Emptiness

[Kevin]

I've just finished the Dalai Lama's How to Practice: The Way to a Meaningful Life. In it, the Dalai Lama talks a lot about form and emptiness, which is something I've struggled for years to understand. Here's my understanding of what I read:

First off, there are two planes on which to understand reality: the conventional plane and the ultimate plane. That is, the common, phenomenological way of viewing reality and the deeper, unconventional plane, on which phenomena are seen for what they really are. These two planes intersect in our experience of them, with the conventional plane manifesting in the appearance of things (the form), and the ultimate plane manifesting in the reality underlying that appearance (the emptiness).

Assuming that is accurate, we come to dependent-arising and emptiness. All phenomena are dependent upon causes and conditions past and future, as well as on constituents of themselves (such as the body being dependent on the heart and brain, etc). Our perception of phenomena is also dependent on such things, as a lovely meal may, after eating too much, seem less inviting than it did before we began to eat. This is dependent arising.

Emptiness is observed when we recognize that all phenomena are dependent in this way, and thus lack inherent existence, which seems to be the ability of a given object or phenomenon to exist on its own, independent of causes, conditions, etc. They are empty of this inherent existence. Thus, we arrive at the truth of emptiness, which co-exists with the truth of dependent-arising (in fact, they depend on one another in terms of the logical explanation I just discussed). We perceive things in a conventional way, and they exist on that plane. However, simultaneously, these things are empty of inherent existence, dependent on causes and conditions, and thus are full of emptiness, which is realized on the ultimate plane.

This is my understanding of what I read. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Now, to my question. The Dalai Lama also says, at one point, that "mind [and consciousness] arises in dependence upon a former mind [or consciousness] of similar type, which requires that there had been an earlier beginningless continuum of mind [or consciousness]... there is no beginning of consciousness, and there is no end to it." However, when considering dependent-arising and emptiness, one arrives not at a position of nihilism, but at a position where the world and all its phenomena disappear and become mere constructions, leaving a vast open plane of emptiness with no phenomena of inherent existence contained within it. What, if anything, possesses inherent existence? If nothing possesses inherent existence, what gave rise to the "beginningless" continua of mind and consciousness?

Gassho,

Kevin

PS. By the way, long time, no post. It's good to be back at Treeleaf.

[Chogetsu]

Re: Emptiness

Hi Kevin.

I'm not too great on describing emptiness (or understanding it myself :| ). I think it can be seen differently by different traditions, and also by different individuals.

I'd just like to add though, according to the Heart Sutra:

Form Does not Differ From the Void,
And the Void Does Not Differ From Form.
Form is Void and Void is Form

Namaste

[Jundo]

Re: Emptiness

Hi Kev,

Good to see you.

I will just say that I have read your wonderful post twice and ... Oye, I have a headache. :shock:

Give me a little while, and I will try again and respond.

[disastermouse]

Re: Emptiness

Emptiness doesn't require a treatise or a long and tangled explanation. It can be directly seen. I would say that in order to be truly known, it must be directly seen. In a way, you are seeing it right now, but you don't realize it.

Not to diss His Holiness or anything...and not to detract from your explanation. At the bottom of it, one must ask, have you directly seen what you are describing?

Chet

[Brock]

Re: Emptiness

I like your description of emptiness and dependent arising, Kevin. I've worked on these concepts for a while now. I'd be glad to list some more readings on them if you're interested.

"...what gave rise to the "beginningless" continua of mind and consciousness?"

I don't think you're going to find that answer. I think that the usual description is that it has always been.

[Bansho]

Re: Emptiness

Hi Kevin,

Emptiness is the absence of self-nature, but doesn't 'exist' apart from form. It's not a vacuum or a void, and 'plane' of emptiness is far too abstract for my taste. It's not a thing, nor is it just an idea. Sunyata sunyata = emptiness of emptiness, as Nagarjuna would say. Where there is form, there is also emptiness and where there is emptiness, there is also form. Not identical, but not separate. I'm not saying that what you've said is necessarily wrong, but I think Soto folks tend not to think of it in such abstract terms as the Dalai Lama has presented it. In fact, we don't really 'think' of it all that much, we just live it in our daily activities.

However, when considering dependent-arising and emptiness, one arrives not at a position of nihilism, but at a position where the world and all its phenomena disappear and become mere constructions, leaving a vast open plane of emptiness with no phenomena of inherent existence contained within it.

Dogen Zenji took a different approach. For him, emptiness and dependent-arising didn't reduce phenomena to 'mere constructions', but rather revaluated them. All phenomena are empty and just because of their emptiness are each equivalent manifestations of ultimate reality in their own right. So he was more concerned with realizing emptiness than he was in transcending it. Pebbles, tiles, stones and fences. Dreaming, being awake, laughing, crying, delusion, enlightenment. All empty, all ultimate reality.

What, if anything, possesses inherent existence?

Nothing I've ever come across.

If nothing possesses inherent existence, what gave rise to the "beginningless" continua of mind and consciousness?

If anything did posess inherent existence, it couldn't give rise to anything or exhibit any relation to anything. That would be a dependency.

Hope that helps.

Gassho
Bansho

[Jinho]

Re: Emptiness

Hi Kev,

Good to see you.

I will just say that I have read your wonderful post twice and ... Oye, I have a headache. :shock:

Give me a little while, and I will try again and respond.

ditto from rowan.........

[Jinho]

Re: Emptiness

Greetings Kevin!

A quick side note. Your wonderful post just made me realize how much/often I frivolously dismiss a "wordy" bit of writing as being merely philosophical logic games instead of giving the piece the respect and serious attention it deserves. Lots of words does NOT equal delusion!

thanks again,
rowan
who really wants Avelox now..........

[jrh001]

Re: Emptiness

I've just finished the Dalai Lama's How to Practice: The Way to a Meaningful Life. ...
Now, to my question. The Dalai Lama also says, at one point, that "mind [and consciousness] arises in dependence upon a former mind [or consciousness] of similar type, which requires that there had been an earlier beginningless continuum of mind [or consciousness]... there is no beginning of consciousness, and there is no end to it." However, when considering dependent-arising and emptiness, one arrives not at a position of nihilism, but at a position where the world and all its phenomena disappear and become mere constructions, leaving a vast open plane of emptiness with no phenomena of inherent existence contained within it. What, if anything, possesses inherent existence? If nothing possesses inherent existence, what gave rise to the "beginningless" continua of mind and consciousness?

Hi Kevin,

One thing I learned from the Dalai Lama's discussions on dependent origination is that everything comes from somewhere and goes somewhere. It's relatively easy to see that the physical body comes from constituent elements and then dissolves back into those elements. What's harder to figure is that consciousness also comes from somewhere and goes somewhere but that's exactly what the Dalai Lama is saying.

The following quote also relates to your question.

"emptiness" means that there is nothing fixed and permanent inside anything, that all things, or beings, are made up of constituent elements and are "empty" of "own being," or existence only from their own side. Emptiness is not a thing but a condition of all existence.

I imagine that the "vast open plane of emptiness" is a state where you see things/phenomena as they really are.

As for your last question, Bansho's response is pointing in the right direction (but beware there's some heavy philosophy lurking in the background). Nothing can give rise to something that has no beginning. Something with no beginning is always there.

JohnH

[will]

Re: Emptiness

phenomenological way of viewing reality

Hey Kevin,

From what I know, which hopefully isn't much, there is just phenomenological experience. We can only see as far as the body will take us. Of course, there are perhaps some who have a depth of reality that surpasses the mundane, but that is not to say it is beyond phenomenology.

Things are exactly what they are. They present themselves as this. Sometimes they are a construction of thinking and viewpoint, and other times they are what they are. What this means is they are color, texture, smell, etc. Emptiness is form and form is emptiness is another way of saying "just open up and experience things directly" . A computer is really not a computer. We name it this, but it is made up of a myriad of things. We see the floor behind the computer and we say "that's the floor behind the computer" but really it is just color that your seeing sort of. So the computer doesn't end. It doesn't have a border. there is just the black edge of the screen and then brown carpet but without naming them screen and carpet. And while seeing is taking place there's lots of other stuff happening aswell. It's just direct experience. But it's easy to twist it into some sort of existential thought depending on how bodymind is. So when someone says you are perfectly you, well, that is exactly what you are (without the you).

So I guess it's okay for us to sit in the sun and have a glass of lemonade (with ice cubes of course).


Gassho

[Jundo]

Re: Emptiness

Hi Kevin,

Greetings Kevin!

A quick side note. Your wonderful post just made me realize how much/often I frivolously dismiss a "wordy" bit of writing as being merely philosophical logic games instead of giving the piece the respect and serious attention it deserves. Lots of words does NOT equal delusion!

thanks again,
rowan

Oh, Rowan is quite right. You ask about something very important. I was too tired yesterday to get my mind to focus.

What you write is right (at least up to where you write "Please correct me if I'm wrong."). But, in our Zen way, reducing these things to cut and dried formulas is less vital than the experience of them, for it is much like the difference between philsophizing about "sweetness and bitterness", and tasting each on one's own tongue. I think Chet said it well when he wrote:

Emptiness doesn't require a treatise or a long and tangled explanation. It can be directly seen. I would say that in order to be truly known, it must be directly seen. In a way, you are seeing it right now, but you don't realize it.

Right now, in our book club, we are reading the "Harmony of Difference and Absolute" which is about these same themes.

Another slight variation in how we treat this in our Zen way may be to see both form and emptiness as real and sacred. Yes, we should see through mere form into emptiness, but find nothing "wrong" with the form part once we do. In fact, Dogen taught that "emptiness" has no meaning or particular life to it without form ... much like a barren field is simply "barren" without trees, grass and stones to fill the field. Form IS emptiness realized, emptiness precisely form. All is sacred! Don't go in search of the barren field, and in doing so, tear out the trees, grass and stones. (I think Bansho was meaning this in his post above)

In our Zen way, we intentionally avoid much comment on whether there is or is not a "'beginningless' continua of mind and consciousness'". There is what is, there is not what's not ... and never forget that 'what?' when we drop all thought of "is" or is "not".(Yes, a Koan)

We do agree that "nothing possesses inherent existence". However, if that is the case, who is writing this posting, and who is the 'Kevin' who will read it? (Yes, another Koan).

One of the best descriptions of emptiness I found recently was suggested by Clyde ... "Where does your fist go when you open your hand?" We, and all phenomena, are constantly changing processes momentarily brought together by causes and conditions, like the hand which temporarily forms a fist. When the fist opens, where does it go? Where do you go, as life's fist opens each instant? We are not "nihilists", because we believe that "something remains" (although better than "something", we might say "not nothing" and "not not nothing" etc. etc.). As Uchiyama Roshi says, we just "Open the Hand of Thought".

Emptiness is just a perspective for us where all the separate stuff of this world (constantly bumping into each other, causing friction, rubbing up again each other) just drops away into a vision where no conflict and friction exists ... cause there is no separate stuff to do the bumping! But, we cannot stay there, and must return to this day to day world where we can taste peace, stillness and harmony even amid the apparent chaos and disharmony. So, we are not too concerned about whether "emptiness" is an actual "plane of existence" or "dimension" or "separate reality" (as some would have it) or just a "perspective" and "way of seeing" phenomena that drops away the separation and conflict.

I hope that helps and is clear.

Gassho, Jundo

PS- I also think the Dalai Lama's comments may be connected to the fact that he is more concerned about trying to rectify emptiness with rebirth. So, he needs some "continuum of consciousness" or the like to bridge lives together. That is very important to Tibetan Buddhism, which also has more of a tendency than Zen Buddhism to philosophize about nuts and bolts mechanics about some things. That may be why he is more concerned with the issue of showing and phrasing things that way. So, we might be satisfied to say that "emptiness" may be a real place or just a way to see things by which all separation and friction is dropped away ... while a Tibetan philosopher might need to spell out in much greater detail its characteristics, properties and how it fits as a cog in the great machine of rebirth. Something like that.

I sometimes compare this to some folks philosophizing about "ice cream", and our way of just tasting the coolness and sweetness on our own tongue. Something like that.

[Jundo]

Re: Emptiness

Hi John,

This is not directly on the topic (although really it is), but I want to ask you something as a Koan ...

Something with no beginning is always there.

But what about when you drop from mind "something" "no" "beginning" "always" and "there". What is there then?

[jrh001]

Re: Emptiness

Hi Jundo,

But what about when you drop from mind "something" "no" "beginning" "always" and "there". What is there then?

no words,
...no clouds,
......clear sky.

[Kevin]

Re: Emptiness

This is not directly on the topic (although really it is), but I want to ask you something as a Koan ...

Something with no beginning is always there.


But what about when you drop from mind "something" "no" "beginning" "always" and "there". What is there then?

Wouldn't that leave us "with is"? :wink:

It seems to me that Zen recognizes the seeming contradictions that arise from our abilities to mentally consider the experiences and perceptions we receive from many different angles, some of which may seem contradictory. This is one of the things I love about Zen, for so many other traditions, religious or otherwise, claim to possess the "one Truth", which is really just the truth as perceived from one specific vantage point.

Form and emptiness are similar in that they are different angles on the same perceptions, seemingly contradictory, but simultaneous and both true. This is like Dogen's method in Shobogenzo of looking at the same concept from the perspectives of idealism, objectivity, action, and reality, four perspectives which often provide seemingly contradictory interpretations until one steps back to perceive the stances of the observers giving rise to the perspectives (this stepped-back stance is the position of the perspective of reality, as I understand it).

I, personally, am in favor of the intellectualism (as my wordy posts can attest... sorry, Rowan :lol: ). It's not reality, but it's the tail of the Truth, which gives us something to hold onto while we pull ourselves up to rise on the shoulders of the Truth. In that old saying, where a mountain is just a mountain, then it's a complex system of etc etc, then it's just a mountain again. The intellectualization is the middle step. After all, isn't the Tao Te Ching (or Shobogenzo for that matter) just one big intellectualization? Isn't that why Lao Tzu was so (supposedly) reluctant to write it? I accept that one could arrive at the truth without the intellectualization, but I think the intellectualization step is also a valid path. Does that make me more Rinzai than Soto?

As far as inherent existence, I've been reading Jundo's BIG question series, in which Jundo expresses a personal belief in something (nature unknown) that brings order to the otherwise unfathomable coincidence that would have been required to bring us to our particular boat in our particular river. Perhaps this something possesses inherent existence? Perhaps whatever gave rise to that something possesses it? I admit that these questions have no relevance whatsoever to my practice here, today. But, it's still fun to think about, and every time I read anything related to Buddhism, I see allusions to inherent existence, even in the passages which seem to deny it in favor of emptiness and dependent-arising. Perhaps this is another of those seemingly contradictory perspectives on a single phenomenon that is inherently whole and uncontradictory?

Gassho,
Kevin

[disastermouse]

Re: Emptiness

Form and emptiness are similar in that they are different angles on the same perceptions, seemingly contradictory, but simultaneous and both true.

You can get lost in emptiness and imprisoned by form. Both are cases of forgetfulness, IMHO.

Also, 'emptiness' isn't really all that empty.

I, personally, am in favor of the intellectualism (as my wordy posts can attest... sorry, Rowan :lol: ). It's not reality, but it's the tail of the Truth, which gives us something to hold onto while we pull ourselves up to rise on the shoulders of the Truth. In that old saying, where a mountain is just a mountain, then it's a complex system of etc etc, then it's just a mountain again. The intellectualization is the middle step. After all, isn't the Tao Te Ching (or Shobogenzo for that matter) just one big intellectualization? Isn't that why Lao Tzu was so (supposedly) reluctant to write it? I accept that one could arrive at the truth without the intellectualization, but I think the intellectualization step is also a valid path. Does that make me more Rinzai than Soto?

Unfortunately, you may come to an intellectual realization of some of these things and mistakenly think you really know something. Intellectualizing this leads you invariably away from seeing it. It's the mind, the ego, that has to know that is responsible for all this chatter. What's telling here is the motivation. The part of the mind that needs the security of an intellectual understanding is the part of the mind that doesn't, cannot in fact, stop seeking and simply look plainly at one's experience. You have to be brave enough to not know.

As far as inherent existence, I've been reading Jundo's BIG question series, in which Jundo expresses a personal belief in something (nature unknown) that brings order to the otherwise unfathomable coincidence that would have been required to bring us to our particular boat in our particular river. Perhaps this something possesses inherent existence? Perhaps whatever gave rise to that something possesses it? I admit that these questions have no relevance whatsoever to my practice here, today. But, it's still fun to think about, and every time I read anything related to Buddhism, I see allusions to inherent existence, even in the passages which seem to deny it in favor of emptiness and dependent-arising. Perhaps this is another of those seemingly contradictory perspectives on a single phenomenon that is inherently whole and uncontradictory?

And this is a great demonstration of my previous point.

IMHO, IANAT.

Chet