| | I don't think anything that refers to shunyata (most often rendered as "emptiness") is inappropriate. In fact, some notion of emptiness is entertained implicitly or explicitly by most contemporary Buddhists, though most wouldn't be comfortable with explaining what that emptiness meant exactly in terms of their sense of self, way of life, and the details of their practice on and off the cushion. Indeed, there are several major meanings of shunyata, a technical term mostly used in Mahayana teachings of the second turn, based chiefly on Prajna-paramita sutras, and is fundamentally the other side of dependent origination. The "other side" meaning a complement. It's *because* of shunyata that cause and effect, causes and conditions, karma, and dependent origination are not just fully justified, but a fundamental aspect of buddhadharma. In other words, cause and effect, causes and conditions, karma, and dependent origination are attempts to describe and conceptualize and "justify" how great emptiness gives rise to anything, and everything.
I'm not sure we should go into it here, or keep the discussion on the question of appropriateness itself. As we delve into teachings, immerse in practices, and cultivate understanding, there are certainly things that tend to produce problems if seized or focused on prematurely, but to a certain extent that's an inescapable aspect of the path - for example, we can't avoid having some wrong notion of awakening before the fact. Yet some questions are inappropriate for other reasons, whether cultural and social taboos, or their highly specialized context, or their being harmful before a certain experiential introduction etc. but such questions are very few these days.
I'd still like to hear what others consider to be inappropriate questions, perhaps not verbatim, but in principle. |