Different ways of describing Emptiness

[Seth Ananda]

I have noticed that some Buddhist schools talk about Emptiness in different ways.

Some seem to describe it as an actual void that things rise and fall in, but others, like those following Nargajuna's philosophy see it rather as the actual Nature of things and refute it being a Void...

 

I was wondering if there are any neat ways of categorising which schools teach what about emptiness, critiques they may have of each other, and whether some schools blend them together...

 

And, what peoples personal observations or thoughts are about this wonderful subject?

 

Metta!

Edited October 19, 2011 by Seth Ananda

[Lucky7Strikes]

Ungraspable, boundless, self-liberating, undefined, inexplicable are few english terms I like.

[gendao]

On an experiential level, I was meditating today and experimenting with opening into "emptiness".. Like the Taiji hand that is neither limply closed or overly-stretched open - there's a point in between when your hand feels energetically "open"... Like a healthy leaf that is neither wilted nor straight, but gently curved.

 

I could feel energy emanating out from between my toes.

 

I think such openness and the dissolution of blocks & boundaries is the door to emptiness.. The emptiness of no resistance. Anything you can feel or recognize is resistance. The more of that you clear, the less there is to feel. So in the end, you embrace nothing.

Edited October 19, 2011 by vortex

[RiverSnake]

It is my understanding that emptiness or void is the same thing as openness. When we practice Chi-Kung or meditation we are working on opening channels within are body and mind.

 

-When we open all the channels in our body we literally become emptiness or void because nothing is stuck and energy flows freely like wind in a tunnel. Thus we become at one with the world and with each breath the whole universe around us can freely flow through our blood and being without the friction of ego.

 

-Of course this is all theory, i have yet to experience this for myself. But it makes sense to me.

Edited October 19, 2011 by OldGreen

[C T]

Not this subject... again!!!

 

(just kiddin')

 

 

 

For those among us who are relatively quiescent, serene and in no particular rush, then this might be one of the more interesting, insightful topic-related article entitled, "Transformations of Emptiness: On the idea of sunyata and the thought of Masao Abe..."

 

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ADM/ornat.htm

 

Enjoy!

 

Oh, here is one of Abe's philosophical classics -- Zen and Comparative Studies

) Chapter 8 in particular is most interesting (

 

http://books.google.ie/books?id=Fp9YbwLnvWwC&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85&dq=comparative+study+on+emptiness&source=bl&ots=HsetfqfpxQ&sig=9G0sk4slR1k6_su1_u8lz16L5fo&hl=en&ei=D2CeTs_xAc-LhQep541Y&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=comparative%20study%20on%20emptiness&f=false

Edited October 19, 2011 by C T

[taooneusa]

"Everyone who seeks should continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will be troubled at the contemplation of Truth, but when he has passed through the time of trouble, he will be astonished at the brightness of the Light, for the Way of Truth is the Pathway to the Eternal Godhead, and the price of the beatific vision is the wringing of the soul. The person who desires to rise above all things must descend below all things, for the way to the heights passes through the depths of anguish, which generate the fires of Life. The person who has suffered and found Life is blessed."

I believe this is a quote of Jesus though I don't know it's accuracy of translation it does convey all the stages leading up to, then through Tao and back again.

"wringing of the soul" describes the immense pressure or weight of non-being exerted as self loses materiality.

The force of self hood (soul) is spread and lost in between all the bodies of the microcosm.

There is a truly great feeling of relief when all the layers are stripped off, though terrifying to, as the stripping down is not of ones own accord and death of 'all' self is imminent.

"depths of anguish" is the full realization of choices made in this life most of which are nonconcordant with the one law and that the part of

self that becomes those choices as emotion, body, mind and beliefs cannot survive crossing the void of non self. In the end the soul does continue though it may be without the full presence of incarnation we so much long to take with us. That much requires great purification -a trial by fire and by water.

The "beatific" vision is literally the Golden Flower the red and the blue and all the layers fractal like that rise from the mother.

"God Head" this is where the void seems both empty and full where qualities of pure presence or consciousness define potential to become as self has been granted sentience for willingness to accept the trial (death) and one law become two -a straight line.

Brahma and Brahman that contains the void has a definite shape

void contains the self

self is always moving

Edited October 19, 2011 by taooneusa

[Seth Ananda]

Um Taooneusa, maybe you meant to put this in the Vedantic subforum?

 

The Buddhist subforum is for discussing Buddhist philosophy and perspectives...

[Seth Ananda]

Not this subject... again!!!

 

(just kiddin')

 

 

 

For those among us who are relatively quiescent, serene and in no particular rush, then this might be one of the more interesting, insightful topic-related article entitled, "Transformations of Emptiness: On the idea of sunyata and the thought of Masao Abe..."

 

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ADM/ornat.htm

 

Enjoy!

 

Oh, here is one of Abe's philosophical classics -- Zen and Comparative Studies

) Chapter 8 in particular is most interesting (

 

http://books.google.ie/books?id=Fp9YbwLnvWwC&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85&dq=comparative+study+on+emptiness&source=bl&ots=HsetfqfpxQ&sig=9G0sk4slR1k6_su1_u8lz16L5fo&hl=en&ei=D2CeTs_xAc-LhQep541Y&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=comparative%20study%20on%20emptiness&f=false

Thanks CT, as usual you come through with the goods! -^-

[XieJia]

Some seem to describe it as an actual void that things rise and fall in, but others, like those following Nargajuna's philosophy see it rather as the actual Nature of things and refute it being a Void...

 

Metta!

 

Hi Seth,

 

Maybe the two you mentioned is not really that different.

Just different people with different understanding looking at it.

 

We Theravadins don't talk much about it; we do have it in our sutras aswell.

Sunyatha is the absence of naming, absence of nomenclature.

 

Its naming is temporary...

Books as a book since one called it a book from recollections and perception.

 

My rhetorical question is that;

How does one realize that 'emptiness' is 'emptiness',

where does the name comes from?

what is naming it?

what is the nature of the thing that is naming it?

why do one need to name that again?

 

Hontu Te

Edited October 19, 2011 by XieJia

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Old Green's description is the same as my feeling of it from Taoism, especially in reading sayings by Ancestor Lu in Vitality, Energy, Spirit for 2 or 3 years before learning qi gong movements.

 

Some teachers put it so plainly that makes you leave all preconceptions and grasping.. so what is left when we don't even hold on to the notion of having a self? It's like the universe is playing a beautiful note on its flute.. there is space in the flute so the note is clear but you are the flute so you can't hear the note, but you feel the vibration.. this is Emptiness to me, experientially. Like we are always these flutes, and the Universe is always playing, but we don't feel it until we empty the instrument of ego-clinging-dust. Then we can know emptiness. However, even this idea can clog up the flute and confuse the notes.. or something. I'm being poetic, but I'm sure many people here have experienced something like this numerous times after they put down a book and enjoyed the moment of realization, forgetting ideas of self and mine.. usually until we're struck with thoughts of "oh, shit, I have to protect myself" upon which phenomena and self become "real" or substantial all over again.

 

 

I've been reading the article that CT posted and it brought me to the following thoughts as well, "for those among us who are relatively quiescent, serene and in no particular rush":

 

The article seems to say, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the "real Emptiness", I'll call it, is only as Nagarjuna spoke of it, which was essentially the absence of any inherent essence of any concept or thing, though the purpose was to show that concepts in Buddhism could and should not hold authority.

 

to quote:

 

for Nagarjuna the goal was the "reductio ad absurdum (Skt. prasanga) of all opposing theories" in a critical method that consists of "convincing an opponent of the falsehood of his own thesis without at the same time offering a counter-thesis." Nagarjuna was thus less concerned with "radical negation in the realms of logic and ontology as he was with a radical, self-composed letting go as the way to full enlightenment."

 

Then he mentions that Suchness was applied to Emptiness as a later Chinese addition :

 

Here, then, in both Hua-Yen and T'ien T'ai was a clear, positive appreciation of the concrete world seen in light of emptiness, [..] At the same time, sunyata in Chinese and Japanese Buddhism came also to be connected with the idea of the absolute truth body (dharmakaya) of the Buddha (itself considered both transcendent and immanent) and with the idea of tathata (suchness) as representing the totality of reality in both its transcendent (li) and phenomenal (shih)aspects.

 

 

So (not that you previously vouched for every word in it, I see it is a good summation of the history) the author seems to say that the correlation of Suchness to Emptiness was a later addition to the teaching/perception by Hua-Yen (600+ C.E.).

 

However, in The Lankavatara Sutra, (translated by Dharmaraksa from Sanskrit circa 260-290 C.E.) Buddha explains "Suchness" and "Ego-lessness" in essentially the same way as Nagarjuna arrives at Emptiness: by removing what appears to be until there is nothing to perceive but "Suchness".

 

So, in my perspective, Nagarjuna was also illucidating Emptiness to reveal "Suchness" and "Egolessness", so it would not be incorrect to equate them all, or at least, when you realize Emptiness, you experience Suchness and Egolessness; or, to know Suchness and Egolessness is Emptiness.

 

 

from The Lankavatara Sutra, chapter IV:

 

 

... When appearances and names are put away and all discrimination ceases, that which remains is the true and essential nature of things and, as nothing can be predicated as to the nature of essence, it is called the "Suchness" of Reality. This universal, undifferentiated, inscrutable, "Suchness" is the only Reality but it is variously characterised as Truth, Mind-essence, Transcendental Intelligence, Noble Wisdom, etc. This Dharma of the imagelessness of the Essence-nature of Ultimate Reality is the Dharma which has been proclaimed by all the Buddhas, and when all things are understood in full agreement with it, one is in possession of Perfect Knowledge, and is on his way to the attainment of the Transcendental Intelligence of the Tathagatas.

 

*

 

THEN MAHAMATI SAID to the Blessed One: Are the three self-natures, of things, ideas, and Reality, to be considered as included in the Five Dharmas, or as having their own characteristics complete in themselves.

 

The Blessed One replied: The three self-natures, the eightfold mind-system, and the twofold egolessness are all included in the Five Dharmas. The self-natures of things, of ideas, and of the sixfold mind-system, correspond with the Dharmas of appearance, name and discrimination; the self-nature of Universal Mind and Reality corresponds to the Dharmas of right-knowledge and "Suchness."

 

By becoming attached to what is seen of the mind itself, there is an activity awakened which is perpetuated by habit-energy that becomes manifest in the mind-system. From the activities of the mind-system there rises the notion of an ego-soul and its belongings; the discriminations, attachments, and notion of an ego-soul, rising simultaneously like the sun and its rays of light.

 

By the egolessness of things is meant that the elements that make up the aggregates of personality and its objective world being characterised by the nature of maya and destitute of anything that can be called ego-substance, are therefore un-born and have no self-nature. How can things be said to have an ego-soul? By the egolessness of persons is meant that in the aggregates that make up personality there is no ego-substance, nor anything that is like ego-substance nor that belongs to it. The mind-system, which is the most characteristic mark of personality, originated in ignorance, discrimination, desire and deed; and its activities are perpetuated by perceiving, grasping and becoming attached to objects as if they were real. The memory of these discriminations, desires, attachments and deeds is stored in Universal Mind since beginningless time, and is still being accumulated where it conditions the appearance of personality and its environment and brings about constant change and destruction from moment to moment. The manifestations are like a river, a seed, a lamp, a cloud, the wind; Universal mind in its voraciousness to store up everything, is like a monkey never at rest, like a fly ever in search of food and without partiality, like a fire that is never satisfied, like a water-lifting machine that goes on rolling. Universal mind as defiled by habit-energy is like a magician that causes phantom things and people to appear and move about. A thorough understanding of these things is necessary to an understanding of the egolessness of persons.

 

Edited October 19, 2011 by Harmonious Emptiness

[Paulw]

Emptiness is nothing more than space, the beautiful thing about emptiness is that you get to choose whether to occupy the space with something or just leave it as you found it, it's simplicity in it's finest form, invisible yet tangible.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Paulw

[Harmonious Emptiness]

bump.

 

Seth, how about yourself? How would you (attempt to) describe Emptiness?

[Seth Ananda]

bump.

 

Seth, how about yourself? How would you (attempt to) describe Emptiness?

Hi

Well for me all my first exposure to the concept was of a Nagajuna/Chandrakirti perspective, which denys emptiness as being a void that things rise and fall within.

 

I find it very workable in my own life and practice to be able to look at things I would normally cling to, and see their lack of permanent or inherent existence.

Seeing that an impermanent empty thing is not a satisfactory source of happiness, really does remove most of my desire for it. Instead of taking refuge in something temporary, I take refuge in Buddha, my own enlightened mind...

 

And I am very fond of the 11 points:

Emptiness is not a substance

Emptiness is not a substratum or background

Emptiness is not light

Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness

Emptiness is not the Absolute

Emptiness does not exist on its own

Objects do not consist of emptiness

Objects do not arise from emptiness

Emptiness of the "I" does not negate the "I"

Emptiness is not the feeling that results when no objects are appearing to the mind

Meditating on emptiness does not consist of quieting the mind

 

 

 

But, it does seem that some schools of Dzogchen and Mahamudra {my favoured approaches} [pre longchenpa if I understand correctly] do see emptiness as more than just the nature of things in their impermanent and dependently arisen state {therefore only being relatively real}.

 

I really just want to understand the other views better. I dont think conflicting views is bad, as long as the view does not create delusion. Look at the Shentong/Rangtong debates... Both schools have fully realised Masters behind them... Even Chittamatra is considered potentially useful for attaining the first Bhumi, although to go deeper it is believed by the other schools that, some aspects of its view will have to be dropped...

 

I guess one thing I really want to understand is, If Emptiness is not a Void, then what is it that is void or space like, that things do seem to rise and fall within...

 

Anyway Blessings to all

[Seth Ananda]

double post

Edited November 2, 2011 by Seth Ananda

[C T]

Some points to note in this clip by Shinzen Young on "....becoming Impermanence" - -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ15Y6WrDTE&feature=related

[Harmonious Emptiness]

edit

 

I guess there differences in the semantic use of Emptiness.. Like there is a line at the end of form, maybe light/vibration or chi, and then there is Emptiness. So the void is, imho, essentially the line, where one can perceive Emptiness and form at the same time.

 

As you said, seeing the lack of substantial existence in things helps to not waste our time with things that would waste our time. I've found it much easier for things that I don't like.. In thinking about it now, I see that I should be more aware of the reality of some of the things that I like too much.. This may prove more difficult than the former, but freedom from desire is a bliss of itself, not to mention how life in general becomes more enjoyable when we only need our Buddha Mind to appreciate everything.

 

 

nice vid CT..

Edited November 2, 2011 by Harmonious Emptiness

[rene]

I guess one thing I really want to understand is, If Emptiness is not a Void, then what is it that is void or space like, that things do seem to rise and fall within...

 

I call it Dao.

 

warm regards

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: I'm reading this thread with interest, to learn about the various buddhist uses of the term 'Emptiness'. In conversations I've had over the years, there always seemed to be different ideas being pointed to with the word... so when I saw the topic heading and read the OP, well, here I am. Hope you dont mind a non-buddhist guest sitting quietly over here in the corner. (-:

Edited November 3, 2011 by rene

[Spelk]

I follow the Ati tradition, I hope this will help. Emptiness means that:

 

Nothing comes into existence without reliance on things that went before it. Existence is always co-dependent. This means that in a relative sense and from our samsaric POV, objects seem to exist as individual things to us. Stepping back into the POV of the whole, there are no individual things, only a single flux. Relative and ultimate points of view are both spoken of in the Tao.

 

Everything is an 'aggregate', ie, the combination of other things. Take a house for example. A house isn't really a house, but a name we give to wood, bricks and mortar - the aggregates used to build the house. These aggregates are also made up of other aggregates, and these in turn of more aggregates.

 

11 Thirty spokes converge in one hub

Then depending upon what does not exist

is the vehicle’s usefulness

Mold clay in order to produce a vessel

Then depending upon what does not exist

is the vessel’s usefulness

Cut out doors and windows in order to make a dwelling

Then depending upon what does not exist

is the dwelling’s usefulness

Thus, the existence of something serves to make value

The lack of something serves to make utility

 

Emptiness isn't anything in and of itself, or an ultimate field. Think of it as a principal, the 'action' of reality. Saying a fire is hot or that ice is cold doesn't mean that fire is made of hot or that ice is made of cold, the terms just describe an aspect of their existence. In the same way, all is empty.

 

As emptiness is just a label for a flow that really can't be labelled as a single thing, emptiness too is empty, a name for something without inherent self-existence. It's a term made by creating ideas out of other terms, it's a label for something that is beyond labels.

An unbroken continuity does not permit description -

A return home to non existence

And so this is called the form of the formless

The image of nothingness

It is called obscure & elusive

When it is met its head is not seen

When it is followed its end is not seen

To grasp the path of the ancients

Is the way to master present existence

The capacity to comprehend the ancient beginnings

May be called the clue* to the way

 

It breaks down our fixed idea that 'things' (you, me, cows) and reality exist in the way we normally think. It puts them beyond existence and non-existence and turns them into being an almost illusory - but not quite - non-dual, display. We can't say that there is self or other, we can only say there is a phenomena here of indeterminate nature.

 

Why is this important? Because it stops us reifying (labelling) things. Once we no longer see reality as something we can label then we see it as it truly is, and this has repercussions. Thinking a rope is a snake prevents the rope being perceived correctly by your mind. You see an illusion, not what's truly there. In the same way, letting go of the concept that all things are individual and exist/do not exist,/neither/both allows you to more clearly perceive what is actually here.

 

In some forms of Buddhism, knowledge of emptiness is used to create bliss. After a time, the bliss helps promote the sense of emptiness, creating greater bliss, etc. until such a time when the direct perception of emptiness and bliss are continual. Bliss is useful, though not an end in itself.

 

In Ati, we use knowledge of reality to take us to an understanding that allows the appearance of useful states that appear naturally and spontaneously without meditating in the normal sense. The Tao:

 

To know without knowledge is best (i.e. to know reality without labelling it, knowing only those aspects of its fundamental nature that do not restrict it into being this or that.

Attaining perfect emptiness

Remain patient & sincere

The myriad beings arise as one (non-duality)

Through this we observe the return

Of beings in numberless multitudes

Each coming home to its root (each being revealed to be nothing other than one flux of movement without self-nature)

 

The Tao on understanding our non-dual nature:

 

The yielding becomes whole

The bent becomes straight

The hollow becomes replenished

The worn becomes renewed

The diminished becomes endowed

The plentiful becomes doubtful

This is why wise ones embrace unity

Adopting nature as model

Without self-display

And thus clear

Without self-righteousness

And thus distinguished

Without self-assertion

And thus having merit

Without self-glorification

And thus enduring

It is only when there is no contending

That none in the world can contend against them

The ancient ones had reasons to claim

“The accommodating becomes whole”

Is this (just) empty talk now?

(When) wholeness is real then one has come home (when non-duality is realised as factual, the student has begun to perceive reality correctly).

 

Emptiness is an observable scientific fact, not anything remote and spiritual. Nothing comes into existence without reliance on the other things that come before it, or without continuing to interact with its environment in tens of ways before it passes away. Nothing has inherent self, everything is a label applied to a set of aggregates.

 

The implications of this:

1) Isn't that nothing exists, that would be nihilism, it's an error to associate the terms 'voidness' and 'emptiness' with 'nothingness'. 'Voidness', refers to the fact that things are void of inherent self-existence, not of ALL existence.

2) Emptiness points to the positive too, not just negative. Reality would not exist without the interlinked flow of events (emptiness) that led to its appearance. Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.

3) That all is one in its empty nature.

 

Emptiness shows that things share a non-dual nature, meaning that nothing is apart from the whole. Non-duality doesn't mean that a fish is the same as a horse, but that all things share the same conditions (emptiness) and are therefore equal. Everything is one in emptiness.

 

 

Spelk

Edited November 8, 2011 by Spelk

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Everything is one in emptiness.

 

 

Nice contribution Spelk!

By Ati, you mean Maha Ati / Dzogchen?

 

@rene

glad to know there's an audience..

[Spelk]

Nice contribution Spelk!

By Ati, you mean Maha Ati / Dzogchen?

 

 

Thankyou, yes, Dzogchen, Nyingma tradition.

 

Spelk

[shine]

Form is emptiness and emptiness is form. The Diamond Sutra is great for a topic on emptiness.

 

We can in the beginning think of emptiness as that black hole we are starring into during meditation or the gap we finally realize between thoughts. Once the discrimative consciousness calms down and awareness becomes more experientally noticable, we can hold the gap or the darkness longer. We may think this is emptiness or void. Nirvana, emptiness without false thoughts arises is an Arhats emptiness and we should all strive to get there. However, even in this great emptiness there is still remainder. Only the middle path is perfect.

[Seth Ananda]

[Spelk]

Thanks spelk, and welcome by the way! {if relevant, I haven't seen you around anyway}

 

That is also how I view emptiness, and I am also following that tradition...

But even some Dzogchen texts, seem to sometimes refer to emptiness in a set of terms that are slightly different...

 

Hi Seth, nice to meet you too. Could you give me an example of the terms you're finding?

 

Spelk

[xabir2005]

Hi spelk, have you realized or recognised rigpa? How do you relate your view of emptiness to the three kayas and how does the view of emptiness relate with your practice?

[Spelk]

Hi spelk, have you realized or recognised rigpa? How do you relate your view of emptiness to the three kayas and how does the view of emptiness relate with your practice?

 

Hi Xabir. I'm not sure how extensive a reply you want so I'll be brief.

 

Yes, I've recognised rigpa.

 

The kayas are empty as three, empty as one.

 

How emptiness relates to practice depends on what level you're at and what techniques you're using. Initially, the gaining of a strong, inherent sense of emptiness (literally confidence in it as a basic facet of yourself and reality) is an important tool which helps break down your normal sense of duality. It's not used in isolation, but in conjunction with other similar understandings concerning reality, each helping balance out the other to help the student avoid thinking of reality or emptiness in the wrong or too extreme a way.

 

Eventually your appreciation of the empty nature of samsara and the cognizance of it go hand in hand. You aren't thinking 'emptiness is 'X' and applying it to your reality to make it empty, but knowing it already is empty in a very simple, natural way. It's also about the conclusions it leads you to, as it has an impact upon how and why you do subsequent techniques. Emptiness is a part of an understanding of the nature of realty, but not all of it.

 

In the Tao and other traditions, emptiness links the baseless extremes of yin and yang, shows the middle without self-essence. On natural direct perception of this the two truths of relative and ultimate reality dissolve into non-duality. i.e. - if you look at reality and know that it is without self nature and is non-dual then there are no 'two truths', all is one. If you look at reality without understanding what it is, then the two truths remain separated.

 

 

Spelk