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.
What is emptiness?
Dear friends, I'm interested in understanding what emptiness means. I don't believe I understand even the term itself. Please direct me to links, threads, or any other resources that you've found to offer a coherent explanation. Thanks!
0
Comments
May I ask why you are asking. What have you heard about it?
Namste
The answer depends on who you ask.
As a doctrinal term, emptiness (adj. sunna, noun sunnata) in and of itself is used in a couple of different but related ways in Theravada.
In one context, as Thanissaro notes, emptiness is used as a mode of perception, a way of looking at experience that is utilized in meditation (e.g., MN 121, MN 122).
In another context, emptiness refers to the unsubstantiality of the five clinging-aggregates (khandhas) and the six sense media (ayatanas) (e.g., SN 2295, SN 35.85). In this sense, it is synonymous with not-self (anatta).
Hence my opinion is that the teachings on emptiness in the Pali Canon are often taken out of context, and coincidentally, far removed from their intended purpose.
For example, the view of emptiness that things have no inherent existence, while philosophically complex and seemingly implicit in the teachings on dependent co-arising, actually developed over time (possibly beginning with Nagarjuna, who I believe was attempting to deconstruct all of the prevalent philosophical views of the time by using a combination of logical analysis and slight of hand in order to show how these views were ultmately illogical from the standpoint of emptiness, especially in regard to the Abhidhammika's idea that things exist by way of intrinsic characteristics).
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. His teachings on emptiness — as reported in the earliest Buddhist texts, the Pali Canon — deal directly with actions and their results, with issues of pleasure and pain" (The Integrity of Emptiness).
As for how the term "emptiness" is understood on Mahayana and Vajrayana, that is whole different story.
Jason
The different schools of Buddhism have some different explanations. However, the Pali texts report the Buddha & his disciples defined emptiness as follows:
Of interest is the following definition: The first definitions hold the Buddha's meaning of 'empty of self'. The last definition uses the term 'empty' literally. Emptiness here is empty of sensuality, becoming (self) and ignorance. However, we can note life & sense experience still exist.
To be free from suffering, only abandoning 'self-view' is required. For example, often the Buddha described ultimate reality in terms of the 'elements' or 'dhatus'. Seeing reality is merely natural elements is exactly the same as seeing reality as 'empty'. Thus, the Tibetans say: "Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. Emptiness is none other than form and form is none other than emptiness". All are void of 'self view'.
Buddha also taught to regard things as either 'existing' or 'non-existing' is wrong view. Buddha said: "To regarding things as existing is not to see the cessation of things and to regard things as non-existing is not to see their arising". (Kaccayanagotta Sutta)
With metta
DDhatu
Thanks all, for going over things again.
And a very warm welcome to you, lornwright.
Lovely to meet you. Hope you stick around
One way to think about emptiness is to look at the way we normally perceive our world. When we see something, what do we do? Do we just perceive it as it is? No, we run it through countless layers of conditioned responses stored in our little brains. The first thing we do is evaluate it: is this something to be afraid of and thus run away from or avoid? Is this something to be desired and thus gone after? Or is this something that is neither something to fear or desire, and thus is neutral? And then comes all sorts of evaluation - is it pretty? Is it sexy? Is it delicious? Is it gross? Is it smelly? Is it moving? Is it alive? Is it a rock? Is it a snake? Etc., etc., ad infinitum. Of course, this all takes place in a flash (parallel processing in the extreme), so we're really not aware of it at all. But when the object does enter our conscious awareness, it is already clouded and colored by our perception, our processing of the image, if you will. We don't perceive it just as it is.
Just as it is is what we call emptiness. To experience reality just as it is without all the mental processing and evaluating we normally do is called enlightened perception.
Palzang
Mental processing and evaluating is also emptiness. Emptiness does not refer to empty of thought. It refers to empty of 'self' and empty of 'ignorance'.
All things, all aggregates, are empty. Mental processing and evaluating are one of the aggregates, namely sankhara khanda.
The state of mind commonly regarded as without all the mental processing and evaluating is merely concentration. When HHDL for example states 'the clear light mind is the mind of enlightenment', this does not accord with the Theravada.
Emptiness is what led me to buddhism and the way I understood it then was how Palzang describes it.
I have fallen behind in my regular practice to be honest and it seems a lot less 'in my reach', as a consequence which is very regrettable. I know though that it did lead me to a greater mental vitality and a real 'weight off my shoulders' feeling. I hope you feel that too.
So let my lax behaviour be a lesson to you and I will take your post as a major wake up call to get down to work.
See you here again soon
Palzang's description of emptiness reminds me of an important principle in Epictetus' discourses and Encheiridion and Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy. I have no doubt that it represents a truth in that sense. This is something I've been practicing and attempting to refine for years, & now I finally I have a name for it.
Where is the blasted TV remote??
Thank you, Lorn. But I've just got to ask you about your avatar. I figure it's either a detail of a William Blake painting or the creature in Alien that stuck it's ovipositor down your throat! Of course, ultimately it's empty, but...
Palzang
Well now I see that too. Thanks for the demonstration! I'm going to have to change it now.
It was a dying lotus leaf before you posted.
Buddha taught the five aggregates are empty. To hold clear light mind is emptiness is stating one aggregate is empty.
Ajahn Chah rocks.
_/\_
Hi Dhamma Dhatu,
For a more detailed look at what the Mahayanists mean with clear light, there is a nice article here:
http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/advanced/tantra/level3_intermediate_theory/comp_highest_tantra_voidness.html?query=void
This passage is interesting, at it uses the same four "impossible" modes of existence we find within the Pali suttas.
So experiential clear light mind is not asserted to be any thing, rather a basis from which time/space duality (and the aggregates) emerge. It is taught that our awareness passes through the clear light even during sleep but we are unaware of it.
It is not asserted to be anything ultimately distinct from the aggregates, as ajahn chah said "You must understand emptiness within the things that are here".
The clear light refers to the the subtlest level of mental activity.
This teaching goes hand in glove with the comparative ideas around Nirvana. Again from the site: As contrasted with:
Untainted aggregates can be asserted, as the "basis" the truth body (Dharmakaya) of a Buddha is beyond taint, as it is the cognizant clear light.
None of this is stated within the Pali suttas, although all modes of existing (including nihilist) are refuted.
Namaste
The article : - 'Directly Experience the Nature of Mind by' Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche
http://www.thebuddhadharma.com/issues/2003/winter/thrangu_rinpoche.html
(the 5 aggregates are mentioned in the above article)
.
Oh, sorry! I didn't mean for you to change it. Just wondering what it was. I mean, even aliens need compassion, right? But your new one is nice.
Palzang
Hi Dhamma Dhatu,
You're right, that's a sectarian view.
I could just as easily ask why we need orange juice, when there's apple juice on the market?
The fact that some things ain't mentioned doesn't mean that the Pali suttas are in any way incomplete, or that Buddha was not fully enlightened (although sectarians of another hue sometimes assert this).
It's a good job sectarians don't hold sway here. I'd have been banned long ago.
Namaste
The dharmakaya may be one, but the needs of sentient beings are various. I find the viewpoint you are expressing here to be one of poverty and quasi-anthropological zeal. Shakyamuni was not just a historical figure, nor is he the only fully enlightened buddha that we can look to for dharma teachings, as excellent as he was.
While I of course agree with the fundamental teachings of the Buddha that Vajrayana has in common with the Theravada, I personally find much greater commonality of vision and approach with the other Indian tantric and Vedantic religions. Reality, last time I checked, is neither Buddhist nor Hindu nor Christian. All of these are merely approaches to our uncompounded awareness.
What fool would dare say that Ramana Maharshi was not fully enlightened? There are no valid sectarian viewpoints, only close-mindedness and sanctimony. I suggest that we leave such sentiments in the realm of football hooliganism, where they truly belong.
Obstreperously,
Namgyal
This may, indeed, be a sectarian answer. It is also a provocative statement, DD, particularly as you may have spent enough time among us to know that it is a concept to which many of us could not subscribe.
Is it your intention to provoke? Is this your view?
The assertion you originally disagreed with was HH the Dalai Lama's statement that 'the clear light mind is the mind of enlightenment' not emptiness. You said that this assertion does not accord with the Theravada.
Here's the Ajahn Chah teaching I was referring to that expressed virtually the same thing HH was saying. It comes from the first of Ajahn Chah's teachings in the collection entitled Food for the Heart:
"About this Mind--in truth there is nothing really wrong with it. It is intrinsically pure. Within itself it's already peaceful. If the mind is not peaceful these days it's because it follows moods. The real mind doesn't have anything to it; it is simply an aspect of nature. It becomes peaceful or agitated because moods deceive it.The untrained mind is stupid. Sense impressions come and trick it into happiness, suffering, gladness, and sorrow, but the mind's true nature is none of those things. That gladness or sadness is not the mind, but only a mood coming to deceive us. The untrained mind gets lost and follows these things; it forgets itself. Then we think that it is we who are upset or at ease or whatever.
But really this mind of ours is already unmoving and peaceful--really peaceful! Just like a leaf which remains still so long as the wind doesn't blow. If a wind comes up, the leaf flutters. The fluttering is due to the wind--the fluttering of the mind is due to those sense impressions; the mind follows them. If it doesn't follow them, it doesn't flutter. If we know fully the true nature of sense impressions, we will be unmoved.
Our practice is simply to see the "Original Mind". We must train the mind to know those sense impressions and not get lost in them, to make it peaceful. Just this is the aim of all this difficult practice we put ourselves through."
So your first statement was about enlightenment but your second was about emptiness. I think you got lost somewhere there.
Your other responses on this thread point, perhaps, to a lack of flexibility training.:)
You may find your kamma falls back on you.
If Ramana Maharshi did not teach the Four Noble Truths and the Three Characteristics, he was not fully enlightened and not enlightened at all.
Disappointment is a form of dukkha arising from craving or expectation and attachment to views. Buddha taught there are three kinds of craving and four kinds of attachment.
No.
It is about choosing one teaching based on personal sentiment and saying it is indicative of a certain teacher and indicative of a certain Buddhist school.
This is an excellent teaching to consider, follow & practise.
Indeed. 'Disappointment' is one of these moods.
This is the practise of sati-sampajanna, of mindfulness & clear comprehension. It practise for stream entry. It is not vipassana. It is not enlightenment. It is the most basic preliminary practise.
I do not think I got lost anywhere.
In short, all things are empty. Form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness and Nibbana are all empty. Sense impression is also empty.
With metta
I actually was unsure of what you were saying. Are you saying the dhammas of luminous mind (AN 1.49) and consciousness without feature (DN 11) are not in the Pali Suttas?
Or are you saying the mind of a Buddha dwells in the sphere of infinite consciousness or light rather than in the lucidity of wisdom or vipassana nanna?
With metta
DDhatu
This sounds like communism and the very opposite of what is espoused. The statement states "the only view is the common view". This is certainly not a democratic attitude and one not conducive to discussion.
People hold different views. Better to learn to accept that rather than holding sanctimonious views about 'football hooliganism'.
"Physician, heal yourself," perhaps?
Healing is required when there is the perception of 'sickness'.
However, when there is the perception of each person have a different view and myself having a different view then there is no perception of sickness. There is just the perception of difference.
Therefore, what needs to be healed?
Ideally, in discussion, each sectarian (including the sectarians who are 'non-sectarian') should be at ease with their views. Ideally, we should have faith in what we believe, unaffected by what others have to say.
We've been really fortunate on this board not to have this happen as much as on some other boards. We've had our lively discussions and some have gone past the point of decency but I think they were dealt with really well by our moderators. It hardly ever happens on here anymore. I'm saying this because I just don't want you to feel discouraged, if that's what you're feeling, and not that you've said you're going to, but I really don't want you to leave.
Just wanted to say that, for what it's worth.
And when someone clearly points out why they disagree with your statement and backs it up with primary source evidence that proves their point, it should be ignored rather than responded to and twisted into being about how the person disagreeing with you lacks the spiritual and developmental understanding that you possess. I suppose that makes sense since you believe you know more about the Dhamma than Ajahn Chah.
P.S. You read a little too much into my half sarcastic 'disappointment' line. Even though you're a fellow human being with as much right to my compassion as any one else, you're not really as important to me as you appear to believe. Sorry...just saying.
Okay, well that's it for me. You can have the last word if you like.
Don't be too concerned by it.......
we also try to maintain a litle humour and be a bit relaxed in discussion, rather than taking ourselves too seriously.
This is the only forum I know of, with bedrooms and a garden. That's how relaxed we are.
so chill a bit, and have a cup of tea.
There are plenty of other fora where cracking a smile is discouraged, I'm sure.
This ain't one of 'em......
At a certain point, the board moderators will have to decide whether his approach skews the tone of the board in a direction they don't want it to go-- whether this might in fact be a disingenuous attempt to poison discourse. Differing viewpoints are a wonderful thing which I personally have learned much from by engaging in spirited discussion. On the other hand, mere contentiousness and sanctimony with no evidence of attainment or even serious philosophical study just wastes all of our time. Given that, I will not be posting any more considerations of Dhamma Dhatu's questionable contributions.
Those masters who have genuinely attained the results of practice are universally kind, open-minded and respectful of opposing viewpoints. Indeed they have genuine love and respect for the holy people of all religions. Turning any philosophical system into a fancy hat to parade around town in feeling special and better than others is not the point of anything that I want to practice.
Maitri,
Namgyal
Hi Namgyal,
Very true. It's been the noticeable absence of this kind of behaviour on this board which has kept me here and its proliferation elsewhere which has led to my diminished participation on many Buddhist boards.
Beyond gratifying the ego of the culprit, it serves no purpose.
Namaste
It is my experience here that those who stay, even if they were polemicists on arrival, soon learn that the true worth of time spent with this group is the reverent respect (and occasional irreverent humour) with which we treat difference.
Some have come to argue and stayed to chill and learn. And to make friends, of course: we are a company of friends in a Buddhist context, children at play in the fields of the Dharma.