Emptiness and Nihilism

[forestofclarity]

I just wanted to clarify a point that came up in the objective reality thread.

 

There is a common conception in the West that emptiness amounts to nothingness, nonexistence, or something of that sort. This is not true. Emptiness refers to a specific lack.

 

What is that lack? Of an independent, permanent existence. Of an ultimate solidity. In Buddhism, emptiness may be seen as a shorthand for the 3 marks of existence (impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, non-self). You can study this in the sphere of your own experience, through meditation and/or contemplation.

 

There's been a lot of talk about roses. What is a rose? Is it the petals? The stem? The thorns? The scent? Individually, it is none of these things. What can we take away before it loses its "rose" nature? A single petal? All of them? It will be impossible to identify any specific "rose" nature. Yet we can smell it, if we touch the thorns, there is pain. The rose is real, even if ultimately the rose is empty.

 

Further, a rose does not stand alone, it is a part of the universe (dependent origination). It relies on the sun, the air, nutrients, soil--- if you expand it far enough, the existence of a single rose requires an entire universe to produce it. In a sense, you can say that a rose is not a rose--- it is a form of sunlight, or water, or atoms. But analyzing each possible thing, you will find that it, too, is empty (i.e. not permanent, not standing apart). In fact, it is the fluidity and flexibility that emptiness gives the universe that allows for things to change. If my mind were a solid thing, then how could I ever learn? If my body wasn't subject to change, how could I ever grow? Emptiness allows for all things.

 

So what? Well, if you see emptiness all around, then there will be less grasping. Why grasp at the rose when it is doomed to die? One can enjoy it when it is there, but once dissolved in the ocean of impermanence, to long for it will only cause suffering. One can then approach all manifestations with a sense of wu wei. Knowing it is empty, one should not cling or crave, but accept and enjoy.

 

For more on emptiness, check out Greg Goode's page.

[Sarnyn]

I've always felt that the phrase, "There is no permanent, solid, unchanging, independent self" was another way of expressing that, 'there is an impermanent, un-solid, changing, dependent self"

 

This is an interesting thread, and great points forest.

 

The concept of nihilism should not be confused with the concept of anatma, because nihilism isn't the same as solipsism, which says that only the self exists (and no other selves or things) or even the concept of philosophical skepticism which holds that nothing exists. Nihilism is a statement about value, not a statement about the deep nature of being. Nihilism states that nothing has any inherent value, not that nothing inherently exists. In this way nihilism becomes much more meaningful and valuable, as a stepping stone to what I see as the truth, that we have the ability, and indeed the only way things get value, is our assigning value to them.

[Marblehead]

Hi Forest,

 

Very nice post. Thanks for presenting the Buddhist concept for the purpose of clarification.

 

It would not be proper for me to make further comment so I will just remain silent.

 

Peace & Love!

[C T]

Thank you Forest, and Sarnyn too, for a very precise explanation on "Emptiness". Well done both!

 

To further the understanding, for those interested, here's a talk entitled "Emptiness", presented by

Thich Nhat Hanh, or Thay (meaning 'teacher') as he is affectionately known.

I hope those who listen to this teaching will gain a more profound perspective on the reasons why

"Emptiness" is so central to Buddhist philosophy.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYhti6fcVIk

 

All the best!

[dwai]

I just wanted to clarify a point that came up in the objective reality thread.

 

There is a common conception in the West that emptiness amounts to nothingness, nonexistence, or something of that sort. This is not true. Emptiness refers to a specific lack.

 

What is that lack? Of an independent, permanent existence. Of an ultimate solidity. In Buddhism, emptiness may be seen as a shorthand for the 3 marks of existence (impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, non-self). You can study this in the sphere of your own experience, through meditation and/or contemplation.

 

There's been a lot of talk about roses. What is a rose? Is it the petals? The stem? The thorns? The scent? Individually, it is none of these things. What can we take away before it loses its "rose" nature? A single petal? All of them? It will be impossible to identify any specific "rose" nature. Yet we can smell it, if we touch the thorns, there is pain. The rose is real, even if ultimately the rose is empty.

 

Further, a rose does not stand alone, it is a part of the universe (dependent origination). It relies on the sun, the air, nutrients, soil--- if you expand it far enough, the existence of a single rose requires an entire universe to produce it. In a sense, you can say that a rose is not a rose--- it is a form of sunlight, or water, or atoms. But analyzing each possible thing, you will find that it, too, is empty (i.e. not permanent, not standing apart). In fact, it is the fluidity and flexibility that emptiness gives the universe that allows for things to change. If my mind were a solid thing, then how could I ever learn? If my body wasn't subject to change, how could I ever grow? Emptiness allows for all things.

 

So what? Well, if you see emptiness all around, then there will be less grasping. Why grasp at the rose when it is doomed to die? One can enjoy it when it is there, but once dissolved in the ocean of impermanence, to long for it will only cause suffering. One can then approach all manifestations with a sense of wu wei. Knowing it is empty, one should not cling or crave, but accept and enjoy.

 

For more on emptiness, check out Greg Goode's page.

 

The one thing most don't understand is that Emptiness is indeed the lack of self-existence, self-nature. But it is only valid in the relative/materialistic sense. The Non-self doesn't imply that there is no self. It implies that, that which we consider the self is actually not the self. It is empty of self-nature and self-existence. That which remains after removing the "non-self" is the Self, that which doesn't depend on anything else for it's existence, that which is self-existent and has self-nature.

 

Emptiness signifies that all material existence is empty of self-nature and cannot stand on it's own, without the other pieces. The only thing that has self-nature and self-existence is Consciousness. Wu Wei arises when one realizes that no effort needs to be made to do, because there is no such thing as doing in the true sense...that which will happen will happen.

[Lucky7Strikes]

The one thing most don't understand is that Emptiness is indeed the lack of self-existence, self-nature. But it is only valid in the relative/materialistic sense. The Non-self doesn't imply that there is no self. It implies that, that which we consider the self is actually not the self. It is empty of self-nature and self-existence. That which remains after removing the "non-self" is the Self, that which doesn't depend on anything else for it's existence, that which is self-existent and has self-nature.

 

Emptiness signifies that all material existence is empty of self-nature and cannot stand on it's own, without the other pieces. The only thing that has self-nature and self-existence is Consciousness. Wu Wei arises when one realizes that no effort needs to be made to do, because there is no such thing as doing in the true sense...that which will happen will happen.

 

Then why has the relative/materialistic arisen from that which is unconditional Self?

 

And since it has arisen, can one call the Self unconditional?

[emptyvessel]

There is a Zen story (I think) wherein a Master shows a group of students a beautiful, valuable gilded bowl. The master asked the students "What is the most important part of this bowl?" The students looked and one answered, "Surely the gilding is the most important." "No, the lacquer is the most important," answered another. The master said, "It is the emptiness within the bowl that is the most important part."

 

At least that is how I think it goes...

 

~Kyle

[3bob]

An excerpt from an excerpt that imo helps one get a handle along these lines: (whether they are Buddhist or not)

 

"Emptiness, as employed in The Stanzas, is neither a metaphysics nor a nihilism. Nagarjuna sees it as identical with dependent arising itself. "We state that whatever is dependent arising, that is emptiness. That is dependent upon convention. That itself is the middle path."(20) This verse of The Stanzas also links emptiness with the Buddha's middle path. In this respect, emptiness is Nagarjuna's restatement of the Buddha's practical religious wisdom regarding metaphysics and nihilism. In the Buddhist tradition, wisdom (prajna) has to do with the reorientation of subjectivity which leads to a release from attachments. Wisdom releases the person from obsession. More positively stated, the aim of wisdom is to liberate one for relating to the world in freedom. Herein lies the scholarly consensus regarding emptiness in The Stanzas.(21) Emptiness should not be understood metaphysically. Neither should it be mistaken as a form of nihilism. Emptiness, in The Stanzas, is equivalent to the Buddhist wisdom of nonattachment".

[Marblehead]

There is a Zen story (I think) wherein a Master shows a group of students a beautiful, valuable gilded bowl. The master asked the students "What is the most important part of this bowl?" The students looked and one answered, "Surely the gilding is the most important." "No, the lacquer is the most important," answered another. The master said, "It is the emptiness within the bowl that is the most important part."

 

At least that is how I think it goes...

 

~Kyle

 

Sounds good to me.

 

Peace & Love!

[dwai]

Then why has the relative/materialistic arisen from that which is unconditional Self?

 

And since it has arisen, can one call the Self unconditional?

 

Sure...what conditionality limits the Self? It always exists

[Pero]

Dwai, still spreading your Buddhist heresy?

[Sunya]

Sure...what conditionality limits the Self? It always exists

 

I see you're still picking that scab.

 

The problem with such argumentation, and Creationists use it all the time, is that there are two standards. One standard is for our reality (nothing exists by itself, everything is dependent) and the second standard is for God, or Self, which is unconditional and exists of its own accord. This isn't logic, this is just persuasion with no logical basis. You can't have two standards in an argument. To posit the existence of something non-phenomenal requires faith and I see you have a lot of that Dwai, no offense. Nothing wrong with faith, if it's warranted, but don't confuse logic and faith. There's nothing logical about your convictions. I know that you've had meditative experience but as I tried to explain to you before, your convictions are based on interpreting your experience. Without that interpretation, without that philosophy, your conviction would crumble. As noble as it is to base faith on meditative experience over faith by emotional persuasion by a Priest or a book, it still can lead to error.

Edited December 30, 2009 by mikaelz

[Lucky7Strikes]

Sure...what conditionality limits the Self? It always exists

 

I don't think you understood the question. Let me rephrase it.

 

WHY has the conditional, delusion of the "self," arisen from that which is unchanging and unconditional: the "Self"?

 

Is the Self just playing with itself?

Edited December 30, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[C T]

 

 

Is the Self just playing with itself?

Here's an animated look at the self 'trying' to do all sorts to reconnect to the Higher Self!

Its quite enjoyable, and fun to watch..

 

[dwai]

I don't think you understood the question. Let me rephrase it.

 

WHY has the conditional, delusion of the "self," arisen from that which is unchanging and unconditional: the "Self"?

 

Is the Self just playing with itself?

 

there is no value in ascribing rational understandings to the non-rational (mind you, non-rational is not the same as irrational). Imho, there is no way to know why until the Self is revealed. This might seem like a cop-out, but it is not. It is simply an acknowledgment of the fact that we can only go so far with rational inquiry, when it comes to the Self.

 

 

Here's an animated look at the self 'trying' to do all sorts to reconnect to the Higher Self!

Its quite enjoyable, and fun to watch..

 

 

Fantastic! I'm going to share it with my non-TTB friends as well...Thank you!

[Lucky7Strikes]

there is no value in ascribing rational understandings to the non-rational (mind you, non-rational is not the same as irrational). Imho, there is no way to know why until the Self is revealed. This might seem like a cop-out, but it is not. It is simply an acknowledgment of the fact that we can only go so far with rational inquiry, when it comes to the Self.

 

It's a copout. Blind faith. You might as well just stop doing anything and let the Self work its oh so mysterious ways out in this world. .

 

NO THE SPAGHETTI MONSTER IS NOT BOUND TO REASON! HA!

[3bob]

"there is no value in ascribing rational understandings to the non-rational (mind you, non-rational is not the same as irrational). Imho, there is no way to know why until the Self is revealed. This might seem like a cop-out, but it is not. It is simply an acknowledgment of the fact that we can only go so far with rational inquiry, when it comes to the Self". dwai

 

Additionally Dwai we dont' really have to limit this idea/fact of the limits of rational/logical mind to not being able to verify the "Self"; (btw, such can not verify the no-self either) I submit that it is plain and clear in the Buddhas own words below that the rational/logical mind working with data based on same can only go so far in understanding the 8 liberations that he spells out in the text below - which is highly regarded by most if not all Buddhists as true doctrine. (and imo around the 3rd liberation is about all reason can verify, after that reason can do nothing more than speculate, which is reasonable -lol)

 

from the Maha-parinibbana Sutta: Last Days of the Buddha,

 

Eight Liberations

 

33. "Now there are eight liberations, Ananda. What are those eight?

 

34. "Oneself having form, one perceives forms; this is the first liberation.

 

35. "Being unaware of one's own form, one perceives forms external to oneself; this is the second liberation.

 

36. "Experiencing loveliness, one is intent upon it; this is the third liberation.

 

37. "By utterly transcending the perceptions of matter, by the disappearance of the perceptions of sense-reaction, and by giving no attention to diversity-perceptions, one becomes aware of, attains to, and abides in the sphere of infinite space; this is the fourth liberation.

 

38. "By utterly transcending the sphere of infinite space, one becomes aware of, attains to, and abides in the sphere of infinite consciousness; this is the fifth liberation.

 

39. "By utterly transcending the sphere of infinite consciousness, one becomes aware of, attains to, and abides in the sphere of nothingness; this is the sixth liberation.

 

40. "By utterly transcending the sphere of nothingness, one attains to and abides in the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; this is the seventh liberation.

 

41. "By utterly transcending the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, one attains to and abides in the cessation of perception and sensation; this is the eighth liberation.

 

"These, Ananda, are the eight liberations.

 

Good day

[dwai]

It's a copout. Blind faith. You might as well just stop doing anything and let the Self work its oh so mysterious ways out in this world. .

 

NO THE SPAGHETTI MONSTER IS NOT BOUND TO REASON! HA!

 

That's what you are supposed to do. What do you think Wu Wei is?

 

"there is no value in ascribing rational understandings to the non-rational (mind you, non-rational is not the same as irrational). Imho, there is no way to know why until the Self is revealed. This might seem like a cop-out, but it is not. It is simply an acknowledgment of the fact that we can only go so far with rational inquiry, when it comes to the Self". dwai

 

Additionally Dwai we dont' really have to limit this idea/fact of the limits of rational/logical mind to not being able to verify the "Self"; (btw, such can not verify the no-self either) I submit that it is plain and clear in the Buddhas own words below that the rational/logical mind working with data based on same can only go so far in understanding the 8 liberations that he spells out in the text below - which is highly regarded by most if not all Buddhists as true doctrine. (and imo around the 3rd liberation is about all reason can verify, after that reason can do nothing more than speculate, which is reasonable -lol)

 

from the Maha-parinibbana Sutta: Last Days of the Buddha,

 

Eight Liberations

 

33. "Now there are eight liberations, Ananda. What are those eight?

 

34. "Oneself having form, one perceives forms; this is the first liberation.

 

35. "Being unaware of one's own form, one perceives forms external to oneself; this is the second liberation.

 

36. "Experiencing loveliness, one is intent upon it; this is the third liberation.

 

37. "By utterly transcending the perceptions of matter, by the disappearance of the perceptions of sense-reaction, and by giving no attention to diversity-perceptions, one becomes aware of, attains to, and abides in the sphere of infinite space; this is the fourth liberation.

 

38. "By utterly transcending the sphere of infinite space, one becomes aware of, attains to, and abides in the sphere of infinite consciousness; this is the fifth liberation.

 

39. "By utterly transcending the sphere of infinite consciousness, one becomes aware of, attains to, and abides in the sphere of nothingness; this is the sixth liberation.

 

40. "By utterly transcending the sphere of nothingness, one attains to and abides in the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; this is the seventh liberation.

 

41. "By utterly transcending the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, one attains to and abides in the cessation of perception and sensation; this is the eighth liberation.

 

"These, Ananda, are the eight liberations.

 

Good day

 

Nice to see someone understands....

[Lucky7Strikes]

That's what you are supposed to do. What do you think Wu Wei is?

Nice to see someone understands....

 

39. "By utterly transcending the sphere of infinite consciousness, one becomes aware of, attains to, and abides in the sphere of nothingness; this is the sixth liberation.

 

Thanks Bob.

 

@ Dwai,

 

NO NO NO

 

THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU ARE

 

"SUPPOSED TO DO"

 

Then we have true nihilism. End of free will. Complete determinism. No self, only Self!

 

You idiot, why do you then practice?

 

And if these words make you angry, OH I GUESS THE SELF IS JUST EXPRESSING ANGER THROUGH YOU! YOU JUST HAD TO BE ANGRY!!! OR NOT ANGRY!!! WHAT DOES IT MATTER???

 

And yes, this is the Infinite Consciousness just expressing itself on you, who is also of the Infinite Consciousness. And in the end it's just masturbating to itself while making countless "people" swim in delusion.

 

Edited December 30, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[3bob]

"thanks Bob", Excuse me, I'm not a lever for your rant Lucky7strikes if that is what you imply?

 

I think we may need to go back and work on the third liberation, or work up to it.

Edited December 30, 2009 by 3bob

[Sunya]

It's a copout. Blind faith. You might as well just stop doing anything and let the Self work its oh so mysterious ways out in this world. .

 

NO THE SPAGHETTI MONSTER IS NOT BOUND TO REASON! HA!

 

 

lol.

[Lucky7Strikes]

"thanks Bob", Excuse me, I'm not a lever for your rant Lucky7strikes if that is what you imply?

 

I think we may need to go back and work on the third liberation, or work up to it.

 

I'm sorry, I couldn't help it. The Infinite Consciousness just made me do it, or no...it's all just Infinite Consciousness being 3bob and me being Lucky7 and this Self is so bored it just has to bicker to entertain itself.

 

Why should we go back to these levels of liberation? Everything is already of the Self. It is all already liberated. And "YOU" can't do much about it either, since it's the Self just...being....

 

.

[dwai]

39. "By utterly transcending the sphere of infinite consciousness, one becomes aware of, attains to, and abides in the sphere of nothingness; this is the sixth liberation.

 

Thanks Bob.

 

@ Dwai,

 

NO NO NO

 

THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU ARE

 

"SUPPOSED TO DO"

 

Then we have true nihilism. End of free will. Complete determinism. No self, only Self!

 

You idiot, why do you then practice?

 

And if these words make you angry, OH I GUESS THE SELF IS JUST EXPRESSING ANGER THROUGH YOU! YOU JUST HAD TO BE ANGRY!!! OR NOT ANGRY!!! WHAT DOES IT MATTER???

 

And yes, this is the Infinite Consciousness just expressing itself on you, who is also of the Infinite Consciousness. And in the end it's just masturbating to itself while making countless "people" swim in delusion.

 

 

I think these words make you more angry than me.

 

I practice because I haven't yet realized the True Self, only caught glimpses of it. Nihilism, determinism, free will, are all only words. What do they mean? Nothing! In face of the non-phenomal, non-rational Self, none of these have any value because it is not bound by any of these words. The Tao that can be named is not the real Tao.

[Lucky7Strikes]

I think these words make you more angry than me.

 

I practice because I haven't yet realized the True Self, only caught glimpses of it. Nihilism, determinism, free will, are all only words. What do they mean? Nothing! In face of the non-phenomal, non-rational Self, none of these have any value because it is not bound by any of these words. The Tao that can be named is not the real Tao.

 

Ok, I at least tried. .

Edited December 31, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[dwai]

Ok, I at least tried. .

 

That's right! Just keep trying...and keep an open mind. You'll see the light...