Common Misunderstandings.

[sky]

Buddhism does not teach that nothing exists. It teaches that beings and phenomena have no intrinsic existence. But Buddhism does not teach there is no existence at all. The “nothing exists” folklore mostly comes from a misunderstanding of the teaching of anatta and its Mahayana extension, shunyata. But these are not doctrines of non-existence. Rather, they teach that we understand existence in a limited, one-sided way.

[sky]

Buddhism is not a Reformation: Buddhism is different from Hinduism. In Hinduism, there are transmigrating souls, caste system, polytheism, and animal sacrifice. Buddhism does not follow these principles.

[Rain95]

Originally Posted by sky123

(*Buddhism) teaches that (the way we experience) beings and phenomena have no intrinsic existence.

Putting that into an easy to understand example:

Say I have an Aunt Kaykay. Every time she visits me she criticizes me. Now I would have a bad opinion of her based on my experience. Now Aunt Kaykay could also visit my sister and praise her all the time, never criticize her. So my sister loves Aunt Kaykay. Buddhism would say Aunt Kaykay has no actual nature as good or bad. I create something in her she does not actually have. My desire to be told good things about myself creates the "bad" feelings I have towards her. They are not intrinsically in her as her "nature." When I see her as "bad," I am the creator of that. It does not exist in her as a real attribute.

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Rain95

Putting that into an easy to understand example:

Say I have an Aunt Kaykay. Every time she visits me she criticizes me. Now I would have a bad opinion of her based on my experience. Now Aunt Kaykay could also visit my sister and praise her all the time, never criticize her. So my sister loves Aunt Kaykay. Buddhism would say Aunt Kaykay has no actual nature as good or bad. I create something in her she does not actually have. My desire to be told good things about myself creates the "bad" feelings I have towards her. They are not intrinsically in her as her "nature." When I see her as "bad," I am the creator of that. It does not exist in her as a real attribute.

inherent (or intrinsic) existence

What phenomena are empty of; the object of negation, or refutation. To ignorance, phenomena appear to exist independently, in and of themselves, to exist inherently.

Think more like a fire does not exist without wood and air for example.

Basically all things need other things to exist, hence no intrinsic existence.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Rain95

Putting that into an easy to understand example:

Say I have an Aunt Kaykay. Every time she visits me she criticizes me. Now I would have a bad opinion of her based on my experience. Now Aunt Kaykay could also visit my sister and praise her all the time, never criticize her. So my sister loves Aunt Kaykay. Buddhism would say Aunt Kaykay has no actual nature as good or bad. I create something in her she does not actually have. My desire to be told good things about myself creates the "bad" feelings I have towards her. They are not intrinsically in her as her "nature." When I see her as "bad," I am the creator of that. It does not exist in her as a real attribute.

' Emptiness ' not Aunt KK,

Even easier to understand.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Rain95

Putting that into an easy to understand example:

Say I have an Aunt Kaykay. Every time she visits me she criticizes me. Now I would have a bad opinion of her based on my experience. Now Aunt Kaykay could also visit my sister and praise her all the time, never criticize her. So my sister loves Aunt Kaykay. Buddhism would say Aunt Kaykay has no actual nature as good or bad. I create something in her she does not actually have. My desire to be told good things about myself creates the "bad" feelings I have towards her. They are not intrinsically in her as her "nature." When I see her as "bad," I am the creator of that. It does not exist in her as a real attribute.

It's a good point, well illustrated, so the meditation=philosophy aspect is to realise how we ourselves might imagine others, not later on, and not as a valid theory, but by understanding it as it we read it.

[sentient]

Originally Posted by Rain95

Putting that into an easy to understand example:

Say I have an Aunt Kaykay. Every time she visits me she criticizes me. Now I would have a bad opinion of her based on my experience. Now Aunt Kaykay could also visit my sister and praise her all the time, never criticize her. So my sister loves Aunt Kaykay. Buddhism would say Aunt Kaykay has no actual nature as good or bad. I create something in her she does not actually have. My desire to be told good things about myself creates the "bad" feelings I have towards her. They are not intrinsically in her as her "nature." When I see her as "bad," I am the creator of that. It does not exist in her as a real attribute.

Let’s imagine Aunt Kaykay is your childhood memory (or ‘Aunty Cuckoo’ as you defiantly labelled her as a child).
Now you are an adult and haven’t seen your Aunty for many, many years.
In the meantime you have studied Buddhism, done some meditation, introduced yourself to concepts such as egolessness, as-is-ness, nowness, space-like-emptiness, openness - what have you.

So now that you have learned to surrender to reality as it is at the present moment (not clinging to the past i.e. preconceived ideas) and you have learned that ‘egolessness’ is a basic strength to be, you can meet/face the situation with your Aunty totally anew - openly and directly.
Not being needy and hoping for praise or fearing criticism or ignoring ……. you can generously allow yourself to be in a spacious natural and neutral state and also allow space for your Aunty to be just-as-she-is.

What gets displayed as ‘what is’ within that unconditional space – can go – let’s say 2 ways.
Either you discover the delight of shared unconditional space for both of you to be-as-you-are, or you experience or sense of that space is sucked right out of the situation.
You bought, what you thought were the most beautiful bunch of flowers in the shop for your Aunty, but upon arrival, she criticized them as being all ‘wrong’ and once again, anew ‘you’ are the cause of all her suffering.

[Rain95]

The way I understand "no intrinsic" nature (in things) is we are adding the nature. The thing itself has none. Like I may love apples and you may hate them. The apples themselves do not carry this love or hate. We create the interpretation and experience according to our awareness or state of being. An "enlightened person" would experience things as they are, without interpretation. Somebody not enlightened, would experience their opinions, beliefs, interpretations etc.

Originally Posted by sentient

Let’s imagine Aunt Kaykay ....

Your example reminds me of a popular guru who is believed to have attained enlightenment or some form of that, and someone asked this guru about how they, as an enlightened person, deals with their parents who the guru said were very negative and critical. I don't want to give the name of the guru because I read it quite awhile ago so I don't remember the response word for word. But it fits your example. Basically, the guru said they understand or are aware their parents are unconscious, without much self awareness, so the stuff they say is expected and habitual/conditioned and all of that. They are just acting according to their current state of being or according to their nature. The guru tries to nudge them towards higher awareness if an opportunity presents itself, but it's largely a matter of just understanding that's where they are now at this point in their incarnation and spiritual development, so it is what it is.

It reminds me of a story in Castaneda's books where the shaman and his student were camping and the shaman (guru/teacher) is teaching the same thing to his apprentice. The student was complaining about humanity and how ignorant many of the people he knew in his life were, so the teacher asked him, "What if one of those people came to this camp and stole all of our food and ran away with it?" And the student said, "I'd be really mad and I would never forgive them." Then the teacher said, "What if it was a bear that took our food?" And the student said, "Well I would not be mad, the bear is just acting according to it's nature." The teacher said, "So are the people you know."

The same subject is in the Bible where Jesus shouts out, as he is being crucified, "Father forgive them, they know not what they do."

I thought of this topic after I posted. The what do I do about people in my life who are abusive or whatever. Do I just accept it? Really it is up to the person. There is no right or wrong. One person may decide to completely cut them out of their life. That's fine. Somebody else may decide to put up with it. It all depends on stuff like how do the relationships affect you and those you love, how bad is it? Can you help them to be more kind and loving? Do you want to forgive them or not? Maybe they are open to change and maybe not. So really there is no right or wrong response. It is up to the person involved to decide.

The "guru" I mentioned before said they limited the time they spent with their unconscious negative critical parents as it was draining after awhile. They said being around unconscious people gossiping or rambling on about this or that surrounds you with a kind of negative energy that can affect you. So you need breaks from it to "recharge" or re-center yourself.

My guess would be the more enlightened you are, the more you lose interest in unconscious types of activities. Like say a bunch of drunk people sat down next to Buddha laughing and carrying on, Buddha would probably walk away. He was just into a different way of being. Could an enlightened master work as a bartender in a busy bar? Well they could, but would they choose to? If they did, they may be bringing light to their customers by their demeanor and presence.

[sentient]

Originally Posted by Rain95

Your example reminds me of a popular guru who is believed to have attained enlightenment or some form of that, and someone asked this guru about how they, as an enlightened person, deals with their parents who the guru said were very negative and critical. I don't want to give the name of the guru because I read it quite awhile ago so I don't remember the response word for word. But it fits your example. Basically, the guru said they understand or are aware their parents are unconscious, without much self awareness, so the stuff they say is expected and habitual/conditioned and all of that. They are just acting according to their current state of being or according to their nature. The guru tries to nudge them towards higher awareness if an opportunity presents itself, but it's largely a matter of just understanding that's where they are now at this point in their incarnation and spiritual development, so it is what it is.

That is it.
Sometimes you just have no option other than to walk away and leave 'people' to their 'Karma'.

[sky]

Sunyata is often misunderstood to mean that nothing exists. This is not so. Instead, it tells us that there is existence, but that phenomena are empty of svabhava. This Sanskrit word means self-nature, intrinsic nature, essence, or "own being."

Although we may not be conscious of it, we tend to think of things as having some essential nature that makes it what it is. So, we look at an assemblage of metal and plastic and call it a "toaster." But "toaster" is just an identity we project onto a phenomenon. There is no inherent toaster essence inhabiting the metal and plastic.









Anatta and Sunyata
The historical Buddha taught that we humans are made up of five skandhas, which are sometimes called the five aggregates or five heaps. Very briefly, these are form, sensation, perception, mental formation, and consciousness.

If you study the skandhas, you might recognize that the Buddha was describing our bodies and the functions of our nervous systems. This includes sensing, feeling, thinking, recognizing, forming opinions, and being aware.

As recorded in the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta of the Pali Tipitaka (Samyutta Nikaya 22:59), the Buddha taught that these five "parts," including our consciousness, are not "self." They are impermanent, and clinging to them as if they were the permanent "me" gives rise to greed and hate, and to the craving that is the source of suffering. This is the foundation for the Four Noble Truths.


The teaching in the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta is called "anatta," sometimes translated "no self" or "not self." This basic teaching is accepted in all schools of Buddhism, including Theravada. Anatta is a refutation of the Hindu belief in atman -- a soul; an immortal essence of self.

But Mahayana Buddhism goes further than Theravada. It teaches that all phenomena are without self-essence. This is sunyata.

Empty of What?
Sunyata is often misunderstood to mean that nothing exists. This is not so. Instead, it tells us that there is existence, but that phenomena are empty of svabhava. This Sanskrit word means self-nature, intrinsic nature, essence, or "own being."

Although we may not be conscious of it, we tend to think of things as having some essential nature that makes it what it is. So, we look at an assemblage of metal and plastic and call it a "toaster." But "toaster" is just an identity we project onto a phenomenon. There is no inherent toaster essence inhabiting the metal and plastic.

A classic story from the Milindapanha, a text that probably dates to the first century BCE, describes a dialogue between King Menander of Bactria and a sage named Nagasena. Nagasena asked the King about his chariot and then described taking the chariot apart. Was the thing called a "chariot" still a chariot if you took off its wheels? Or its axles?

If you disassemble the chariot part by part, at exactly what point does it cease to be a chariot? This is a subjective judgment. Some might think it's no longer a chariot once it can no longer function as a chariot. Others might argue that the eventual pile of wooden parts is still a chariot, albeit a disassembled one.


The point is that "chariot" is a designation we give to a phenomenon; there is no inherent "chariot nature" dwelling in the chariot.