Nagarjuna question : why is emptiness "therapeutic" ?

[Bion]

Hello !

I 'm reading Nagarjuna again, as i do from time to time, and the commentator said in the preface that Nagarjuna fought against a "metaphysical" view of buddhism and was rather defending a "therapeutical" approach - which, according to what i read, is how buddhism is supposed to be understood.

Okay, so my question follows : how is emptiness (which i understand as the absence of things existing by themselves) therapeutic ? How does it help with suffering ? Nagarjuna often writes about emptiness meaning that all is calm, appeased. Why ?

I mean, even if i know that my suffering is empty, i still suffer !

Uggy (tried to make it short),

Sat today

LAH

If I may, emptiness is the LACK OF INDEPENDENT EXISTENCE OF THINGS.. which translates into “nothing exists on its own, but is a consequence or product of other factors”. Applying that to “suffering”, we get what the Buddha found : suffering has a cause and thus a solution, so if we figure out the causes, phenomena, conditions that create our suffering we also find the way to eliminate it. What could be more therapeutic than realizing we are the sole owners of the solution to our own suffering?

[emoji1374] SatToday lah

[Inshin]

If I may, emptiness is the LACK OF INDEPENDENT EXISTENCE OF THINGS.. which translates into “nothing exists on its own, but is a consequence or product of other factors”. Applying that to “suffering”, we get what the Buddha found : suffering has a cause and thus a solution, so if we figure out the causes, phenomena, conditions that create our suffering we also find the way to eliminate it. What could be more therapeutic than realizing we are the sole owners of the solution to our own suffering?

[emoji1374] SatToday lah

Is the suffering /or happiness truly "ours"?

Gassho
Sat

[Bion]

Is the suffering /or happiness truly "ours"?

Gassho
Sat

We can get into the zen of it, but ultimately, we feel what we feel, and understanding we are the creators of the same emotions we experience - so there isn’t really a subject and object, but really one unit - won’t really make any of it go away. The same way my realizations are mine alone and can not be transmitted, my particular suffering is unique to me and my causes. And it’s fine for things to be like that, because what I experience you can experience, so there’s nothing human that can be alien to me - as Maya Angelou said - which puts us as humans in the uniquely privileged position of being able to show empathy and compassion and care for others.

[emoji1374] SatToday lah

[Jundo]

If I may, emptiness is the LACK OF INDEPENDENT EXISTENCE OF THINGS.. which translates into “nothing exists on its own, but is a consequence or product of other factors”. Applying that to “suffering”, we get what the Buddha found : suffering has a cause and thus a solution, so if we figure out the causes, phenomena, conditions that create our suffering we also find the way to eliminate it. What could be more therapeutic than realizing we are the sole owners of the solution to our own suffering?

[emoji1374] SatToday lah

In the Mahayana, emptiness is much more than only the lack of independent existence of things (although it is that too), but is also the wholeness and union of all things beyond all independent existence.

In early Buddhism, the cause is simply desire ... the desire that things be different from how they are. If we are satisfied with how things are, there is no suffering in a Buddhist sense, e.g., sickness, death or loss is only "suffering" (Dukkha) in a Buddhist sense when we desire not to be sick etc. and do not accept the sickness, death or loss. The treatment (also found in Shikantaza) is radical equanimity accepting all conditions "just as it is."

So, it is a little different from "if we figure out the causes, phenomena, conditions that create our suffering we also find the way to eliminate it." We can do so in a worldly sense, for sure (e.g., I can go to the doctor, find out the cause of my sickness and get medicine, which is a good thing). But in Buddhism, the attitude is equanimity and the dropping of all desire to change anything, even the sickness! Accept the sickness as the sickness. (The result is that we can go to the doctor and take medicine AND accept the sickness thoroughly ALL AT THE SAME TIME.)

In the Mahayana, however, as seen by Ancestor Nagarjuna and the other Zen masters, there is from the start no sickness, death or loss, and nobody to be sick or die, nothing to be gained or lost, in the wholeness of flowing emptiness ... just as there can be no loss or gain to the ocean even if waves rise or fall, waters appear to turn stormy or still, on its surface.

Both "treatments" for human suffering and "neurosis" are found in Shikantaza in its radical equanimity, flowing with conditions, and dropping from mind of all thoughts of me and you, this and that, sickness vs. health, birth and death, plus or minus, gain or loss.

Thus THOROUGHLY accept the sickness to the marrow AND go to the doctor for a cure AND ... what "sickness?" and what "doctor?" and what "patient"?

(sorry for running long, though "just what is" too).

Gassho, Jundo

STLah

[Bion]

In the Mahayana, emptiness is much more than only the lack of independent existence of things (although it is that too), but is also the wholeness and union of all things beyond all independent existence.

In traditional Buddhism, the cause is simply desire ... the desire that things be different from how they are. If we are satisfied with how things are, there is no suffering in a Buddhist sense, e.g., sickness, death or loss is only "suffering" (Dukkha) in a Buddhist sense when we desire not to be sick and do not accept the sickness, death or loss. The treatment (also found in Shikantaza) is radical equanimity accepting all conditions "just as it is."

So, it is a little different from "if we figure out the causes, phenomena, conditions that create our suffering we also find the way to eliminate it." We can do so in a worldly sense, for sure (e.g., if I find out the cause of my sickness, I can go to a doctor and get medicine, which is a good thing). But in Buddhism, the attitude is equanimity.

In the Mahayana, however, as seen by Ancestor Nagarjuna and the other Zen masters, there is no sickness, death or loss, and nobody to be sick or die, nothing to be gained or lost, in the wholeness of flowing emptiness ... just as there can be no loss or gain to the ocean even if waves rise or fall, waters appear to turn stormy or still, on its surface.

Both "treatments" for human suffering and "neurosis are found in Shikantaza in its radical equanimity, flowing with conditions, and dropping from mind of all thoughts of me and you, this and that, sickness vs. health, birth and death, plus or minus, gain or loss.

(sorry for running long, though "just what is" too).

Gassho, Jundo

STLah

Thanks for that explanation!

[emoji1374] SatToday lah

[Jundo]

I haven't read Nagarjuna, but I suspect that "Emptiness" being therapeutic in the human context has something to do with unification of the mind (Culadasa - makes so much sense to me).
There are different chaotic notes, seemingly separate, each with their karmic trace and need for attention. Realising Emptiness is a bit like arranging them into a musical peace, so there's suffering but it's not anymore "exclusively yours", there's space for joy, beauty and everything else, like Umami, one taste composed of various different ingredients, which can be diferenciated but form One taste.
Stories I read about Tibetan monks inmprisoned in Chinese camps, being able to maintain their practice, freedom and look at their oppressors with the eyes of compassion are fascinating.

Gassho
Sat

I don't have a problem with the above so long as it leaves room for the unpleasant tastes ... anger, disappointment, sadness, ugliness, loss ... in Emptiness too, letting them all flow away into the waters of the sea together with joy, beauty, peace ... all of it met with the equanimity of "just what it is" (the lack of equanimity is, in fact, the cause of anger, disappointment, sadness, measures of ugliness and loss). Both joy and sadness, beauty and ugliness, must be met with equanimity and flowing with conditions.

As well, we drop away all thought of beauty and ugliness, joy and sadness into emptiness, and all washes away.

If we simply make room for joy, beauty and nice things, then it strikes me as somewhat pop-psychology and self-help book stuff which, unfortunately, is found in many corners of Buddhism and new age writing now. Western people just want to feel happy and have nice things, but we must also face the less pleasant aspects of life.

The result of our practice, however, is a kind of overriding "It's Okay" and Big Peace of the world which holds all peace and disturbance (A Big "P" Peace that holds all the broken pieces of the world, sharp or round), a kind of Big "B" Beauty to the universe which sweeps in all the beauty and ugliness of the world, win and lose, sickness and health, birth and death. However, alas, it will not make this world of samsara always peaceful and beautiful in human sense.

Gassho, J

STLah