André A. Pais Soh, I just wrote up-thread:

<

Shunyata, meaning emptiness (of inherent nature), seems to say that things lack independent identity.

A rock, for instance, is not a permanent entity, but if it is merely anatta, it can exist as a rock independent of mind. If it is shunyata, then it is not independent of the mind, arising merely in dependence on designation.

That's kinda the way I feel about anatta and shunyata. It's like anatta strips subjectivity out of things - because they are not-self; and shunyata strips away objectivity - because all entities and activities are constructed conceptually.

Rob Burbea says, in what is probably a very specific context, that anatta means awareness is not-self; and shunyata means awareness lacks inherent existence.>>

~

The above makes sense to me if I look at those terms as I believe Buddhists do. Anatta doesn't seem to make deep philosophical assertions about phenomena. It just says it's not me, nor mine, nor my self. If it said "not a self", that would be an entirely different story.

Emptiness, as I see it, explores in greater detail the nature of phenomena. While anatta seems to explore the relation between phenomena and our selves, shunyata seems to explore phenomena themselves.

In this sense, it's a deeper exploration. While things can be not "my" self but still retain some substance or identity of *their own*, with the reasonings of shunyata it is seen that there is nothing objective or *of their own* in phenomena. They are not only unrelated to my "svabhava" (if I had one); they are unrelated to *any type of svabhava*.

Put simply, phenomena are not only "my self" (anatta), but "any kind of self" (shunyata). So anatta strips subjectivity out of phenomena (since they are not "my self"); shunyata strips of objectivity out of phenomena (since a phenomenon is not itself, but a conceptual construction).

However, when I think about your 4 stage model (I Am, Non-Dual, Anatta & Shunyata), which is more phenomenological than ontological, I'd risk to say, it seems to be the other way around. Anatta is the collapse of subjectivity, since the background witness falls and all that is left is the flux of appearances; shunyata, in your model, seems then to be concerned with investigating appearances again, in case one is back to reifying them. In this sense, through the emptiness reasonings, one ends up seeing that phenomena lack a nature of their own and their appearance is of a conceptualized nature, collapsing objectivity.

The funny thing is that, either way, both subjectivity and objectivity are deconstructed, leaving one in a non-dual position that is free from such extreme conceptions.

Does this make any sense to you, Soh? John? Tks!
Manage
· Reply · 1d
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland I know you didn't ask me, but that ain't gonna stop me is it 😛

I draw similar lines that you do, and I formulate it like this: The self that emptiness refutes is the "what-it-is", the essence of the thing, sometimes called inherent existence, while th
See More
Manage
· Reply · 1d · Edited
John Tan
John Tan André, what u said about the model (I Mness, non-dual, anatta, emptiness) is correct. Anatta to me is a direct non-conceptual but immature insight of emptiness.

How the journey evolved that way was due to how the first taste of “presence” was misunde
rstood initially due to habitual reification.

Anatta sees through the background Self/self and realised what we termed “presence” has always been the ongoing foreground appearances. Since there is no background, there is nothing to “dualify” therefore experience is naturally, effortlessly and spontaneously luminous and non-dual.

The insight gradually matures due to refinement of one’s view to the eventual understanding that presence is empty from top to bottom and is free from all elaborations and extremes.

The approach however is different. It is not based on ultimate analysis but a focused and concentrated form of seeing. The analytical path only came later when I realised what described in the chariot analogy is in fact pointing to the experiential insight of anatta. In other words, before that, i wasn’t aware that there is a whole system of “view” about this particular experiential insight I called anatta. That is where and when the interest arose. That also helps me understand many of the post anatta issues are due to a desync of experience, insight and view - an insight and experience of essenseless-ness but a paradigm rest on inherent and dualistic framework.

Just to clarify a bit about the difference in approach between analytical and direct seeing. When u look, u r not analysing or thinking, u just look. Is there an apple on the table? U look. U do not think or analyse, u simply see that the apple is not there at all.

So what is the issue? The issue is the mind can't simply see, it is too habituated, too engaged in conceptualizing, thinking and analysing. It is tremendously busy.

When u r able to clearly see, u realize what u called "I" was never there; seeing is just the seen, no seer; hearing is just sound, no heaerer. This "not found" is an insight from direct non-conceptual seeing. So 2 components, stable seeing and direct insight of "not found", I understand that as shamatha and vipassana.
John Tan
John Tan No Self has its issues and can somehow mislead one into nihilism. I also do not subscribe to one truth of dzogchen and don’t exactly know what it meant.

In direct non conceptual mode, experience is seamless and no clear line of demarcation can be d
rawn between subject, action and object. Because it is non-conceptual and no such division can be detected, it is difficult for the mind to see clearly. When seen clearly, it is (imo) best expressed conventionally as dependent arising and emptiness.
Manage
· Reply · 3h
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland When the anatta that I'm talking about is seen, known, tasted directly that taste is 'suchness' because it’s the taste of "actually being so (aka. 'such') and not being otherwise" because the hearing MUST be happening and it MUST NOT be not happening. So it is 'such-&-not-otherwise' or 'as-it-is-ness'. That taste is seamless because dependent arising is seamless. I don't know what subject, action and object has to do with that.
Manage
· Reply · 3h
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Maybe another way to put it is that for me the line of demarcation drawn between subject, action and object does not vanish because of non-conceptuality, but because of seeing anatta or suchness in dependent arising.
Manage
· Reply · 3h
John Tan
John Tan Yes, therefore when expressed conventionally it is dependent arising and emptiness, two truth and cannot b otherwise.
The non-conceptual and the conceptual (conventional) when seen in light of dependent arising is of equal taste.
Manage
· Reply · 3h
0 Responses