Sometimes things seem like paradoxes, but there is a Reality
I was thinking of providing citations for Ultimate Reality
vs. Conventional
reality, but then I realized it is easier than that to remind a person that
there is ultimate Reality:
It is as simple as this: The Buddha over and over and
over cited the major goal of "seeing things as they really are"; if reality was
'relative' to each person that would have been noted by the Buddha (and it was
NOT), otherwise "things as they really are" clearly indicates that there is an
Ultimate (actual) Reality. [ Yet, still, the only ultimate unchanging reality is
Nibbana; thus, what this means is that even any ultimate Realities are
conditioned and would thus not be understood by just understanding ANY
thing-in-itself. Relatedly: "Emptiness, which for Nagarjuna is the true nature
of reality, is not the absence of existence but the absence of intrinsic
existence [ (highlighting, etc. added)] . "
(see:
http://www.britannica.com/biography/Nagarjuna ).
One big thing is: We
(humans) must be involved in the process (and there is a process) for Reality to
come to be. According to Nagarjuna (according to Britannica), there is this
related irony: "Nagarjuna employs the doctrine of the two truths, paramartha
satya (“ultimate truth”) and samvriti satya (“conventional truth”), explaining
that everything that exists is ultimately empty of any intrinsic
[ (highlighting, etc. added) ] nature but does
exist conventionally.
The conventional is the necessary means for
understanding the ultimate, and it is the ultimate [
(highlighting, etc. added)] that makes the conventional
possible."
[( Obviously, there IS an/one ultimate Reality -- it exists.) ]
(end of quote from Britannica, paraphrasing Nagarjuna) ]
According to Britannica: "Nagarjuna is the most famous thinker in the history of Buddhism after the Buddha himself. "
This does not mean there are NO differences in THE DHAMMA for individuals (though there is a LOT of commonality). One way we can see that the Buddha recognized individual differences in 'the Dhamma' is because he several times, when talking about people, referred to "their Dhamma" (and not THE Dhamma).
Since we all have to benefit each other, I consider this a relatively minor
matter (and nothing big is made of it in the suttas at all).
-------------------------
What is the closest concept Buddhism has of a God or which is God-like? The
answer is
clearly: Buddhism's (and each individual Buddhist's) [evolving]
concept of Ultimate Reality.
Looking back over the quotes from Nagarjuna
and Britannica
and reviewing my own glimpse of understanding, it seems to me
that the concept of
Reality (i.e. Ultimate Reality) is very foundational and
is the closest thing to
God in Buddhism. (And, thus, there is no wonder why
the Buddhist
way of life is so conducive to scientists and science -- which
is good for ALL
of us.) I think it takes little reflection to realize the
foundational nature of Reality. :
Particularly, the foundational nature
of the concept of [ultimate] Reality shows
itself in relation to
conditionality, impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and non-self.
It is at
the juncture of where an individual's conventional reality shifts more
profoundly to come significantly closer to "seeing things as they are" and to
realizing
more ABOUT Ultimate Reality that one realizes the temporary nature
of things (notably including
concepts). And, THUS, one realizes the
impermanence of one's old outlook (and likely
impermanence of even one's
new, much better outlook) AND also how the old and new concepts
are related
to conditions and NOT self (they are impersonal things, non-self); one also
'sees' there
is not any intrinsic final true nature to anything -- thus
some real 'emptiness' has begun to be
realized as well. But, of course, we
must keep in mind that this has nothing to
do with any idea that Reality is
'relative' or unimportant OR non-existent; in fact: that there is
ONE/AN
Ultimate Reality is essentially inferable , FROM the very
realization of getting closer
to at least a significant part of it.
Not only is Ultimate Reality arguably an important foundational position
of
Buddhism, but one can see it as the MOST important foundational position
Buddhism takes, pivotal to
other major things to be realized (as partly
described, above). This is at the very core of what
makes Buddhism different
from other religions (and, perhaps, one should simply say: how Buddhism
is
different from religion). Keeping it clear how Buddhism does differ from [other]
religions is very important.
-----------------------
SOME MORE PERSPECTIVE FOR THE PROPER UNDERSTANDING OF EMPTINESS
(for knowing the kind of valid perception of
some emptiness you may have as you develop better, more true
understanding)
In the analysis of emptiness (i.e. as the word, sunnata, as it occurs _and_
the sense of its usage in most places in the Discourses), as done in the
book
Excursions into the Thought World of the Pali
Discourses, by Analayo
points out some very important points.
One point is that emptiness is used as an adjective, and not
a
noun UNTIL FINAL REALIZATION. In other words, "emptiness"
is a
qualification that SOMETHING/experience-object has become
"empty" OF some of
what it seemed to have (or of some of what it
did have) for YOU (in a
important sense, its past nature is gone).
And, thus, emptiness is an
awareness of what has been transcended at
each point _YET_ you are required (at the same time) to have a clear
awareness of what is still present.
One type of major exemplar situation
where this comes up, can
be illustrated (and IS so illustrated) in the
suttas when : "one
proceeds from the experience of earth to the experience
of
boundless space. While the perception of earth is gone, the
experience of boundless space is present" (Analayo). Similarly, leaving
behind the non-emptiness of the perception of boundless space
(and making it
"empty"), yet leaves you with the experience
of a not-empty perception of
boundless consciousness. And, so on,
and so on UNTIL LIBERATION (true
realization; enlightenment)!!
[ So 'emptiness' is a qualification and not an
entity, at least until
Enlightenment -- where and when the destruction of
influxes has occurred. ]
This all makes sensing emptiness (as one/you&me
can) much more easy to do
exactly because it is the qualification
(adjective) it IS. It might give us the pause
that seems like emptiness OR
is part of emptiness, but
this would just be the sense of what has
been given up (but not the sense of
everything being empty -- nor likely even the full knowledge
of emptiness of any particular,
given thing).
Another way to speak about this:
In order to reach the peak of emptiness
or move toward this, insight into the conditionality (dependent
conditionality) and impermanence need to be developed, as well as realizing the
non-personal
(or impersonal) -- the non-self -- nature of things that
come up with human processes, more correctly seen.
It is thus reasonable to
think that it is just such insights that also accompany, or correspond with,
each new realization of some emptiness -- emptiness you can realize or sense.
AND: "... even the peak of emptiness, the realization of full awakening
and unsurpassable mental freedom, is "empty of." Empty of what? Empty of
lust, anger, and delusion (MN I 298)." (Analayo) [And,
because of this,
you
also 'see' that no thing has any intrinsic nature (connecting all this to points
at the top of this web page.) ]
----------------------------------
Nibbana,
accompanies the most significant realization of the nature of phenomenon
and, correspondingly of true 'emptiness'
--
together: accompanied by peace and bliss. From
the suttas: "This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all
fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving;
dispassion; cessation; Nibbana."
It is the end (full eradication)
of attachment, aversion, and of ignorance (delusion), and is "seeing things as
they are".
Upon Enlightenment, there are no longer any unwholesome latent
tendencies; there is realization.
Nibbana
is the name for the goal of Buddhist practice, the goal of the Buddhist Path,
fully accompanying Enlightenment.
An Enlightened one fully understands
suffering,
impermanence and
non-self. Enlightenment
is fully realizing the 8-Fold
Noble Path, having truly achieved all Factors
for Enlightenment. This is accompanied by
Nibbana . Nibbana is the only
unconditioned phenomenon (aspect of reality).
Another way I believe
you could 'view' it is:
Nibbana
is a great emptiness; but this is certainly not nothing. It is a grand,
poignant, true and blissful emptiness
BECAUSE all the conscious processes
realizing it are from cultivated, skillful thought and associated sati, wise
attention,
together which is "seeing things as they really are" [(or
'seeing' a significant field of things 'as they really are' -- in
the case of
the 3 path stages that are not full Enlightenment)]. The true emptiness
brings the rest of
consciousness into relief -- as most fulfilling (as view
fulfilled) -- and vice versa.
[ This accords
some of oldest, most basic, foundational beliefs of the Mahayana Buddhists, of
which I recently
came across this summary :
"The first theme is that of the very peak, the perfection (paramita), of wisdom
(prajna). Its content
is emptiness (sunyata). And
its context is the path and practices of a bodhisattva, one whose aim
is not just enlightenment (obtained by arhats), but Perfect Buddhahood for the
benefit of all
sentient beings." (from
Buddhist Thought by P. Williams and A. Tribe,
2000) ]
Go to the main part of this Buddhism site: https://mynichecomp.com/index.php?subject=12
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
THE Paragraph, the above material was linked to (had a link from) was:
A bit more perspective on Buddhist Concepts
One must be fully with/on the 'object' one is contemplating or attending to wisely
(closely) or concentrating on -- THAT is the NOW ('the present') of Buddhism.
For unenlightened persons: a bit of the 'emptiness' Buddhism speaks of is found when
you transcend the unnecessary or incorrect parts of a view(s) (insight); experiencing
a bit of 'emptiness' of an old incorrect view, one also gets a sense of the conditionality
and impermanence, and of non-self
(based on Excursions in the Thought World of the Pali Discourses, by Analayo, 2012 and
based on his finding that, except at Enlightenment, emptiness is used as
an adjective, qualifying 'objects' of concentration and contemplation).
AND: "... even the peak of emptiness, the realization of full awakening
and unsurpassable mental freedom, is "empty of." Empty of what? Empty of
lust, anger, and delusion (MN I 298)." (Analayo)
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
Those who do not read the Comments sections online do not have awareness of or access to mahayana.html (Mahayana contributions).