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 and the true self
I can't quite grasp the concept of emptiness and the reality of who I am. Until this moment I thought that the true self was the awareness behind the body and the mind. The mind is thinking and I am aware of that but I am not the one who is thinking. But upon reading about emptiness I begin to wonder what emptiness is and who am I if no real self exists. I would like some wisdom on this matter. Please give me your thoughts. Thank you.
0
Comments
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, emptiness is used as a mode of perception, a way of looking at experience that's utilized in meditation (e.g., MN 121, MN 122).
In another context, emptiness refers to the insubstantiality of the five clinging-aggregates (khandhas) and the six sense media (ayatanas) (e.g., SN 2295, SN 35.85). In this sense, it's synonymous with not-self (anatta).
Personally, my opinion is that the teachings on emptiness (esp. 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 sleight of hand in order to show how these views were ultimately illogical from the standpoint of emptiness, esp. 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, well, that's whole different story.
The subtle point that needs to be seen through the practice of meditation is the relationship between awareness and your so-called self. Which most likely is not what you understand it to be. Just continue with your current practice, or find a teacher and ask their advice.
I tried to explain emptiness in my first comment.
if I am in this place of full acceptance it must be because the true I must understand that everything is unfolding precisely as it needs to unfold. It must have supreme knowledge and understanding. I guess I just have to hang out in that place where I am the true self and learn by realizing all my qualities. What do you guys think?
Once thinking in terms of 'self' is gone, 'self' is gone.
When you say 'awareness is self', that is just more thinking.
The problem I have with that is that during that period that you know there is no true abiding self who is the one who is aware of that? If we are mindful then awareness is ever present. Ultimately it seems to me that an essence of something remains which can not be described; only known through direct experience.
Yes. Who is aware? Awareness cannot just be. There has to be a purpose for the awareness; to inform the Self of the 6 senses (sight, smell, taste, hearing, touch, and thoughts).
Perhaps I have to move beyond that experience.
I suggest reading SN 35.23:
"As you say, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."
And SN 22.59:
"Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.' And since form is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.'
"Bhikkhus, feeling is not-self...
"Bhikkhus, perception is not-self...
"Bhikkhus, determinations are not-self...
"Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self. Were consciousness self, then this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.' And since consciousness is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.'
"Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."
"Is feeling permanent or impermanent?...
"Is perception permanent or impermanent?...
"Are determinations permanent or impermanent?...
"Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable sir." — "Now is what is impermanent pleasant or painful?" — "Painful, venerable sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."
"So, bhikkhus any kind of form whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself.'
"Any kind of feeling whatever...
"Any kind of perception whatever...
"Any kind of determination whatever...
"Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'
"Bhikkhus, when a noble follower who has heard (the truth) sees thus, he finds estrangement in form, he finds estrangement in feeling, he finds estrangement in perception, he finds estrangement in determinations, he finds estrangement in consciousness.
"When he finds estrangement, passion fades out. With the fading of passion, he is liberated. When liberated, there is knowledge that he is liberated. He understands: 'Birth is exhausted, the holy life has been lived out, what can be done is done, of this there is no more beyond.'"
That is what the Blessed One said. The bhikkhus were glad, and they approved his words.
Now during this utterance, the hearts of the bhikkhus of the group of five were liberated from taints through clinging no more.