3bob Posted July 27, 2010 (edited) Excerpt, by Alex Bunardzic: "...What is this nothingness business then all about? In Buddhism, Zen, and Enlightenment nothingness is refered to as the "great void" or Sunyata, and in general, presented in the sutras and elsewhere similar to the following: The sutras often use the word "great void" to explain the significance of Sunyata. In general, we understand the "great void" as something that contains absolutely nothing. However, from a Buddhist perspective, the nature of the "great void" implies something which does not obstruct other things, in which all matters perform their own functions. Materials are form, which by their nature, imply obstruction. The special characteristic of the "great void" is non-obstruction. The "great void" therefore, does not serve as an obstacle to them. Since the "great void" exhibits no obstructive tendencies, it serves as the foundation for matter to function. In other words, if there was no "great void" nor characteristic of non-obstruction, it would be impossible for the material world to exist and function..." Edited July 27, 2010 by 3bob Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3bob Posted July 27, 2010 (edited) Perhaps some people here hadn't ever heard anything like the last two sentences in the short excerpt? (Btw, it didn't feel like swallowing a horse sized pill to me) Anyway, long excerpts about nothing tend to hurt my little brain and stomach. Om Edited July 27, 2010 by 3bob Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted July 27, 2010 Ah! Another discussion of nothingness. Actually, it is my understanding that what we view as nothingness is not really nothingness but rather potential. This is consistent with my understanding of 'wu'. So even here there is a small instance of obstruction because potential is restricted to what is possible at any moment in time. "The great void", in my opinion, is misleading because it is only outside the realms of nothingness, that is, in Absolute Nothingness, do we find total unobstruction. However, the moment we have viewed into the realm of Absolute Nothingness we have, in fact, extended the realm of nothingness. This thought is similar to the scientific thought today that space is expanding. Space being nothingness. As space expands objects have more room to go more places. And this leads me to the thought that we can never attain Tao. This is because we would have to go beyond 'wu', nothingness. Just can't be done, IMO. Yes, we can attain 'wu', nothingness. We can become One with Tao but we can never attain Tao because once we become one with Tao 'we' no longer exist. So I actually do agree with the last two sentences above as long as I hold to the understanding that I have. And I do agree that there must be available space (nothingness) in order for any 'thing' to expand. Peace & Love! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3bob Posted July 27, 2010 Ah! Another discussion of nothingness. Actually, it is my understanding that what we view as nothingness is not really nothingness but rather potential. This is consistent with my understanding of 'wu'. So even here there is a small instance of obstruction because potential is restricted to what is possible at any moment in time. "The great void", in my opinion, is misleading because it is only outside the realms of nothingness, that is, in Absolute Nothingness, do we find total unobstruction. However, the moment we have viewed into the realm of Absolute Nothingness we have, in fact, extended the realm of nothingness. This thought is similar to the scientific thought today that space is expanding. Space being nothingness. As space expands objects have more room to go more places. And this leads me to the thought that we can never attain Tao. This is because we would have to go beyond 'wu', nothingness. Just can't be done, IMO. Yes, we can attain 'wu', nothingness. We can become One with Tao but we can never attain Tao because once we become one with Tao 'we' no longer exist. So I actually do agree with the last two sentences above as long as I hold to the understanding that I have. And I do agree that there must be available space (nothingness) in order for any 'thing' to expand. Peace & Love! Hi MH, That is some heavy duty stuff! A friend of mine once said, "you know I want to try the eternity trip someday when I have the time". (and thus also space) So I can see that doing an absolute nothingness trip could be problematic. Om Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted July 27, 2010 Hi MH, That is some heavy duty stuff! A friend of mine once said, "you know I want to try the eternity trip someday when I have the time". (and thus also space) So I can see that doing an absolute nothingness trip could be problematic. Om Yeah. Heavy stuff. Actually, it was because of a conversation with Dr. Wang (author of "Dynamic Tao") that stirred my interest in the concept of Absolute Nothingness. I did many searches and found an excellent article by some Physics PhD that had been posted on the internet. Regretfully the last couple times I looked for the article I could not find it. Likely it was posted for feedback prior to publication and as soon as it was published the net copy was removed. I regret not having made a copy of it. And I agree that a trip there would be problematic because as soon as you go there it is no longer Absolute Nothingness, even if we go there only with our mind. (Or we will no longer exist if we try to go there so the act would be self-defeating.) Now, we can talk all day about nothingness if we want to. But we would have to agree on a definition first and that might be a problem. Peace & Love! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xabir2005 Posted July 27, 2010 (edited) I find Alex's presentation of Emptiness/Shunyata as 'nothingness' or 'void' to be confusing. In Buddhism, emptiness is *not* nothingness. It is not some formless void that is the background/substratum of all things (that would be the I AM realization/experience, sometimes eluded to/talked about in Zen texts, but it should not be confused with Shunyata). What is emptiness (shunyata)? Shunyata (Emptiness) means whatever appears are empty of independent or inherent existence, be it a sound, a form, or any other phenomena. This is because it is the 'interconnectedness' that give rise to the sound or experience (The person, the stick, the bell, hitting, air, ears, etc, i.e. the conditions). Whatever you see, hear, etc, do not exist 'in and of itself' but are 'interdependently originated'. Thus, whatever arises interdependently is vividly clear and luminous, but empty of any *independent* or *inherent* existence. This is not the same as nothing or nihilism - as Heart Sutra states: Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form. Nagarjuna: Whatever is dependently co-arisen, That is explained to be emptiness. That, being a dependent designation, Is itself the middle way. (Treatise, 24.18) Something that is not dependently arisen, Such a thing does not exist. Therefore a nonempty thing Does not exist. (Treatise, 24.19) __________________ Edited July 27, 2010 by xabir2005 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted July 27, 2010 In Buddhism, emptiness is ... I can basically accept that because of my understanding of 'wu' (Mystery, potential). A note to yor post of Treatise, 24.19. Those four lines pretty much negate any concept of 'god'. Peace & Love! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gendao Posted July 27, 2010 I find Alex's presentation of Emptiness/Shunyata as 'nothingness' or 'void' to be confusing. In Buddhism, emptiness is *not* nothingness. It is not some formless void that is the background/substratum of all things (that would be the I AM realization/experience, sometimes eluded to/talked about in Zen texts, but it should not be confused with Shunyata). What is emptiness (shunyata)? Shunyata (Emptiness) means whatever appears are empty of independent or inherent existence, be it a sound, a form, or any other phenomena. This is because it is the 'interconnectedness' that give rise to the sound or experience (The person, the stick, the bell, hitting, air, ears, etc, i.e. the conditions). Whatever you see, hear, etc, do not exist 'in and of itself' but are 'interdependently originated'. Thus, whatever arises interdependently is vividly clear and luminous, but empty of any *independent* or *inherent* existence. This is not the same as nothing or nihilism - as Heart Sutra states: Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form. Nagarjuna: Whatever is dependently co-arisen, That is explained to be emptiness. That, being a dependent designation, Is itself the middle way. (Treatise, 24.18) Something that is not dependently arisen, Such a thing does not exist. Therefore a nonempty thing Does not exist. (Treatise, 24.19) __________________ Most comprehensible explanation I've heard yet of interdependent (same as dependent?) origination. Thanks! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sifusufi Posted July 31, 2010 Just felt this and wanted to share. SOooooo deep. One of the COOLEST Godincidences ever is when my wife and I walked out of the Tibetan bookstore on 2nd ave in N.Y.C running right into Vernon Reid and crew. Priceless Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted July 31, 2010 Yep. Nothing lasts forever. However, nothing wrong with enjoying it if it has been made available to us. Peace & Love! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
