Emptiness (sunnyata)

[Wayfarer]

 

That is a nice read but it is still confused.  See this "So I teach taiji through these nine stages, culminating in emptiness."

 

Nothing culminates in emptiness.  This implies that there was a stage when something was not empty, and then it becomes empty.  That is dualistic.  There is no becoming.  There only is.  

 

The Dao is a "thing" that is eternally unchanging and undisturbed (because there is nothing beyond itself to disturb it - there is only itself). However, it has an energy, and the energy forms in what we see around us, including us.  It is the "Li" of patterned-nature but it is still the one Dao.  We tend to get caught in the appearances and all the change but there is no change.  The Daoist principle of immortality is based on the realisation that you are actually the same as everything you are looking at... you are That which is unchanging, and therefore you cannot die.  

 

So, you are Dao appearing as you.  You are its energy manifest as you.  Nothing needs to transform, nothing needs to be done, nothing needs to be undone.  The only thing that changes when one "attains the Dao" is our understanding.

 

What confuses everything is because the Dao is still, but its energy is vibrant - and so all opposites are not opposites.  Dark is Dao and light is Dao, silence is Dao and noise is Dao, stillness is Dao and movement is Dao - where is the difference?

 

People can sit cross-legged, cycle energy up and down the spine, do qigong until energy shoots out of their ears - but nothing changes - you will be the same Dao before and after. 

 

Take it easy, mellow out, don't let your thinking get uptight. 

 

 

[Wells]

"Emptiness" is the most misunderstood spiritual concept ever.

[Starjumper]

36 minutes ago, Wells said:

"Emptiness" is the most misunderstood spiritual concept ever.

 

I'm listening.

 

I never bothered much about what 'emptiness' is supposed to mean, it sounds like some Buddhist hocus pocus.

 

Once someone told me to meditate on the Abyss, whatever that means, and once I jumped into the void, whatever that means.

Edited May 16, 2018 by Starjumper

[Wells]

1 hour ago, Starjumper said:

once I jumped into the void

 

Well, then you realized emptiness automatically.

[Wayfarer]

Yes, many people think they have to master something or become a sage - that there is some effort involved to "see/find" the Dao - but it's everywhere we look.  

[Marblehead]

10 hours ago, Starjumper said:

 

Once someone told me to meditate on the Abyss, and once I jumped into the void, whatever that means.

And it grabbed your ass and wouldn't let go.

 

Beware staring into the Abyss lest it begins staring back at you.

 

[Starjumper]

2 hours ago, Marblehead said:

And it grabbed your ass and wouldn't let go.

 

Ya, jumping into the void is a one way trip.

 

2 hours ago, Marblehead said:

Beware staring into the Abyss lest it begins staring back at you.

 

= )  I've heard that one, don't know what it means.  I also didn't know what it meant to 'meditate on the abyss', unless it simply meant no mind meditation.  So I tried staring into an imaginary abyss.  It produced an interesting sensation of traveling downwards a bit (abyss's are down) but nothing to write home about.

[Marblehead]

From this site:  http://sparegoggles.forumotion.net/t367-the-meaning-of-this-quote

 

 

"Its best if you take Nietzsche in context. That quote, is generally taken out of context, and in that frame, can be interpreted many ways. To fully understand what Nietzsche was saying, one must also look at the works of Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer felt that every single thought, idea, concept, image, symbol, representation, were distractions that prevented people from looking all the way into the heart of the black hole, the very abyss of self.
In a reaction to Schopenhuaer, Nietzsche retreated to his own concepts, the "eternal recurrence," the "will to power," and the "Ubermensch," thereby restricting his understanding of Schopenhauer. For Nietzsche, the abyss is nihilism where the core being and ethos of civilization collapses and the bottom of all culture falls away. Nietzsche accepts the all-too-early message that God is dead and peers into the abyss of nothingness, only to find meaninglessness and valuelessness. Hope, redemption, afterlife, and salvation are empty concepts that conceal the realization that existence is pointless."

 

 

It is my opinion that this is a very good interpretation of Nietzsche's thought at the time.

 

[Stosh]

I always figured it meant that if you looked critically into your soul, you wouldn't like what you thought of yourself and you would feel bad. 

I guess thats the problem with being too cryptic ,...

 

Existence being pointless means it has no plan , there is no way to fail , no definition of bad , its freedom. 

..of course,,,  you can still be in the yoke of self imposed guilt. 

Edited May 17, 2018 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

And let's not forget that Albert Camus said that life was absurd but still worth living.  He always strongly opposed being called a nihilist.

 

Some have tried to label Nietzsche a nihilist but they always fail to present any proof from his writings.

 

So yes, if your soul is empty and you go looking into the abyss of your soul all you will find in emptiness staring back at you.

 

[Stosh]

I don't think emptiness can do much staring. Mr Camus can present no comparison by which to conclude life absurd , nor that any particular life has a worth promotional of living other than ones self assessment. 

I wont label Nietzche anything , ,, broad labels are for gathering people under a single banner they don't really belong to. 

[Marblehead]

7 minutes ago, Stosh said:

I don't think emptiness can do much staring. Mr Camus can present no comparison by which to conclude life absurd , nor that any particular life has a worth promotional of living other than ones self assessment. 

You might be surprised at how well he handled that concept.

 

7 minutes ago, Stosh said:

I wont label Nietzche anything , ,, broad labels are for gathering people under a single banner they don't really belong to. 

I doubt any labelling of Nietzsche could be valid.  One of a kind, IMO.

 

[Stosh]

5 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

You might be surprised at how well he handled that concept.

Yes , I would.  

[Alchemical Walrus]

51 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

From this site:  http://sparegoggles.forumotion.net/t367-the-meaning-of-this-quote

 

 

"Its best if you take Nietzsche in context. That quote, is generally taken out of context, and in that frame, can be interpreted many ways. To fully understand what Nietzsche was saying, one must also look at the works of Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer felt that every single thought, idea, concept, image, symbol, representation, were distractions that prevented people from looking all the way into the heart of the black hole, the very abyss of self.
In a reaction to Schopenhuaer, Nietzsche retreated to his own concepts, the "eternal recurrence," the "will to power," and the "Ubermensch," thereby restricting his understanding of Schopenhauer. For Nietzsche, the abyss is nihilism where the core being and ethos of civilization collapses and the bottom of all culture falls away. Nietzsche accepts the all-too-early message that God is dead and peers into the abyss of nothingness, only to find meaninglessness and valuelessness. Hope, redemption, afterlife, and salvation are empty concepts that conceal the realization that existence is pointless."

 

 

It is my opinion that this is a very good interpretation of Nietzsche's thought at the time.

 

Nietzsche is perhaps one of the most misunderstood philosophers out there.

The man who feared nihilism and whose entire work was meant to construct an ethos that mankind could use independent of religion, which he thought would end, is commonly believed to have been a nihilist himself and whose work is doomed to be quoted out-of-context by the oh-so-edgy internet nihilists.

[Alchemical Walrus]

20 minutes ago, Stosh said:

I don't think emptiness can do much staring. Mr Camus can present no comparison by which to conclude life absurd , nor that any particular life has a worth promotional of living other than ones self assessment. 

Camus claimed life was absurd because there was no objective meaning to the universe, and yet mankind was compelled to find meaning for existence. Thus the futility of this existence, in which a being is compelled to seek something that does not exist, is what Camus thought was "absurd".

I think he errs in assuming there is a difference between meaning and nonmeaning.

[Alchemical Walrus]

On Emptyness, I know of a passage from the Quanzhen Book of Balance and Harmony that mentions two important steps that must be taken first before Emptiness can be cultivated: 

 

"Making one's essence complete, one can preserve the body. To do so, first keep the body at ease, and make sure there are no desires. Thereby energy can be made complete.
Making one's energy complete, one can nurture the mind. To do so, first keep the mind pure, and make sure there are no thoughts. Thereby spirit can be made complete.
Making one's spirit complete, one can recover emptiness. To do so, first keep the will sincere, and make sure body and mind are united. Thereby spirit can be returned to emptiness.
To attain immortality, there is nothing else but the refinement of these three treasures: essence, energy, spirit."

[Stosh]

14 minutes ago, Alchemical Walrus said:

Camus claimed life was absurd because there was no objective meaning to the universe, and yet mankind was compelled to find meaning for existence. Thus the futility of this existence, in which a being is compelled to seek something that does not exist, is what Camus thought was "absurd".

I think he errs in assuming there is a difference between meaning and nonmeaning.

People are what they are just like the universe, one has to imagine a person who doesn't fit the mold to compare to , whoever THAT is , who is NOT subject to being compelled to find external meaning , disproves the rule ,, and thus it can only be the people who Do need to find that external meaning who are callable as absurd, not life itself. 

 

If Camus is not one of those needing external meaning , then he should know its people who are absurd , in their own eyes. 

[silent thunder]

I tasted the despair of the void when I was younger.

 

More recently, it seems to reveal immense expansiveness and a clarity born of the utter freedom from all conceptual noise.  A deep resonant silent expanse of pure freedom from all the noisy makings of mind and phenomena.

 

Comforting and bouyant are the characteristics of it now.

 

In my youth, I couldn't see how it was possible to experience joy in the nihlism of Nietzche, but now, I'm surprised it took me as long as it did, to saturate in the resonant clarity and expansive, joyful freedom of it.

[Stosh]

7 minutes ago, silent thunder said:

I tasted the despair of the void when I was younger.

 

More recently, it seems to reveal immense expansiveness and a clarity born of the utter freedom from all conceptual noise.  A deep resonant silent expanse of pure freedom from all the noisy makings of mind and phenomena.

 

Comforting and bouyant are the characteristics of it now.

 

In my youth, I couldn't see how it was possible to experience joy in the nihlism of Nietzche, but now, I'm surprised it took me as long as it did, to saturate in the resonant clarity and expansive, joyful freedom of it.

Yep, it should work like that , but I think Buddhists warn not to get carried away, and aim for equanimity, having gone thus far. 

[silent thunder]

Solid advice from the Buddhists.  I agree with it. 

 

That's why I appreciate and use the term bouyancy... as it conveys the very neutral sense of weightlessness I experience in regards to relational phenomena, without the manic quality of intense happiness (which cannot be maintained without cost).

[Small Fur]

On March 19, 2017 at 7:43 AM, taoteching99 said:

Greetings everyone reading the post,

 

Want to ask something here,

 

Anyone familiar of practice that will give rise to the insight of emptiness (sunnyata)? How to give rise to emptiness?

 

[ am i deluded? Is emptiness only arise when one has far advanced in the path? ]

 

My currently understanding is this :

 

 

1. Any authentic cultivation must always return to this very moment,in the here ;

 

 

(sounds crazy isnt it? for where else can it/attention go :-) , i guest what im trying to say is not being distracted by any thoughts,imagination,memories etc...being drifted into future or past),

 

 

2. And the awareness that is being here ,that is to say,in the present moment ( one should not fall into stupor/dull state),that awareness must be very alert , so that any insights can arise .Wisdom wont arise in dull ,'stupid' state.

 

 

3.If alert seems to imply energetic,or effortful,and its better to relax,then perhaps the word 'alert' can be substituted with 'clarity'.(Very)CLEAR AWARENESS and yet, RELAX.

 

 

Simply stated,

 

 

CLEAR(CLARITY),VERY ALERT(NOT SLEEPY,DULL ETC...) and 

 

 

RELAX (this part is my main obstacle) awareness grounded in the present moment.

 

 

Another condition (in this practice )that one must has is : 

 

 

Investigative attitude : this is the strong desire to know the nature of experience (in this case emptiness -groundlessness of experience/phenomena)

 

 

What else is important/missing?

 

 

Thanks 

 

 

 

 

You touch upon many valuable qualities associated with the cultivation of emptiness that could use a more refined understanding through clarification, which I have specifically elaborated on in the following:

 

 

About “Authentic Cultivation”

 

Quote: "Any authentic cultivation must always return to this very moment,in the here ;

(sounds crazy isnt it? for where else can it/attention go :-) , i guest what im trying to say is not being distracted by any thoughts,imagination,memories etc...being drifted into future or past)"

 

Authentic cultivation has to do with one’s level of sincerity and willingness in truth. The capacity for presence allows for depth in one’s way of being. To note, one is not actually cultivating if they are not authentic in the process- meaning, if you are not in a state of sincerity and willingness for truth.  Going through the decorum of ritual or process movements that are considered cultivative is not necessarily cultivation;  in many ways, cultivation has less to do with what you are doing than how you are doing it.  Truthfulness and one’s focus in diligence of being will ultimately take you further than prescribed methods.

 

So then, when you are actually cultivating, there is, as a general, no ‘return’ to presence: You are present. That’s it. The cultivative state is the present state in which one exists in diligent focus. In this, there is no tension… one is not “trying to be” undistracted. One is simply, empty in themselves yet full in whatever practice they are engaged. 

 

‘Effortful practice’ is not prescribed, because it is born of desire and striving which are obstacles to the process of nothingness. What is necessary, to reiterate, is your state of diligence in sincerity to willingness for truth and your depth of presence.

 

 

About Awareness

 

Quote: "And the awareness that is being here ,that is to say,in the present moment ( one should not fall into stupor/dull state),that awareness must be very alert , so that any insights can arise .Wisdom wont arise in dull ,'stupid' state."

 

 

In your statement, I would be careful not to mistake hyper-viligence for awareness (which is a state driven by anxiety) or alertness for a state of mind. The awareness necessary for insight is a yang rooted in yin. This is to say, your conscience is engaged from stillness, these are energetic movements not psychological undertakings. 

 

And, by virtue of being present, one cannot be in a ‘dull stupor’.  Presence is not about the physicality of space and just happening to be there. Presence is about consciousness. And, given the one’s depth of consciousness, a wisdom may arise.

 

 

About Investigative Attitude

Quote: Investigative attitude : this is the strong desire to know the nature of experience (in this case emptiness -groundlessness of experience/phenomena)

 

“Investigation” suggests intellect and effortful striving from within the framework of an agenda.

As soon as you desire to intellectually grasp an idea about something that you don’t even understand- you have in effect lost sight of ‘it’ before you’ve even started. This is not a scientific method of hypothesis. This is the experience of existential consciousness. So, its important not to conceptualize and objectify the ‘nature of experience’ or else you will not recognize it. 

 

And in this, one does not bring ‘attitude’ or ‘self’ to this process of still witness. The more you infuse emptiness and nothingness with ideas and feelings/attidues of ‘you’ the further away you move from true witness.

 

In addition, emptiness is not a “groundless” state of being- that is a dangerous idea from which to move forth. It is an integral state of existence that you must be deeply rooted in yourself to fully recognize.

 

 

About Emptiness and Clarity and when it arises

Quote: "If alert seems to imply energetic,or effortful,and its better to relax,then perhaps the word 'alert' can be substituted with 'clarity'.(Very)CLEAR AWARENESS and yet, RELAX. " and "Is emptiness only arise when one has far advanced in the path? "

 

 

Emptiness is not clarity.

Clarity arises from insight within emptiness.

 

And no, emptiness does not arise when one is far along the path. It is the foundational recognition to beginning one’s walk along the path. So in fact, it is the initial step… (and also the last step, depending on what ‘level’ of emptiness you have fully recognized).

 

 

Quote: "How to give rise to emptiness?"

As to answer your foundational question about how to give rise to emptiness, my statements above reflect some guided re-direction of your perspective towards ways of being that might allow for greater recognition of sunyata, but the depth of process in such requires more specific and personal instruction than can actually be of impactful substance via a generic message board. If you are sincerely interested in beginning the process of knowing ‘yourself’ through emptiness, you are welcome to message me. 

[ion]

Sunyatta is just the shine on the Apple. Many people mistake the shine for the Apple.

 

The Apple the "right understanding" of dependent origin. Many people mistake the meaning of dependent origins with cause and effect, but the conventional view of cause and effect is dependent on delusion and thusa construct of delusion. 

 

An Apple has no shine, isn't shiney and does not shine.

An apple comes from a tree, but a tree comes from an Apple; if causes are effects how can they be causes? If effects are looked at as being causes, how can the be called an effect?

 

Heat can not in itself cause fire, it has no power of causation. Heat is not an independently occurring or independently existing phenomenon. It is a conditioned occurance.

 

A fire  is conditioned, the conditions  of a fire are heat, fuel and oxygen. No oxygen No fire, no fuel no fire, no heat no fire.

 

Each condition is a causative factor and each characterizes the fire equally.

 

A thing is empty of having its own characteristics ; characteristics are donated by the conditions; the characteristics are not the conditions them selves, and the conditions themselves are not the characteristics. 

 

If a things characteristics do not belong to them selves, and they do not belong to the co,editions they come from, how can any thing be called a self that has its very own existence, and that has things that belong to it? If nothing is a "self", how can anything else be an "other"?

 

If an Apple is emptiness having no nature of its own, no intrinsic being and no dualistic characteristics of its own or otherwise, how could it have a shine or be the producer of a shine?