Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Shunyata
misecmisc1
I am a HinduIndia Veteran
hi all,
i was browsing on internet and saw different web-pages on emptiness. so i got some theoretical understanding about emptiness and thought of sharing with you all.
shunyata in Sanskrit - is usually translated as emptiness or voidness in English - this translation suggests a feeling of nothingness, as if nothing is existing - but this is not the meaning of shunyata.
i have found the following meanings of shunyata, which seems ok:
- shunyata or emptiness means empty of any inherent existence, means empty of its own beingness or empty of its own essence. like table is empty of tableness, chair is empty of chairness etc.
- emptiness in a way is caused by dependent origination, as explained by Nagarjuna. since there is dependent origination, so things are empty of independent existence and since nothing independently exists so empty of inherent existence, so there is dependent origination. in this way, everything is empty and even emptiness is empty of itself - as emptiness is caused by dependent origination and dependent origination is empty because there is no independent existence and the relationship between emptiness and dependent origination is empty because it depends on emptiness and dependent origination. So everything is empty, including emptiness itself.
- emptiness implies interconnectedness, as explained by Thich Nhat Hanh - empty in the sense of a bucket empty of water, since the bucket is empty, so we can put water in it - a flower is empty because it needs the earth, water, sun, in a way entire universe for it to be formed - if the flower was not empty, how could it take everything for its formation. so everything is interconnected - everything exists due to existence of everything else.
- emptiness also means impermanence, as explained by Suzuki Roshi and may be Dogen also - if things were permanent, their forms would be permanent and then no change of form could happen, but since things are impermanent, they change, their form changes, so there is emptiness of form. impermanence leads to emptiness of form and emptiness of form leads to impermanence.
this meaning also comes from Heart Sutra - form is empty and empty is form.
i was browsing on internet and saw different web-pages on emptiness. so i got some theoretical understanding about emptiness and thought of sharing with you all.
shunyata in Sanskrit - is usually translated as emptiness or voidness in English - this translation suggests a feeling of nothingness, as if nothing is existing - but this is not the meaning of shunyata.
i have found the following meanings of shunyata, which seems ok:
- shunyata or emptiness means empty of any inherent existence, means empty of its own beingness or empty of its own essence. like table is empty of tableness, chair is empty of chairness etc.
- emptiness in a way is caused by dependent origination, as explained by Nagarjuna. since there is dependent origination, so things are empty of independent existence and since nothing independently exists so empty of inherent existence, so there is dependent origination. in this way, everything is empty and even emptiness is empty of itself - as emptiness is caused by dependent origination and dependent origination is empty because there is no independent existence and the relationship between emptiness and dependent origination is empty because it depends on emptiness and dependent origination. So everything is empty, including emptiness itself.
- emptiness implies interconnectedness, as explained by Thich Nhat Hanh - empty in the sense of a bucket empty of water, since the bucket is empty, so we can put water in it - a flower is empty because it needs the earth, water, sun, in a way entire universe for it to be formed - if the flower was not empty, how could it take everything for its formation. so everything is interconnected - everything exists due to existence of everything else.
- emptiness also means impermanence, as explained by Suzuki Roshi and may be Dogen also - if things were permanent, their forms would be permanent and then no change of form could happen, but since things are impermanent, they change, their form changes, so there is emptiness of form. impermanence leads to emptiness of form and emptiness of form leads to impermanence.
this meaning also comes from Heart Sutra - form is empty and empty is form.
5
Comments
whatever is written above is what i found on internet, i am a Hindu and not a Buddhist, even i did not went to a Buddhist monastry till now, neither i have bought a single book on Buddhism till now even though i have been studying Buddhism for the last 1.5 years nearly now on internet, so whatever i have understood is from internet web-pages written by various people. so if you find that my theoretical understanding of shunyata or emptiness is not correct, then please correct it. thanks in advance.
moreover, how do you all understand emptiness?
i am a completely ignorant person with all defilements, so even though theoretically i somewhat understand those above statements, on practical daily life living reality, i am a hopeless case, as i frequently become angry, upset, too much egoistic, always wanting to control things to go my way (even though theoretically i understand i cannot control anything, not even my body and my mind).
how do you all practice emptiness in daily lives? please suggest. thanks in advance.
The task now is to realise it. For all of us.
There is only the process of hearing. No hearer and no heard. What actually hears? Where is the hearer located? Is it the eardrum, ear ossicles, cochlea, auditory nerve or brain? What is heard is nothing but vibrations. The "hearer" is an activity, not an entity.
What is the ear|(anatta) without its parts (the eardrum, ear ossicles, cochlea, auditory nerve or brain). The eardrum is not the ear, nor cochlea nor the brain.
The ‘you’ of you, is not yours.
The ‘he’ of he, is not his.
The ‘she’ of she, is not hers.
The ‘it’ of it, is not its.”
“There is no I am reborn, but just the state of rebirth.
There is no I am suffering, but just the state of suffering.
There is no I am in trouble, but just the state of troublesome.
There is no I am happy, but just the state of happiness.
There is no I am enlightened, but just the state of enlightenment.”
Stage 1 Elementary Realisation
• All things and phenomena are lack of core essence.
• Nothing is unchanging and permanent.
• Everything is inter-related.
Stage 2 Intermediary Realisation
• Ability to differentiate the way things are perceived to exist and the way things really exist.
• Only seeing without believing.
Stage 3 Advance Realisation
• No dualism of the subject and object, and no appearance of multiplicity.
• All things and phenomena rise and fall within a singular condition.
• Only uniformity exists.
Stage 4 Ultimate Realisation
• All dependent arising are completely blown off or extinguished.
• No string attached, and nothing is left remaining.
• Infinite, unchanging, permanent, and unconditional.
• Exists beyond all conventional phenomena.
The ultimate realisation of emptiness by the mind would mean a phase of perfect intermediation being accomplished by the mind. A perfect intermediation would mean a comprehensive absence of any or all units under consideration. It is also known as a complete neutralisation of conditional phenomena. But an absence of any or all units under consideration is not equivalent to nothingness of any or all units under consideration. Absence means a perfect state of balance. Therefore, absence is not about nothingness but instead it is about no-thing-ness. No thing means no becoming or no changing. No changing means no suffering. No suffering means no mind. No mind means a complete neutralising state of affairs - that is nibbāna.
Right now, why is there duality or multiplicity in the dependent nature? It is because there is a mind. Why is there a mind in the dependent nature? It is because there is energy aggregate. Why is there energy aggregate in the dependent nature? It is because there is emptiness. Why is there emptiness in the dependent nature? It is because there is an emptiness of emptiness. In other words, the emptiness of phenomena is both the cause and consequence of the dependent nature of phenomena.
Emptiness of phenomena exists in the way it appears in direct perception and without the need to reference of any other entity. It is completely defined by its own nature. In other words, emptiness of phenomena is an inherent existence that is uncaused. It is indestructible and eternal. It is unchanging when viewed externally and cannot undergo any internal changes of state. It has no constituent parts and nothing can be thrown out or removed from it. Nothing can be added to it and no change in the external conditions can affect it.
As a summary, we could see that emptiness exists in all conditional phenomena. Without emptiness, the potential movement of the mind from non-enlightenment towards a state of enlightenment would not be possible – that is to say if the mind itself existed inherently. The emptiness of inherent existence of the mind is called the Buddha nature.
But by sitting. Preferably with direction.
All that too is emptiness.
The Buddha was quite specific in stating that there was neither self nor Self.
My first teacher after some discussions with Ram Dass, said ' it is easier for a theist or atheist or person that has never considered these matters to grasp what Buddhadharma is about than it is for a Hindu, because there is just enough similarity for them to fail to see that Buddhdharma is a radical breaking away from Hinduism '.
I don't think it's necessary to compare me to a fictional character. Nor have I reverted to anything. This borders dangerously close to getting personal. I consistently maintain that I cherry-pick what I feel are compatible elements.
As with anything, there are different exegeses:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta#Anatta_in_Mah.C4.81y.C4.81na
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta#Anatta_and_moral_responsibility
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta#Nibbana_and_anatta
Full article with references and citations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta
My interest is in discussion with those who are interested in what Buddhadharma says about itself.
But its a free world and I am sure you will find on the forum those who are interested in yet another Hindu viewpoint. They are after all a regular if transient fixture on the forum.
_/\_
I have no interest in Hinduism. But others do.
I wish you well.
_/\_
My teacher, Lama Shenpen, is a shentongpa. This means that she recognizes our true nature as the open, clear, sensitive nature of mind. Whatever being we become, if we are a being, we will have those three qualities. The prajna paramita already does away with a universe without beings (from a perspective.. I'm not sure all tibetan Buddhists). The explanation is that what I mean by a universe can only be experienced by me. If there is a universe with no observer then that is not what I mean by a universe; I can't experience it.
In Zen there is also discussion of Big Mind. And in dzogchen Rigpa. I'm sure you are aware of these things @Citta as you have practiced a long time.
Some supporting sutras (which I have never read ha) are the ratnagotravibagha and the shrimaladevi sutras.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shentong
They are the two wings which enable the bird of Vajrayana to fly.
Without Shentong we can fall into the error of imagining that our death equals the culmination of the Buddhist path. Without Rangtong we can imagine that Buddhism teaches an abiding Self which somehow transcends Shunyata..
The Buddhadharma is subtle and avoids both of those more obvious extremes.'
from "Shentong And Rangtong , Two Views Of Emptiness." by Thrangu Rinpoche, Tutor to HH The Karmapa.
* my understanding of nirvana: there has to be something, some consciousness to experience this freedom from suffering and "peace of mind". Something has to return to or become (or unbecome) something. If there is not, then imo, that's annihilation and nothingness, which I don't believe in. Btw, "union with the Brahman (Supreme Being)" is a misnomer and misapplication of the term: there is no union because there is no separation. Due to ignorance and attachment we do not know our true nature. There's a whole other cause and reason for it that I think is beyond the scope of this discussion.
The short answer @buddhitakso is I think you are right.
For more information, please refer to the following link: -
pabuddhistvihara.net/Q___A.html
_/\_
The void had momentarily taken its place.
heart sutra says form is empty and empty is form.
form is empty means form is empty of any inherent existence - this is ok.
but what does empty is form mean? is this meaning something like silence and sound is duality, both conventionally exists and nothing ultimately exists. so similarly emptiness(i.e. no form) and form is just duality and in ultimate experience, both are indicators of same phenomena , emptiness without a perceiving subject and form with a perceiving subject - or - grasping at empty phenomena and ascribing to them a form by holding onto it, so emptiness becomes a solid form. any suggestions, please. thanks in advance.
Chigyam Trungpa Rinpoche.
We make a wheel, a clay vessel or we pierce a wall to make an opening and put a door or window. All those things exist because there was nothing there. The TTC says what is not is as important as what is.
In the Buddhist context: -
Seeing Form is seeing Emptiness,
Seeing Emptiness is seeing Form.
In the scientific context: -
Seeing Matter is seeing Energy,
Seeing Energy is seeing Matter.
In the Buddhist and the scientific context: -
Seeing Energy is seeing Emptiness,
Seeing Emptiness is seeing Energy.
When this ceases, that ceases.
This and that arise together.
This = x
That = y
With this formula I will describe normal everyday ignorance or rather imputation of inherent existence on X and Y via subject/object dualism.
So we shall talk about seeing or the action of visual consciousness.
The dualistic inherent schema that most people linguistically and perceptually affirm is seer (subject) seeing (verb) seen (object).
So I look at a red apple. The imputation of apple as an object is made, and thus creating a witness or perceiver. This and that arise together. The subject can be subtle or obvious. It can be a grouping of sensations or even a spacious witness prior to the action of seeing.
The delusion here is that there is an inherently existent subject or witness prior to, during, and after the seeing of the apple.
And this delusion also affirms the inherency of the object or apple.
This essentially is the root cause and condition for clinging (aversion and attachment), which basically starts and fabricates suffering into an effect.
So if one cuts the ignorance of inherent existence then skillfully suffering cannot arise.
The non-dualistic and non-inherent way to see the apple is deconstructed in various ways. But I will describe it as such:
In SEEING, just the SEEN. Seeing (verb) is exactly the action of (seer+seen). What does this mean? Seeing requires conditions of sense organ and sense object. Without those condition there cannot be seeing. And seeing cannot be distinguished from the sense object and sense organ. Its a process.
This experientially equates to seeing with no one seeing and nothing being seen. Even the label seeing is inaccurate as it points to an impermanence process. Such impermanence is so throughout that even the notion of impermanence and permanence become redundant in experiential meditative analysis & non-conceptual emptiness realizations.
We must be quick to see how once an object is seen then the subject is made. And once the subject is made then an object is made. Its not merely a conceptual game. Its the whole inherent energy and emphasis we give objects and subjects. Emptiness meditations allow one to penetrate the seemingly solid, inherency. What we find is a lack. But we don't just find a lack, we find relations. X is not X. Nihilism is avoided by cultivating compassion and calm abiding. It is also avoided by realizing dependent co-arising as the exact representation of emptiness.
Thus one attains freedom from views and freedom from individual suffering. This begins ones path towards the Bhumis and finally Full Buddhahood.
In relation to the heart emptiness opens and relaxes the body and mind. The responsiveness of the heart becomes a way to live and express. We find a vast openness in the heart and a vast intelligence that is align with our higher good and the higher good for all beings. Though we are complete and we have no desire to practice we are motivated by other people. We also see the signlessness of all things thus it becomes impossible for one to be lost in the world of samsara. Yet countless beings suffer under this delusion and that moves the heart. It becomes intuitively and logically clear that Buddhahood is a worthy attainment of a Bodhisattva who attains the first Bhumi.
I hope this serves as an informative guide on all your paths. I cannot claim to have much progress on the path of Dharma. But I have had few successes in the battle of personal suffering. May we all realize the profound emptiness of all things so that we can be lineage holders of the Buddhadharma in this dark age.
Much love.
The following explains it better than I can. Maybe this is a translation and an exegesis that not everyone accepts. From http://www.nirvanasutra.net/
From this openness it is natural for the mind to get clarity at some point. There are all sorts of mini samadhis. Some take a LONG time to get here like 'eating as just eating' 'seeing as just seeing'.
When we understand the fine structure (finer and finer more precise and more precise) we get all of the fingers pointing at the moon showing us the nature of our experience. As we perceive this the three marks are apparent and also the nature of suffering as related to those three.
Finally, in our finely structured understandings and perceptions we have a sensitivity that rejoices when the bodhicitta is freedom and suffers pain when wrong views have us all up in knots.
So bodhicitta is the qualities of mind rather than the contents. In the mahayana bodhicitta is practiced in the context of the 6 paramitas. These are wisdom minds, thus simple generosity is leading up to the paramita of generosity but it's not there completely. There is ultimate (indestructible) bodhicitta, but it is obscured.
One difficulty in being enlightened is that we perceive with openness just how messed up our situation is due to increased clarity. This seeing shows us something problematic and then our sensitivity can reject reality and try to shore up ego again. The only thing you can then do is open further. Our rough spots and suffering are signals to us to us to show us where we are still not open and are clinging.
Well that's the best I can do.
The last bit about seeing clearly and tripping up there is part of the path.
But I am reminded of the two out of five wisdoms. First is the wisdom of dharmadhatu which sees the nature of reality or emptiness.
Then there is the wisdom of mirror-like awareness.
Here is the capacity to reflect anything good or bad yet not be conditioned by them.
The wisdom of dharmadhatu is the primordial awareness that sees reality as it is. This is personal or individual liberation.
The primordial awareness that knows the nature of reality to its full extent is the ability to see the others suffering both causes and effect.
And then, if that were not enough, it's discussed among beginners.
There is a precept attendant with the Bodhisattva Vow to not teach emptiness to those who aren't prepared for it. It's a good rule.
I also don't like these posts that refer to the misdeeds of 'them'. I would find it more useful to say why you disagree with a particular post. On what basis are you refuting 'these' posts?
There are many views of emptiness from shravaka (emptiness of skhandas) to others. I think many of 'these' people are trying to share the view of teachers and readings.
In how I have NB set up it mixes all the categories together so they are all given in one feed. I don't even notice (sometimes) what sections something is in.
Most decent teachers won't teach emptiness to beginners. They'll wait till the student has stronger foundation of teaching and practice before introducing anything on the subject of emptiness and then gradually based on the various philosophical schools' teaching and practices to support those teachings. Giving them teachings that will only confuse or distract is not good.
On top of that, beginners don't need to concern themselves with Shunyata. They should be working on their practice
For example any teaching that can be considered dharma is stamped with three marks: impermanent, non-self, and suffering. Any teaching not stamped is not a Buddhist teaching.
My teacher says it's like dynamite, dangerous but powerful. I agree you need a Lam Rim or sutric basis first. But there are a lot of people who do have that, some of them even with teachers. Surely, they should be able to talk about it amongst themselves.
For example it is safe to realize that we are all connected. It depends how it is presented and the support in the refuge the student has.
This may seem harsh...but unless one is in relationship with an experienced Buddhist teacher and have a well established and supervised meditation practice, debating concepts like Sunyata is simply escapist entertainment.
Anyway...
Advaitins are quick to spout 'māyā' and that it's "illusion"; it's not, rather it means "power". Shankara would not or could not explain the relationship between Brahman and māyā, and how and why māyā arises. So for the past 1,000 + years Advaitins have been propagating that the world is māyā. But when pressed to explain it they can't or won't. The point, especially mentioning the Bhagavad Gita and Jesus is that "it's what we've always believed" or "that's the way we've always done it" without knowing why, or holding to a particular exegesis is not unique to Buddhism.
No one is going to know what the truth is until we get there. I think it's better to err on the side of caution, practice, cultivate loving kindness and compassion, perform bhakti (devotion to a god, if one is so inclined) and not mentally masturbate on it. My simple understanding is that the Buddha refused to really go into it (though from the Mahā Parinirvana Sutra it seems he did) because contemplating the ontology and soteriology for their own sakes does nothing to further one's progress. You can find the same issue in Taoism: knowledge for knowledge's sake will actually trip you up.
That's just my devalued dollar's worth.
The good news is Buddhist scholars are not convinced that the Buddha was a Brahmin hater or an âtman hater. But some old sectarian prejudices never die.
Back to emptiness, unfortunately, it has become the new absolute for some western Buddhists. It's more like a black hole. It is totally negative without anything positive to offer.