[Buddha-l] Emptiness

[Erik Hoogcarspel]

Jackhat1 at aol.com schreef:
> In a message dated 7/1/2008 11:54:59 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> rhayes at unm.edu writes:
>
>   
>>  From a practice standpoint, I don't see a difference between Thera's   
>> teaching on no-self and Mahayana's on emptiness. However, I don't  know 
>>     
> much  about 
>   
>> Mahayana. What do you see as the  difference?
>>     
>
> In Nagarjuna (and I leave it to others to decide whether he  was Mahayana
> or not--I think not especially) "empty" means two  things.
> Metaphysically, it means nothing more than dependent on conditions.  From
> a linguistic point of view it means conceptualized through  attachments.
> The insight seems to be that our ideas arise in accordance  with our
> perceptions of our wants and needs. No desire, no ideas. (That's  why
> Buddhist practice results in death to philosophy.) 
> ==
> Thanks for the reply. The above seems in accordance with the Pali Canon. As  
> I'm getting further into the David Eckel CD series, I'm finding more and more  
> that I am having problems with it. In his one lecture on Thera., he talks 
> about  three political figures. He waits until all the lectures on Mahayana to 
> talk  about doctrinal issues. He says in one lecture that his main interest in  
> Buddhism has been emptiness. He says Mahayana emptiness is completely 
> different  than Thera non-self. I'm glad I have this list to check my understanding  
> against.
>
>
> All  of this certainly seems fully compatible with the doctrine of
> non-self at  the doctrinal level. At the level of practice, quien sabe?
> What does the  practice of non-self look like? What does the practice of
> emptiness look  like? In both cases, I reckon the practice consists in
> abandoning  attachment. From non-attachment flows the cultivation of
> everything  skillful and the elimination of everything unskillful. Thus
> have I guessed.  
> ===
> Yeah. Just letting things go. I think of it as a stream of phenomena  passing 
> through the mind. If no attachment to this phenomena, emptiness and no  self- 
> the Zen thing about the perfect man leaving no footprints in the forest  snow.
>  
> Jack
>   
At the time the emptiness was considered as a new invention. My 
understanding of anatta in the Palicanon is that events are caused, but 
that there are ultimate causes, dhamma's. Shit just happens, so let it 
go. If you're not attached to the shit it's no big deal. The 
prajñaapaaramitaasuutra's are basically about the idea that there's 
nothing ultimate at all, so shit just seems to happen in a way, but from 
an other point of view nothing happens. In the field of practice the 
emphasis shifts from letting go of worldly events, overcoming 
attachment, to the experience of this emptiness of being in itself. The 
details I leave to the expertise of your meditationteacher.

-- 


Erik

Info: www.xs4all.nl/~jehms  
Weblog: http://www.volkskrantblog.nl/pub/blogs/blog.php?uid=2950 
Productie: http://www.olivepress.nl