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 again, again
Hi all,
Part1:
Is it all as simple as this?
The mind (citta) is perfectly peaceful in nature but this nature is obscured by the activity of the five senses and responsive thoughts driven by attachment, avoidance and restlessness.
If we remove the obscurations then we are left with just the perfectly peaceful mind underneath.
Part 2:
However - Is this perfectly peaceful mind the same as emptiness?
For instance, a story about Ajahn Chah:
Ajahn Chah asked one of his monks - "Why"
The Monk replied - "I don't know"
Ajahn Chah said - "Because there is nothing"
I'm of the understanding that "nothing" refers to emptiness. (In the heart of the 1000 petaled lotus is nothingness). But is it? Is it just nothing as in absolutely nothing?
I have a basic understanding of emptiness, but I have no direct (supramundane) experience of emptiness. Is it equivalent to experiencing absolutely nothing?
What I'm really struggling with (I now see after writing all this...) is - how is emptiness different from a nilhilistic nothingness? I know this Q has been asked before but I can't find a response that really nails it for me.
Thanks!
Part1:
Is it all as simple as this?
The mind (citta) is perfectly peaceful in nature but this nature is obscured by the activity of the five senses and responsive thoughts driven by attachment, avoidance and restlessness.
If we remove the obscurations then we are left with just the perfectly peaceful mind underneath.
Part 2:
However - Is this perfectly peaceful mind the same as emptiness?
For instance, a story about Ajahn Chah:
Ajahn Chah asked one of his monks - "Why"
The Monk replied - "I don't know"
Ajahn Chah said - "Because there is nothing"
I'm of the understanding that "nothing" refers to emptiness. (In the heart of the 1000 petaled lotus is nothingness). But is it? Is it just nothing as in absolutely nothing?
I have a basic understanding of emptiness, but I have no direct (supramundane) experience of emptiness. Is it equivalent to experiencing absolutely nothing?
What I'm really struggling with (I now see after writing all this...) is - how is emptiness different from a nilhilistic nothingness? I know this Q has been asked before but I can't find a response that really nails it for me.
Thanks!
0
Comments
What?
Emptiness is a perfect example of ontology.
ordinary clarity is like noting the speed on the dial. Clarity of emptiness is like judging the speeds and positions of the cars. How do we balance all these factors? For example you read the first word of this sentence but already as you get to the end of the sentence you retain the meaning. And you don't have to diagram the sentence or get out your calculator. Your mind has awareness and built into that is clarity of emptiness. In awareness practice we learn to notice this quality and trust in it.
For example there is a yielding quality.. Space. But that sounds to course. Energy. Too course. Dynamic?
Anyhow there is no barrier at any moment for any particular thought to come into your mind. You might think of your grandmothers home baked cookies? Where did that thought come from?
If you analyze any moment of thought there seems to be a continuity like a chain. But if you look for any one thing its like it never comes into being. A tree is never finally a tree. But yet there is a distinct experience. We have these thoughts that upon analysis are nothing. Bubbling out of nowhere. Going nowhere. Grandma's cookies pop up again hehe.. But yet we have such a distinct sense of meaning. We know when we know something and we know when we do not or are confused.
Some 'courser' ideas of emptiness are like impermanence or cause and effect but these ideas are a little bit of a divergence from our meditative experience of sensing space. Sensing that we could ease up and something new could come at any moment.
I am not referring to the ultimate realization of emptiness by the way. I have not experienced that. But I would guess that my teacher has and I am attempting to relay her words to you. I hope I am doing an ok job :eek:
That's my understanding also.In Nagarjuna's philosophy Emptiness is the negation of all positions- including this position! I'd say emptiness is primarily a tactic of thought to discourage us from grabbing at concepts like 'eternity' or 'constancy', ideas which could cause suffering to the holders. Emptiness doesn't mean that you don't exist or enlightnement is some kind of nihilism, only that nothing stays still e.g. Heraclitus, 'you never jump into the same river twice'. There's a lovely piece from Nagarjuna where he says 'Buddha said (of emptiness) it is real, it is unreal and it is both real and unreal and it is neither one or the other'. As Denis says 'Nothingness is an illusion, so is emptiness'.
I agree with fivebells.
Ontology: (wikipedia) the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence or reality in general, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations.
Ontology is an intellectual activity, which is not the same thing as a direct experience. This is a common stumbling block for us Westerners, raised to worship the intellectual functions, and raised in a predominantly-Christian society where there is no concept of direct mystical experience until after death. We all (well, most of us, myself included) struggle with the conceit of our mental brilliance, and think we can "master" emptiness with our mind.
Its clearly both.
The ongoing detailed philosophical analysis of shunyata/emptiness clearly is an ontological study, while the direct meditative experience is something else.
I'm uncomfortable with disregarding Buddhist philosophical and scholastic pursuits, I feel they are very valuable not only to the survival and transmission of Buddhist teachings but to academic study in general.
The practical experience of emptiness is one thing but the point of view that gives the practitioner the knowledge and background necessary to work toward and recognize that experience is clearly represented in Buddhist ontology and basic Buddhist philosophical structures and arguments.
This is Ontology in buddhist terms. Dependent Origination is the refutation of all four possibilities. ( See mulamadhyamaka-karika) This is what is the conclusion of all the analysis of the entire treatise. Which supports the homage
I disagree that it hardly comes up in Theravada or some Zen schools. The philosophical tradition may not be in the forefront of those traditions but it is most certainly there and is very important.
Dogen is a perfect example of the strength of the philosophical tradition in Zen.
its not a "belief" system.
Its a centuries old system of philosophical tenets and guidelines that have been refined and expounded upon for the past 2500 years.
What does this mean , and how do you verify phenomena? Isn't phenomena unverifiable due to its inconsistent nature?
If indeed it is inconsistent , then any process of describing and verifying this would have to take this factor in consideration. Yes?
There is simply no way to describe and define something phenomenologically without a frame of reference.
So many people misunderstand their experiences in meditation because they have not taken the time to study.
Learning, contemplating, and meditating all work together. If we remove learning and study from our practices its like driving to an unknown location without a road-map.
I don't know about other traditions but for Zen it is the Zen Master that ascertains it, not really the student.
I think that depends on who you ask.
Yes, but the frame of reference is one's past experiences compared to the 'emptiness experience'. And if that's too limited, then consider the teacher's experience as well. Emptiness is the experience, not the other way around; defining emptiness as something independent of the experience is missing the point entirely, I think.
He said "Open mouth is already a mistake!"... and then he hit with with a stick...then he laughed... then put a shoe on his head walked away...
The teachings, tenets, and methods are guidance and support for personal experience. Without them ones own experiences all to often lead to further (and often worse) delusion.
i would like this guy.
HH the Dalai Lama says this " when you see the world with red glasses it truely looks red, but when you take the glasses off , you see that its not red at all even though it seemed so".
Also buddha calls it in the Sutra on the Better way to catch a snake.
The snake appears to be a colored rope, just by saying hey thats not a snake its a colored rope, will not do, one has to see for oneself that the thing that looks like a snake is actually a colored rope. Then reality is colored rope, not snake.
Hope this helps.
WTF! This is why tibetan teachings such as Lamrim Chenmo make more sense to me. Honestly i dont' like being hit or being told stuff like that without explanation. But i guess thats why i don't have a Zen teacher.
I agree completely. Problems arise when one tries to draw inferences from an experience (such as labeling it as emptiness). But that doesn't mean the experience can't happen at all; we wouldn't be discussing it if it never had!
What I am saying is that the Buddhist teaching, philosophical systems, and practice methods are firmly established in a way that provides us with the tools we need to progress safely and correctly.
this is the point of the entire series of statements IMHO
It depends. I think they do have a substantial and positive impact but i agree with you that they can not be fully implemented without an authentic teacher and that an authentic teacher is the best source for guidance.
I read Geshe Tashi Tsering's Foundation book series regularly
We wouldnt even be having this discussion without them, let alone implementing practice and tracking our progress.
How would those experiences or behaviors be related to Buddhism?
The short answer is that they couldnt and they wouldnt.
Your just arguing to argue. Do you have anything to say thats positive and helpful or is this post yet another way to brandish terms that are unintelligible by anyone but you?
You just contradicted yourself as well, you said that
then you said
which is all someone wants in the first place.
then you say
but you fail to give real sources to what is the correct view. If your going to say what is wrong view, i think your obligated to help establish the opposite and more helpful in my oppinion "right" view.
Im off my soapbox
Hope this helps someone.
I think quite a bit more is being claimed than that, but hopefully Shenpen will correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm explaining how I practice, and the relationship I see between this practice and the Buddhist ontology of emptiness (i.e., none.) I am happy to refer anyone who is interested to further information about this practice, so my comments here are not fundamentally negative/destructive, particularly since they're in the context of a discussion with someone as solid, assured and attained in his practice as Shenpen.
As I said, I welcome the feedback. Specific information about the unintelligible parts would be most welcome.
Is there a point to continue asking the question if the answer is always nothing?