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.
Derive meaning from emptiness
pauliwago
Explorer
Hi everyone,
I know the topic of emptiness is very difficult and discussed thoroughly here and elsewhere. But I want to hear your take on deriving meaning from emptiness. Let me explain where I'm coming from briefly.
As I understand it, emptiness is describing the fact that nothing has an essence, or inherent existence. Everything is a process; nothing really exists, but also, everything exists. It's hard to describe with words (as you all know)...it's not something to grasp conceptually. Everyone has Buddha nature; everything we do is Buddha nature whether we realize it or not (correct me if I'm wrong).
Anyways, what I'm trying to get at is, whether you're out there helping others and changing the world or just wasting your life away on alcohol and drugs, in the "ultimate reality", there is no "good" or "bad", "wasteful" or "productive" since these are merely concepts. Why choose to be "good" over "bad"? Why choose to be "helpful" over "hurtful"? In our conceptual world, answers are obvious of course. But since concepts do not *really* exist, the more we realize emptiness, whether we make the decision to do one or the other shouldn't matter, should it?
My main question: how do you derive meaning out of emptiness? Or to rephrase: if you accept the fact that everything is emptiness and emptiness is everything, what motivates you to do what you do?
Hope I didn't lose you! Thanks a bunch. Please let me know if any clarification is needed.
I know the topic of emptiness is very difficult and discussed thoroughly here and elsewhere. But I want to hear your take on deriving meaning from emptiness. Let me explain where I'm coming from briefly.
As I understand it, emptiness is describing the fact that nothing has an essence, or inherent existence. Everything is a process; nothing really exists, but also, everything exists. It's hard to describe with words (as you all know)...it's not something to grasp conceptually. Everyone has Buddha nature; everything we do is Buddha nature whether we realize it or not (correct me if I'm wrong).
Anyways, what I'm trying to get at is, whether you're out there helping others and changing the world or just wasting your life away on alcohol and drugs, in the "ultimate reality", there is no "good" or "bad", "wasteful" or "productive" since these are merely concepts. Why choose to be "good" over "bad"? Why choose to be "helpful" over "hurtful"? In our conceptual world, answers are obvious of course. But since concepts do not *really* exist, the more we realize emptiness, whether we make the decision to do one or the other shouldn't matter, should it?
My main question: how do you derive meaning out of emptiness? Or to rephrase: if you accept the fact that everything is emptiness and emptiness is everything, what motivates you to do what you do?
Hope I didn't lose you! Thanks a bunch. Please let me know if any clarification is needed.
0
Comments
For more selfish reasons, doing good and developing genuine love and compassion create the causes for one's own conventional happiness.
Bodhicitta automatically follows from the mind and hearts release.
Emptiness is empty. Emptiness is luminous. All is like a dream. Thus nothing to gain and nothing to lose.
There is good and there is bad. With wisdom see clearly. With wisdom everything becomes your responsibility. The suffering you see is your projection. Thus it is your responsibility to help sentient beings.
Emptiness asserts the lack of intrinsic reality. It does not deny anything or assert.
I'll write more if what i weite isn't clear. Hope this helps.
The whole path of buddhism is about freedom. The hearts release.
Infinite potential and infinite expression. How beautiful and intricate.
Because things are empty, everything is possible. Because things chamge there is infinite growth to help all beings.
Sorry mods for multiple posts.
We do actions based on self cherishing. That brings us suffering.
Seeing emptiness is to see dependent origination. The absolute is the relative. Causality cannot be denied.
At first we cultivate relative bodhicitta. We do things out of our self cherishing ways. We help others so that we can be happy.
Then we develop true bodhcitta which is to rest in the undivided consciousness prior to the making of my, i, mine.
So it all depends on how much of emptiness teachings have penetrated our ignorance of how reality is and how reality works.
So in one sense it is to not see the empty luminous quality of existence and self.
Or it is to not see the four noble truths, dependent origination.
Everything is buddha nature. Sure, but that doesn't do anyone any justice until one actualizes such insight.
The laws in reality still function whether deluded or wise. The wise learn to have composure through wisdom, concentration and an ethical life.
Is that close?
However, if the absolute = relative, one of these elements of the equation is not defined correctly....? There is no absolute, except in the most minimal fraction?
So the illusion is that there is something to gain or something to lose. There was never a thing to begin with. Just appearences based on dependent origination.
To see that all things lack inherent existence is to see emptiness is form. Now to see form is emptiness is to see the luminous quality of emptiness.
Absolute and relative are functions of teaching. Even dependent origination and emptiness are rafts that bring about the freedom or hearts release.
Not sure if this helps.
So is our true-nature cause-less?
And vice versa.
To accept this completely leads to what is. What is, is the natural state of letting go.
All thoughts appear (luminous) but are empty (unfindable, lacking of inherency). Thus everything is already the unborn. No true birth and no true death.
Magic!
This is a wrong understanding of emptiness to think there is no evil. It is called shunyata poisoning by Trungpa Rinpoche. There is evil, but there is no self-existent force, evil.
Evil is relative. For example punching you out is relatively more evil than giving you a cookie. But there is no absolute 'evil'.
Emptiness is part and parcel with dependent origination, in which all things are relative as opposed to absolute.
Emptiness isn't how something IS. Rather it is how things are NOT. Dedpendent origination is how things are. You can think of DO as mirrors. Everything mirrors everything else from two beings to two particles. This is called Indra's net.
So the conceptual reality (evil exists) and the ultimate reality (there is no inherent evil) are both true. I was beginning to think that the ultimate reality was THE reality..but now I'm beginning to see that both are part of one? One is not superior over the other. Is this correct?
If we’re to change our attitude and search for holiness, then we really have to start from zero, and erase all preconceptions and everything we have been thought. We have to empty ourselves and let illumination enter in and fill a void. When it’s not complete surrender, it’s very hard to advance towards a better way. What we need to do is create a spiritual environment that will influence us much as the material environment influenced as growing up. We need to consider ourselves as just having come out of the womb, and having zero knowledge, to use the childbirth metaphor. Only then can the old paradigm be broken and allow Truth to enter in and change how we perceive the world.
nice work, guys!
I have a question in return, to everyone. Emptiness is not a thing or object. I cannot give you a handful of emptiness. Emptiness is a quality or characteristic applied to something. We say, "The bowl is empty" or "The bowl is filled". But, emptiness can only be comprehended if you can answer the following question. Anyone care to take a stab at it? I guarantee, there are no right and wrong answers, only your current understanding.
So my question is: "Where does the emptiness go to, when you fill the bowl with water?"
thoughts are not self.
Thoughts themselves are
Luminous and empty. Everything experienced is emptiness itself. Not as a thing but as appearances that are hollow.
A thought vividly appears yet it isn't truly there. We cannot even say it is here, there, born, dies. There is no true attribute or characteristic to thoughts other than what we infer and project.
All phenemena outside and inside are the same. Lacking of any true substance. But the amazing thing is all things appear. All things are vivid and bright.
Luminous emptiness.
A thought is aware of a thought.
If there is no thought then attention is somewhere else.
So thought appears then smell appears then sound appears. The focus is always on one thing at a time. It happens so fast and the mind links ao fast that we have this seemless, whole experience.
All is self luminous and empty. Look for any abiding phenomena be it of the subject or object. We cannot find anything. Everything is inferred and not knowing directly.
To experience directly is to see the vividness and emptiness of whatever seems to arise. Then it is to see directly how the mind attaches stories and clings to a projected idea that isn't there.
In fact all is a projection of mind based on karma. An object only appears hard because of the karma. If we condition ourselves then hard can become orgasmic bliss giving feeling.
Everything as it is, is the dharmakaya. It is the truth body.
Drink the damn water in the bowl.
emptiness itself is empty. it cannot have self nature. it also is dependent.
Emptiness on one hand implies nothing (i.e there is nothing whatsoever at all) - however looking at it another way, an empty position is full of potential - when it is expressed, it is no longer empty and no longer has potential, as the potential has been expressed - thus a state of emptiness is nothing and everything... I would at this point slap you and say... 'didnt see that coming did you'?!! so its emptiness = full of potential... anything can happen!
Another useful analogy is a loan from a bank - imagine taking a loan for $100 and then paying it back immediately - when you enter the bank you had nothing, when you leave you have nothing - but something happened - there was a loan which was then extinguished - net effect, no loan and no change - actually there was a lot more going on...
your rephrased 2nd part is a stand alone question in itself - what motivates me to do what I do? nothing... just the act of doing itself - otherwise I would be motionless.
Let me pose this to you in another way - when youre kind to someone, do you expect something back in return? is it reciprocal alturism that drives you or just alturism? Do you need a 'reason' to do something - are you afraid that God will punish you or you will go to hell? Do you fear your karma? Do you seek enlightenment and have to follow rules? What happens when noone is watching over your shoulder?
Or is it ok just to do things that reduce suffering (because suffering is hard and can be eliminated) and your love and compassion has no reason and no boundaries...? Do you need motivation to breathe and eat and sh*t?
The experience of emptiness is not to make meaning out of the world. The struggle with meaning is a necessary and predominant cause of suffering. So "to make meaning out of emptiness" is not useful.
To the extent a person is enlightened, I imagine they have no self-interested motivation to do anything. To the extent a person is not enlightened, yet want to be, it is correct for them to be motivated to become enlightened. Why? Because that is what they want.
If you envision enlightenment as a kind of field that can grow in a person, the part of them that already has established the field has no self-interested motivation to do anything, while the rest of them wants to adopt the field (but may not be ready to).
The nature of enlightenment is giving. This is why compassion is a crucially important part of the process. That which already has the field has it to the extent it gives it away. This is how clear mind is cultivated.
Conrad.
Emptiness is dependent on a mind to perceive an object and to see its lack of.
But thats just my opinion. I believe the dalai lama in the above post has a more elaborate answer.
You're going to get different answers based on how you look at it and how another looks at it. Experientially it is described differently than philosophically.
Anyways hope this helps.
The arising of phenomena dependently in relation to their causes and conditions of existence means that phenomena are in cause-and-effect relationships. Phenomena are not inherently the cause of their own existence. The continuation or cessation of phenomena is also dependent upon causes and conditions of existence, and is not inherently existent.
To say that phenomena are not inherently existent is not to say that phenomena are non-existent. The statement that phenomena are not inherently existent means that phenomena depend upon causes and conditions of existence. If phenomena did not depend on causality, they would not exist. Therefore, to say that phenomena exist inherently is actually to say that they do not exist (verse 16).
If it is understood that phenomena are not inherently existent, it can be seen that suffering does not exist inherently. Recognition of this teaching can help us to attain nirvana, which is the cessation of suffering.
For Nagarjuna, emptiness should not be interpreted ontologically, but rather in the way of the parable of the raft: The Buddhist teaching (especially shunyata), is like the raft one constructs for the crossing of a river. Once the river is crossed, the purpose of the raft has been served. It may now be discarded
The same is true of emptiness: it should not be held on to; one who does hold on to it will have trouble functioning in life. In this sense, emptiness could also be compared to a laxative: once the obstruction has passed, there is no need to continue taking it.
To remind myself to not be caught up in a philosophical position.
At times I grasp at emptiness, but the emptiness of emptiness frees the grasping.
But that is if I am looking at it through philosophy.
At the end of the day its about freedom.
How is believing that emptiness is dependent on something going to help in your quest to be free?
Even emptiness is empty. For example, the emptiness of the bottle of milk does not exist inherently. Rather, it exists in a dependent way. The emptiness of the bottle of milk is dependent upon its basis (the bottle of milk). It is also dependent upon having been designated as emptiness. As we saw above, this is alluded to in Nagarjuna’s Treatise, verse 24.18.
Understood this way, emptiness is not a substitute term for awareness. Emptiness is not an essense. It is not a substratum or background condition. Things do not arise out of emptiness and subside back into emptiness. Emptiness is not a quality that things have, which makes them empty. Rather, to be a thing in the first place, is to be empty.
It is easy to misunderstand emptiness by idealizing or reifying it by thinking that it is an absolute, an essence, or a special realm of being or experience. It is not any of those things. It is actually the opposite. It is merely the way things exist, which is without essence or self-standing nature or a substratum of any kind. Here is a list characteristics of emptiness, to help avoid some of the frequent misunderstandings about emptiness, according to the Buddhist Consequentialists:
Emptiness is not a substance
Emptiness is not a substratum or background
Emptiness is not light
Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness
Emptiness is not the Absolute
Emptiness does not exist on its own
Objects do not consist of emptiness
Objects do not arise from emptiness
Emptiness of the "I" does not negate the "I"
Emptiness is not the feeling that results when no objects are appearing to the mind
Meditating on emptiness does not consist of quieting the mind
&
The Dialectical Approach
The Consequentialists do not argue for substantive positions, but proceed dialectically. They argue by drawing out the unwanted and unexpected logical consequences entailed by their interlocutors' positions. The Consequentialist style of refutation is as follows: while in debate over metaphysical issues with an interlocutor, the Consequentialist refutes the interlocutor not by negating the interlocutor's statement with a counter-statement (e.g., that matter exists, not Mind), but by finding an inconsistency or a reductio ad absurdum among the interlocutor's statements. This allows Consequentialism to be positionless with respect to issues, most notably on questions of existence and non-existence.
Imagine a philosopher coming up to a man who is sitting quietly against a tree, and telling the man that the tree truly exists because it is of the nature of Mind, and only Mind really exists. The sitting man is a consequentialist. He doesn't have an opinion on the existence or non-existence of Mind or the tree, and doesn't wish to convince the philosopher of a contrary position; he's just sitting there. So he won't offer a counter-claim or argue that the tree really doesn't exist as Mind. Instead, he will draw out more statements from the philosopher until the philosopher is involved in a contradiction. Or he might show that the philosopher's assumptions entail an absurd, unwanted conclusion. Then he'll go back to sitting against the tree.
The Consequentialist school is the most thoroughgoing of the Mahayana schools in its rejection of any kind of intrinsic nature. Even though it is the school of His Holiness the current Dalai Lama, most of the Dalai Lama's public teachings are about other topics of wider interest. Emptiness teachings can get abstract and subtle, and not everyone is interested in them. But if you do find books in English on emptiness, most of them are likely to be written from the Consequentialist standpoint. You will find a list of these books in the References below.
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/02/nondual-emptiness-teachings.html#ee
I don't really find it as religious dogma. A direct perception of emptiness is verifiable through one's own meditative, subjective practice.
Philosophically one can come to the conclusions stated by Nagarjuna if they do the work.
Emptiness sets the ground for Mahayana Buddhism, which have made many individuals into great bodhisattvas.
Emptiness is a raft that brings about freedom from views. That is the function that ultimately brings about one's liberation.
It is not a teaching that is metaphysical. With critical thinking one can come to a sound intellectual understanding which can then give vision for the direct perception of Emptiness.
On what basis do you call this religious dogma? Did you even read what I posted?
You asked me a question, so I gave you my sincere answers.
So I would like a sincere answer from you. Where do you find dogma in this? Also why is it a belief? On what grounds do you assume that this is a belief structure?
And if you don't intellectually understand it or let alone experientially understand emptiness, then why dismiss a teaching and call it dogmatic?
Would love to hear your reasoning because I have never heard someone assert that the teachings of emptiness were dogmatic. That would basically defeat the whole function/purpose of emptiness teachings.
Well that is how it was framed and taught to me. Dogma isn't in the teachings but it is from individuals that grasp to teachings.
But this never was about false or truth to begin with. The Emptiness teachings are about uprooting ignorance, thus finding freedom from suffering.
Because a mind clings dualistically and inherently this conditions suffering.
When a mind is freed from clinging dualistically/inherently then suffering is no long conditioned. This is not getting away from views, but rather seeing how everything is ungraspable (experientially).
So what exactly are you asserting? Emptiness teachings are invalid because they are baseless or just a simple experience?
If it leads one out of suffering to liberation then how can it be an ants teaching?
Like all teachings in Buddhism it is raft that leads one towards liberation or the cessation of suffering (or the elimination of greed, hatred and most important ignorance).
But whether or not such raft is useful is up to the individuals karma.
Emptiness teachings are always in context of the Fundamental Vehicle. It is always in relevance to the four noble truths.
What is the purpose and function of your Buddhism?