is dependently origination and that experience itself does not contain the object within itself because expeeeimce is a process happening inside your brain or body. So experience is empty of object and empty of itself.

[Pondera]

I don’t understand your definition of emptiness based on your three levels of being. So I can’t comment on that.

But I like those levels as they are presented. If I could try to represent them as I see things:

1/ bare perception of five types. 2/ perhaps the kasinas - earth, water, fire, air, red, blue, yellow, white, space, consciousness. 3/ loving kindness, joy, compassion, and equanimity.

I think that in itself is enough to digest. Does the above “jive” with your presuppositions? If so, could you give an example of emptiness in the above context?

[DeadBuddha]

Emptiness has nothing to doneith ezternal object or internal organs. It has to do with expereince as it is experience that gives you information.

If you see a apple, there is conciousness process of seeing apple. If you use VR, then apple look like orange. So even if younsee apple, you have conciousness of seeing orange.so previous conciousness or experience of seeing apple ends completly and new experience of seeing orange emerges due to condition of using VR. So old experience ceases without remainder and new experience comes from.sctrach and will end without remainer. So this complete cessation is possible because expereince it like a projector show. In movie projector, they show.asteriod hitting earth but if you rip open projector screen you wont see any asteriod or anything because the movie is just an appearance. Appearance gives experience but that experience is dependently origination and that experience itself does not contain the object within itself because expeeeimce is a process happening inside your brain or body. So experience is empty of object and empty of itself.

I don't think we really disagree. I said that emptiness is the negation of this or that substance. So, for example, if one accepts the idea that the sensible world has no substance (i.e., that the sensible world has no substantial existence), then knowledge of our sensible experience means knowing that this sensible experience has no substantial existence, and so emptiness is well known through experience.

[confusedlayman]

Emptiness has nothing to doneith ezternal object or internal organs. It has to do with expereince as it is experience that gives you information.

If you see a apple, there is conciousness process of seeing apple. If you use VR, then apple look like orange. So even if younsee apple, you have conciousness of seeing orange.so previous conciousness or experience of seeing apple ends completly and new experience of seeing orange emerges due to condition of using VR. So old experience ceases without remainder and new experience comes from.sctrach and will end without remainer. So this complete cessation is possible because expereince it like a projector show. In movie projector, they show.asteriod hitting earth but if you rip open projector screen you wont see any asteriod or anything because the movie is just an appearance. Appearance gives experience but that experience is dependently origination and that experience itself does not contain the object within itself because expeeeimce is a process happening inside your brain or body. So experience is empty of object and empty of itself.

I don't think we really disagree. I said that emptiness is the negation of this or that substance. So, for example, if one accepts the idea that the sensible world has no substance (i.e., that the sensible world has no substantial existence), then knowledge of our sensible experience means knowing that this sensible experience has no substantial existence, and so emptiness is well known through experience.

Read my post again. Sensible world has solid, liquid etc which can be knowable. But those substance are not present in experience process itself. Conciousness of those arise amd cease give you experiemce thats all

[DeadBuddha]

I don’t understand your definition of emptiness based on your three levels of being. So I can’t comment on that.

But I like those levels as they are presented. If I could try to represent them as I see things:

1/ bare perception of five types. 2/ perhaps the kasinas - earth, water, fire, air, red, blue, yellow, white, space, consciousness. 3/ loving kindness, joy, compassion, and equanimity.

I think that in itself is enough to digest. Does the above “jive” with your presuppositions? If so, could you give an example of emptiness in the above context?

Thank you.
As I said, the third level of reality is the deepest. It is the realm of reality that is composed of substance. Now, for me, emptiness is the negation of the existence of one or more substances. In other words, emptiness is the total or partial negation of the third level of reality.

Some Buddhist currents (Sarvāstivāda) will accept the existence of certain substances. However, even these streams deny the existence of a substantial individual Self. So this means that they deny at least one substance (the substantially existing individual Self). Thus, they deny at least the existence of a substance. So even these Buddhist streams have the idea of emptiness.

Of course, other schools have a much more radical interpretation of emptiness. That is, the Sarvastivadins, even if they deny the substantial individual Self, they accept some substances, so their position is not very radical. But for example, the Madhyamaka will absolutely deny ALL substances. So for the Madhyamaka, there is no third level of reality at all. The third level of reality has absolutely no existence for the Madhyamaka, whereas the Sarvastivadins accepted it in part. For Madhyamaka, there can only be the 2 levels of reality (sensible and solid).

What my definition of reality and my classification of the three levels of reality allow is to give abstract and general definitions which allow to integrate all Buddhist interpretations.

Do you see what I mean?

[DeadBuddha]

Emptiness has nothing to doneith ezternal object or internal organs. It has to do with expereince as it is experience that gives you information.

If you see a apple, there is conciousness process of seeing apple. If you use VR, then apple look like orange. So even if younsee apple, you have conciousness of seeing orange.so previous conciousness or experience of seeing apple ends completly and new experience of seeing orange emerges due to condition of using VR. So old experience ceases without remainder and new experience comes from.sctrach and will end without remainer. So this complete cessation is possible because expereince it like a projector show. In movie projector, they show.asteriod hitting earth but if you rip open projector screen you wont see any asteriod or anything because the movie is just an appearance. Appearance gives experience but that experience is dependently origination and that experience itself does not contain the object within itself because expeeeimce is a process happening inside your brain or body. So experience is empty of object and empty of itself.

I don't think we really disagree. I said that emptiness is the negation of this or that substance. So, for example, if one accepts the idea that the sensible world has no substance (i.e., that the sensible world has no substantial existence), then knowledge of our sensible experience means knowing that this sensible experience has no substantial existence, and so emptiness is well known through experience.

Read my post again. Sensible world has solid, liquid etc which can be knowable. But those substance are not present in experience process itself. Conciousness of those arise amd cease give you experiemce thats all

I'm sorry, but I have trouble understanding the disagreement. For me, in the sensible world, there is no substance. All there is in the sensible world is perception. Substances can only exist outside the sensible world, and also outside the solid world.

Some currents admit the existence of the three levels of reality (among others, Sarvāstivāda): sensible, solid, and substantial.
Some admit only two levels (Madhyamaka ): sensible and solid, and deny the substantial.
Some accept only 1 level (Yogacara ): sensible, and deny the solid and substantial.

However, the common point of all these currents is that they deny, at least in part, the substantial. That is, even if the Sarvastivadins accept the existence of substance (and therefore accept the existence of the substantial world), they will deny the existence of the substantial individual Self. And so they also have emptiness as I have defined it ("denying one or more substances"), even if it is not radical.

After thinking about it, I can even define emptiness as "the idea that denies the existence of this or that substance, and denies at least of the existence of the substantial individual Self". This is more precise.

[Pondera]

I don’t understand your definition of emptiness based on your three levels of being. So I can’t comment on that.

But I like those levels as they are presented. If I could try to represent them as I see things:

1/ bare perception of five types. 2/ perhaps the kasinas - earth, water, fire, air, red, blue, yellow, white, space, consciousness. 3/ loving kindness, joy, compassion, and equanimity.

I think that in itself is enough to digest. Does the above “jive” with your presuppositions? If so, could you give an example of emptiness in the above context?

Thank you.
As I said, the third level of reality is the deepest. It is the realm of reality that is composed of substance. Now, for me, emptiness is the negation of the existence of one or more substances. In other words, emptiness is the total or partial negation of the third level of reality.

Some Buddhist currents (Sarvāstivāda) will accept the existence of certain substances. However, even these streams deny the existence of a substantial individual Self. So this means that they deny at least one substance (the substantially existing individual Self). Thus, they deny at least the existence of a substance. So even these Buddhist streams have the idea of emptiness.

Of course, other schools have a much more radical interpretation of emptiness. That is, the Sarvastivadins, even if they deny the substantial individual Self, they accept some substances, so their position is not very radical. But for example, the Madhyamaka will absolutely deny ALL substances. So for the Madhyamaka, there is no third level of reality at all. The third level of reality has absolutely no existence for the Madhyamaka, whereas the Sarvastivadins accepted it in part. For Madhyamaka, there can only be the 2 levels of reality (sensible and solid).

What my definition of reality and my classification of the three levels of reality allow is to give abstract and general definitions which allow to integrate all Buddhist interpretations.

Do you see what I mean?

Ahh. Yes. That makes sense.

I have a bit of trouble with “negation”. Negation, IMHO is an act of logic.

And to achieve “emptiness” (not that I ever have), one would have to experience the level of reality and then relinquish attachment to that level of reality.

Just one constructive observation for you.

[DeadBuddha]

Thank you very much I will think about it.

[confusedlayman]

I don't think we really disagree. I said that emptiness is the negation of this or that substance. So, for example, if one accepts the idea that the sensible world has no substance (i.e., that the sensible world has no substantial existence), then knowledge of our sensible experience means knowing that this sensible experience has no substantial existence, and so emptiness is well known through experience.

Read my post again. Sensible world has solid, liquid etc which can be knowable. But those substance are not present in experience process itself. Conciousness of those arise amd cease give you experiemce thats all

I'm sorry, but I have trouble understanding the disagreement. For me, in the sensible world, there is no substance. All there is in the sensible world is perception. Substances can only exist outside the sensible world, and also outside the solid world.

Some currents admit the existence of the three levels of reality (among others, Sarvāstivāda): sensible, solid, and substantial.
Some admit only two levels (Madhyamaka ): sensible and solid, and deny the substantial.
Some accept only 1 level (Yogacara ): sensible, and deny the solid and substantial.

However, the common point of all these currents is that they deny, at least in part, the substantial. That is, even if the Sarvastivadins accept the existence of substance (and therefore accept the existence of the substantial world), they will deny the existence of the substantial individual Self. And so they also have emptiness as I have defined it ("denying one or more substances"), even if it is not radical.

After thinking about it, I can even define emptiness as "the idea that denies the existence of this or that substance, and denies at least of the existence of the substantial individual Self". This is more precise.

you actually understood what I said... u say perception creates knowable experience? Is the table, chair is created by perception as image? or perception really has table chair solid inside your brain? if the last question is true then when ever you think table, the outside table comes into your brain which is false. So when you think of table, he image of table comes... when you see the table in present time that you thought earlier, still it is shown as image which is similar process of thinking of table. So if you really see the table outside or think of that table in your mind, the image comes from perception of that table, that perception caused image (or experience) and that table image is just imagery and not real table. that perception ceases due to not thinking of table or thinking some other object (like bus, train, car) and hence table image vanish. what ceases completly is the image of table due to cessation of that table perception.. so it is only perception after perception or experience after experience flowing like chain of events process... when you stop thinking, everything stops and there is cessation. stop thinking is possible when you realize all thinkable are suffering, illusion, just projector screen imagery, etc...

[equilibrium]

I would like to try to define a conception of emptiness common to all currents of Buddhism, and without using too complex and erudite terms.

Perhaps: Direct experience.
Unconditioned ….. reality … Nibbana … awakened.

Now, here is my definition of emptiness: it is the idea that this or that substance does not exist.

Just to note …..(from the samsara side) If things don’t exist, it would mean that there are no ignorance therefore no need for the teachings and the 4NTs!? ….. no suffering? and no escaping required?

Perspectives from both sides, samsara v nibbana are different when words are used. One is conditioned and the other isn’t.

Conditioned phenomena v unconditioned reality.

[Ceisiwr]

Hi

I would like to try to define a conception of emptiness common to all currents of Buddhism, and without using too complex and erudite terms. Here is my attempt:

♦ first of all I would say that conceptually we have to distinguish several levels of realities more or less deep:
1/ there is the sensory world, the sensory perceptions like taste, touch, apple perception, etc. (this is the lowest level of reality);
2/ there is the "solid" world lying behind the sensory perceptions, like the real material apple lying behind my sensory perception of apple (this is the intermediate level of reality);
3/ there is the substantial world lying beyond the solid world, and it is composed of substances like the soul, etc. (this is the deepest level of reality, the ultimate level)

That is how substance metaphysicians see things, yes. It's what you see in Jainism, Advaita Vedānta, Vaiśeṣika and even Christianity (God is one substance in three persons).

♦ Now, here is my definition of emptiness: it is the idea that this or that substance does not exist.

So, for example, the Sarvastivadins will say that such and such a substance exists, but they will also say that such and such a substance does not exist (namely, the individual Self). This makes them accept the idea of emptiness in their own way, because they at least deny the existence of a certain substance.

And for example, the Madhyamaka will deny the existence of absolutely every substance imaginable. So of course the Mahayana also has the idea of emptiness in its own way, because it denies substances.

What do you think about this? Am I too naive in my definition of "substance"? I know it is rather vague, but I did it on purpose to avoid falling into a hyper-technical erudition that would make my brain smoke.

Thank you for your patience.

The Sarvāstivādins (by which I mean here the Vaibhāṣika school) did want to remove substance from the world it seems as they, like the Theravādins, denied that there was anything to a dhamma apart from it's sabhāva or "defining characteristic". So, for example, in both schools there is nothing to citta apart from "cognising". What this in effect does, for both schools, is reduce things to their characteristics only. That would remove substance, but it makes it impossible to establish anything as being real or not real. How can you say an apple is real, if there is no apple to speak of? What the Sarvāstivādins did, and which the Theravādins did not, was to make their dhammas "substantially existent" (Dravyasat). This means that "cognition" always exists, in the three time periods. What we experience as momentary flashes of cognition is merely a difference in the dhamma of "cognition" discharging it's effects across time. This made "cognition" a substance again (rather confusingly soo), thus grounding it as real. For Theravāda, a dhamma is only it's characteristic and it only exists for a flash of time. For Theravāda then, dhammas do not have dravyasat but they are still real. The problem here is how you can say anything is real with substance. What Venerable Nāgārjuna did, through his exegesis, was to argue that since things are dependently arisen they have no substance, and because they have no substance we can't, ultimately, say if anything is existent or non-existent or anything in between. We can only conventionally do so. We conventionally do so, because we cannot deny that we have a world of experiences. It's just ultimately, we can't say anything absolutely about those experiences.

On substance, you have the right idea. A substance is that which does not rely upon anything else for it's existence. They have then independent existence. A substance is also that which bears qualities, which we experience as sensual phenomena. The qualities are impermanent, but the substance which bears them is eternal. Examples of substances include such things as matter, a soul or true self, mind and many more.

[cappuccino]

Because of self view you are thinking in terms of existing

Or not existing

However none of this applies