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
msac123
Explorer
If our mind is empty, then don't we are just blindly follow whatever is there? How is emptiness a good thing?
1
Comments
Where did you get such an understanding of emptiness? Emptiness doesn't mean literal emptiness or nothingness, it's a means of describing the transient selfless interdependent nature of all things, which includes mind. You have to get beyond the English meaning of the word and to the Buddhist meaning.
Good question.
At the moment whatever arises in the monkey jabbering mind occupies, entrances and captivates its silly jumping about.
By emptying some of the monkeys toys, by disciplining the mind, we control our monkey mind. That is a good thing if your mind and emotions are full of nonsense, which for most of is the case . . .
Why do you ask?
I ask because I want to understand Emptiness, lol.
If we have emptiness then we could not follow anything at all.
Neither good nor bad.
Now I get it.
Probably not. Emptiness, or shunyata is probably the most elusive and difficult to understand topis in all of Buddhism. Getting an intellectual grasp of emptiness is one thing, but the direct realization of emptiness is what's truly needed to reaach understanding.
And yet, Emptiness is to be found tantalizing and confounding the newcomer to Buddhism as if it were some kind of quick and easy reward for signing up.
Kia Ora,
Form is Emptiness .........................................................So you'll need to understand Form . :banghead: .. too....
Metta Shoshin .
..
The Pali canon uses the term emptiness in three ways: "(1) as a meditative dwelling, (2) as an attribute of objects, and (3) as a type of awareness-release." [7] The Suñña Sutta,[8] part of the Pāli canon, relates that the monk Ānanda, Buddha's attendant asked,
It is said that the world is empty, the world is empty, lord. In what respect is it said that the world is empty?" The Buddha replied, "Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ānanda, that the world is empty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Śūnyatā
In many places it refers to (2) identical to anatta/selflessness/essencelessness.
In your question it would be (1) and (3). On the contrary, if your mind is empty it would not blindly follow whatever there is. It would be remain centred and unruffled by anything.
With metta
@msac123 look at this illustration: which is best: Within the circle, or outside of it?
Outside is nicer because there is lots of space, apart from those annoying squiggles.
Yes, the Mahayana pinched the basic idea from Theravada and then extended it.
What do you mean? How can you know that?
Didn't the early Mahayana sutras have the emptiness as a concept? Did they have to wait 500 years until Theravada school emerged to pinch this concept?
/Victor
EDIT: Maybe you were just joking?
Yes, a gentle tease to our Mahayana cousins.
I know so little of Mahayana. I though I was going to learn something interesting. lol.
Years ago in one of the Tibetan traditions somebody was trying to teach me about emptiness using the parts of a table ( like the chariot simile ). So they said "What if we remove the legs from this "table", what is left?" and I said "Well, a table top". It wasn't an entirely successful session.
@SpinyNorman That's the most hilarious "Buddhist Fail" I've ever heard!
>
Let the OP respond.... I know you know everything, but I wasn't asking you.
Heh...
. back atcha...
THat would be awesome had it actually been a "Buddhist" fail (whatever that is ....) in the first place.
Spiney was being introduced to a commonly used analytical methodology (in the Mahayana at least) to determine if something qualifies as "real" in order to illustrate emptiness/shunyata. Among the criteria, is that the object/phenomonon must be permanent and unchanging. The question illustrates that the "table" is neither. Because the table can become a table top, it's questionable that there is a "table" to begin with. The object/phenomenon is merely a collection of parts, put together and called something. It has no independant, verifiable existence. A table "cannot be found". The object/phenomenon is empty of table.
Now, if there was a "fail" anywhere, it was the student's failure to understand the teaching.
I would like to think that Norm, in fact, understood this. Norms answer was expectable, appropriate, and correct.
Yeah, it's a common dig. It stopped being funny while Pterodactyls still ruled the sky.
The common reponse is "Is true that all Theravedins are jerks?"
Anyway, if you want to learn something about Mahayana, a Theravedin is probably the last person you should look to. That would be like wanting to learn quantum mechanics from a Home Economics teacher. In fact, the best way is to go hang out with a Mahayana sangha. They can be found in Sweden. If you happen to live in Dalarna yo might be out of luck, though
Shunyata (Emptiness) means whatever appears are empty of independent or inherent existence, be it a sound, a form, or any other phenomena. This is because it is the 'interconnectedness' that give rise to the sound or experience (The person, the stick, the bell, hitting, air, ears, etc, i.e. the conditions).
Thus, whatever arises interdependently is vividly clear and luminous, but empty of any intrinsic (in and of itself, independent) or inherent existence. This is not the same as nothing or nihilism.
Nagarjuna:
Whatever is dependently co-arisen,
That is explained to be emptiness.
That, being a dependent designation,
Is itself the middle way. (Treatise, 24.18)
Something that is not dependently arisen,
Such a thing does not exist.
Therefore a nonempty thing
Does not exist. (Treatise, 24.19)
A good place to start understanding emptiness: http://www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html
I'm thinkng a couple of people are...
Was something found that puts the existence of the Mahayana before the Theraveda?
That was exactly what I meant, though I suspect the "student" was just having fun.
Had they been serious, it would've been a face-palm moment of failure at getting through to someone, and that's what I found so humorous. Someone could make a comic panel about that incident, and many a forum member would just laugh and laugh and laugh...
I like how you assumed I didn't understand what was going on, and gave a lengthy correction.
>
Yes, we have the bonus here of being able to crack jokes and smile a little - whereas other sites i would prefer to steer clear of, would frown on such humour and fail utterly to see the funny side. Good thing we can all have a bit of a giggle, and not get too anal, here!
@federica I think you already know my position on anal, but yeah this site is definitely more loose!
Perhaps you could re-phrase that....
@federica Where would the fun be in that?
...I'll be good now. :om:
It's "Is it true that all Theravadins are jerks?"
And yes it is true but we are also better looking, more intelligent and better in bed.
EDIT: Just to be clear...I was joking about Theravadians being jerks part...
Seems so. I cannot verify it but I just learnt the other day that Theravada is supposed to start with the Visuddhimagga for some reason.
And the Mahayan sutras predates that with 500 years or so.
Of course the schools that Theravada is founded on is earlier. Or so it was said.
/Victor
EDIT: I have no Idea how people can look at a text and claim it to be this or that age. It is a mystery to me.
Well, speaking for myself, 2 out of 3 ain't bad.
.
I am not going to guess...
But then the lesson is lost - nothing taken seriously and the the Dharma made a mockery of. Nothing says you can't make a joke of everything, but some folks take that shit seriously.
Most people don't "get" shunyata. It's takes lifetimes of practice.
That means, of course, you'll never "get" it, because you don't believe rebirth.
(That was a joke BTW)
Yes, I assumed you don't understand. Much like your saying I don't understand skepticism. Turnabout is fair play.
You also fail to understand that the comment wasn't for you alone. With all our not-taking-anything-seriously around here, some noob will come in here and completely miss the whole point, which is not to make jokes but actually get to the bottom of a difficult subject, who will go away with the attitude that it's okay to make jokes about precious teaching and that a tried-and-true method of analysis is some sort of joke.
It's really not.
It's a game.
@Chaz I think we're done here, it's getting tense. Relax... the string's too tight. A nice middle looseness lets you be serious and non-serious without getting cramps.
The word 'empty' or 'emptiness' is pointing at two things, two characteristics.
Firstly, it refers to the characteristic of all things. Please fix in your minds that the characteristic of all things is emptiness. This phrase 'all things' must be understood correctly as encompassing every single thing, both rupadhammas and namadhammas, everything from a speck of dust up to Nibbana. It must be well understood that in a speck of dust there is emptiness or absence of self, absence of a permanent, independent entity. Gold, silver, and diamonds have the characteristic of absence of a permanent, independent entity. Going on to the heart and mind, thoughts and feelings, each thing is characterized by emptiness, absence of a permanent, independent entity. The study and practice of the Dhamma has the characteristic of absence of a permanent, independent entity. Finally the Path realizations, their Fruits and Nibbana itself all have this same characteristic. Even a sparrow flying to and fro has the same characteristic of emptiness but we don't see it. So who is to blame but ourselves? Please think this over, contemplate it, observe and ponder over it until you perceive that all things display the characteristic of emptiness it's just that we don't see it. It's like the old Zen riddle, or koan as they call it, that 'An ancient pine tree is proclaiming the dhamma'. That old pine tree is displaying emptiness, the emptiness that it shares with all things but people don't see it, don't hear it's Dhamma teaching, its proclamation of the characteristic of emptiness. This then is the word 'empty' in its first sense as relating to all things.
[NOTE: The word 'to KNOW'- to directly perceive with the senses or mind, to recognize. (re-COGNIZE)]
The word 'empty' in the second sense refers to the characteristic of the mind that is free from all grasping and clinging. Regarding this point please understand that ordinarily, although mind is empty of self, it doesn't realize that it empty, because it is constantly enveloped and disturbed by the conceptual thought that feeds on sense contact. Consequently, the mind is neither aware of its own emptiness nor the emptiness of all things. But whenever the mind completely throws off that which is enveloping it, the grasping and clinging of delusion and ignorance, and detaches from it completely, then the mind through its non-clinging has the characteristic of emptiness.
The two sorts of emptiness, the emptiness of the non-clinging mind and the emptiness of all things are related. Because all things do truly have the characteristic of being empty of a self, a permanent, independent entity to be grasped at or clung to, we are able to see the truth of emptiness. If in fact they weren't empty of self, then it would be impossible to see their emptiness. But as it is, on the contrary, although all things are empty we see everyone of them as not-empty. The mind that is enveloped by defilements and ignorance grasps at and clings to all of them as self, even a speck of dust. Even a tiny particle of dust is conceived to be an independent entity, a 'second person'. We label the second person, the various things that surround us, as being this and being that, and in every case see them as being permanent independent entities.
Therefore we must know absolutely correctly the meaning of the word 'empty' which to sum up, is to know that firstly it is the characteristic of all things and secondly it is the characteristic of the non-clinging mind. The first emptiness is an object of knowledge or realization. The second emptiness is the empty mind, the characteristic of the mind that is empty through realizing the truth of emptiness. Thus the mind seeing emptiness in all things disintegrates of itself, leaving only emptiness, everything as I have said from a speck of dust up to Nibbana. Material objects, people, animals, time and space, every sort of dhamma melt into emptiness through knowing the truth of this point. This is the meaning of the word empty.
The self is merely a condition that arises when there is grasping and clinging in the mind. We don't see it as empty, but see it as self, because that grasping and clinging with ignorance and defilement. There being ignorance or unknowing in the mind grasping arises by itself, it's not that we make a deliberate effort or consciously establish a self. When the mind contains avijja, it inevitably experiences all things as being independent entities, with no need for there to be any deliberate intention.
The truth discerning-awareness or knowledge of Dhamma which has not yet reached it's peak, can only extinguish some types of grasping, sometimes. Some people may be of the opinion that dust is not an independent entity but that a sparrow is. Others may see that trees and animals are not independent entities but take people to be so. In seeing people as independent entities or as selves, some will say that the body is not-self but the mind is. This is called incomplete extinction; some aspects are extinguished but others are left behind as self. One may reach the point of saying that the mind is not-self but that some good qualities of the mind, such as virtues are. Or one may believe that if these are not-self then that which is beyond time, the Nibbana-element is self. This sort of extinguishing always leaves a seed. Whenever we sweep out the whole lot, even the Nibbana-element as not-self that action is called true remainderless extinction of ego or self.
Ajahn Buddhadasa
@msac123
Emptiness is just a teaching for the mentally absorbed that..
it was, is & never will be
about
u.
The self is not an independent entity and cannot be found to reside anywhere.
That doesn't mean you don't exist.
I've never encountered anyone that was of the opinion that they didn't exist.
You havnt met anyone that gets the teachings of not-self confused with the notion of no-self?
It happens.
My keyboard is messing up so it's hard to type, but that's not what I meant. I was referring to where you said "that doesn't mean you don't exist", as if someone would say or think "I don't exist".
As to the not-self/no-self confusion, maybe it would make it easier if we said not-soul/no-soul to mean the absence of a permanent independent essence, and define the word self as the mind-made construct that is a functional illusion. Of course we can't change Buddhist teachings like that, so the confusion will remain for some people. At least we can explain it how we like.
Yes, I did get the table thing, having previously done the chariot thing. That approach doesn't work too well for me though, because I have a background in Systems thinking, where it's second nature to view everything in terms of interconnected parts. What works better for me is seeing processes rather than "things", so approaching it through observation of inconstancy and transience.
like flowers, budding, blooming and dying....
Yes, nature is a great teacher.
You hear a sound - Tongss
You see a color/shape
You feel hardness(earth), coldness(fire), vibrations(wind)
You remember what your were taught about the shape, structure and function of bells.
You conclude that a bell is ringing. That bell is nothing more than the play of your senses. It does not exist independently. It isn't there if one or more of the processes are absent.
The bell is a series of processes as is the "one" who makes contact with the "bell". There is only the "eye" that sees, "ear" that hears, "hand" that touch the bell.
"Lord, who makes contact?"
"Not a valid question," the Blessed One said. "I don't say 'makes contact.' If I were to say 'makes contact,' then 'Who makes contact?' would be a valid question. But I don't say that. When I don't say that, the valid question is 'From what as a requisite condition comes contact?' And the valid answer is, 'From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling.'" Phagguna Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.012.than.html
With metta