The Buddha is even said to have discovered that Salvation, or Nirvâṇa, ("Extinction"), is nevertheless simply living "normal human life... doing normal human things" — Nirvana.
Thirty spokes join in one hub
In its emptiness, there is the function of a vehicle
Mix clay to create a container
In its emptiness, there is the function of a container
Cut open doors and windows to create a room
In its emptiness, there is the function of a room
Therefore, that which exists is used to create benefit
That which is empty is used to create functionality — Tao Te Ching
When we cut open a wall to make space for windows and doors, we notice that it is these openings that make the room truly useful to us. If such openings did not exist, we would have no way of accessing the room!
Therefore, we can see how we create solid objects to provide us with benefits and convenience, but it is actually the emptiness formed by, or embedded in such objects that really provide them with functionality and usefulness. — Derek Lin Tao
Value — unenlightened
https://uselesstree.typepad.com/useless_tree/2005/07/why_useless_tre.htmlA certain carpenter Shih was travelling to the Ch'i State. On reaching Shady Circle, he saw a sacred li tree in the temple to the God of Earth. It was so large that its shade could cover a herd of several thousand cattle. It was a hundred spans in girth, towering up eighty feet over the hilltop, before it branched out. A dozen boats could be cut out of it. Crowds stood gazing at it, but the carpenter took no notice, and went on his way without even casting a look behind. His apprentice however took a good look at it, and when he caught up with his master, said, "Ever since I have handled an adze in your service, I have never seen such a splendid piece of timber. How was it that you, Master, did not care to stop and look at it?"
"Forget about it. It's not worth talking about," replied his master. "It's good for nothing. Made into a boat, it would sink; into a coffin, it would rot; into furniture, it would break easily; into a door, it would sweat; into a pillar, it would be worm-eaten. It is wood of no quality, and of no use. That is why it has attained its present age."
When the carpenter reached home, he dreamt that the spirit of the tree appeared to him in his sleep and spoke to him as follows: "What is it you intend to compare me with? Is it with fine-grained wood? Look at the cherry-apple, the pear, the orange, the pumelo, and other fruit bearers? As soon as their fruit ripens they are stripped and treated with indignity. The great boughs are snapped off, the small ones scattered abroad. Thus do these trees by their own value injure their own lives. They cannot fulfil their allotted span of years, but perish prematurely because they destroy themselves for the (admiration of) the world. Thus it is with all things. Moreover, I tried for a long period to be useless. Many times I was in danger of being cut down, but at length I have succeeded, and so have become exceedingly useful to myself. —
the Buddha, enlightened, gazes at the world around - from treasures of kings to the begging bowls of paupers - and observes that all are valuless/nothing/sunyata. — TheMadFool
1. We can type here a correlation about Nirvana in Buddhism. Along all the text it flows the sense that we have to aim to the “simple” or “one”. It is so related to nature and Nirvana.
The Buddha is even said to have discovered that Salvation, or Nirvâṇa, ("Extinction"), is nevertheless simply living "normal human life... doing normal human things" — javi2541997
Value is not identical with useful. some things, and some people (I count myself as one) are indeed useless and have purely decorative value. — unenlightened
I don't think so. The identification of self produces a distortion of values that enlightenment removes. But the extinction of desire does not extinguish values. The Buddha did not sit under his tree until he starved to death; he went about teaching the positive value of meditation and discipline to end suffering. — unenlightened
I'm no expert in Buddhism (as a matter of fact, philosophy in general), but I'd appreciate, if possible, some elaboration or sources of reading on the absolute distinction between the Shakyamuni and ordinary humans. — D2OTSSUMMERBUG
If…you can adopt the emptiness mode — by not acting on or reacting to the anger, but simply watching it as a series of events, in and of themselves — you can see that the anger is empty of anything worth identifying with or possessing. As you master the emptiness mode more consistently, you see that this truth holds not only for such gross emotions as anger, but also for even the most subtle events in the realm of experience. This is the sense in which all things are empty. When you see this, you realize that labels of "I" and "mine" are inappropriate, unnecessary, and cause nothing but stress and pain. You can then drop them. When you drop them totally, you discover a mode of experience that lies deeper still, one that's totally free.
↪TheMadFool Your example is on the mark albeit a rather idiosyncratic way of putting it. Have a read of Emptiness.
If…you can adopt the emptiness mode — by not acting on or reacting to the anger, but simply watching it as a series of events, in and of themselves — you can see that the anger is empty of anything worth identifying with or possessing. As you master the emptiness mode more consistently, you see that this truth holds not only for such gross emotions as anger, but also for even the most subtle events in the realm of experience. This is the sense in which all things are empty. When you see this, you realize that labels of "I" and "mine" are inappropriate, unnecessary, and cause nothing but stress and pain. You can then drop them. When you drop them totally, you discover a mode of experience that lies deeper still, one that's totally free.
But, note, this is written by a monk. — Wayfarer
What do you suppose are the determinants of value? — TheMadFool
What doesn’t generate suffering. It’s a fallacy to say the Buddha ‘sees no value in things’ if by that you mean nothing has any value. — Wayfarer
However, if the two are distinct ideas about the world, sunyata needs to be distinguished from nothing. Any ideas how this can be achieved? I'm all ears. — TheMadFool
In terms of your views about the world, it [śūnyatā] seems to be saying either that the world doesn't really exist, or else that emptiness is the great undifferentiated ground of being from which we all came to which someday we'll all return.
These interpretations not only miss the meaning of emptiness but also keep the mind from getting into the proper mode. If the world and the people in the story of your life don't really exist, then all the actions and reactions in that story seem like a mathematics of zeros, and you wonder why there's any point in practicing virtue at all*. If, on the other hand, you see emptiness as the ground of being to which we're all going to return, then what need is there to train the mind in concentration and discernment, since we're all going to get there anyway? And even if we need training to get back to our ground of being, what's to keep us from coming out of it and suffering all over again? So in all these scenarios, the whole idea of training the mind seems futile and pointless. By focusing on the question of whether or not there really is something behind experience, they entangle the mind in issues that keep it from getting into the present mode.
In Mahāyāna Buddhism, śūnyatā refers to the tenet that "all things are empty of intrinsic existence and nature (svabhava) — Wikipedia
The concept of śūnyatā as "emptiness" is related to the concept of anatta (non-self) in early Buddhism. — Wikipedia
According to Shi Huifeng, the terms "void" (rittaka), "hollow" (tucchaka), and "coreless" (asāraka) are also used in the early texts to refer to words and things which are deceptive, false, vain, and worthless. This sense of worthlessness and vacuousness is also found in other uses of the term māyā — Wikipedia
There is an expression in Buddhism, 'this precious human life'. Your assignment: discover why they say this. — Wayfarer
A drive-by of the relevant Wikipedia pages suggests to me that what sunyata means can't be understood until we grasp what the void (sunya) meant to Indians back then with special emphasis on what the Buddha thought the void (sunya) was/is — TheMadFool
There's this story of a blind turtle who lives at the bottom of a deep and vast ocean. — TheMadFool
I'd say a human life, ceteris paribus, is supposed to provide us the best conditions for enlightenment, — TheMadFool
Deep and difficult point: what is a concept? It might be, as Descartes said, a ‘clear and distinct idea’. It might be an idea that is not peculiar to a single mind, but that anyone can observe, like geometric principles or Newton’s laws of motion. The Western mindset is such that concepts and ideas come naturally to it. Conceptual thought is one of the hallmarks of Western thought and one of the main factors behind the astonishing success of scientific method. But śūnyatā is not a concept. It is not an idea. It is an observation about the nature of experience. It is not something that the Buddha ‘thought’, in that sense. — Wayfarer
There's another principle in Buddhist philosophy, that of 'prapanca', meaning 'conceptual proliferation'. It is literally 'becoming entangled in thought.' — Wayfarer
I'm not saying that Buddhism is some kind of mental illness of course but it's rather intriguing that traumatic brain damage can yield the same result as decades of learning and practicing Buddhism — TheMadFool
Did you see the Jill Bolte Taylor video some years ago, ‘My Stroke of Insight’? That is about this. — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.