Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Udana-Nibbana 4

Expand Messages
  • Kenneth Ong
    Hello Erik ... k: Yes all are just labels :). ... k: Sometimes that is the problem. When are we refering to conventional and when are we trying our best to
    Message 1 of 354 , Nov 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Erik

      > It is the Mahayana definition--at least, it's the definition given me
      > by my Tibetan teachers. I think they're what some would label
      > Mahayana! (though of course those are mere labels for the same
      > Buddhadharma)

      k: Yes all are just labels :).

      > > There is no discrimination
      > > bc if there is discrimination, it shows dependency.
      > There is no ULTIMATE discrimination, but here's where problems arise
      > interpreting this. Some take it to mean that ultimate non-difference
      > in emptiness means there is no conventional difference between
      > composed entities, or any meaningful distinction between good
      > and evil.
      > While neither exist "truly", in the ultimate sense--from the
      > perspective of ultimate truth (paramattha sacca)--there is one hell
      > (or heaven) of a big difference in conventional terms! :) It is key,
      > important to understand the difference between the two truths, and
      > how they apply. To hold to the conventional at the expense of the
      > ultimate is to fall into one extreme--the extreme of true existence;
      > to hold to to ultimate is to fall into the other extreme, the extreme
      > of non-existence. Je Tsongkhapa notes:

      k: Sometimes that is the problem. When are we refering to conventional
      and when are we trying our best to talk abt absolute. It can be misread
      and misrepresentated at times. Yes I agree with you 100% that
      conventional truth is definitely impt bc we are conventional pple :).

      > "A person's entered the path that pleases the Buddhas
      > When for all objects, in the cycle or beyond,
      > He sees that cause and effect can never fail,
      > And when for him they lose all solid appearance.
      > "You've yet to realize the thought of the Able
      > As long as two ideas seem to you disparate:
      > The appearance of things-infallible interdependence;
      > And emptiness-beyond taking any position.
      > "At some point, they no longer alternate, come together;
      > Just seeing that interdependence never fails
      > Brings realization that destroys how you hold to objects,
      > And then your analysis with view is complete.
      > "In addition the appearance prevents the existence extreme;
      > Emptiness that of non-existence, and if
      > You see how emptiness shows in cause and effect
      > You'll never be stolen off by extreme views."

      k; Yes dhamma always on the middle path, neither exist nor non exist.
      Sticking to one extreme, it will not help us at all. Emptiness is a
      concept not for conventional pple. It is for pple who have realise the
      relinquishment of self.

      > This emptiness implies the potential for Buddhahood, and what you
      > just said is exactly what one of my teachers said as well, just FYI--
      > our Buddha-nature IS our emptiness. And if we were not conditioned,
      > as Howard quoted from Nagarjuna (if memory serves), then we would
      > never have a chance of getting out of samsara. So two ways of saying
      > essentially the same thing.

      k: :).

      > > Furthermore, where
      > > is there to experience if one is in sati. Where is aversion if one
      > is in
      > > sati. Where is suffering is one is in sati.
      > In sati, mindfulness, there can definitely be a "me" there
      > experincing the arising and passing away of sensation, for example--
      > even at a very subtle level. That is not true in the direct
      > perception of emptiness, however, where this "I, me, mine" is
      > demolished at the root.

      k: We must not be purposely be in sati. We let it sati comes naturally.
      No "self" effort in a sense involved. No matter what method we used there
      is still this presence of *me* involved, but a method is still needed
      which is non discrimination and of middle path. Even though we know that
      sticking to oneness is the way out of dualism, we still stick to it.

      > Not the case at all. When the Theravada is understood properly there
      > is no difference between anatta and emptiness. There CAN'T be,
      > because both refer to the fact that lings lack "core" or true
      > entitiness. Please forget for a moment these labels Theravada and
      > Mahayana. They're of little use in discussing anatta/emptiness, which
      > are, in fact, when investigated, referring to the very same thing.

      k: I do not agree. If you look at sunnata explaination and those
      presented by Mahayana, There is a difference. A subtle difference. What
      Thervada defintion of emptiness is base on deviod of *self*. It is still
      attached to *non self*. But in Mahayana it is beyond *self and non self*.
      Hence it is always say by Buddha in many times in Mahayana sutta, it is
      beyond human words but emptiness in Thervada is still can be described in

      > We have to define Nibbana verbally if only in a pedagogical sense. Of
      > course Nibbana lies beyond all words and descriptions. Nevertheless,
      > it can be very helpful to understand what it is NOT, because in this
      > way, the views the block direct apprehension of Nibbana can be
      > relinquished.

      k: Nope we cannot do that bc it is attaching to one a *NOT* concept. It
      is just like pointing this NOT is condition by what it "IS NOT". We can
      never use *NOT* bc it is a conditionality by *IS*. I think further
      discussion of Nibbana will end up with no definite answer due to the
      diffculty in defining it in human words. I would like to seek your kind
      permission to allow me not to discuss this issue anymore similar to the
      request I have with Sarah. I apologise if I have cause much inconveniences
      to you in responding to my post.

      Kind regards
      Kenneth Ong

      Nokia Game is on again.
      Go to http://uk.yahoo.com/nokiagame/ and join the new
      all media adventure before November 3rd.
    • m. nease
      Hi Ken, ... From: Ken O To: Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 10:34 PM Subject: [dsg] Ultimate
      Message 354 of 354 , Oct 26, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Ken,

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Ken O" <ashkenn2k@...>
        To: <dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 10:34 PM
        Subject: [dsg] Ultimate Reality

        > Hi All
        > Just a thought that I would like to share.
        > How do we differentiate ultimate reality and conventional reality. I
        > feel the difference is whether we experience it. We can know to feel
        > but we cannot know a concept like a table only through a mind
        > construct. I think I like to say that there is no direct knowing of
        > the object.

        Feeling, if you mean vedanaa, also arises with cittas that take concepts as
        objects, doesn't it?

        > Another question is that is citta really that fast? I was wondering
        > if citta is not fast, how do we see light in a continuous stream
        > without a breakage. It must be fast enough to take it as an object.

        Citta only must to arise and subside more rapidly than does the subsequent
        conceptualization in order to make the conceptualization seem unbroken, I
        think--somewhat like the individual frames of a movie or pixels of a cathode
        ray tube seeming to make an unbroken moving picutre.

        > Thats just my thoughts

        Just mine too--mostly borrowed, actually...

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.