Different ways of describing Emptiness

[deci belle]

+1 Spelk's comment

 

"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".

 

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

 

This is not only knowledge of the absolute but also of the relative. Sure, we all can look to this absolute as some sublime thing and see that as emptiness, but even when we contemplate suchness as being empty of emptiness and say so— or even know so …there is that which hovers in the void; an image arrives as we first turn the wheel: this too is empty. Not because it is a vision but because it is the knowledge of subsuming sameness. And this sameness is empty too. There is no end to this nonsense. Beyond sense. Inconceivability, aware, living, presence.

 

The created is empty and the uncreated is empty of emptiness, but when this is activated in real life situations, how is this brought to bear? By this same nonsense that arrives at suspension of self and other; presence, living, inconceivably aware sameness. Activating sameness is removing what appears until there is nothing to perceive but suchness in ordinary affairs.

 

When we experience multifarious worldly affairs in our everyday ordinary situations, nondwelling activation of mind cannot adhere to characteristics while self and other cannot be denied in terms of karmic evolution. This is how we see suchness through ordinary situations— not just because we see through conditional manifestation, but because the conditional is the same as suchness. There is absolutely no difference in truth.

 

Through the power of knowledge of emptiness of self and other, we learn to practice through the potential of nonbeing, unborn and undying.

 

There really is something to these teachings after all. Of course, I'm only describing emptiness in terms of sameness, living, aware, presence, inconceivable.

 

(ed note: +1 Spelk's comment and change "suchness" to "sameness" in last line)

Edited November 18, 2011 by deci belle

[Spelk]

I'm intrigued by the idea that Taoists and Buddhists have a different idea of what emptiness is. Emptiness was introduced into the Tao from Buddhism, and the assumption seems to be that a different meaning of it evolved - in part due to losing some of the original meaning during the translation into Chinese Buddhist terms. But the meaning is still there, described by the Tao in just the way that any Buddhist would think of the term. I know that some people prefer the Tao to remain subjective so that they can have their own meaning. I understand that and don't want to deny them that at all.

 

I did a quick Wiki for a concise view of Taoist emptiness. Not the best source at times, I know, but I think accurate enough here:

 

"Taoism

 

In Taoism, attaining a state of emptiness is viewed as a state of stillness and placidity which is the "mirror of the universe" and the "pure mind".[24] The Tao Te Ching claims that emptiness is related to the "Tao, the Great Principle, the Creator and Sustainer of everything in the universe". It is argued that it is the "state of mind of the Taoist disciple who follows the Tao", who has successfully emptied the mind "of all wishes and ideas not fitted with the Tao's Movement". For a person who attains a state of emptiness, the "still mind of the sage is the mirror of heaven and earth, the glass of all things", a state of "vacancy, stillness, placidity, tastelessness, quietude, silence, and non-action" which is the "perfection of the Tao and its characteristics, the "mirror of the universe" and the "pure mind"..."

 

Let me just reword that a little:

 

"In Buddhism, attaining a state of emptiness (Kensho in Zen) is viewed as a state of stillness and placidity which is the "mirror of the universe" and the "pure mind".

 

[24] Buddhism claims that emptiness is related to the "Dharmakya, the Great Principle, the Creator and Sustainer of everything in the universe". It is argued that it is the "state of mind of the Buddhist disciple who follows the Path of knowing emptiness and Dharmakaya", who has successfully emptied the mind "of all wishes and ideas not fitted with the path". For a person who attains a state of emptiness, the "still mind of the sage is the mirror of heaven and earth, the glass of all things", a state of "vacancy, stillness, placidity, tastelessness, quietude, silence, and non-action" which is the "perfection of Dharmakaya and its characteristics, the "mirror of the universe" and the "pure mind"..."

 

Our emptiness is the same, our goal is the same, via exactly the same states of mind.

 

I would be very interested in discussing what people think of as our differences regarding the subject of emptiness. I'm sincerely not doing this to be confrontational, on the contrary, I want to show not only how much we share, but also point people towards useful texts that Taoists can use to actualise an experience of emptiness/the Tao/Dharmakaya. All the terms above are commonly used in Taoist texts, and they're just the same as those that we would use in Ati.

 

To help reduce the number of ideas this might attract, can replies more concern what the Tao and its Sages say on the subject, then there's a consistent view.

 

Spelk

Edited December 3, 2011 by Spelk

[Vmarco]

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!

 

Although Traditions, Lineages, Schools and subSchools discuss Emptiness from many intellectual viewpoints, few dialogue on Emptiness from Emptinesses point of view.

 

Shantideva said:

"Relative and absolute,

These the two truths are declared to be.

The absolute is not within the reach of intellect,

For the intellect is grounded in the relative."

 

Nearly all Traditions, Lineages, Schools and subSchools advocate an intellectual theory that if the relative is empty, then the absolute must be empty,...and thus why they will never realize Empty, even of the relative, and consequently, will never realize compassion.

 

Keep in mind, the path to uncovering buddhic awareness is quite simple,...a Tathagata arises from a Bodhisattva,... a Bodhisattva arises from compassion,...without understanding emptiness, compassion is impossible.

 

Allow me to rephrase that in words of Robert Thurman's (which is shared by HH Dalai Lama) "Buddhist teachings on compassion are grounded in the direct realization of Emptiness; without which, compassion is impossible."

 

A good point of entry into the subject of Buddhist Emptiness is the Mountain Doctrine,...which focuses more on Empty being a relative phenomena,...which is to say, as Shakyamuni implied in the Mahaparanirvana, that not all is Empty.

 

Interestingly, HH Dalai Lama has been embracing the Jonang insistance that there is a permanant noumenon,...which I call Undivided Light.

 

To summarize,...there is no genuine compassion without understanding Emptiness,...all intellectualized constructs of compassion are meaningless beyond the relative. The relative does not exist.

 

Without understanding Light, attempts to realize Emptiness are pretty much useless. Thus, without understanding Light, the realization of compassion is impossible.

 

Did the Light of Asia understand Light? Certainly! And if physics was better understood in those days, he would have use such a topic.

 

Actually, all you need to understand light is right within this forum:

 

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/19803-what-is-light/

 

V