1. What exactly is "empty"? Why are there so many explanations? Is there a standard definition? "Nothing", nothing. Did Sixth Ancestor "see nothing"? Don't care about other people's philosophical language, and don't care about the classics in books. Please say it in vernacular.
——————————————————————————————
On this issue, I once analyzed the contents of Heart Sutra in Sanskrit and formed a Baidu entry with the same color for reference. See Resources at the bottom.
In my opinion, the first explanation you listed in the original text is definitely correct. "Empty" in Buddhism does not mean "nothing". "Nothing" is just an empty view. The "Fang Guang Taoist" of Indian Buddhism once held a wrong view and was later criticized. When Buddhism talks about emptiness, there is a very important view that "emptiness makes everything possible"-on the contrary, emptiness makes everything possible. This is incomprehensible to people with wrong views. In fact, this "emptiness" is "emptiness" (s/u-nyata-), which is the "state of no self" you mentioned earlier. This state is equivalent to saying that things do not produce and decide themselves, but are produced and exist in "relations and conditions"-that is, "origin". Origin, so empty.
And the reason why you think that the words of the Sixth Ancestor are groundless is because you have made this sentence rigid. At the end of this question, I asked the abbot of Bailin Temple, the great monk Minghai. He said that the language of Zen is very life-oriented, expressing the idea of solving problems in a certain situation, and can't stick to academic understanding. When he said "nothing at first", he treated Shen Xiu as if "Bodhi" and "Mirror" were real and independent. This defect of "possession" exposes their emptiness. If you are dealing with "grasping nothing", it is completely another way of saying, such as "when will self-expression produce various laws"-then this sentence may be "common" in your opinion. I can't understand it this way.
In fact, not only when reading China's works describing emptiness, some people may misunderstand it as emptiness, but also when reading Prajna Paramita Sutra and Indian middle school works. Originally, Buddhism talked about emptiness and the middle way, but in the text, many words talked about "emptiness, emptiness, emptiness, emptiness". On the surface, some parts of Prajna Sutra, Long Shu and Tipo's works also have this "emptiness" problem, but in fact it is not. There are two issues worth noting here.
1. The era of Prajna Sutra and Dragon Tree Woman's admonition is an era in which all kinds of practical learning theories represented by saying that everything is related prevail. In order to solve the main problems in people's ideas under this background, their explanations focus on "cover" and "emptiness". As American Buddhist E. Napal said:
Whether it is Prajna Sutra, Dragon Tree or Moon, the audience is not the kind of person who will be judged because of too much criticism. On the contrary, they belong to the kind of people who, in the eyes of the meso-system, are called strongly holding the unchangeable edge, that is, they will impose the "firmness" and perceptual truth that the phenomenon does not have on the phenomenon. In other words, the difference between "existence" and "inherent existence" is almost indistinguishable before the stage of proving emptiness, so the radical tone of gestures such as "colorless" and "inanimate" is actually just a powerful medicine that is beneficial to education. (Elizabeth? Nap. The philosophy of Tibetan Buddhism. Trans. Liu Yuguang. Beijing: Renmin University of China Press, 2006, 34 pages).
Second, as Master Zong Kaba said,
Debate master, I've seen a lot of classics and righteousness, and if I cover my life, I'll win it. If there is something simplified, add it without adding it. This is the * * * method. (The Broadest Theory of Bodhi Daoji, by Zong Kaba, Volume I, Beijing: Ethnic Publishing House, 200 1, p. 395).
If a Buddhist scripture has the words "lifeless" and "useless Tagalog" in front of it anywhere, then we should add these words in other places when we understand this Buddhist scripture. For example, the Heart Sutra, which we are familiar with, is based on tams/kasva bha-vas/u-nyanpas/auatisma ("See its [five aggregates] emptiness"). In Xuanzang's translation, "self-nature" was deleted, making it "see five aggregates emptiness", so it is "neither born nor destroyed, nor polluted". According to Master Zong Kaba, if we understand similar sentences literally without adding simple words, it will not only be inconsistent with the law of "* * *", but also lead to the illusion that all laws are "empty". This is an extremely dangerous myth.
Please use vivid language (vernacular, the philosophical language of unwanted people) to explain that "color is empty, and empty is color". Please give an example, that is, let me and other ordinary people with average intelligence understand it.
——————————————————————————
Well, I think it's good to have a Zen case. It is said that two Zen masters are sitting quietly chanting. Zen master A suddenly asked Zen master B, "What is emptiness? Can you help me catch one? " Zen master B waved his hand in the air for a while and grabbed a handful of air to show him. Zen master A said, "No, it's not empty." Zen master B asked, "Then what is emptiness?" You'd better have a look. "So Zen master A grabbed B's nose and screamed at him in pain.
This shows that emptiness is not vanity, there is nothing. All the stones that the hand can touch are hard, and they hurt when touched. This kind of thing is also empty. Everything is empty (color). It is one thing, not two. Everything itself is empty.
I think, in fact, it is easy for you to turn "emptiness" into "primitive". "Rupa" can be roughly regarded as "Sawadamo" here. Then "the phenomenon of things is nothing more than karma", that is, "the colors are the same." It is equivalent to saying that "the phenomenon of things that exist in isolation without cause does not exist; The reason can't be abstract. It must be something specific. There is a cause for something specific, otherwise there is no cause. " "There is no difference between color and air, and there is no difference between air and color. "
Give another example that may not be appropriate. For example, for a player who won the first place in the competition, he said of himself:
"In fact, I have today's achievements, not because of myself, but because of my coach, parents and friends. They kept giving me support and help, and I got here today. "
-There's no difference in color.
We also commented:
"It was the help and support of the coach, parents and friends that made the athlete successful."
-It's no different.
References:
/view/ 1029956.htm