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 & space.. synonyms used to clarify meaning
oceancaldera207
Veteran
Is emptiness the best word?
One simple thing that is seldom said, is what exactly the word emptiness refers to: I've found numerous instances in the scriptures where it is defined as pure empty space, devoid even of darkness, ie. clear.
I think that if one constantly conjures up the image of a dark wall or hole when they are contemplating emptiness, it's really a misunderstanding and a distraction which tends one towards nihilistic thoughts. And I bet that is really common too, given the connotation of the word emptiness in english..
What they are really referencing is much more clear and pure than any absolute POV which states that 'things are empty,' (then one may begin to make nearly permanent emotional assumptions about the results of that incorrect assessment.)
It's a simple misunderstanding of terms, but it can make all the difference in the world. One thing that I have learned to do is: plug in synonyms into pivotal words in the scripture...In this case ' pure space' might be a good change from emptiness. I realize that 'pure space' might end up being just as confusing, but at least it is less likely to be misunderstood as utterly bleak.
The main point is this:
The subtlety of language has a very heavy ramifications when it comes to buddhist scriptures. I think that it's best to extract the subtle meaning through the use of several synonyms of key terms. It can make all the difference in the world. Of course, you should use accurate synonyms, and be very careful not to change the meaning of the word. It's the unspoken connotations that we're looking to clarify.
Another good thing is to clearly define for yourself the foreign words left intact in the texts. Honestly, I feel that we as english speakers should avoid hiding behind the words Dharma or dharma. These words simply cover more items than can be fit into one english word..and the meaning is slightly flexible depending on what they are referencing.
Here's a few verses by Nagarjuna that I think should be heavily referenced before contemplating emptiness
Just as sweetness is the nature of molasses
And heat the nature of fire,
Likewise we maintain that
The nature of all phenomena is emptiness.
When one speaks of emptiness as the nature [of phenomena],
One in no sense propounds nihilism;
By the same token one does not
Propound eternalism either.
The abiding of a mind which has no object
Is defined as the characteristic of space;
[So] they accept that meditation on emptiness
Is [in fact] a meditation on space.
So, next time you read anything on emptiness, remember: clear empty space, not darkness! And remember, investigate wording! Take nothing for granted!
One simple thing that is seldom said, is what exactly the word emptiness refers to: I've found numerous instances in the scriptures where it is defined as pure empty space, devoid even of darkness, ie. clear.
I think that if one constantly conjures up the image of a dark wall or hole when they are contemplating emptiness, it's really a misunderstanding and a distraction which tends one towards nihilistic thoughts. And I bet that is really common too, given the connotation of the word emptiness in english..
What they are really referencing is much more clear and pure than any absolute POV which states that 'things are empty,' (then one may begin to make nearly permanent emotional assumptions about the results of that incorrect assessment.)
It's a simple misunderstanding of terms, but it can make all the difference in the world. One thing that I have learned to do is: plug in synonyms into pivotal words in the scripture...In this case ' pure space' might be a good change from emptiness. I realize that 'pure space' might end up being just as confusing, but at least it is less likely to be misunderstood as utterly bleak.
The main point is this:
The subtlety of language has a very heavy ramifications when it comes to buddhist scriptures. I think that it's best to extract the subtle meaning through the use of several synonyms of key terms. It can make all the difference in the world. Of course, you should use accurate synonyms, and be very careful not to change the meaning of the word. It's the unspoken connotations that we're looking to clarify.
Another good thing is to clearly define for yourself the foreign words left intact in the texts. Honestly, I feel that we as english speakers should avoid hiding behind the words Dharma or dharma. These words simply cover more items than can be fit into one english word..and the meaning is slightly flexible depending on what they are referencing.
Here's a few verses by Nagarjuna that I think should be heavily referenced before contemplating emptiness
Just as sweetness is the nature of molasses
And heat the nature of fire,
Likewise we maintain that
The nature of all phenomena is emptiness.
When one speaks of emptiness as the nature [of phenomena],
One in no sense propounds nihilism;
By the same token one does not
Propound eternalism either.
The abiding of a mind which has no object
Is defined as the characteristic of space;
[So] they accept that meditation on emptiness
Is [in fact] a meditation on space.
So, next time you read anything on emptiness, remember: clear empty space, not darkness! And remember, investigate wording! Take nothing for granted!
0
Comments
hopefully not too off topic, but I think worth noting. Probably didn't explain it so well, I am a little tired tonight!
:coffee:
M
The teaching I refer to is the most recent and has not been added to the archive, thus I will post the text:
What is awareness?
Summary: Awareness is an intrinsic quality which we all have. Through meditation we learn to rest in it and probe its true nature.
Student:
What exactly is Awareness and how does it work?
Lama Shenpen:
I tend to use the word awareness in two main ways. I use it for what I call everyday life awareness practice and in that context I may even from time to time talk in terms of increasing or developing awareness. Other teachers use words such as attention, tender-hearted or loving attention, or mindfulness. Here we are using awareness as that volitional power we have to bring our attention to bear on what is to hand, the present if you like. Some teachers call this kind of practice coming into the present or being present. Actually this power to do this is samadhi in its most general sense. Samadhi is sometimes translated as concentration or even meditation because it can be developed to an extraordinary degree. However, we all use it all the time in order to accomplish anything at all. We have to focus, if only briefly, to be able to know or do anything.
Someone with a marked degree of attentiveness in this sense, would be a very aware person.......someone who was present and knew what was going on around them. And daily life awareness practice is about becoming more aware in this sense. It is a matter of being awake, attentive, present with our experience as it arises.
The second way I use the term awareness is to refer to the power to know, the knower who knows and what is known by the knowing. I also refer to this as clarity. I use it in this context for the middle of the three inseparable qualities of our true nature, almost as if it could be distinguished from Openness and Sensitivity. Of course it cannot be separated and distinguished because there is no openness and sensitivity where there is no awareness......and so one could use awareness alone. Reality is simply Awareness. One could have said it was simply Emptiness or simply Sensitivity..............but in general if I use one term alone, it tends to be Awareness rather than the other two.
Some teachers use 'mind' or 'experience' as their favoured single term. You could say we seek to discover the nature of mind, or the nature of experience, where I would tend to say we seek to discover the nature of awareness. My reasons are that the word seems to me to resonate more of a heart quality than 'mind' or even 'experience' does. Experience is perhaps better than mind in that respect, but to my mind it resonates too strongly with the object of awareness, what we are experiencing rather than our being, as both the experiencer and experienced. This is just a reflection of how the word resonates for me and explains my use of Awareness in this context. It is in fact my preferred translation for chitta.............but of course there is a play going on in the English between awareness as a simple word for being attentive and this rather grander use of the term for what is found ultimately to be our true nature.
Having dealt with the question of terminology I turn now to the more tricky question of what are we really talking about.
Well you will not expect an immediate and simple explanation of what is our true nature. That is something we have to keep returning to again and again in our life and our meditation. Your question is nonetheless extremely pertinent. It is exactly what we should be asking, all the time. What is this? What is awareness, clarity, what is openness, emptiness, spaciousness, what is sensitivity, responsiveness, well-being......what are they really........we have to keep inquiring, looking as directly and honestly as we can at our experience......at some level we must have the answers to these questions in ourselves.....they are pointing to our experience and, when we use these terms, come out of our experience......so what is the experience....what is experience....what is anything? When these questions really start to grab us, then we are moving into Vipashyana practice. We need to learn to link this kind of deep questioning of our experience with our meditation. For this my students need to work with me more closely to find a way of combining the shamata and vipashyana elements of their meditation practice in a way that actually works for them. So I suggest you come for a personal interview or ring me........and we can talk more.
******************************8
Samadhi: concentration, absorption
Shamatha: calm abiding; any meditation technique that leads to peace and calm.
Vipashyana: insight meditation; any meditation that is linked to Awakening.
i came across many different analogies of emptiness.
some being dependent origination and some focusing on spaciousness.
what i found was that they were both talking about the same thing but in different expressions.
the spaciousness is a felt sensation during meditation where the subject (observer) totally dissolves and all that is left is spacious openness. this is in short a direct perception of emptiness.
the conceptual model of dependent origination is taught to facilitate this experience of emptiness. but at the same time it serves as the perfect framework for the actual experience.
many problems can arise when the mind itself grasps at this experience of emptiness. one can reify it into a god, or create it into an object, or just grasp onto it.
thus nagarjuna pointed to emptiness of emptiness. there is nothing to cling to because everything lacks self essence.
this is something that can be experienced right here and right now. we cannot grasp at anything, yet we try to and we suffer. our suffering proves that nothing is graspable. when we look within we only find spaciousness. what is the qualities of spaciousness? we can say open and free and accepting, but these are just thought projections. it is also angry, anxiety, fear, etc. but again these are sensations that arise and fall.
all is arising and falling within this spaciousness. nothing is grasped for there is nothing to grasp. there are only empty processes. so in meditation we explore the buddha's teachings. if there is grasping towards something we assume there is, then we suffer. when we look and examine closely, we find that there is only spaciousness with forms arising and falling.
all of it is dependent on body,mind, consciousness and body, mind, consciousness is dependent on forms.
the foot meets the ground meets mind = walking
One could start with one sense type. For example, everything seen has seeingness in common... or you can say, everything seen is light, or energy. Light without color is pure undifferentiated light, which is emptiness. What does all sounds have in common, hearing. What does seeing and hearing have in common? You could say consciousness. What does consciousness and unconsciousness have in common?
Emptiness isn't easy to understand, even at just a conceptual level. I find it best to meditate on the emptiness of my body, and my 'self'. Once you can understand the emptiness of the body, it's then easier to understand the emptiness of all other phenomena.
And even at a conceptual level, I've found by trying to see the Emptiness in some difficult situations I'm currently undergoing, it helps alleviate some of the 'fear element' involved.
Another thing I was thinking of where the wind is! Where is the wind? You know it blows but there is no spot that you can say: that is where the wind is. It is everywhere! But when it isn't there then not-wind is also unable to locate.
Good post. I think sometimes it is better to try to find the original for some terms, whether it be in Sanskrit or Tibetan, etc. With these kind of syllabic languages, it can lead to a better understanding of the term when we understand the meaning of the combined syllables which make up a word. As sattvapaul pointed out, often times this leads to a somewhat slightly different meaning then a simple translation into English can offer. So sometimes, especially with very tough terms like "shunyata", sometimes it is better to just call it...shunyata.
hopefully not too off topic, but I think worth noting. Probably didn't explain it so well, I am a little tired tonight!
:coffee:
Hey thanks, good advice on the syllable breakdown. I think it's good that translators chose not to leave certain things untranslated.. perhaps the idea was to make interested readers make their own opinion on a word whose meaning is not easily paralleled. I think that one definitely should, for our their personal use, we really ought to take the time to clarify these terms.
A project that I have been working on for my own personal use: I take selections from sutras that resonate with me, and which more or less can stand alone without context, and translate all the untranslated words.. it really is difficult in some places, and is a bit painstaking sometimes. The word 'dharma' {lower case) is really elusive.. there really is no word that encompasses what it means, and the meaning shifts. I can usually determine a more exact definition from context, b
Sabba Sutta: The All
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html
Good post. I think sometimes it is better to try to find the original for some terms, whether it be in Sanskrit or Tibetan, etc. With these kind of syllabic languages, it can lead to a better understanding of the term when
Until then, we can only work with concepts, but even getting a deep understanding of the concept takes hard work.
I started by looking for my 'I' by meditating on the five aggregates. I'm no highly developed meditator (far from it), but even I was surprised when I couldn't find my 'I'; it made me laugh. For anyone whose interested, try getting a good understanding of the five aggregates, and then do an analytical meditation on them, looking for your 'I'; that unchanging part of you that you think is 'you'.
I reckon that's a good way to begin to understand Emptiness.
And yet, years later, when I finally DID start reading some introductory Buddhist literature (especially Thich Nhat Hanh), it was "emptiness" that caught my attention the most-- it really is the key, I feel, to understanding Mahayana Buddhism.
It is all metaphor, whatever term we choose... "Emptiness" is one that focuses spatially on presence/absence. A metaphor I am feeling drawn toward recently is visual: transparency. If we think of all things as having a self, its like having a kind of solidity that is opaque. Realising transparency means "seeing" it (which again, is a metaphor).
I think maybe reading Hongzhi uses lots of visual imagery of pure light, clarity and luminosity when referring to sunyata. It has a particular set of connotations that are very different from the connotations that "emptiness" carries in western culture.
Is emptiness just ever openingness?
I think that we are far too prone to assume that the principle of emptiness is some abstruse abstraction. If I had any advice to give my past self, it would be this: take it more literally!
I didnt really want to get into this kind of discussion..this thread was supposed to be about subtlety of language and translation ideas. I mean, obviously language has massive limitation, but the ancient sages clearly had very subtle methods for avoiding some of these shortcomings and accurately describing avenues to understanding. I think it is very imperative that we come to accurate definitions..at least to avoid spreading a bunch of misunderstanding. We owe them that at least.
Perceiving, self, a perceiver, all equally empty. This is the message, which is indeed inconceivable. THis transcends all apprehension with thought, so any conjecture we make on this is pointless, as well as incongruous to the teaching. So, basically, 99% of what is said about this topic is totally wrong. Most 'teachers' teach their own misunderstanding. Emptiness does not refer to anything, because nothing can be grasped, as it is inherently empty of self. Thought and grasping are also inherently empty of own being. To say that emptiness refers to anything is a demonstration of grasping thought. This is truly inconceivable, what it means is truly awesome.
Any opposite of all would be equally as empty as the all itself.
The sutra that you presented here has been misunderstood: what he is saying is that the statement about something outside the 'all' cannot be explained or talked about...why? because the 'all' cannot be explained or talked about. The all is inconceivable. A person couldn't talk about something outside the all, when the all is beyond words itself. Take a look and see for yourself. Yes, and really, I wonder if it wouldn't be better for english speakers to use the term: 'clear empty space' instead. It may not facilitate understanding of the scripture.. but I think it would prevent a lot of misunderstanding, especially in the nihilistic sense. It's really really debatable though.. because 'clear empty space' is a noun... catch my drift?
contd.
whhhiiirrrrrrr...hummmmmm...bright lights....they fire up. And the results are amazing beyond parallel. Riverflow, where most see useless ancient contraptions, there are a few of us who can board them, and ride them out of the ground to the astonishment of all standers by. Joy is pretty much an understatement.
Again, with regards to words: What is lost on most people is that the ancients left us with words that break the bonds of words. I think that a major reason people don't see this is because of all the ridiculously bad commentary that abounds as 'explanation'. There is a reason why the buddha and others said things the way that they did, and frankly almost all commentary I see on sutras is a terrible mess, which sound great .... unless you know better. Everyone should ask themselves when they read an 'explanation'....if it is so simple, then why didn't the buddha put it this way? Because most of the time, the explanation is totally flawed and often flat out wrong. 'Revered', well read, well admired folks are sometimes ignorant and misleading. Therefore I advise that those interested should at first only read scriptures closely associated with the buddha.
But! Darkness is not lack of light. Darkness is a concept. ( which has no real tangible nature. Perception has no graspable quality either.)
To be technical, 'darkness being a lack of photons' is a mass of conceptual assessments. Conceptual assessments are inherently lacking in self nature.
*smile*
My university TB professor, who was the one who developed the system of rendering Tibetan spelling in English, so he was into Tibetan linguistics and translation. He didn't use the word "emptiness". He called it "the Void". How that correlates with whatever word is used in Sanskrit or Pali, I don't know.
@oceancaldera207, excellent analysis thats exactly what nagarjuna said about the rangtongpa position..
Regarding the shentongpa position which is related to your way of thinking nagarjaruna said "if we cannot establish a conditional realtity how can we establish an unconditional."
Food for thought!
this gives the perfect experiential data in regards to this.
There is thinking, no thinker
There is hearing, no hearer
There is seeing, no seer
deals with the emptiness of self. just processes. separate, interdependent parts coming together to have this illusion of "wholeness".
In thinking, just thoughts
In hearing, just sounds
In seeing, just forms, shapes and colors.
deals with the luminosity of awakened mind. or the fullness aspect of emptiness.
form is emptiness is the first three sentences.
emptiness is form is the last three sentences.
open, clear, spacious luminosity is the nature of emptiness itself. there are not two.
but the realization is separate!
The tathagata instructs that we have a very high degree of moral behavior, but that we not be attached to this behavior (by having image of self)... this is a fine point but an absolutely essential one. It should be taken very very seriously. Of course, this should seem practically impossible, because it is! Its basically inconceivable....what he is talking about here is something in the scope of great beings.
For example: It's like he says: you can give a mountain of money(jewels) as charity, but that wouldn't equal a fraction of what that same donation would be if it was given without image of self, person, liver of life. Why? Because if you help someone with material goods, then you are really only helping a temporary condition. But if you do it with the essence of emptiness, without a liver of life, image of self, liver of life, then you are working to enlighten beings, which is worth far more than any charity. And it is! It is truly unbelievable. Even at a distant glimpse, what this principle of emptiness refers to is truly unbelievably incredible.
I'm going to tell you something from the bottom of my heart:
You guys, people are going to tell you, and you might be tempted to think, that the teachings of the buddha, particularly the teaching of emptiness, are simply ancient ascetic methods to access various states of mind, brain waves, clarity, peace of mind, etc etc. Perhaps mixed with basic moral teachings. It's natural to think this way.
But I have to tell you; it's a lot more than that. There's no way to even begin to describe what it is.. people talk about 'experiencing emptiness'... I can't begin to tell you how far that phrase is from touching what it is, from even catching the slightest glimpse of what it is. I can't begin to tell you enough, it is utterly beyond words, i mean not just a little, utterly. It is the ABSOLUTE CRUX of everything that is right in the universe. Any kind of structured thought you have is of no consequence to it, but is yet of the same fabric AS it. It is the unfathomable door to the unfathomable answers to those questions that you always have, but can;t seem to formulate words for. Know about it just even a tiny little bit and you'll want to talk about it this way....
also i have to say that I didn't always feel that way about the teaching. I used to have the feeling that it was bleak, abstract, possibly genius, but basically incomprehensible.
All I'm trying to say is, put down your opinions, other peoples opinions, forget what you think you know, and give it a good long look. Don;t allow yourself to make judgments on it right away. And for gods sake don't let anyone tell you how to think! read the diamond sutra, take it slow and really think about it.
I know that most of you here have already been inundated with peoples supposedly educated opinions.. a hundred times forget them. Like i've said before a lot of this stuff out there sounds good, and it might make a person think that they are gaining knowledge... but it's always just one intellectual maze, one set of catch phrases for another. It's really no ones fault: if someone doesnt understand something, they might be inclined to make up an understanding out of frustration... then, reasonably satisfied, they pass it on to others who are asking for guidance. The person probably has no idea really what he is doing. It is our deep seated instinct to grasp and hold concepts, and when we cannot easily do so, we formulate rash opinions and look for easy answers.
The sutras are designed carefully, for YOU, to use without need for commentary. If they needed a bunch of commentaries to be understood, they would be useless in and of themselves. The teaching imparted can be examined to more detail (ie nagarjuna) but cannot be explained any better. Cntd.
This is just my opinion, my recommendation, for what it's worth, take it or leave it. I'm not perfect by any means, i'm no genius or sage, ..but I do truly feel that there is great value to what im saying to you right now.
This, below, is what I would have written as guidelines for my past self.
Read lots of buddhas direct words
Examine carefully the translations and make sure that you research words and terms that you aren't familiar with
Weigh and test the meanings of the sutras honestly and with your own mind, without outside influence. (commentaries, teachers, etc.)
Practice without knowing what to expect at all.
Difficulty, frustration, confusion and fear is inevitable: have tenacity, don't give up.
Just admit when you don't understand things in the sutras, don't make opinions, give it time, and come back to them
Don't settle for anything less than the truth, which you know FOR YOURSELF.
True understanding will hold water, and there will be minimal doubt.
Understand and put the teachings into practice as literally and directly as possible, though it may seem impossible.
Try to be generally good towards people, and try not to do harm.
Know that what 'it' is, is unbelievable, inconceiveable, and incredible..the intention is utterly positive, though it may be bitter medicine.