I'm sorry Bhaskar, if this sounds pedantic, but if it's beautiful, it can't be true emptiness, as that would imply a lack of all qualities whatsoever, including beauty.
Tradition is beautiful in Hinduism because Hinduism is beautiful. Not all religions are beautiful, or useful. Or lead to peace, or lead to betterment.
if they are neither beautiful nor useful, nor lead us to peace and enlightenment, then they are not religions.
Emptiness, shunyata, as taught in the scriptures of Buddhism does not refer to that at all. It only refers to emptiness of an individual existence, an individual self. The emptiness of Buddhism brings with it a simultaneous fullness - a fullness of everything, the fullness of existence as existence itself without form and name. Allow em to rephrase my statement from earlier to suit your linguistic palate. Emptiness is beauty.
Hey BBB, There are several forms of Sunyata, or explainations maybe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunyata I tend to think they are all the same, if you stop and think about it long enough. What is it you find hard to accept about the "Emptiness" doctrine? If you don't mind getting into discussion.
From my reading on Buddhism, I'm not sure that Sunyata necessarily means emptiness in the sense of a vacum, or a total absence of all being and qualities. On balance, could it mean a kind of emptiness that is at one and the same time a fullness? I can accept something along those lines with no problem. What I don't accept is the whole notion of emptiness behind forms, and behind the self. If Bhaskar is correct in saying that it refers to an ultimate emptiness or unreality of the self, then I can only really say that it doesn't concur at all with my own experience. My own belief is that the self is ultimately a definite 'something' - By self here, I don't mean the surface ego but something deeper. On the level of personal consciousness, meditation etc, it's often said that one definite goal is to arrive at a state of silence, or emptiness. That is true, but it seems that if that is attained, immediately that emptiness gets filled - with something inexpressible, but nonetheless 'something'. Sorry if that sounds a bit obscure, can't think how else to put it.
From what I understand, you are correct. It is not that a perceived object has no existence or qualities, it does, it is that it can not exist on its own, it is interdependant. This is called the Second Dharma Seal. The first Seal is Impermanence, the third Nirvana. (from The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching, Thich Nhat Hanh.) It is empty of qualities that belong only to it. It can not stand in isolation from all things. So, in this regard, it is full as all things are inherent in this "one thing". But, there can never be "one thing". as all things are in transition, or impermanent (the First Seal). The emptiness, as I understand it, is not a lack of anything, in is an inclusion of all things. All "individual" things are in reality compounded from other things. This includes the individual self which exists as a compound of everything that it is not. Well, now it gets tricky. If we disregard the individual self, and I will include the ego, mind, and body; in fact all objects and phenonmena, what is left? Do you speak of a "oneness" or are you thinking of something like a soul that "belongs" to each surface ego? The goal is to transend duality, but the way to do this has to be pointed to by useing words (at least in this case) and words are dualistic by nature. There is nothing to attain but the understanding that there is nothing to attain. This is not so easily done as it appears to be a contradiction. Anyway that's what I think, what do you think?, anyone? BTW, Bhaskar said: I don't think that there is no form and name, obviously there is as I am typing on a keyboard right now, and it has form and name. But the form and name are empty of their own individual existence, the keyboard relies on the rest of the world to exist....but exist it does. ..... the Razor's Edge.
Someone asked the Buddha what he got from Supreme enlightenment. The Buddha answered, "Nothing. That is why it is supreme enlightenment." Beautiful explanation meagain, I concur with you. My explanationo f emptiness is restated from Thich Nhat Hanh's commentary on the prajnaparamita hridaya sutra. I highly reccomend it.
Hence my earlier point that emptiness cannot, for example be said to be beautiful. The universe could be described as 'one thing'. That is in constant flux, but I can't see the objection. Perhaps. But I'm not sure about that. It depends what you think the individual self is. And whether it is merely a temporary construct or something else. It can't be adequately described in words. It is something that has to be realized or attained. The soul doesn't belong to anything but God, or to itself. It's more that the ego belongs to the soul. According to Buddhist philosophy, that is indeed one aspect of the goal. But actually, I don't think the duality is unreal or that the goal is necessarily to overcome it. My position is that the soul and God are eternal realities. There can be oneness between the soul and God, but still the distinction remains. Hence, I see the Buddhist notion of merging into the absolute or however you want to phrase it as illusory, or only a partial understanding. That is exactly the sort of view that puts me off Buddhism, and tends to confirm my underlying idea that it is ultimately nihilistic.
Just to add another complication, I don't really think the whole notion of duality as a principle of existence is correct. In my view it's a threefoldness that governs manifestation, not a duality.
This is true, beauty is offset by ugly. Yes, in the Sunyata tradition the self is an aggregated illusion. It has no reality of its own. Other schools and tradtions differ. In the Sunyata school it is defined by words as a composite of the body, sensation, conception, volition, and consciousness. In Buddhism there is no God. There is no soul, and there is no belonging. Duality is real at one level, but not the Ultimate level. As far as the goal...I was speaking of the stated purpose of Buddhism. To end suffering one must realize the Ultimate nature of Reality. This sounds to me to be a Christian, or maybe Brahmanic postion. In Buddhism, as I said before, there is no God, soul, or eternity. Now, please don't think I am trying to convince you of this, you may believe what ever you want. That is absolutily right. If that is how Buddhism is defined. But in Sunyata and most other schools of Buddhism there is no merging as everything is already merged. LOL! Buddhism is often accused of being nihilistic. Let me offer this paragraph from http://westernchanfellowship.org/agnostic-buddhist.html : My italics, and I apoligize for the long post.
Well done meagain, except I must disagree with you when you speak of sunyata being different from the idea of Brahman. What is described in terms of emptiness i sunyata is described in fullness as brahman. Even the Buddha used the term vinnanam anidassanam - objectless awareness - to describe enlightenment. This is in no way different from the concept of shuddha chinmayam - pure consciousness or awareness.
But you can read as many definitions as you like and still you'll be no closer to actually realizing what the self is. What objective grounds are there for believing the Buddhist account of the self over that of Hinduism, Christianity or even post-structuralism? Well, I did say at the outset that I am not a Buddhist. But I have no interest in seeking to undermine the faith or belief of others. I've read a certain amount of Buddhist literature of various schools, and interacted with Buddhists - and concluded that this path is not for me. In the end, whatever one believes or thinks isn't really that important in the final analysis, because it seems that it is only by going beyond the mind that any real experience can be had of spiritual realities. Linguistic propositions are only an attempt at representation. That itself is one of my gripes against Buddhism - one is told that it is necessary to go beyond mental philosophy, then presented with massive tomes of philosophy to be studied. . Well if you begin your religious discourse with the words 'all life is suffering' and say the goal is an ultimate dissolution of the self, what can you expect?
Bill, I've said this before and I will say it again. "All life is suffering" is not an accurate translation of the first noble truth. The correct translation is "There is suffering in life." Further, the goal is not dissolution of the self it is going beyond notions of both self and not-self, existence and non-existence.
I am dissapointed in you for making this childish argument. Though a menu offers a hundred different entrees, you choose one and eat that fully, and enjoy it. You are not expected to eat all 100. The massive tomes are presented, you are not expected to study all of them, any one sutra, or section of a sutra is enough to guide one through all spiritual endeavors. It is only the depth of the religion and it's diversity and ability to get through to all types of people that leads to so much literature. The buddha never told you to study 10,000 sutras. He taught us to be nirgrantha - beyond the scriptures. No Hindu alive has studied even one veda in it's entirety. It is not even possible. It is there for those who need it, but not forced on you.
Bhaskar: I'm sorry, I was speaking of the beliefs of the Brahmin caste not Brahman, as in the belief of a seperation of Brahman and Atman. Bill: This is what you must find out. I like the path of Buddhist logic although there are other ways of checking this out. Each major religion addresses this issue a little bit differently, so there are multiple ways. I like the book Be Here Now as it gives examples from all the major paths. I agree. we're just shooting the sh-t here. But the difference is that most of Buddhism does not say that you must believe or follow their doctrines. Buddhism abounds in massive amounts of writings because it encourages you to seek your own way. They are building a database or a map of routes and presenting you (not you in particular)with what they have asked, sought, and found. In truth no scriptures need be consulted. Did ya notice the extensive use of Buddhist chit chat in my reply ???!!!
Liking something isn't an objective reason to accept it necessarily. Let me say that over the last thirty odd years, I've read very widely in many different spiritual paths and traditions etc. I read 'Be here Now' back in the 70's, as well as other stuff by Ram Das. I'm not suggesting that Buddhism is no good - I'm just saying that it's not my own path, and I disagree with some Buddhist ideas. It's not so much a matter of intellectual disagreement or agreement so much as my own experience - which in the end is all one has to go on. There is much that is good too in Buddhism - don't get me wrong. I like the ethical approach to life, and the whole idea of a kind of contemplative/meditative approach. However, in my case, Ive been drawn in a different direction - more in line with modern Hinduism, esoteric Christianity and other things.
