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.
Emptiness
Jason_PDK
Explorer
Hi guys,
Could someone help me to understand the concept of emptiness?
Thanks so much,
Jason
P.S, If I have this in the wrong category, I'm sorry.
Could someone help me to understand the concept of emptiness?
Thanks so much,
Jason
P.S, If I have this in the wrong category, I'm sorry.
0
Comments
Emptiness is essentially a way of explaining the combination of impermanence and not-self. Everything which we assume has an inherent existence is actually nothing more than a set of contingencies and processes which are changing moment by moment. We may think of ourselves as being a certain way; stubborn, intelligent, boring, prone to wind; but if we explore a little deeper, we see that these labels are nothing more a snap-shot of how we are at a specific time in our lives. Ok, you may be stubborn for most of your life but were you stubborn when you were 2 days old? Stubborness is not inherently you, and neither is anything else, good or bad.
Emptiness means that we do not have to look at ourselves and everybody else as fixed entities whom are in control of their own existence. A big thing for me is my altered perception of other people. Where I used to see someone who was choosing to be a certain and way, and who is defined by that certain way, I now see an empty entity which is such a way because certain conditions exist at this certain time.
Imagine a man who was born into a cocoon and kept alive by a drip. What would that man be like, mentally? What would his views, beliefs and opinions be? We are defined by our experience through a process of cause and effect and everything which we normally take to be 'I', is actually nothing more than the fruit of this process of cause and effect. It is impermanent and completely out of our control (not-self).
That is my take anyway, hopefully you'll get a more authoritative response
Best wishes
Pema Chodron says that shunyata (emptiness) is the sense of 'no big deal'. Sogyal Rinpoche says it is one thing. Being spacious. Being big about it, in the context of relationships. My teacher, Lama Shenpen Hookham, says it is the space in a situation. For example you can be having a domestic argument and feeling closed down and unhappy. By flashing ultimate bodhicitta which the nature of that is emptiness you recognize there is more space to the situation than you thought. This means you are less caught up in the tapes that tell you that you have to defend yourself and that the person you are arguing with must be resisted. Instead you lighten up. That is being spacious. No big deal, shunyata.
Well emptiness is an expression that benefits from a qualifier: inherent existence. When you notice emptiness in something, you are noticing it is lacking inherent existence.
Saying a box lacks inherent existence means (as far as I can tell)it depends on causes and conditions to arise (someone cut the paper, folded it, whatever), the whole depends on its parts (you can't have a box without atoms), and it also arises in relation of a consciousness that perceives it.
In that sense, when you are detecting the emptiness of something you are looking for a very specific quality (inherent existence) and not whether or not it exists.
Nothing will 'survive' an analysis for inherent existence. Everything will turn out as empty, even emptiness itself. That does not mean a cat doesn't exist, it just means it lacks a certain quality. That is why the two truths (ultimate, that perceives emptiness, and conventional) can co-exist.
I also think the term 'emptiness' can be misleading. Is that a direct translation from pali?
Yes
all in how you want to look at it.
Release; freedom from the fabrications and conventions of the mind.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html#v
Emptiness (sunyata) is only skillful means-- it is not an metaphysical entity that can be reified (like something like Tao/Dao or in some theologies a "ground of being")). Even emptiness is "empty." There is no one thing that can be pointed to that is not empty-- the universe itself has no actual foundation (hence the absence of a creator god in Buddhism).
Emptiness, co-dependent arising, no-self, impermanence and dukkha are really all just different ways of looking at the same thing (what we call "existence"). When looking at it from any one of these perspectives, all the other ones are implied.
The universe is like a river flowing-- there is no one place in all the water that is stable. There may even be eddies that form momentarily here and there, but they are constantly in flux. And all the water forms a whole. In a certain sense, there really is no such thing as "being," there is only a continual process unfolding.
This is where we run into problems-- in other words, dukkha. Because we mis-perceive the world as a world of fixed entities with independent selves, we cling to these things, even as they are slipping right through our fingers. Because we don't see things in the light of emptiness, we cause ourselves to suffer.
There are quite a lot of good books that address the topic, but Thich Nhat Hanh's very brief commentary on the Heart Sutra addresses it very simply and clearly (The Heart of Understanding) -- in fact, it blew my mind when I first read it!
From what I understand, sunyata is more a Mahayana doctrine, more emphasis placed on it-- if I understand correctly, it isn't emphasised (if even mentioned, or maybe it has a different context?) in Theravadan literature. (I could be wrong...?-- I am not as familiar with Theravadan thought)
"...If we were to observe a red flower that is so vivid, clear and right in front us, the “redness” only appears to “belong” to the flower, it is in actuality not so. Vision of red does not arise in all animal species (dogs cannot perceive colours) nor is the “redness” an inherent attribute of the mind. If given a “quantum eyesight” to look into the atomic structure, there is similarly no attribute “redness” anywhere found, only almost complete space/void with no perceivable shapes and forms. Whatever appearances are dependently arisen, and hence is empty of any inherent existence or fixed attributes, shapes, form, or “redness” -- merely luminous yet empty, mere appearances without inherent/objective existence..."
My teacher says that you cannot determine someone is right or wrong by looking at their tradition. You have to listen to what they are saying in order to discuss something.
Do you agree that conditional phenomena is ungraspable?
This I do agree with your teacher. It is like saying or white people think the same in a way. You will find slightly different opinions and views within one tradition and even in on monastery
Yes all phenomena are ungraspable.