Not a Stage

There is form and there is emptiness.

Discuss!

Are you saying they are two separate things?

There is neither...

What does it even mean? This is one of the fundamental tenents of buddhism that just baffltes me.

Could it just be too simple for me to get? Does it mean that there are objects for sure but that there is no self to be found inside the objects? Is that it?
PLEASE TELL ME!!!!! this empty shell of an entity must know.

I guess all the divisions within your experience are conceptual. Nothing has a defined edge really. It's all one big flowy blah. You, other, red, green, all ideas. It is what it is. I have no idea

"There is form and there is emptiness."

I don't know that for sure. The only thing I know is how excruciatingly painful it is to think I know something. Just for the sake of argument, let's imagine for a moment that the "form and emptiness" dogma so essential to Buddhism is based on a typo. Now what? ;-D

Kenneth isn't what you are saying the whole point? When you let go of concepts all those things these pointers are pointing at is what remains?

Now what? The entirety of the theoretical and practical underpinnings of Buddhism come crashing to the ground and Buddhists the world over are left to wonder in the metaphorical dessert, pitiful, broken, and without hope.

"Kenneth isn't what you are saying the whole point? When you let go of concepts all those things these pointers are pointing at is what remains?"-Mumuwu

Not if you mean that we can confidently intone the words "form and emptiness" and think we have said anything true. I'm saying that freedom comes from a willingness to give over *all* concepts in this moment, *especially* the one I am most sure of.

You might say, well sure, but we have to communicate, so why can't we talk about form and emptiness, understanding that these words are not the moon, but a finger pointing?

Sort of, I say. But it's so nice to be free in this moment, and those tired old gods are such vital currency; the bigger the god, the more freedom you get from handing it over. It gets so rewarding to not know that knowing hardly stands a chance.

"Now what? The entirety of the theoretical and practical underpinnings of Buddhism come crashing to the ground and Buddhists the world over are left to wonder in the metaphorical dessert, pitiful, broken, and without hope."-cmarti

Hallelujah, my dharma brother! Hallefrickinlujah!

They'd wander. They would wonder, too, but they would definitely wander.

""Kenneth isn't what you are saying the whole point? When you let go of concepts all those things these pointers are pointing at is what remains?"-Mumuwu

Not if you mean that we can confidently intone the words "form and emptiness" and think we have said anything true. I'm saying that freedom comes from a willingness to give over *all* concepts in this moment, *especially* the one I am most sure of.

You might say, well sure, but we have to communicate, so why can't we talk about form and emptiness, understanding that these words are not the moon, but a finger pointing?

Sort of, I say. But it's so nice to be free in this moment, and those tired old gods are such vital currency; the bigger the god, the more freedom you get from handing it over. It gets so rewarding to not know that knowing hardly stands a chance."

That isn't what I mean. What I mean is that when you drop the conceptual framework entirely, what remains is the moon. The moon is there the whole time, but the clouds(concepts) obscure it (at least they appear to). In other words, what you say in the last paragraph.

What does the moon stand for in the metaphor?

""There is form and there is emptiness."

I don't know that for sure. The only thing I know is how excruciatingly painful it is to think I know something. Just for the sake of argument, let's imagine for a moment that the "form and emptiness" dogma so essential to Buddhism is based on a typo. Now what? ;-D"

I have to admit I don't care either way.
I see what I see and I do what I do no matter what the sutras say I'm no fool.

Mu!

Lol

(what is there if you have no concepts?)

And Mumuwu whips out the ol' Mu side-step!

A banana split!

As I watch from the sidelines I have no idea what the hell you guys are on about. **sips beer**

Cheers!

"@Kenneth:

You might say, well sure, but we have to communicate, so why can't we talk about form and emptiness, understanding that these words are not the moon, but a finger pointing?

Sort of, I say. But it's so nice to be free in this moment, and those tired old gods are such vital currency; the bigger the god, the more freedom you get from handing it over. It gets so rewarding to not know that knowing hardly stands a chance.
"

I can understand this and it maybe because as a teacher you spend a lot of time pointing and students looking at your finger.

But what about when you meet someone new, do you just stare at each other and say nothing? Maybe it could go something like; "Form - what is form?". "Emptiness - what is emptiness?". "Emptiness is form, form is emptiness".

Nik gets it!

sip sip!

"Mumuwu: The moon is there the whole time, but the clouds(concepts) obscure it (at least they appear to).

Chris: What does the moon stand for in the metaphor?

"

one of the most common concepts in spiritual circles is that there are concepts, and there is experience. However, while this distinction points at something important, (and of course you qualified your point about concepts obscuring, Mu)--- reality-- that which is realized, primordially or in time, is not a concept or an experience, not a map or a territory.
Yet each conceptual experience is the radiance of reality. Realization, whether momentary or non-retrogressive, can't be tied to specific concepts or experiences, even though we are usually having both in any momentary and passing or life-shifting non-retrogressive "event" of realization.
The skandhas-- form, etc--- are conditioned, fleeting, arising and passing, wholesome and unwholesome, clear and unclear.
Openness, beyond concept and experience, is stainless unborn clear light within which all arisings are born and die.
The skandhas-- form, etc-- are the direct radiance of stainless clear light, spontaneously shimmering as light seen by light. Their arising and passing is unborn clear light shining evenly without increase or decline.

"Form is emptiness" <----Not empty
Form is emptiness <----empty

That or the freedom of not knowing.

^_^

"There is form and there is emptiness.

Discuss!

"

"It all depends on what the definition of 'is', is."
[what WJ Clinton said]

But seriously, what Jake said.

And also, what Piglet said: 'Heff'¦ a Hell'”a Heff'”a Heffalump.'
'Where?'
'Up there,' said Piglet, waving his paw.
'What did it look like?'
'Like'”like'”It had the biggest head you ever saw, Christopher Robin. A great enormous thing, like'”like nothing. A huge big'”well, like a'”I don't know'”like an enormous big nothing.'

--or, 'Form is not other than emptiness.' A Heffalump is like an enormous big nothing.

"There is form and there is emptiness.

Discuss!

"

A friend of mine puts it thus:

What we know about and experience is forms. "being thus" "it's like this" - that's form. Life is like this, living things are like this, this is how it's like to live as an organism on this planet, in this society, etc.

What we can't know or experience in the same way is existence or "being there" of form. We can't know that, not in our own experience, and not by observing someone else's experience.

Form: "being like that, being thus".
Emptiness: "being there".

I like this explanation - it's practical, because it can be explored in one's own experience. It's also the same (as I understand it) as saying that no perception (including thoughts) can perceive another perception.

Cheers,
Florian

"--or, 'Form is not other than emptiness.' A Heffalump is like an enormous big nothing." The Madhyamaka of Piglet?

"Form: "being like that, being thus".
Emptiness: "being there"." Sounds like "suchness". The tathatha of Monkymind

So is it dogma, or not dogma?

***************************************************

Definition of dogma:

1.
a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet
b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma>
c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds

2.
: a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

***************************************************

So if we experience or observe something and have more than established opinion, authority, pedagogy or tenets that support that thing, it's not dogma? At what point does experience matter, or does it? Further, can we trust our experiences to the extent that we can rely on what they present to us? If we cannot then there is nothing to trust, i suspect. If we can, how do we determine what to trust and not to trust? Finally, what role does choice play in this conundrum? We can choose, I think, our view.

This probably sounds like gibberish, doesn't it?