[Buddha-l] Re: To whom should teachings be given (reloaded)

[Vicente Gonzalez]

Erik wrote:

EH> I've no idea what you mean by 'positive emptiness', at least
EH> not in the context of Naagaarjuna. It might be appicable to the
EH> Shingon or Tibetan vijñaptimaatra or some tantric views, but not
EH> to Naagaarjuna. And why should this be feminine? Plato had a
EH> positive view on emptiness and so did the whole negative theology.
EH> Most of them were guys weren't they? Aristotle thought emptiness
EH> was just nothing, was he the real man?

yes, of course it not only related with woman.
'Positive emptiness' refers to that formulation of emptiness explained
in not negative views. An special emphasis in the non-nihilistic
character of emptiness instead to insist in something empty of
characteristics.
Then it is a creative notion; there is an emptiness underlying the
million things. All the things are an emptiness but this emptiness
also is full of life.

This creativity it's represented using woman figures. In example,
prajnaparamita was referred as the "mother of all Buddhas".
It is an archetypical female idea; there is a mother who engender
all the things. The other one (the negative) it is a male conception.
Trikaya explanation also it's related with this female notion, because
this triple production has a source and it is the prajnaparamita, the
"pure wisdom".

It is not exclusive of Buddhism. In example in Christianism it is
one of his misteries. God is father, son and the holy spirit,
and also we have Virgin Mary as the God's mother.

As I have said, both explanations are recovered 400 years after their
religious founders. In Buddhism it coincides with the spread of
mahayana. In Christianism there is not any new teaching associated
with this (except if we believe in some secret transmission
including Hermetics and the rest, already popularized in Da Vinci
Code).

We find this aspect of emptiness in Mahayana; strongly emphasized
with the formulations of Buddha nature, true self, Tathagatagabha,
true mind, etc... All them are rooted in prajnaparamita.

Both views, negative and positive, are not opposite things. Both
should be harmonized in the practitioner while he try to reach the
goal.

Nagarjuna's work is devoted to prajnaparamita but his concern only
is to corner emptiness. Nagarjuna only drive us to emptiness.
He was really aseptic or perhaps not so pretentious.


best regards,