https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/vmuwox/the_concept_of_emptiness/ie3tm7g/?context=8&depth=9


User avatar

level 1

krodha

·

4 days ago

·

edited 4 days ago

Emptiness means when you truly scrutinize an object or entity you cannot find that entity. It is a difficult principle to understand.


Even in this very thread when monkey_sage writes:


Example: A table disappears under analysis. There are four legs, a flat top, a purpose, a name (table), qualities of hardness, height, length, width, an apparent origin (when the table was "made"), an apparent end (when the table breaks or otherwise stops being able to be used as a table). If you were to spend any time looking for what makes the table a table, you will never find it. It has no inherent essence. It is only a table because of all these factors (and more) coming together in a particular way for a particular duration under a particular observation and cognitive apprehension.


This is a nice explanation but it is not entirely accurate. The idea that there is a table that comes together because of certain objective factors is not even true (Candrakīrti refutes this idea). The table is a complete inference, there is no table entity there at all. The basis of designation, which in its distilled form is more subtle than a table-top, four-legs and so on, is actually just sensory phenomena, shades of color, shapes (again colors bordering one another), tactile sensation, and so on. There is no entity behind the color or shape, no entity that possesses those colors and shapes as characteristics. There are in fact no characteristics anywhere in an ultimate sense. Phenomena are in an innate state of cessation, having never arisen at any point in time. We as sentient beings are afflicted by an error in cognition that causes us to objectify appearances and reify them as entities in a habitual way. This dharma is a means to cut through those fortifying factors so that we can see the way things really are, as unborn, unconditioned, pure and naturally perfected.



2



Reply

Give Award

Share

Report

Save

Follow


User avatar

level 2

truthseeker1990

·

4 days ago

Does this mean we should strive to be like the table? i mean that line about Phenomenon being in a state of cessation always while as humans we are erroring out



1



Reply

Give Award

Share

Report

Save

Follow


User avatar

level 3

krodha

·

4 days ago

·

edited 4 days ago

We just have to strive to purify our minds of the species of ignorance which makes tables and so on appear to be real entities. The issue is in the mind, not in phenomena. Phenomena have always been unconditioned and pure from the very beginning, but we fail to recognize this. This teaching is the method to bring about that recognition so that truth can be fully integrated. When that recognition is completely integrated and brought to its full measure, that is buddhahood.



2



Reply

Give Award

Share

Report

Save

Follow


User avatar

level 4

truthseeker1990

·

4 days ago

Thank you for your reply. Can I ask one more question. Is this something to do with the hierarchal nature of concepts? That they stack on top of one another. The idea that something isnt real because it can be broken down further into its parts strikes me as a bit odd. Table is made up of pieces of wood, it has certain characteristics, its the relationship between a flat surface and some cylindrical pieces acting as legs but so what? Why isnt the table real? Why cant we have understanding at different levels.


I may be wrong about what i think i have understood from yours and others comments here but it seems like the idea is that if we can break something down further suggests that its not real or true somehow? Is this right?



1



Reply

Give Award

Share

Report

Save

Follow


User avatar

level 5

krodha

·

3 days ago

·

edited 3 days ago

I may be wrong about what i think i have understood from yours and others comments here but it seems like the idea is that if we can break something down further suggests that its not real or true somehow? Is this right?


I think this idea is prevalent and I’m sure others may have asserted this in this thread, but that is not what I was saying. Breaking objects down into constituent pieces or parts is not what I was getting at. What I am saying is the intention in understanding emptiness should center around challenging the validity of the object that can possess parts and pieces from the very beginning.


A good example of this would be the “chariot” line of logical reasoning used most notably by Candrakīrti in his Madhyamakāvatāra in order to establish the lack of a fundamental, core identity (self) in phenomena. Candrakīrti argues that the identity of a given person, place, thing, etc., is merely an inferential, conventional designation that does not ultimately correlate to the basis of imputation that the alleged 'thing' itself is falsely predicated upon. Meaning: the alleged object that the designation infers (the existence of) cannot be found when sought due to the fact that the alleged object itself cannot bear keen analysis.


(i) There is no chariot which is other than its parts


(ii) There is no chariot which is the same as its parts


(iii) There is no chariot which possesses its parts


(iv) There is no chariot which depends on its parts


(v) There is no chariot upon which the parts depend


(vi) There is no chariot which is the collection of its parts


(vii) There is no chariot which is the shape of its parts


Here, Candrakīrti is calling into question the credibility of the entity in its entirety. Not even asserting that there is an entity which possesses characteristics such as wheels, axels, a wooden frame etc., that can be further broken down into parts and pieces. The point is not to break the object down to show it is unreal, but rather investigate the mistaken notion that it is possible to locate the object in the first place.



2



Reply

Give Award

Share

Report

Save

Follow

0 Responses