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.
Form is emptiness..............
Theswingisyellow
Trying to be open to existenceSamsara Veteran
All things appear out of emptiness, stay for a time, and return to emptiness so the thought goes.
But nothing really comes, stays or goes. From where is is suppose to come from, remain and go to?
With an open heart,
Todd
But nothing really comes, stays or goes. From where is is suppose to come from, remain and go to?
With an open heart,
Todd
0
Comments
You're over-thinking things again.
Acceptance is a big key here.
You need to accept things as they are.
With metta,
Todd
See?
I told you.
too abstract.
I think this is too much even for advanced Practitioners to truly realise.
being Mindful, and in the Moment is too difficult if we have to be aware of this the whole time, all of the time....
I really don't believe the Buddha meant us to think this hard.
I resemble that remark!
Not based on personal experience just my dharma teacher's talk I listened to this morning.
With metta,
Todd
The coming and going, rise and fall, back and forth of "things" is an illusion created by the discriminating mind and the very nature of cyclical existence. Nothing comes from anywhere or goes anywhere, everything is simply changing, constantly.
much less our intellectual musings.
With metta,
Todd
I agree.
Todd
to me that can imply a solidity. I think of emptiness as room for a change to happen. Anything can happen. The ceiling can collapse! And when you view even a single tile there are infinite aspects to look at. You cannot focus on one at a time.
When you say, "All things appear out of emptiness," I'm afraid I have become completely lost.
Though the rules of language are being followed in such a statement, humans can't experience such things.
Unless you are saying it like you would say something poetic, like "I see Heaven in a wild flower." Then I kind of understand but it's more vague and emotional rather than clear and rational.
"Here, Sariputra, form is emptiness and the very emptiness is form; emptiness does not differ from form, form does not differ from emptiness; whatever is form, that is emptiness, whatever is emptiness, that is form, the same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness." - part of heart sutra
The first realization is that form is empty. But then we realize that the emptiness itself is form. They need to exist together and there is no substantial difference between the two. You could say division only occurs when we think of that division. So language automatically asserts dualism. Where as the silence is beyond dualism.
So to answer your question. There is no where to go. All you have is right now. This right now is all we have. This right now is the silence and is everything you can see in front of you.
Anything beyond that is thinking. Thinking about a place to go. Thinking about where you're coming from.
Meh hope this helps.
My understanding is that form is emptiness, emptiness is form is just a concept. I would contend there is no emptiness, there is no form, nothing to arise, to become or go away.
Sorry for my lack of clarity.
With metta,
Todd
"it leads to an infinite regression"
I don't quite understand, could you please elaborate?
With metta,
Todd
it's nihilism. i recall the buddha just sitting there in silence. that was his answer to your question.
you're right there is no emptiness and there is no form. there is nothing arising or becoming or going away.
but you're also wrong. there is emptiness and there is form. there is things that arises and become and go away.
both are right and both are wrong. so basically we just canceled all that out.
to assert one thing is to assert the negation of the other.
such is the nature of language (duality).
so we can assert it all and thus cancel it all. An all encompassing view is nothing. It is a no view.
To have no view is the silence. Thus you cannot talk about it. Absolute truth cannot be talked about. You can only point to the moon. That pointing is language. We use language to transcend it.
So yes you're right and you're wrong. But only if we have a position. To have no position is the silence.
but everyone is different and everyone has different questions. though we are talking always about the same stuff.
Between my thoughts of good and bad, emptiness and form is the profound stillness of that which is, it is this gate I try to walk through.
With metta,
Todd
much love brother.
FAR OUUUUT MAAAAN
It is the same shit, day in and day out. As a zen poem from Shinkichi Takahashi states:
"The wind blows hard among the pines
Toward the beginning
Of an endless past.
Listen: you've heard everything."
With metta,
Todd
Concepts and things are both empty. All skandas are empty not just form.
"The terms "quarks" and "points in space" still suggest something solid, since they can be imagined as irreducible mass particles. Yet, quantum field theory does away even with this finer concept of solidity by explaining particles in the terms of field properties. Quantum electrodynamics (QED) has produced an amazingly successful theory of matter by combining quantum theory, classical field theory, and relativity. No discrepancies between the predictions of QED and experimental observation have ever been found. According to QED, subatomic particles are indistinguishable from fields, whereas fields are basically properties of space. In this view, a particle is a temporary local densification of a field, which is conditioned by the properties of the surrounding space. Ergo, matter is not different from space. This is the third manifestation of emptiness at the subtle level of matter.
An important class of phenomena in the subatomic world is defined by the various interactions between particles. In fact, there is no clear distinction between the notions of phenomena, particles, and interactions, although interactions can be described clearly in mathematical terms. For example, there are interactions between free electrons by means of photons that result in an observed repelling force. There are also interactions between the quarks of a nucleon by means of mesons, interactions between the neighbouring neutrons or protons, interactions between nucleus and electrons, and interactions between the atoms of molecules. The phenomena themselves -the nucleon, the nucleus, the atom, the molecule- are sufficiently described by these interactions, meaning by the respective equations, which implies that interactions and phenomena are interchangeable terms. Interestingly, the interrelations of quantum physics do not describe actual existence. Instead they predict the potential for existence. A manifest particle, such as an electron, cannot be described in terms of classical mechanics. It exists as a multitude of superposed "scenarios", of which one or another manifests only when it is observed, i.e. upon measurement. Therefore, matter does not inherently exist. It exists only as interrelations of "empty" phenomena whose properties are determined by observation. This is the fourth manifestation of emptiness at the subtle level of matter."
from: http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/emptiness.html
This resonates with me.. Reminds me of something perhaps related to my teacher's talk.
It is a word, just another concept. At the end of the day a tree is just a tree, my emotions are just my emotions. It's raining outside.
With metta,
Todd
For mahayana buddhists Dr. empty would say "an empty doctor"
hahhahahhahahh
No its a concept. If they are empty of self then there is no self for them to be empty of. So there is no emptiness.
That is the emptiness of emptiness. And its also Nagarjuna's refutation of the Rangtong (emptiness of self) view of emptiness.
Its in the literature
I'll work to google up some big N.
That would put us on the same page but it is very long...Edit: Oh no its not the whole book..
Couldn't find the Nagarjuna stuff too much clutter..
Theres a good one not exactly what I was saying.. though. I think. Anyhow better to read Nagarjuna than me
But it was in a study course I was involved in lead by a lay practioner on aol (not the nasty rooms but a private room).
Talisman I think your right. Our thinking is a thicket, a maze we can easily get lost in, concepts layered on concepts. Better to just sit.
With metta,
Todd
-http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/emptiness.html