Theos-Talk Archives (June 1999 Message tt00078)

> Jerry Schueler wrote:
>
> > Recently I have been re-reading Nagarjuna, whose middle way doctrine
> > denounces all extremes.  According to Nagajuna, even HPB's Beness,
> > Space, and Motion, have to go. Even emptiness is empty.
>
> But Paul Williams in MAHAYANA BUDDHISM:  The Doctrinal Foundations, p.
108,
> writes:....


Dan, it all depends on the translator. I have several translations in my
library, and they are slightly different.  Nagarjuna, and many high Adepts
after him, taught the "emptiness of emptiness" doctrine to do away with
the notion of a substantial existing nirvana.


>
> ". . . but the Jo nang pas and others insisted that Nagarjuna's explicit
final
> teachings of an inherently existing Ultimate can be found in certain of
his
> hymns, particularly the *Dharmadhatustava*. . . ."
>

The idea of an ultimate or Beness or Thatness only has meaning
in duality because such a concept stands in opposition to relativity.
In non-duality, both must go.


 > Blavatsky students might like to study  what HPB writes about the
Absolute as
> well as what is found in the VOICE about the Buddha Nature and then
compare with
> the Jo nang pa view found in the following two sources.
>

HPB, bless her heart, focused only on what the Mahayana call relative
truth.  From the viewpoint of relative truth (i.e., from the viewpoint of
our human minds) an Absolute does indeed exist.


> Read about the 2 different kinds of "emptiness" in a new book about the Jo
nang
> pa founder Dolpopa.  This book was just released May 27th by SUNY Press:
>

I have read of many kinds of emptiness.  There is an emptiness of
objects as well as an emptiness of selfhood. There is also an emptiness
of emptiness.

 > Dolpopa emphasized two contrasting definitions of the Buddhist teachings
of
> emptiness: "emptiness of self-nature," which applies only to the level of
> relative truth, and "emptiness of other," which applies only to the level
of
> absolute truth.

Emptiness of other is the unreality of objectivity. Emptiness of self-nature
is the unreality of subjectivity.  The Tibetan teaching of emptiness is
identical to the Zen teaching of Suchness, or rather of no-suchness.
Because objects and selfs have no suchness, or lack thing-in-itselfness,
they are said to be empty. The basic teachings are identical.

> identified ultimate reality as the Buddha-nature inherent in all living
beings.
> This view of an "emptiness of other," known in Tibetan as Zhentong, is
Dolpopa's
> main spiritual legacy.
>

Because we all have the exact same buddha-nature, there is no difference
between any two of us, and spirituality is said to be characterized by
a strong sense of oneness.


>> Tathagatagarbha -- Buddha Nature -- is a central concept of Mahayana
Buddhism
crucial to all the living practice traditions of Tibetan and Zen Buddhism.
Its relationship to the concept of emptiness has been a subject of
controversy for seven
hundred years. Dr. Hookam's work investigates the divergent interpretations
of
these concepts and the way the Tibetan tradition is resolving them.<<

Buddha-nature is exactly what G de P calls the "essence" of every person.
At the core of our being, we are all consciousness-centers or monads
whose chief quality is buddha-nature--exactly the same in everyone.
In a relative sense, we are empty and yet have a buddha-nature. In a
higher sense, even buddha-nature is empty.


> In particular she does this with reference to the only surviving Indian
> commentary on the Tathagatagarbha doctrine, the
> Ratnagotravibhaga. This text addresses itself directly to the issue of how
to
> relate the doctrine of emptiness (the illusory
> nature of the world) to that of the truly existing, changeless Absolute
(the
> Buddha Nature).
>

If you want to equate buddha-nature with the absolute, and emptiness
with the "illusory nature of the world" then you are right back to
square one with nirvana vs samsara, but simply using different words.
According to Mahayana, and especially Dzogchen, nirvana IS samsara
and there is no difference between the two except in our own minds.
The lowest sense of emptiness is realtive--all aggragates are unreal.
A higher sense of emptiness is that even the absolute is unreal as
such.  In the highest possible sense, even emptiness itself is empty.

> Daniel Caldwell

Thanks Dan.  I haven't seen or read the book you refer to yet, but
hopefully I will soon.

Jerry S.




-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.