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, why is it important and how does it help us?
AllbuddhaBound
Veteran
The whole concept of emptiness is one that I struggle with from time to time. When we think about emptiness, I tend to begin wondering if it is all worthwhile. Rather than help me adjust to my environment, it instills a feeling of hopelessness in me. I'm sure this is because I don't fully understand.
What are the mechanics behind emptiness and the belief that everything is an illusion? Where is it taking us? Why do we need to believe in it in order to be happy? And if we don't believe in it, doesn't that stop us from developing awareness?
What are the mechanics behind emptiness and the belief that everything is an illusion? Where is it taking us? Why do we need to believe in it in order to be happy? And if we don't believe in it, doesn't that stop us from developing awareness?
0
Comments
If you look at the symbol for the Tao, for example, it's a perfect circle. Just that.
it does not mean it is a confinement to one simple explanation or concept. Rather that everything contained within the Tao, is everything you will ever need. it is complete, but it is also devoid of any construct, and is wide, expansive and marginless....like the Universe, it is 'empty' of everything, yet full to overflowing with everything required....
Such is 'Emptiness'.
Every phenomenon is a construct. it is a made-up mechanism of everything required to make it that 'thing'. Yet, it is inherently 'empty' because it is precisely that: made up.
Acceptance of things as they are, and viewing them in the present moment - a moment nobody can alter, or take away from us, because it is ours to fill as we wish - is a privilege and an instant of harmonious serenity.
It's not a question of 'believing' anything. It's a question of seeing things as they really are.
To NOT believe things as they really are, is suffering.
to accept things as they are, is happiness.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/integrityofemptiness.html
The link is a Theravadin monk's formal disagreement with the idea of emptiness as a philosophical concept. The essay argues that emptiness is actually threefold: an approach to meditation; an attribute of the senses and sense-objects; and a state of samādhi (concentration).
You're not going to get a very detailed explanation of emptiness. It's actually a dangerous thing to explain...
Emptiness is something you have to discover on your own. When your mentality is fit enough to handle it without breaking down into absolute nihilism you'll be able to begin comprehending it.
To realize emptiness is to completely break down your view of the world and reconstruct it on the basis "truth"...
Everything is an illusion??? No the illusions only exist in our minds.
Once you understand, I should say, once you begin to see emptiness you will no longer be so afraid of it or despair at the thought. Emptiness is the peacefulness that comes when we quite the mind in meditation. It is awareness before conceptualization and judgements. It is the source of all that arises before it takes form. It is the freedom of possibilities. Emptiness is not empty, but everything is empty because form is also empty. Best not to try to figure it out, just try to see it.
>>Where is it taking us?
No where. Where did you want to go? You are already there. Right here. Right now. If you never heard of emptiness you would still be right here, right now.
>>Why do we need to believe in it in order to be happy?
We don't. We need to stop grasping at beliefs and see reality as it truly is. With out the illusions (beliefs) of separation and permanence.
>>And if we don't believe in it, doesn't that stop us from developing awareness?
It's not a belief system. It is the way things are. Reality. Truth.
Because of our limited sense organs and mental preceptions, humans are not able to see the true nature of what is all around us. As a bat or other animals can use echo location or other senses that we do not have, an awake Being can see the multiverse for what it really is.
A good example of this would be to look at a wall. We see it as a solid barrier. However, we know on an intellectual level that the subatomic structure of the wall is in a constant state of flux and not truly a premenant unchanging thing.
All "emptiness" means is that we cant preceve on subtile levels, while an awakened being would swee the wall as it really is.
Can you say why contemplating emptiness makes you feel hopeless, Allbuddha bound?
What thoughts come up?
In another context, emptiness refers to the insubstantiality of the five clinging-aggregates (khandhas) and the six sense media (ayatanas) (e.g., SN 22.95, SN 35.85). In this sense, it's synonymous with not-self (anatta).
Personally, my opinion is that the teachings on emptiness (especially 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, may have actually developed over time.
As Thanissaro Bhikkhu notes, "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).
The evolution of emptiness into the nonexistence of phenomena possibly began with Nagarjuna, who I believe was attempting to deconstruct all of the prevalent metaphysical views of the time via logical analysis in an attempt to show how these views were ultimately illogical from the standpoint of emptiness, especially in regard to the Abhidhammika's idea that things exist by way of intrinsic characteristics.
The own-nature (sabhava) of dhammas, which is a concept that was introduced in the later substrata of Abhidhammic and commentarial literature, was answered (skillfully might I add) by Nagarjuna with the lack of own-nature or emptiness (nihsvabhava) of dhammas. However, this was mainly directed at the Sarvastivadins, who held a more realist position. For example, in his Introduction to Buddhism, Peter Harvey explains: Nevertheless, I think that Nagarjuna's logic of emptiness was a much needed counter to the growing body of speculative metaphysics dominating Buddhist thought at the time, and, like the Buddha's teachings on emptiness, was directed towards the removal of clinging.
In fact, I believe that clinging to views was what Nagarjuna considered to be the biggest obstacle on the path to awakening, and I think this idea is supported by the verse: "When there is clinging perception, the perceiver generates being. When there is no clinging perception, he will be freed and there will be no being." (MMK 26:7).
In other words, he was using logic simply as a tool in order to help people realize emptiness, and consequentially, awakening. Essentially, my view is similar to that of David Loy in Derrida and Negative Theology, who sums it up nicely by saying: Unfortunately, I think that at some point in time, Nagarjuna's logic of emptiness was taken a little bit too far and unintentionally reified by others into some kind of ultimate viewpoint. But to be fair, I don't think that Nagarjuna can be faulted for this. As Nagarjuna warns in MMK 13.8: Nevertheless, I'm not an expert on the subject, so take whatever I say with a grain of salt.
Body is nothing more than emptiness,
emptiness is nothing more than body.
The body is exactly empty,
and emptiness is exactly body.
The other four aspects of human existence --
feeling, thought, will, and consciousness --
are likewise nothing more than emptiness,
and emptiness nothing more than they.
All things are empty:
Nothing is born, nothing dies,
nothing is pure, nothing is stained,
nothing increases and nothing decreases.
So, in emptiness, there is no body,
no feeling, no thought,
no will, no consciousness.
There are no eyes, no ears,
no nose, no tongue,
no body, no mind.
There is no seeing, no hearing,
no smelling, no tasting,
no touching, no imagining.
There is nothing seen, nor heard,
nor smelled, nor tasted,
nor touched, nor imagined.
There is no ignorance,
and no end to ignorance.
There is no old age and death,
and no end to old age and death.
There is no suffering, no cause of suffering,
no end to suffering, no path to follow.
There is no attainment of wisdom,
and no wisdom to attain.
The Bodhisattvas rely on the Perfection of Wisdom,
and so with no delusions,
they feel no fear,
and have Nirvana here and now.
All the Buddhas,
past, present, and future,
rely on the Perfection of Wisdom,
and live in full enlightenment.
The Perfection of Wisdom is the greatest mantra.
It is the clearest mantra,
the highest mantra,
the mantra that removes all suffering.
This is truth that cannot be doubted.
Say it so:
Gaté,
gaté,
paragaté,
parasamgaté.
Bodhi!
Svaha!
Which means...
Gone,
gone,
gone over,
gone fully over.
Awakened!
So be it!
Diamond Sutra
Chapter 3.
"All living beings, whether born from eggs, from the womb, from moisture, or spontaneously; whether they have form or do not have form; whether they are aware or unaware, whether they are not aware or not unaware, all living beings will eventually be led by me to the final Nirvana, the final ending of the cycle of birth and death. And when this unfathomable, infinite number of living beings have all been liberated, in truth not even a single being has actually been liberated."
"Why Subhuti? Because if a disciple still clings to the arbitrary illusions of form or phenomena such as an ego, a personality, a self, a separate person, or a universal self existing eternally, then that person is not an authentic disciple."
Chapter 6.
Subhuti respectfully asked the lord Buddha, "Most Honored One! In the future, if a person hears this teaching, even if it is a only a phrase or sentence, is it possible for that person to have a true faith and knowledge of Enlightenment awaken in their mind?"
"Without a doubt, Subhuti. Even 500 years after the Enlightenment of this Buddha there will be some who are virtuous and wise, and while practicing compassion and charity, will believe in the words and phrases of this Sutra and will awaken their minds purely. After they come to hear these teachings, they will be inspired with belief. This is because when some people hear these words, they will have understood intuitively that these words are the truth."
"But you must also remember, Subhuti, that such persons have long ago planted the seeds of goodness and merit that lead to this realization. They have planted the seeds of good deeds and charity not simply before one Buddhist temple, or two temples, or five, but before hundreds of thousands of Buddhas and temples. So when a person who hears the words and phrases of this Sutra is ready for it to happen, a pure faith and clarity can awaken within their minds."
"Subhuti, any person who awakens faith upon hearing the words or phrases of this Sutra will accumulate countless blessings and merit."
"How do I know this? Because this person must have discarded all arbitrary notions of the existence of a personal self, of other people, or of a universal self. Otherwise their minds would still grasp after such relative conceptions. Furthermore, these people must have already discarded all arbitrary notions of the non-existence of a personal self, other people, or a universal self. Otherwise, their minds would still be grasping at such notions. Therefore anyone who seeks total Enlightenment should discard not only all conceptions of their own selfhood, of other selves, or of a universal self, but they should also discard all notions of the non-existence of such concepts."
"When the Buddha explains these things using such concepts and ideas, people should remember the unreality of all such concepts and ideas. They should recall that in teaching spiritual truths the Buddha always uses these concepts and ideas in the way that a raft is used to cross a river. Once the river has been crossed over, the raft is of no more use, and should be discarded. These arbitrary concepts and ideas about spiritual things need to be explained to us as we seek to attain Enlightenment. However, ultimately these arbitrary conceptions can be discarded. Think Subhuti, isn't it even more obvious that we should also give up our conceptions of non-existent things?"
Diamond Sutra
Chapter 25.
"Subhuti, do not say that the Buddha has the idea, 'I will lead all sentient beings to Nirvana.' Do not think that way, Subhuti. Why? In truth there is not one single being for the Buddha to lead to Enlightenment. If the Buddha were to think there was, he would be caught in the idea of a self, a person, a living being, or a universal self. Subhuti, what the Buddha calls a self essentially has no self in the way that ordinary persons think there is a self. Subhuti, the Buddha does not regard anyone as an ordinary person. That is why he can speak of them as ordinary persons."
Chapter 32.
Buddha continued:
"Subhuti, if anyone gave to the Buddha an immeasurable quantity of the seven treasures sufficient to fill the whole universe; and if another person, whether a man or woman, in seeking to attain complete Enlightenment were to earnestly and faithfully observe and study even a single section of this Sutra and explain it to others, the accumulated blessing and merit of that latter person would be far greater."
"Subhuti, how can one explain this Sutra to others without holding in mind any arbitrary conception of forms or phenomena or spiritual truths? It can only be done, Subhuti, by keeping the mind in perfect tranquility and free from any attachment to appearances."
"So I say to you -
This is how to contemplate our conditioned existence in this fleeting world:"
"Like a tiny drop of dew, or a bubble floating in a stream;
Like a flash of lightning in a summer cloud,
Or a flickering lamp, an illusion, a phantom, or a dream."
"So is all conditioned existence to be seen."
Thus spoke Buddha.
practicing emptiness has a great impact.
1. leads to the peace and happiness
2. reduces your greed-hatred-delusion
3. brings harmony in lives and living,
4. makes you mindful, and keeps you from out of dangers.,
5. makes you always contented and happy
and many more
Emptiness
"We come now to the quality of emptiness. First, it is of some significance to note that although the adjectival noun suññata (Sanskrit: sunyata), or “emptiness,” is used in the Theravada scriptures, it is far outweighed by its humble cousin, the adjective suñña, “empty.”
In later, Northern Buddhist traditions, sunyata took on not only a central position in the teachings on liberation (for example in the Prajña Paramita Sutras, the Heart Sutra, and the Vajra Sutra) and the Middle Way (as in Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka philosophy, uniting emptiness and causality), but it also took on the attributes of some kind of quasi-mystical substance or realm—not intentionally or doctrinally even, but more through a subtle and unconscious reification. It became something that is a nothing, that then was worshiped and deified as a universal panacea.
This is not to say that all such teachings on emptiness are false or useless—not at all. It is just to say that, like any verbal formulation of Dhamma, if grasped incorrectly they can obstruct rather than aid progress on the path. If the concept of emptiness is understood and used as a skillful means, it is clear that it could not be any kind of thing-in-itself. Any tendency to incline the attitude in that direction would thus be seen as falling wide of the mark "
continues here:
http://www.abhayagiri.org/main/article/2148/
For me, you are aiming too high here, in respect of "illusion"
Emptiness is the same as "nature"
All things are nature or natural elements, therefore all things are not a self nor do they belong to a self
Bodily & mental faculties and spiritual peace are just natural elements or simply nature
They are the same as trees, mountains, oceans, suns, etc
If our mind can realise all things are just nature, it will realise all things are emptiness
Ask the question, who or what created life, the body & the mental faculties?
Ask the question, who or what sustains life and will eventually dissolve life?
The answer is nature (rather than "who"). Oxygen, food, water, warmth, etc. These natural things sustain life. They are "our" body.
Examine sense consciousness. Did we create this? Examine our capacity to think. Did we create this? Examine the nervous system and our capacity to feel. Or our memory. Did we create these things?
These are all natural capacities. We came equipped with these things. We did not create these things. They are gifts or borrowings from nature but they do not belong to us.
Try to see life in this way, that everything is just nature, especially sense consciousness.
As nature is nature, it is not-self. Being just nature, it is empty.
Form is void; void is form, etc...
Best wishes
DD
So for me, the opposite of emptiness is to take a part for the whole, and living in the part.(Yes, I appreciate that there can be no opposite, but words have some sort of lifespan.......
So we can seek to remain in control, or begin to take heed of some words of Pema Chodron......"To be fully alive, fully human, and completely awake is to be continually thrown out of the nest." So we need to throw ourselves out, time and time again, until the nest has gone.
For me, now, its back to the nest. Yet I live in hope......
Doesn't the "usefullness" of the emptiness doctrine depend on the tradition one follows, Theravada or Mahayana?
Life doesn't come with a predetermined meaning for any of us, but we have something better. We get to choose the meaning of our life; we get to choose what answer we give.
Meditating on emptiness can give insight into how things exist, but it doesn't effect what you hold to be meaningful. That choice is always yours to make and supreme. In other words, meditation is the servant, and purpose is the master.
So you know that if your meditation is producing the feeling that life is meaningless, something went awry. It's like having the cart before the horse.
Hope this helps a little...
I tend to approach such subjects with a strong philosophical twist. So please forgive my somewhat dry explanation…smile! The reason I approach such subjects this way is because thinking through concepts helps us understand their limitations. This will become clear in my explanation below. Also, philosophy is not an enemy of enlightenment in the least. Rather, it helps us clarify what answers we’re after and why. Certainly such a task can be utilized for the purposes of spiritual enlightenment. Our journey almost always begins with philosophical questions and ends elsewhere. However, our conceptual framework helps us to see that there’s more to just that framework than what usually initially appears. Through meditation and other ‘mind’ activities we may expand ever further this non-conceptual awareness. Dharmic thought and life is much larger than our philosophical insights for sure; however, such thought and life is certainly no less as well. If others have touched on what I write here, I apologize.
Given your first sentence of ‘wondering,’ given the concept of emptiness, if it is all worthwhile and that such a concept seems to instill in you a sense of hopelessness and so forth, you appear to suppose that ‘emptiness’ is roughly that which has no meaning or point or purpose to it or for oneself. This is a common Western Civ. approach to the concept. There are two difficulties here, however. One, emptiness need not mean empty of ‘anything’ whatsoever, and two, just the concept alone suggests an ontological meaning, that is, it points out the true nature of all being as well as the ultimate limitation of our concepts as a result of realizing this ‘true nature.’ Many Westerners have difficulty with this concept because we either suppose all must be real, in the naïve sense or naïve realist sense, or that all must be illusion and thus non-real or subjective. What dharmic thought reveals is both positions are right and wrong on this matter. As Westerners we seem hobbled by our religious and philosophical traditions that attempt to pull us between these two extremes. Dharma, on the other hand, takes a whole other route completely.
Think of the concept of ‘car.’ This seems simple enough to call to mind what ‘it’ (car) is. We can picture one or simply think of all the ones we’ve ever had and so on. Yet, how do we define such a concept? In other words, what sort of elements do we need to include in our definition of ‘car’? We could say that all cars have four tires, an engine, windshield, steering wheel and so on. However, can a car still be a car without a windshield or car doors? If we looked out onto a field and saw all the parts of a car strewed about, can we say that we have a ‘car’ or merely the parts of a car? This is no simple or meaningless exercise. It would appear that our concept of ‘car’ involves numerous parts. We may only be willing to say that ‘car’ can be so properly defined if the car parts are functional or in the appropriate relationship one to the other since a car tire can be used for a swing or rear view mirrors turned into decoration in some biker bar or in some artist’s gallery. But if the car can be reduced to its constituent parts, then in what sense can we say that ‘cars’ are ‘real’ objects in the world?
One way to say that this is so is because it is functionally pragmatic to do so. Knowing how cars work and when to use them will help anyone living in the U.S.-for instance-survive day to day. Now, caution is much needed here because at this juncture we’re tempted to move in the usual extremes mentioned above. Note that no one is saying that there’s ‘no-thing’ moving up and down the road etc…nor is anyone at this point suggesting that there’s no real world out there (outside the mind) in which these objects or any object exists. The problem is in ‘how’ we think about such objects. As we’ve noted, ‘cars’ first off have numerous parts and functional processes that must work in consort for any of our definitions to work. So, for there to be ‘car’ we must define car by use of its functionally related parts. From here we can ask yet another question: Once we have identified all the functional parts and properly classified the whole category of ‘car,’ can we go further with our defining process? Yes! In other words, where do we cease the chain of the defining process? Why simply cut off our definition once we have the so-called ‘basic parts’ in mental order? Is that all there is to our concept? Obviously not! For example, I can think of each car as vastly different from another, which they are! How do these vast or even subtle differences play a role in our definition? Is there some logical necessity in defining a car as possessing four wheels instead of three or even two? Not really! What of all the varying categories of car out there? How could they all be pushed into a single unified category? From a strict analytical view, they cannot be.
Our concept of ‘car’ is functionally useful but its usefulness is often dependent on our own ontological bias. In other words, we go about the world defining things and thinking of things as they relate to us and our desires and wishes. This isn’t bad in and of itself. Nevertheless, such structuring of the world alone limits us from seeing the world as open and full of possibilities. The pages of a book involve trees, soil, clouds, and rain to name only a few things. “Book” exists because we name it so and because its function can operate well within our interest as being such a thing. However, the ultimate truth reveals that book emerged from things that exists in other forms that change and move through time. This vast sea is a sea of possibilities. The tree used to make the book could have been pure soil eventually that would have been used for further food and other of its parts as particles of rain and so on. It could have been a fire or made into a cabinet of some sort. In other words, the sea of possibility is where the book emerged from and belongs ultimately to (because it too can, is, and will change into other forms wholly unknown to us now). Hence, the book and the car both have no fixed identity that is ultimately conceptually manageable. Once we start to identify the parts and wish to know the ultimate nature of these (and all other) things, we quickly see that our concepts and inquiry have no final end! If something had a fixed-unchanging and unrelated existence, it would be a substance that we could not relate to or know. Since no thing has this sort of unchanging and non-dependent existence, all things depend on other things for their being-united in a singular web of interrelated existence.
In order for anything to be it depends on other things that depend still further on other things ad infinitum. The nature of all being is change and interrelatedness. Things change because there are effects of other things on those things. In order for that to be possible all things share being and space—connected to a sea of constant movement and change of one thing into another. We were all once a part of a sun (or star). At another time we were part of a biological process that takes us back to the time of reptiles and beyond. We (and all other being) have always been changing in an interconnected web of possibilities.
Given these ultimate truths about the nature of reality, any concept we have of anything possesses the seeds of its own limitations. Ultimately, all things are therefore “empty” of our concepts of them. The world has a nature that stretches beyond the egocentric mind that wishes to reduce the world only to its concepts of it! Emptiness is actually positive-possibility that reveals that our egos dance in a much bigger space of reality than our egos are willing to admit to.
Here, then, lies the whole matter for enlightenment: If it is true that all being has no fixed being and thus no fixed definition, then there can be no self-sufficient exclusive “I” that can be reliably defined and exhaustively known. In fact, our minds are also ‘empty” of our very concepts of self ‘itself.’ In basic, pure awareness without a self-seeing or hearing etc. Now, we may functionally refer to ourselves as such because it is useful and because there is a thing that is there in the world moving around and thinking. Yet, to speak of its nature ultimately without seeing that there really is no intrinsically fixed nature is where illusion lies. The illusion is buying into our idea that there is a fixed ego with its own unique purpose and exclusive meaning and that the world must make a place for this ego and its supposed power. Not realizing the truth of emptiness means that one will confine oneself to the narrative that the ego has made without seeing that the ego is no intrinsic thing unconnected to a world of vast possibilities. Emptiness reveals that we are free from the burden of ego-ontology and open to seeing the world move in new ways every moment. We, like all else, are waves on an ocean. Each wave is distinct but also connected to the vast ocean that has given rise to it. Just like waves that rise and crash back into the sea of vast possibilities, so we shall. In fact, if we look closer still, we already have!
Thanks for the opportunity!
Twice now, O Sakyan,
I've asked you,
but you, One with vision,
haven't answered me.
When asked the third time
the celestial seer answers:
so I have heard.
This world, the next world,
the Brahma world with its devas:
I don't know how they're viewed
by the glorious Gotama.
So to the one who has seen
to the far extreme,
I've come with a question:
How does one view the world
so as not to be seen
by Death's king?
The Buddha:
View the world, Mogharaja,
as empty --
always mindful
to have removed any view
about self.
This way one is above & beyond death.
This is how one views the world
so as not to be seen
by Death's king.
Sutta Nipata V.15
Have you ever seen a genuine Ming vase? It is incredibly beautiful, fine porcelain with a glaze that is translucent. It is almost as if it has been carved from a pearl, and in particularly fine vases, the blue glaze has been painted on by artists using brushes one hair's width.
What is it that makes a Ming vase so beautiful? It is the microscopic holes in the glaze and the thin porcelain china that light can pass through, making it jewel-like. In short, what makes a Ming vase beautiful is empty space - the space between the molecules of the glaze and the space within the hollowness of the vase.
That is Emptiness. It is not the emptiness of space, the emptiness of a vacuum which will suck everything in, and destroy it, given half a chance. It is the emptiness of ultimate potentiality. Everything and anything can happen within it, but if anything could happen within it, it would cease to be that beautiful Emptiness. It is Emptiness that is full, because it is full of possibility; every possibility that can ever be or cannot be imagined.
Why is Emptiness helpful? Because underneath what we call 'reality' is emptiness, stripped of all the dross and dirt that obscures its true beauty. Emptiness is neither helpful nor unhelpful, it is simply the truth of reality. And when we remove some of the dirt, we see glimpses of it. It is all around us, we simply need to be aware and we will see it.
Namaste
If however one aims toward understanding and penetrating fully the concepts of Anatta and Anicca, they may enter the stream leading to Nirvana through the Dharma Gate of Emptiness.
Emptiness as a realization does not mean that one has an intellectual understanding of the 3 marks or dependent originations. Someone can just say 'so what' to those things although they can be useful concepts.
Emptiness as a realization is more like being angry and then having a space to let your anger be and not lash out. That is more transforming than concepts.
whoa... Suweet