Saṃyuktāgama 293 -- the connection with emptiness

[frankk]

from my understanding of the cula-sunnata in the pali suttas, emptiness is simply a way to describe how the disciple gradually moves to more and more refined states of samadhi until nibbana is realized.

just as the buddha used many synonyms to describe nibbana, and several synonyms to describe the formless samadhi attainments.

in the mahayana, emptiness takes on other characteristics that move beyond just a pragmatic aproach to realizin nibbana.

another idea that occurs to me, is suppose a mahayana proponent in those early days wanted to produce a counterfeit sutta in the EBT to “prove” that the buddha already
established the teachin of emptiness. what approach would he take? I think he would produce a sutta exactly like cula-sunnata in MN.

[Mike]

In the passage in question, as Dr Mun-Keat Choong notes in the work to which @LXNDR kindly provided a link, 空相 represents the Sanskrit śūnyatā-pratisaṁyukta. That is the important point.

The middle way is empty of two views.
The five skandhas are empty of self.
The buddha-mind is empty of any burning fire of passion.
Whatever dependent arising there is, we call that emptiness.

Thus the first four discourses of the Buddha after his awakening are intextricably linked with emptiness.

[knotty36]

I’m new here and just perusing the archives, getting to know what’s been/being discussed. I don’t know if this thread is closed, or if the question was settled to your satisfaction; but what if you tried parsing a little differently, and reading the sentence: “贤圣、出世、（与）空相应、缘起随顺”？That should accord with the English connected with emptiness.

[Mike]

Thanks for that suggestion, knotty36. Your ability to read ancient Chinese texts appears to be better than mine… in which case, would you mind having a look at my recent first stab at translating Nāgārjuna’s Ratnāvalī, the draft of which I published here: http://towardssheddingviews.blogspot.co.uk/ Where the Sanskrit text is not extant, I have translated from the Chinese. This is something I used to do a lot 30-odd years ago, but in those cases I was generally guided by Japanese hiragana indicating how the Chinese would be read in Japanese – either that or by a reliably literal translation of the Lotus Sutra. So I’m afraid the parts of Ratnāvalī I have translated from the Chinese is full of mistakes and omissions. Any negative feedback would be much appreciated.

[knotty36]

@Mike

Thanks for that suggestion, knotty36. Your ability to read ancient Chinese texts appears to be better than mine

No problem. But I don’t know if it’s better, I just happen to know the word 相應. Also, that quote’s a personal favorite.

@Mike

would you mind having a look at my recent first stab at translating Nāgārjuna’s Ratnāvalī,

Okay, I’ll have a look. But I like Agamas, and know Agamas: I almost never read anything else in Buddhist Chinese. So I can’t promise anything.

[knotty36]

Hi, Mike. Sorry for the delay, but we live in China, and my ladder was down for the week, so I couldn’t get to your site. I just looked it over and it is alot! Any “mistakes” were really just translator’s preferences, maybe. For example, most of where you wrote, “devotion,” or “devoted to,” I would have chosen something which directly alluded going for refuge; or when the narrator is wishing for women to become丈夫, this probably being a rendering of what in Pali is “purisa” (I don’t know Sanskrit), the question then becomes whether the narrator wants women to “become excellent human beings”, or be re-born as men. I don’t know these authors and what they teach, so I wouldn’t know. If you really wanna get into it (like, word-for-word), please let me know. But, at a first glance, it seemed really good–better than what I could do. (I like to read Chinese and maybe write some, but I’ve never really wanted to translate.) Anyway, let me know.

[Mike]

Thank you knotty36, for the kind words.

Yes, 丈夫 is very probably representing the Sanskrit puruṣa, and in context I am sure Nāgārjuna’s idea is that women can become excellent human beings (puruṣa), without needing to be reborn as men first!

The translatation of Ratnāvalī into Chinese is accredited to Paramārtha, 真諦. The author, Nāgārjuna, you may know better in Chinese as 龍樹菩薩 – a truly seminal figure for the Buddha’s teaching in China, especially if we are talking about the connection with emptiness.

Many people regard Nāgārjuna / 龍樹 as being responsible for the philosophy of emptiness. They view emptiness to be a kind of heretical Zen philosophy, akin to nihilism, that Nāgārjuna originated.

When we read what Nāgārjuna wrote, however, Nāgārjuna in fact equated emptiness with the Buddha’s teaching of dependent arising. Insofar as things are dependently arisen, Nāgārjuna clarified, they lack separate existence as things-unto-themselves. In this sense, all things are empty – empty of their own independent existence, or empty of self-nature (svabhāva).

At the same time, when we read the early discourses as recorded in Pali, and when we read the āgamas as preserved in Chinese, it is evident that the Buddha’s teaching also, from the very beginning, was inextricably connected with emptiness (空相应).

So there is a giant misunderstanding here which we are called upon to clear up.

One source of misunderstanding, I am sure, is the translation into Chinese of saṁskāra (Pali saṅkhāra), the 2nd of the 12 links in the 12-fold dependent arising of suffering, as 行, translated into English as action, activity, activities.

I think the 2nd link would have been much better rendered as 為, doing, or 諸為, doings.

The Sanskrit word asaṁskṛta ( in which saṁskṛta is the past participle from the same root as the noun saṁskāra) was rendered into Chinese as 無為, non-doing. This teaching of 無為, non-doing, it seems, predated the transmssion of the Buddha’s teaching into China. So it seems to me that the Chinese missed a trick by not translating the 2nd link in the 12-fold chain as 為, doing, or 諸為, doings.

When it comes to Pali, Sanskrit and Chinese words like these, yes, I would like to get into word-for-word. I think it could be a very important job, as part of the wider task of clearing up the misconception that Nāgārjuna’s teaching is somehow different from what the Buddha originally taught.

[knotty36]

Okay, just checking: because, when it comes to Chinese, I love to pick the words apart and debate our understandings; but not everyone does.

Anyway, yeah, I agree, 为 would’ve been better than 行, for its connection to有为/无为; but I always guessed with 行 that their idea was to emphasize the connection with the movement some kind of flowing kammic procession: because I know that connection with kamma and re-birth and stuff was pretty much where discussions of the concept of sankhara usually ended up in medieval times.

Okay, so this is Nagarjuna? Well, then I do know a little about it. (Very little.) But, not only do the early Savakas (Theravada, Sarvastivada, etc.) think he went astray from the original, later Mahayanists, while crediting him as their founder, also disregarded his warnings against extremism in taking the sunnata teaching too literally, and then severing the ties with idappaccayata/paticcasamuppada. Also, he recognized that (some) Savakas taught the emptiness of all Dhammas, too. He never taught anything like the Savakas represented some earlier stage of Dhamma which preceded the great Mahayana teachings. Anyway, he was great. I don’t know too much. Not as much as you. I wish I knew more. I live in China, and, representing Theravada, I have been “attacked” so often with Nagarjuna that it got to the point where I had to look some stuff up on him and his school.

[Vstakan]

Hi Mike! Thanks so much to you and other people in this thread for an insightful discussion about vicissitudes of Chinese translations!

@Mike

When we read what Nāgārjuna wrote, however, Nāgārjuna in fact equated emptiness with the Buddha’s teaching of dependent arising. Insofar as things are dependently arisen, Nāgārjuna clarified, they lack separate existence as things-unto-themselves. In this sense, all things are empty – empty of their own independent existence, or empty of self-nature (svabhāva).

I personally have little to no problem with the philosophy of Nagarjuna himself. I am by no means a specialist, but as far as I know he didn’t make any commitment to the ontological status of emptiness and his understanding of the term can be indeed regarded as the logical development of ideas we find in the early Nikayas. The problem is that ascribing so much importance to the term ‘emptiness’ instead of letting go of it, making it empty, we as unenlightened beings can also come to perceive it as a quasi-entity, with all the problems that arise in such cases (‘emptiness is empty is an example of infinite regress’, ‘is emptiness conditioned?’, etc.), and I am afraid you and I are no exceptions. This ontologizing tendency was hardly Nagarjuna’s intent and I have insufficient knowledge to say whether he himself made this mistake or not, but the problem is still there. The Buddha developed and taught an intricate method to avoid these speculative issues, known as the Noble Eightfold Path, and the more you study the texts about the practical aspects of the Dhamma, the more you come to appreciate the carefulness with which the Enlightened One avoided theoretical pitfalls like excessive ontologizing.

However, for me the crux of the problem with Madhyamaka seems to be the distinction between the saṃvṛtisatya and paramārtha satya. ‘Knowing’ of the paramārtha satya seems to be in some way to be ‘just seeing’ free from views and clinging, if we can refer to it as knowing at all, even though I may be wrong in that. On the other hand, either Nagarjuna or his followers fail to emphasize how the saṃvṛtisatya is embedded within the Ultimate Truth and should indeed be a part of it, as it should embrace the whole existence (and non-existence). Their being separate is quite self-evident for us as we are not enlightened, their being in some sense identical is a much trickier point. Undue emphasis on their separateness can easily lead to peculiar conclusions like the illusory nature of our unenlightened exprience, undue emphasis on their sameness may segue to something similar to the Tathagatagarbha doctrine. Undoubtedly, the conventional use of these terms has some doctrinal and philosophical merit, ultimately (see what I did there? ) their postulating sems to be contrbuting to the proliferation of views.

Anyway, I would like to once again thank you and say how much I appreciate the work you and other people working on translations do. Please stay awesome!

[Mike]

@Vstakan

The problem is that ascribing so much importance to the term ‘emptiness’ instead of letting go of it, making it empty, we as unenlightened beings can also come to perceive it as a quasi-entity, with all the problems that arise in such cases (‘emptiness is empty is an example of infinite regress’, ‘is emptiness conditioned?’, etc.), and I am afraid you and I are no exceptions.

Speak for yourself! Gudo Nishijima, the teacher who transmitted the Dharma to me, asserted that real enlightenment is a function of reality. And so my task is to clarify the teaching of emptiness on this basis, for self, for others, and going beyond the fiction of self and others.

[Vstakan]

Thanks for yor response, Mike! I think we should agree to disagree in that case. My impression is that this very perception of Dhamma is the root of all weird Mahayanist philosophies. As far as I understand, you do not think they are weird, you think they are correct,and that is totally okay, maybe you are right, one never knows. Whatever the truth, I wish you the very best in your practice!

The bigger problem in Nagarjuna’s thinking is the separation of the saṃvṛtisatya and paramārtha satya that is already prominent in the Abhidhammic literature. It is a very easy one to make and it has very far-reaching philosophical conclusions. Again, I might be wrong about it, but I feel like there is no such rigid separation of them in the Pali Canon; however, Nagarjuna still can be right and I can be wrong.

[Coemgenu]

[quote=“Mike, post:1, topic:2638, full:true”]The Sutra as translated (https://suttacentral.net/en/sa293) contains the sentence:
“I teach monks the noble, the supramundane, connected with emptiness, conformable to the dharma of conditioned genesis.”

In Chinese (https://suttacentral.net/lzh/sa293) the corresponding sentence is:
為彼比丘說賢聖出世空相應緣起隨順法

More literally 相 means form, aspect, appearance, manifestation. So 空相 describes the Dharma not so much as “connected with emptiness” as “having the form/aspect of emptiness,” or “being the manifestation of emptiness.”

[…skipping ahead…]

because 空相 does not literally mean “connected with emptiness.”
[/quote]I think that the 相 in 空相 is actually forming a two-part component with 相應 / xiāngyìng, which is an adaption of the Sanskrit word saṃprayukta; literally meaning “joined together”, or as the translator Choong Mun-keat rendered it, “connected”, which makes the string of characters read 空相應, or “emptiness saṃprayukta”.

相應 on their own mean “mutual[ly] replying”, so it is easy to see why the āgama translator(s) chose this expression for saṃprayukta.

Putting this into its context you get:[quote]為彼比丘說賢聖出世空相應緣起隨順法，所謂有是故是事有，是事有故是事起。
Because-of these monks [I-]say[,] āryapudgala gone-forth generation[,] emptiness concomitant (connected, or saṃprayukta) [with] predestined arising complies-with (隨) same-directionally (順) [the] dharma, it [is] called bhāva this causes that /thing['s] bhāva, this thing['s] bhāva causes that thing to-develop.

Choong Mun-keat translation: I teach monks dharma (the nature of phenomena); I teach monks the noble, the supramundane, connected with emptiness, conformable to the dharma of conditioned genesis. That is to say: Because this exists, that exists; because this arises, that arises.[/quote]So the translation isn’t so off, given that the 相 in 空相 is most likely forming a two-part component with 相應.

[Mike]

Hi @Coemgenu,

The thread has become a bit long and difficult to follow, but I think the point you make was already made by @knotty36 in June of last year – i.e. that in the Chinese translation of the saṃyuktāgama, 相 in 空相 is actually forming a two-part component with 相應.

The Heart Sutra, however, says that all dharmas are 空相.
The Heart Sutra does not say that all dharmas are 空相應.

空相 would represent the Sanskrit śūnyatā-lakṣaṇā .
空相應 would represent śūnyatā-saṃprayukta.

Is the point that all things – the sky, the clouds, the tree, my empty bowl of porridge – are the form, or the manifestation, of the Buddha’s teaching of emptiness (空相, śūnyatā-lakṣaṇā)?

@daverupa noted in March 16 that to him this sounded somehow off target.

Is it better to understand, then, that everything the Buddha taught, beginning with the four noble truths, is inextricably linked with emptiness (空相應 , śūnyatā-saṃprayukta)?

In the passages that @LXNDR and @Linda pointed us to, that sense was to the fore – the sense of the Buddha’s teaching dealing with, or being connected with, or being everywhere entangled with, emptiness.

In either case, if we conceive of emptiness as a thing unto itself (what @daverupa calls “hypostatization” of emptiness), we are missing the point.

In conclusion, when it comes to this teaching of emptiness, it might be incredibly difficult for us not to miss the point!

[Coemgenu]

[quote=“Mike, post:33, topic:2638”]
The thread has become a bit long and difficult to follow, but I think the point you make was already made by @knotty36 in June of last year – i.e. that in the Chinese translation of the saṃyuktāgama, 相 in 空相 is actually forming a two-part component with 相應.
[/quote]My apologies, I will try to be brief than without adding too much redundant information.

[quote=“Mike, post:33, topic:2638, full:true”]

The Heart Sutra, however, says that all dharmas are 空相.
The Heart Sutra does not say that all dharmas are 空相應.

空相 would represent the Sanskrit śūnyatā-lakṣaṇā .
空相應 would represent śūnyatā-saṃprayukta.

Is the point that all things – the sky, the clouds, the tree, my empty bowl of porridge – are the form, or the manifestation, of the Buddha’s teaching of emptiness (空相, śūnyatā-lakṣaṇā)?

@daverupa noted in March 16 that to him this sounded somehow off target. [/quote]This is off-topic for EBTs, but the point is that all things are “marked” by emptiness, or, “are empty”. 相 here doesn’t mean manifestation, it is probably used here in the sense of “the 32 marks of a great man” (dvātriṃśan mahāpuruṣalakṣaṇāni, 三十二大丈夫相).

The question is to what extent the “sarva-” in “sarvadharmāḥ” concerns all dharmāḥ, and if the unexperienced insentient unintelligent happenings of reality fall under the purview of “sarva-”. Indeed, the question is if an unexperienced dharma is considered a dharma at all for the sake of analysis.

If you venerate the Pāli literature, the Sabbasutta is where one would go for a workable definition of “all”/“sarva”/“sabba”. One particular interpretation of the Sabbasutta argues that the “all” of the Buddha is “all” that is experienced via the senses, which, in turn, our interaction with any postulated external reality is predicated upon. If that meaning is taken up, "sarvadharmāḥ"refers to all phenomena that have their experiential existence dependant upon perception via the senses and consciousnesses.

Since in the Heart Sutra subdiscussion we are dealing with proto-Mahāyāna vaipulyasūtrāṇi (or as Bhikkhu Sujato called it on another thread, “Classical Mahāyāna”, I assume to differentiate it from Late Mahāyāna, Tantrism, etc.) I will see your Emptiness-discourse and raise you another, that is part of a larger section in the Vajracchedikāprajñāpāramitāsūtra, part of the larger literature of Prajñāpāramitāvaipulyasūtrāṇi of which the Heart Sūtra is a “summation”.[quote]Tārakā timiraṃ dīpo māyāvaśyāya budbudaḥ supinaṃ vidyud abhraṃ ca evaṃ draṣṭavya saṃskṛtam.
A shooting star, a clouding of the sight, a lamp, an illusion, a drop of dew, a bubble, a dream, a lightning’s flash, a thunder cloud, this is the way one should see the conditioned.[/quote]Note that it does not say “this is how the conditioned is”, it says “this is the way one should see the conditioned”. Experience is still the main framework for determining metaphysics. We have never stepped out of the framework of experience-via-the-senses.

Similarly the Astāsaśasāhasrikāprajnāpāramitāsūtra with Abhisamayālaṅkāra apocrypha (AA VIII 5,7) , translated by Conze:[quote]Empty of essential nature are all dharmas, and in the emptiness of essential nature no being can be apprehended, no dharma and no non-dharma. If, however, all dharmas were not empty of essential nature, then the Bodhisattva could not be established in the emptiness of essential nature. Nor could he, on having won full enlightenment, demonstrate dharmas as empty of essential nature. The skandhas are empty of essential nature. Therefore the Bodhisattva, when he courses in perfect wisdom, demonstrates Dharma to the effect that the five skandhas are empty of essential nature, that the forsaking of all defilements together with their residues is empty of essential nature. If again the inward emptiness were not empty of essential nature, then the Bodhisattva would not demonstrate Dharma to the effect that all dharmas are empty of essential nature.

As so for other kinds of emptiness. Because if he did, the emptiness of essential nature would have been destroyed; but the emptiness of essential nature cannot be destroyed, nor does it overtower all change, nor again does it depart.

Any why? Because it does not stand in any spot or place; it does not come from anywhere nor does it go to anywhere. That is the stability of Dharma in which one can apprehend no accumulation or removal of any dharma, no diminution or growth, no production or stopping, no defilement or purification.[/quote]This might seem like a metaphysical discourse, but if you read it carefully, it is an expounding of anattā. There is no reason to think that anything presented here is not under the purview of the “all” of the senses and their consciousnesses. “Essential nature” being synonymous with “selfhood”. This is the discourse that the Heart Sutra is the “heart” of, if that makes sense, yes? Because the Heart Sutra is super concise, it does not preserve the complete totality and fullness of prajñāpāramitā-teachings, but does a wonderful job of offering a succinct summary that can be easily memorized by even a lay practitioner of a school that considers it authoritative.

Consider, even the awareness of sense-objects is ultimately a product of the consciousnesses and the bases. If a sense-object were not to touch a sense-base, would it even be useful to classify it as a sense-object?

Anyways, I am done being off-topic concerning EBTs. I just thought I should offer some clarification as to prajñāpāramitā emptiness-discourse.

[knotty36]

Peace:
This came to my e-mail box today:[quote=“Mike, post:33, topic:2638”]
I think the point you make was already made by @knotty36 in June of last year – i.e. that in the Chinese translation of the saṃyuktāgama, 相 in 空相 is actually forming a two-part component with 相應.
[/quote]
I must apologize in that it has been quite a while since I have posted to the discussions here, and I do not know where this thread has gone since I last posted: but, for practical intents and purposes, the two 相 (of 相應 and 空相) have no relation. If it helps at all, in modern Mandarin anyways, the 相 of 相應 is pronounced, xiāng (xiang1), while the 相 of 空相 is pronounced xiàng (xiang4). I know, linguistically speaking, modern Mandarin is of limited relevance here, but I mention it because these days meanings connected with “appearance” would more usually be written as 象 or 像 (also pronounced, xiàng (xiang4)), with which I would say the 相 (xiàng (xiang4)) of 空相 is more properly cognate. I hope this is not too off-topic; but I just wanted to be clear with my small contribution to this lengthy thread.

[Mike]

Thank you @knotty36. After spending too long yesterday morning reviewing the whole of this long thread, I reflected afterwards how often, with the sincerest of intentions to clear things up, I actually end up muddying the waters.

It is a variation on the old irony that my trying to be right, in my ignorance, makes me wrong!

I don’t believe in God but somewhere out there lurks a wry sense of humour…

[Deeele]

@Mike

“I teach monks the noble, the supramundane, connected with emptiness, conformable to the dharma of conditioned genesis.”

Hi Mike

This sounds very Mahayana because I do not recall anywhere in the Pali where ‘emtpiness’ is directly equated with dependent origination (although suttas such as SN 12.12, SN 12.17, SN 22.81, etc, certainly point out the not-self/emptiness of dependent originated dhammas).

‘Dependent origination’ in the Pali (SN 12.3) is called ‘the wrong path’ where as ‘emtpiness’ is the right path.

And what, bhikkhus, is the wrong way (micchāpaṭipadā)? With ignorance as condition, volitional formations come to be; with volitional formations as condition, consciousness…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. This, bhikkhus, is called the wrong way. SN 12.3

And what is the emptiness awareness-release? There is the case where a monk, having gone into the wilderness, to the root of a tree, or into an empty dwelling, considers this: ‘This is empty of self or of anything pertaining to self.’ This is called the emptiness awareness-release. … The unprovoked awareness-release is declared the foremost. And this unprovoked awareness-release is empty of passion, empty of aversion, empty of delusion. MN 43

`Sāriputta, your mental faculties are bright, skin colour is pure, in which abiding, do you spend your time mostly? Venerable sir, I spend my time mostly in voidance. It’s good Sāriputta, you abide mostly in the abiding of Great Beings. MN 151

This mode of perception is empty of the effluent of sensuality… becoming… ignorance. MN 121

@Mike

I wanted to research exactly how the Buddha described the Dharma as “connected with emptiness.”

The Pali phrase is ‘suñña­tap­paṭi­saṃ­yuttā’, where ‘connected’ (‘saṃ­yuttā’) is the same word as in Saṃ­yuttā Nikaya. The predominant meaning or contextual usage of ‘empty’ (‘sunna’) is defined in SN 35.85:

Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty. SN 35.85

Therefore, at least for me, ‘connected with emptiness’ appears to mean ‘connected with selflessness’.

It follows any teachings related to ‘not-self’ (such as the Three Characteristics) , ‘non-attachment’ (such as the Four Noble Truths) or the unreality of ‘self-views’ (such as ‘becoming’ in Dependent Origination. eg. SN 12.12; SN 12.17, SN 22.81) are probably connected to emptiness ( suñña­tap­paṭi­saṃ­yuttā).

Also, the phrase ‘suñña­tap­paṭi­saṃ­yuttā’ is also found in SN 20.7, which states:

ye te suttantā tathāgatabhāsitā gambhīrā gambhiratthā lokuttarā suññatapaṭisaṃyuttā

discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness

A central word here is ‘lokuttarā’ (‘transcendent’). Therefore, it appears teachings connected with emptiness must also be transcendent. MN 117 importantly distinguishes between teachings that are & are not transcendent (lokuttarā).

And what, bhikkhus, is right view? Right view, I say, is twofold: there is right view that is affected by taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions; and there is right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane/transcendent (lokuttarā), a factor of the path.

MN 117

@Coemgenu

This is off-topic for EBTs, but the point is that all things are “marked” by emptiness, or, “are empty”. 相 here doesn’t mean manifestation, it is probably used here in the sense of “the 32 marks of a great man” (dvātriṃśan mahāpuruṣalakṣaṇāni, 三十二大丈夫相).

It appears relevant for EBTs, as shown above with SN 35.85, which appears to say all things & all experiences are marked by emptiness.

@Coemgenu

The question is to what extent the “sarva-” in “sarvadharmāḥ” concerns all dharmāḥ, and if the unexperienced insentient unintelligent happenings of reality fall under the purview of “sarva-”. Indeed, the question is if an unexperienced dharma is considered a dharma at all for the sake of analysis.

AN 3.136 & SN 12.20 appears to state unexperienced dhamma is dhamma.

@Coemgenu

If you venerate the Pāli literature, the Sabbasutta is where one would go for a workable definition of “all”/“sarva”/“sabba”. One particular interpretation of the Sabbasutta argues that the “all” of the Buddha is “all” that is experienced via the senses,

For me, this a very wild interpretation, which I have noticed as very prevalent on the internet chatsite named ‘Dhammawheel’, by members that appear to assert a mind-only-theory of Buddhism.

My personal intuition (which could be totally wrong) is the Sabbasutta (SN 35.23) probably addresses a pre-existing idea of ‘The All’ found in Brahmanism. SN 35.23 sounds similar to an argument an atheist would make to counter a belief in ‘god’.

For me, there is nothing explicitly stated in SN 35.23 to make the sutta central to Buddhism (unlike the phrase that is the topic of this thread). For eexample, SN 35.23 only refers to sense organs & sense objects. It does not even refer to consciousness.

My issue with the DW interpretation of the Sabba Sutta is it appears to contradict AN 3.136 & SN 12.20.

I would suggest to ask Ajahn Sujato if ‘The All’ was a core Brahmanistic idea (such as nama-rupa was), which the Buddha redefined.

Otherwise, ‘unexperienced dhammas’ by puthujjana still constitute ‘The All’ because what is unexperienced by puthujjana is experienced by the wise.

Kind regards

[Mike]

Many thanks indeed for these references @Deele.

@Deeele

Therefore, at least for me, ‘connected with emptiness’ appears to mean ‘connected with selflessness’.

Agreed.

And the way that Nagarjuna explains it, what is selfless is not only the practitioner who is empty of defilements but also everything that is dependently arisen.

So in Nagarjuna’s teaching even I (aka Mr Angry), even while perceived by self and others to be Cross by name and Cross by nature, am ultimately empty of self.

I am empty of self-existence because these five skandhas are dependently arisen.

Not only that, but this anger also is empty of self-existence, because this anger is dependently arisen.

And not only this but that cloud also is empty of self-existence, because that cloud is dependently arisen.

And so on for all things in the dependently-arisen universe.

Everything that is dependently arisen is empty of its own self-existence as a thing unto itself, because it is dependently arisen.

There is a beautiful explanation of this on Youtube by Thich Nhat Hanh.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-PWjt04g3M

Kind regards to you too.

[Coemgenu]

[quote=“Deeele, post:37, topic:2638”]
AN 3.136 & SN 12.20 appears to state unexperienced dhamma is dhamma.
[/quote]I went looking for something resembling a discourse on “unexperienced dhammā” in SN 12.20 & AN 3.136 and did not find any.

SN 12.20, which I am more familiar with, has an āgama-parallel in SA 296 that is discussion here: Question about a translation choice in SA 296

It espouses a very unusual dhamma-theory, but still limits the range of what is considered a dhammā, for the purposes of that specific discourse, to 18 or so different dhammā:[quote]無明、行、識、名色、六入處、觸、受、愛、取、有、生、老、病、死、憂、悲、惱、苦，
ignorance, capability, knowing, naming [and] forming, the six senses’ touching, touching, receiving, lusting, taking, becoming, developing, aging, sickening, dying, worrying, grieving, [becoming-]angry, suffering,
(Choong Mun-keat): Ignorance, activities, consciousness, name-and-form, the six sense-spheres, contact, feeling, craving, attachment, becoming, birth, aging-sickness-death-sorrow-affliction-suffering.[/quote]Similarly, the Nikāya-parallel list of dhammā, although it deals more-so with these dhammā’s impermanence and the linking of these dhammā together in a “persistent” relationship (i.e. “that element still persists, the stableness of the Dhamma, the fixed course of the Dhamma,”):[quote]“‘With existence as condition, birth’ … ‘With clinging as condition, existence’ … ‘With craving as condition, clinging’ … ‘With feeling as condition, craving’ … ‘With contact as condition, feeling’ … ‘With the six sense bases as condition, contact’ … ‘With name-and-form as condition, the six sense bases’ … ‘With consciousness as condition, name-and-form’ … ‘With volitional formations as condition, consciousness’ … ‘With ignorance as condition, volitional formations’

[…]

Aging-and-death, bhikkhus, is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, vanishing, fading away, and cessation. Birth is impermanent … Existence is impermanent … Clinging is impermanent … Craving is impermanent … Feeling is impermanent … Contact is impermanent … The six sense bases are impermanent … Name-and-form is impermanent … Consciousness is impermanent … Volitional formations are impermanent … Ignorance is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, vanishing, fading away, and cessation.[/quote]Lastly, AN 3.136 simply labels all dhammā as not possessing selfhood.

…in short, I can’t see how what you are saying here [quote=“Deeele, post:37, topic:2638”]
AN 3.136 & SN 12.20 appears to state unexperienced dhamma is dhamma.
[/quote]is present as a discourse in any of the suttāni you listed. Nothing outside of “the all” of the Sabbasutta is labelled a dhammā. If the Buddha had said “if a dhamma of falling tree is witnessed by no one, not one sentient being anywhere, it is still a dhamma” than one might have a bit of an argument (but why would the Buddha say something as useless as that?).

[quote=“Deeele, post:37, topic:2638”]
For me, this a very wild interpretation, which I have noticed as very prevalent on the internet chatsite named ‘Dhammawheel’, by members that appear to assert a mind-only-theory of Buddhism.
[/quote]Since this relates to the earlier subdiscussion on the Heart Sutra and on if emptiness is ontological, I don’t feel too off-topic responding to this.

I think what you mean, instead of a “mind-only-theory of Buddhism” is a phenomenological approach to interpreting Buddhavacana. This is less extreme than hard ontological Cittamātra. The Buddha does not give us any reason to doubt if that tree indeed did or did indeed not fall, similarly, the Buddha does not give us any reason (as far as I know) to think that a sense object that does not interact with a sense base does not “exist” on account of its non-interaction with sense bases. Indeed, as I said previously, why would a sense-object that does not engage in contact with a sense-base even be considered a “sense object”? It wouldn’t. It would simply be an object. A great deal of speculation and classification of “latent objects”, that is, objects devoid of contact with sentient beings, is probably outside of the purview of Buddhavacana because it is irrelevant (completely so! since the qualifier earlier was “witnessed by no one, not one sentient being anywhere”). Such is the phenomenological approach.

It is likely (obvious, IMO) that formations exist outside of the realms of experience, that there is an “object reality” (for lack of a better word) in which sense-objects are to be found for contact, but the existence or nonexistence of such a realm of reality isn’t actually related Buddhist practice. Similarly the behaviour and ways of being in this reality alone, i.e., in the unperceived object-world, would be similarly unrelated to practice (as such a reality, alone, would be absent of sense bases). Not believing in any reality at all would also be an issue that I believe you are suggesting, but that Buddha rejects total nihilism, so that possibility is null.

The closest one can come to such a theory of dhammā is this rather general phrase in the pseudo-Sarvāstivāda discourse in SA 296:[quote]謂此有故彼有
To-speak-of this bhāva causing that bhāva,
(Choong Mun-keat): Because this exists, that exists;[/quote]Which seems to be simply a general affirming that causality indeed exists, furthermore, despite Choong Mun-keat’s translation of 有 as “existence” rather than “bhāva”, is still talking about experienced dhammā.