15

Your confusion is clear as day to me. :) As is the true meaning of "emptiness". The challenge is how to explain it to you in a way you can understand. :) You are stuck on this idea of "object" being something that exists ontologically. Whether it's made of parts, whether it's a transient aggregate that will eventually fall apart, right ...


5

I'll try to explain this from the Theravada perspective, which I think is more or less the same as Madhyamaka emptiness, once you analyze it deeply. In addition to this answer, please also see "Linking Madhyamaka emptiness to Theravada emptiness through papanca". From Sutta Nipata 4.14, we read: "I ask the kinsman of the Sun, the great seer, ...


3

Usually,it goes like this - the flower before you seems real. Now get closer, you no longer see flower, but just leaves, stem. Even closer, you "see" atoms, electrons, etc. See? the flower is "empty" of inherent existence. The same goes for "self". Try search for the "self" in your thoughts, arm, leg, etc. and you ...


3

Part of the "philosophy of science" (as it was taught me in Physics class in school) is that there are different ways of looking at things, different levels of details -- e.g. sub-atomic physics, then chemistry, biology, maybe ecology after that, astro-physics -- not to even mention sociology, psychology, maths, and so on. So these are different &...


2

In simple words, pure perception is when you see everything as manifestation of Buddha-nature. Even things we usually consider bad or imperfect you see as a part of Great Perfection at a deeper level. Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche explains: ...pure perception is the main view and practice on the Vajrayana path. There is no room whatsoever for even a glimmer of ...


2

What are you hearing when you hear nothing but silence? “Pure perception” is what is left when you subtract out all the phenomenal manifestations, that, because they arise and pass away, are not real, are impermanent, and without a ‘self’. These apply to all that we cling to as our identity, and also all that which we call the external world. Do you hear ...


2

Richard Feynman, who definitely lived in the post-calculus world, once pondered flowers down to the atomic level and beyond. Feynman would also gladly point out the vast emptiness between those very atoms. Importantly, Feynman continuously pokes at conventional perceptions of a flower as being "real" and notes that the perception of an aggregate is ...


1

That's because there is no logic to it. Emptiness isn't apprehended by the discursive mind. It is perceived directly. One could roughly equate it to smelling. How could you logically describe the sense of smell to someone who hasn't had that perception? Any explanation you could offer would ultimately fall short. Buddhist philosophy isn't a philosophy ...


1

Perhaps you should have a good understanding of Culasunnata Sutta and Mahasunnata Sutta to know the Buddha's understanding of Sunnata. When you attain Nirodha Samapatthi you do not have the perception and feeling. So when you emerge from Nirodha Samapatthi you know that there is a state of Sunnata. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.024....


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible