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.
Coping with Emptiness
Good morning,
For those(such as myself) that have a little understanding of emptiness, how do you cope with it? More specifically, how do you not get depressed when you realize that not only any dream(being president, being a "good monk", having 20 lovers, what have you) that you have doesn't have inherent existance, but that any dream that you can come up with, even in theory, doesn't have inherent existance as well. How do you stay away from the extreme of nihlism? I may come back to edit this as I can articulate this more clearly(it exists as a sort of nagging, a subtle undercurrent in my mind).
Any help would be greatly appriciated,
I-23
**Please note, I am not saying, implicitly or explicitly, that I am in any way "attained" or "enlightened" or even "accomplished". Quite the opposite. I have no bliss, which I am told means that I am far from any of those things. **
For those(such as myself) that have a little understanding of emptiness, how do you cope with it? More specifically, how do you not get depressed when you realize that not only any dream(being president, being a "good monk", having 20 lovers, what have you) that you have doesn't have inherent existance, but that any dream that you can come up with, even in theory, doesn't have inherent existance as well. How do you stay away from the extreme of nihlism? I may come back to edit this as I can articulate this more clearly(it exists as a sort of nagging, a subtle undercurrent in my mind).
Any help would be greatly appriciated,
I-23
**Please note, I am not saying, implicitly or explicitly, that I am in any way "attained" or "enlightened" or even "accomplished". Quite the opposite. I have no bliss, which I am told means that I am far from any of those things. **
0
Comments
To begin with, that particular view of emptiness, i.e., that things have no inherent existence, actually developed over time. As Thanissaro Bhikkhu explains, "emptiness is a mode of perception, a way of looking at experience" (Emptiness). Moreover, "... the idea of emptiness as lack of inherent existence has very little to do with what the Buddha himself said about emptiness" (The Integrity of Emptiness). For an excellent analysis of emptiness and its place in the practice, please listen to Thanissaro Bhikkhu's day long lecture on the topic. It can be found here under Emptiness (Part 1-7) and Emptiness Revisited.
Jason
How does one cope with emptiness? How does one avoid getting depressed with the realization that nothing has intrinsic separate existence? And how is this different than nihlism?
In a word, EGOLESSNESS.
Of course, our greedy egos will always be interjecting their curious, prying heads into our consciousness, except in moments of deep meditation, concentration, or ecstasy. Speaking of ecstasy, let's take a look at its meaning and compare it to the meaning of the word "existence." Ecstasy, on the one hand, is to be "beside oneself," whereas "to exist," on the other hand, is to say that one's being is projected out beyond oneself. The meaning of the two words are very close, and that's no mere coincidence, since we are made for ecstasy and not meant to be contained in some sort of drear cement-like, static state. But I digress a bit parenthetically...
We are not made, nor programmed, to be independent or really significant entities, but more like pieces of a fabric of humanity. There's an ebb and a flow, and one simply gets caught up in love and devotion to "the larger picture." The beauty is that we're all a vital part of that wonderful tapestry. Where it begins and where it ends nobody can say for sure, but the artists and teachers expound on their beautiful views, each one completely valid —as it is, afterall, only a view.
Nihilism? No, it's not nothingness. The beautiful fabric is indeed SOMETHING beyond telling. NO THOUGHT, transcending our thoughts which basically use the coin of language, which is always an abstraction, therefore not concrete —is a more apt description.
As love grows in us as grass grows green in spring up north, we will be transported more and more outside our little selves and will see more beauty around us everywhere.
How can anything be empty when love fills us so?
________________
I have seen mine enemy and he is "Me and Mine."
I may be an egoist, but at least I know my ego is fatally flawed.
As far as I know, a radical nihilist standpoint is "nihil est"/nothing is. In Buddhism, one can say that almost nothing is, since everything is impermanent and constantly becoming. But I don`t think the same applies to nirvana or the deathless, which is not becoming but instead has been, is and will always be. So, in contrast to the nihilists, in Buddhism there is a goal which is Nirvana.
I wish I had said that. Good Point, Fofoo.
N
Emptiness is something that is really hard to get a grasp on, if you'll excuse the pun. Emptiness doesn't mean empty in the usual sense. What it really means is "things as they are" before our minds get hold of them and start layering them over with "meaning". We see something, and our mind immediately decides whether that thing is "good", "bad" or if we really don't care one way or the other. We run it through our association banks (which are conditioned responses) and attach any and all previous associations with this thing (or similar things). By the time we do all that, which all happens in the flash of an eye without us even being aware of it, we are no longer seeing the thing as it is, but the thing as we think it is.
As for the dreams we live, yes, we live in a dream. We create the dream. It's totally under our control. When we give up the idea of a separate self, however, then the dream comes to an end and we are able to see things as they really are. So it's not hopeless or nihilistic at all, only training to see what's been there all along.
Palzang
He explores the fears of non-being that actually keep us constructing ego and therefore suffering. Implicitly this is about emptiness and not-self but it is explictly about the psychology behind the fears that keep us going at almost a frantic pace in order to avoid the inevitable--the awareness of death, impermanence, and the illusion of self.
Sounds interesting, Island. The sort of book I would love to read, if I had the attention span ( old age comes creeping on). And I recognise an impatience in me. It as if I am saying, "Yes! Yes! I know. There are reasons and origins and contingencies and I have sat and observed them. I have seen the dance of fear, the fight and flight, the deceits and the vanity. I have watched the fear itself, calling the dance. And now what I begin to see is the way out. And that is unsayable."
William Carlos Williams says that there are some things that can only be said in a poem but, apart from the 'concrete poets', poetry still needs words.
I definitely agree with some of what eve9d9 has said. It is good to have wholesome dreams and goals. The cessation of suffering, for example, is certainly a goal worth striving for. Additionally, in regard to "egolessness," I would suggest taking the time to read The Problem of Egolessness, which previously appeared in Tricycle Magazine under the title "Hold on to Your Ego."
Sincerely,
Jason
There's no ducking the issue on this - the Gelugpas 'push' it in both sutra and tantra.
In sutra we have the much-acclaimed Heart Sutra and works of numerous commentators. The tantric yogi is told that the supreme attainment is the mix of bliss and emptiness. But emptiness of what, you may ask? Why of inherent existence of course - a direct realisation thereof.
Let's take a closer look. The study of the tenets (esp. Prasangika) as a prerequisite to a direct experience and hence enlightenment? I think not. I fail to see how intellectual constructs of any kind can lead to this. A benchmark of progress withinin the state of Samhadi is the abandonment of such activity.
Experience may inform philosophy, but not vice versa. The chief use of this philosophical construct appears to be as a tool to clobber individuals of other systems. Firstly those Hindus who posit an eternal 'whatsit' and then other Buddhists who are still scraping around to establish some kind of existent basis.
As if ANY of that mattered. In fact to promote this view is to necessarily engage in dualism of a very pernicious kind. Emptiness is always the 'emptiness of something', which is pretty much a self-defeating outcome.
Compare this with the teachings of true non-dual systems. Dzogchen posits ignorance as co-emergent. Theravada rests entirely upon dependent origination (which is the same thing) and within Kashmiri Shaivite Tantric traditions the highest state is said to be "bliss and awareness" - not emptiness!
(flashback to thread with Freddy)
There's little wonder that people who encounter this aspect of Buddhism consider the faith to be "life-denying". It sure looks that way and the mud does stick.
I would advise the poster to follow the wonderful articles Jason has posted links to and the comments of Palzang. Just drop the emptiness 'thing', it will just make you depressed and it was never taught by the Buddha in this way.
"Nothing will come of nothing", as Shakespeare once said.
Namaste
Kris
You could try Emptiness and Existence - from How to See Yourself As You Really Are - by The Dalai Lama. Excerpt: -
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/dalai2.html
But, are we not already empty? Who or what is inherently existent – not just impermanent - but really actually more than the phenomenally present object of the senses, noticed in consciousness.? I mean, aren’t we empty even before we have any thoughts or questions about it or any discomfort that such questions might cause? Isn’t it just the concept or the fear of some unexpected perception of "emptiness" that is disturbing? How could emptiness "itself" in this way be disturbing? “Emptiness” doesn’t even exist! It sure seems to me that as we are already empty, then (for Mahayana anyway - not sure about Theravada....) we already are Buddhas. We are being lived by life in the way that is sheer indescribable impossible emptiness. This thinking mind is already Buddha Nature even when it is out of sorts such as when thinking about an "attack of nihilism" or something like that. There is nothing that is not empty because it is only in the actual perceptions and as the experiences that it is anything like “empty”. Only the small mind can think of something as concrete as “emptiness” and then have concern about it.
There is an awake spaciousness (emptiness) that seems to want my attention - it is birthright to recognize it – to find that it is emptiness aware that is looking back at me. Actually when recognized, it only recognizes itself, in me, so to speak. Impossibly, this much, the small mind can never see. What then “sees”…………?
I've seen it compared to a dirty window. The window is always a window, whether it is dirty or clean, but it is only when we clean all the accumulated crud and gunk off it that the window allows us to see clearly.
Palzang
I suppose one could say the same of "self," but there is a very specific usage of "not-self" in Buddhism that makes it more circumscribed.
It is unclear to me that "not-self" means "egolessness." I would need to hear a bit more. The article helps but remains a bit up in the air.
Loy's work is more on the side of understanding the negative effects of lack of recognition and the fears generated by that. In other words, some take many of the problems we create as stemming from psychology, others from existential problems such as being and death, while he reorients us toward the problem of the illusion of a permanent entity called self or self-identity.