[Buddha-l] Re: Emptiness

[Richard Hayes]

On Wednesday 24 October 2007 11:25, Dante Rosati wrote:

> the original question was whether priority could or should be assigned
> to mind or body. 

Yes, that was the original question.

> My point was that both were dependent designations 
> signifying nothing. Designating is actually done by ignorance in the
> first place.

So your answer to the question "What is prior to designation?" is that 
ignorance is prior to designation. Now, given that ignorance is merely a 
designation, we can ask what is prior to that designation. Presumably, the 
answer would be more ignorance. So we might ask from what that ignorance 
arises. Does it arise from the phenomena designated as the body or to the 
phenomena designated as the mind? Now we are back to the original question, 
which I think we can all agree really requires no answer at all. It is a 
question best met with a healthy dose of agnosticism.

> If we abide in that which is not involved in the ignorant 
> designating activity (and the presence of immediate actuality is such)
> then Bush will naturally disappear, as will all defilements. 

If only it were that easy to make Bush disappear. Unfortunately, Bush is 
beginning to sound more and more to be like an counterexample to the dogma 
that all things are impermanent.

> Allowing 
> Bush to self-liberate into emptiness is called "engaged Buddhism".

I have never had any use for engaged Buddhism. Engaged Buddhism often leads to 
married Buddhism. As a follower of Stephen Batchelor, I am a bit nervous 
about mixing marriage and Buddhism.

-- 
Richard P. Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico
http://www.unm.edu/~rhayes