Buddhism in a nutshell.

[Bollinger]

Hi Kathie,

This is more like it; a discussion that questions, probes, explains, verifies and demonstrates by example or action.

Let’s take this statement as a starter.

With regard to your religious formula, to be honest, I don't have a big goal in mind. Enlightenment? Nah - I put x and y into practice, and see what I get. If it is helpful, I continue. If it's not, I adjust x and y accordingly and try again.

You say you don’t have a big goal in mind. I do. I’d like to see an end to world hunger, disease, scarcity and cruelty? As goals go, they don’t come much bigger than that. Will I use Buddhism to do it? No. Am I doing anything else about it? I don’t know; very hard to tell. I may be contributing to it; you may be contributing to it. I go to work, I help some company make lot’s of money (as most of us here do) in return for which I get paid a tiny fraction of the profit, but do I know how they spend the money I help them make, where it goes, or whether it does harm or good? No. And I cannot know. Can Buddhism or any other religion or philosophy help find out? No, it can’t. So you can see that a religion or philosophy is only ever useful to the first person. It does nothing for everyone else

Let’s take another paragraph.

My feeling as to the definition of religion is that there is the need for a belief of some kind. A set of ideas that can't be substantiated but rely on "faith". If you knew the first thing about Buddhism, you'd know that there is absolutely no belief system. Did you read the quotation I put on the thread about the importance of critical thinking? When we go to teachings, we sometimes spend a whole day just analysing and discussion one sentence: there are so many meanings and interpretations, and there are so many stages of understanding. The whole point is to question and question and question until there are no questions left. The practice is to get rid of filters - which is not a quick fix.

You say Buddhism is not a belief system. We can prove it is by negation. If Buddhism is not based on a belief system, let us assume it is a science. If it is a science, its tools must be repeatable, observable and provable by empirical, mathematical or logical inference not just by the first person but anyone. As it does not lend itself to this, it is therefore based on belief.

If you disagree, define Buddhism in say 50 words and let’s see if other Buddhists agree. If I say to you that 2 + 2 = 4, would it not be foolish to argue against that? If I say Buddhism is the greatest doctrine in the world, you would instantly create a divide because it is based on subjective opinion and that leads us straight to faith.

If therefore, people who call themselves Buddhists, like your good self, insist that one of the tenets of Buddhism is critical thinking and that it encourages analysis and discussion – that doesn’t actually make it a science or something other than a religion. Perhaps that’s the source of the confusion. There may in fact be a great deal in Buddhism with which I would agree if I took the time to study it in depth but the point is any book on the philosophy of ethics would probably do just as well if the subject being discussed was rooted in ethics. So you see now how I look at things and how little impression grand “isms” make on me.

Finally, yes, I agree the point is to question and question and question but do we really need Buddha to tell us that? Can we not work this out for ourselves? Of course we can. There is nothing that any religion can claim to bring to this world that cannot be brought without it and Buddhism is no exception.

Here is a challenge. Name 5 things that you have gained from Buddhism that you could not have gained in any other way.

[Dennis Leahy]

Posted by Bollinger (here)
...

...define Buddhism in say 50 words and let’s see if other Buddhists agree.

...

Here is a challenge. Name 5 things that you have gained from Buddhism that you could not have gained in any other way.

heheheheh I reject your challenge! I cannot describe a drop of water in 50 words.

Left brained Buddhism?

A Venn diagram showing Christian/Biblical concept of reality would include at least 2 non-intersecting circles, maybe a third. One circle for God, one for the physical Universe (including humanity/Earth), and perhaps a third for heaven.

A Venn diagram of Buddhist concept of reality would have either a single circle, or a blank sheet of paper. Every atom of physical matter, every charge of plasma is all God. God=Universe. You could decide that the single circle was the correct way to diagram it (all individual "things" in the Universe contained within the Universe), or that a blank sheet of paper (no individual "things" actually exist) is more correct. Individuating things is a human mental construct. No things = nothing. So, "nothingness" isn't emptiness but rather the acceptance that individual "things" do not really exist individually.

In Christian concepts, it might be accepted that all of the individual creatures are in an interdependent food-web, for example, but it would not be said that there is only one thing (or no thing, nothing) in the Universe. (Or that we humans, even the most evil, are pieces of God.)

I would agree that there are religious bumper-stickers that have been stuck to Buddhism. Ritual, prayer, lighting incense or a candle, spinning a prayer wheel - I suspect that those activities would be ignored by a "Buddha conscious being" (my outsider's guess at some sort of encapsulated "being" that has the real, full awareness of oneness. Note that I don't have this perspective and can only guess, but suspect that in that state, the Buddha ceases to exist as an individual. Only by temporarily abandoning that state and "taking up residence", encapsulated "in" a body - from human perspective - can this being communicate to other humans.)

Taking a bite of an apple, feeling the wind, or going to the bathroom are probably equally as powerful as chanting or meditation, to a Bodhisattva. My impression is that none of the trappings of Buddhism are Buddhism - yet the trappings are the way some wish to describe Buddhism, thus making it seem to be a religion. With all the trappings gone, we are left with just the consciousness of the Buddha, and we humans tag it as "philosophy." It isn't that tag, either, but it certainly isn't religion.

Imagine studying for a lifetime about the ocean, while living in an inland desert. Imagine having the highest level of (scientific, didactic, empirical) knowledge of the ocean. Then one day, this person actually arrives at the ocean. Experiences the sound, the feeling of the waves of sound, of air, of water, and of energy. Experiences walking into the ocean - buoyed, jostled, caressed, danced. Experiences the ions of the dissolved salts and minerals infusing into skin - the division between ocean and human body becoming less and less distinct, the pulse of ocean and heart becoming one... this experiential knowledge - in one instant - supersedes all knowledge gained before that point. Buddhism is not left-brained. The way Jill Bolton Taylor describes her experience, it might appear that Buddha consciousness is right-brained, but I suspect the right brain may only be the portal to "one-brained", or "no-brained" experience.

I'm kinda like an early version of the desert-dwelling, casual "scholar" of the ocean. But at least I know what I don't know. I know I don't know Buddha consciousness, other than fragmentary glimpses, but certainly nothing deeply all-encompassing. So, can I say for sure that Buddhism provides some tools to help a seeker experience Buddha consciousness? Not yet.

Buddhists are not trying to find five things. Just One. (Or, "none.")

Dennis

[Seikou-Kishi]

A meditating person is like a fountain. If you pay him any attention when you do not need him, you might think him useless – maybe even a show-off – but if you go to him when you are thirsty, he might just give you what you need.

A person of high vibration can energise those around them and lift up their vibration to match. It is like a tuning fork; if the fork is covered in dust when the piano key is struck, not only will it vibrate in response but it will shake off its dust.

Sometimes appearing to do nothing is the best thing you can do. We can all think how much better it would be if only the right (wrong?) people decided to do nothing. If the chemtrail pilot decided to stay at home. If the 'fluoridaters' realised they just couldn't be bothered any more. How many times have we gone to comfort friends and family and felt helpless, looking for something to do to help and they've said "just be here".

------------------------------

I'm sorry to see you go Tony. If you would reconsider I could only welcome such news.

[Black Panther]

The forum is like life. As above, so below. There are a lot of
freemasons and other people in this world I don't have much
sympathy for . And so there are trolls here on Avalon
and so there is negativy here too. But we can always choose to
focus on the positive or the negative. Or even better, looking at
negativity without letting the words / information change the way we feel.

Maybe you have to look at the thread you started yourself:
Don't give up on Avalon

It's ok to change your mind!

If you really leave the forum, don't think you finally get rid of me.
I still have your email address

I want to say to other members: I think it's important to stay together
on Avalon in the exciting times we live in. Together we are really strong!

[Shadowman]

Posted by Bollinger (here)
Name 5 things that you have gained from Buddhism that you could not have gained in any other way.

Hi Bollinger,

Buddhism is not so much about gaining things, but about losing illusions.
Most people take what is unreal as real, and what is real as unreal.
The four noble truths outline our situation, as it appears,
and the eightfold noble path offers a systematic approach to ultimately
see the real as real, and the unreal as unreal.

Nibbana (Pali) or Nirvana (Sanskrit) is not so much a goal
as the disidentification with that which is transient and phenomenal
hence it is sometimes equated with blowing out a candle flame.
What appears, undisguised, when the ego dissolves, is beyond description.
Which is why parables and metaphors are used as fingers pointing at the moon.
Many however, get caught up on the fingers, instead of seeing where they are pointing.

The essence of this awakening/realization is found in all religions
but given the difficult nature of transmitting or teaching a qualitative reality
which is beyond, yet includes the mind, those still identified with 3rd dimensional
forms and concepts, often misunderstand what is being offered, or try to put it
into a context with what they already know.

Hence we have the followers of the God of Love (Christians) warring with
the followers of the God of Peace (Islam). So I understand your disdain for
organized religion/belief systems.

I always try to go to the source rather than commentaries by the pundits and boffins,
you only need read the Dhammapada, the Diamond Sutra or the Heart Sutra by Siddhartha
to get a feel for it, highly recommended if you are so inclined.

In this world
Hate never yet dispelled hate.
Only love dispels hate.
This is the law,
Ancient and inexhaustible.

Though one may conquer a thousand times a thousand men in battle,
yet he indeed is the noblest victor who conquers himself.

Buddha - Dhammapada.


Cheers,
tim

[Shadowman]

[QUOTE=Dennis Leahy;448594]

Posted by Bollinger (here)
...

But at least I know what I don't know. I know I don't know Buddha consciousness, other than fragmentary glimpses, but certainly nothing deeply all-encompassing.

Hi Dennis,

Perhaps it is Buddha consciousness that allows you to know that you don't know Buddha consciousness,
and to know what you don't know. Don't ask me though, the older I get the less I know, you know?

Namaste ( In an old skool acknowledge your Buddha consciousness sort of a way, not a new age
uninformed hipster sort of a way, just to be clear, in case the Eagle is hovering )
tim

[Bollinger]

This thread appears to have morphed into a philosophical discussion on the practice of “my religion is better than your religion”. It should be noted that we humans, without exception, have this unrelenting habit of always grading and comparing everything: Beethoven against Mozart, Christianity against Islam, Football against Cricket or more generally perhaps in spiritual matters; one faith versus another. Has anyone considered why this might be? What’s the psychology here? Why do we need to do this?

I would suppose that it all stems from the need to compete. Where does that come from? I don’t even think it’s as simple as saying that it is the ego. I would say it has more to do with our fundamental purpose of existence in this state. What is this state? Obviously we are not cabbages. We are inquisitive, but we cannot desire knowledge without purpose. We need to apply it to something to make its discovery worthwhile and meaningful: whether it means we can use it to build bridges and propel rockets or reach an inwardly satisfying state of what we might term as enlightenment, oneness or awakening.

In my thought process the last three nouns in the paragraph above have no tangible meaning but I know exactly what a bridge or a rocket is and I know there are well defined empirical as well as mathematical concepts that hold together the science behind it. What that does is very valuable in this world. It means an architect can use (repeat) the same science with absolute certainty that if the calculations are right, the building will stay upright against reasonable forces acting on it or the car will actually go round a bend at good speed without rolling over. But that’s rather boring for most because it has been done many times and hardly anyone questions it. If you consider these things to be illusions, I would say that they are extremely useful ones.

Given the theme of this thread, let’s get back to the three nouns: enlightenment, oneness and awakening. I think those are the spoils over which the main protagonists are struggling to reach – if not, I don’t really know what else it can be.

My first instinct is to define clearly and accurately each word and agree on it. Unfortunately, that is where the difficulty arises. In human terms, our inner construct dictates that if we cannot properly define and agree on something, we need to invent an exit route in order to make accessible to us that which we cannot define otherwise not only does it remain beyond our reach but we can’t even so much as talk about it.

The thing that strikes me about these slippery concepts (enlightenment, oneness, and awakening, or EOA for short) is that they are frequently put into phrases all over this forum and I’m pretty sure they mean quite different things to different people. Not only that; the main components of these definitions change from day to day or experience to experience. I’ll give you an example. I was watching a documentary last night about Catholicism and one person said they converted from Buddhism to Catholicism because they felt “something was missing”. Well something is missing from that explanation because they cannot define what is missing. It just demonstrates that all religions consist of a measure of indoctrination coupled with a deep desire for “meaning” and as we’re all different, we will be led by various aspects of our personal nature and experience.

For example, out of the millions of people who pray to the saints every day for favours, a small number will actually witness something resembling what they prayed for. For devout Christians, those few instances of success reinforce the veracity and power of their religion whereas the large majority of failure is looked upon as the will of God. So every eventuality is explained and everyone’s happy. How do you say to such people; sorry but the evidence would suggest a random event took place and nothing more than that can be read into it.

Coming back to EOA, we can perhaps loosely agree that they are different faces of the concept we call spirituality; a word that provides a generic placeholder for all beliefs and faiths. It seems therefore that if we stick to generic terms rather than details (because we all know that’s where the devil lives) we can quite happily sing together and no one will mind the odd deviation from the main tune so long as it is done with due politeness, solemnity and respect.

Every now and again, like the episode between Tony and Bob, an irreconcilable difference occurs because they have both, over many years, been embroiled in deep practice and detailed study of a particular subject (Buddhism as it happens in this case) and now find themselves upon a cliff edge on opposite sides of a huge canyon. The detail will get you every time if you go deep enough. This takes us back to the original problem that if something cannot be well defined, it will eventually lead to bitter disagreement and resentment.

It’s not only in religion that this happens. It takes place in relationships for example. If you look at it closely, you’ll see that even the concept we call love is a religion. You practice x and y to achieve z when none of those steps or the end goal (love) are (or can be) properly defined or understood. Who can say what love is? We know it’s a “nice” emotion or pleasurable physical interaction, but is that love? We know it can bring tears of joy or disarm certain situations but in the absence of something lasting and real, we latch on to it like leeches and worship it to death because it mysteriously shows itself in highly specialised situations and even then, like alcohol, it is fleeting and soon evaporates, leading us straight back to the boring parity of just passing time.

Buddhism is basically another form of art that is practiced by those drawn to it. Like a master painting or a piece of gorgeous music, we are excited by it and feel compelled to see or listen more and of course we may go all the way and become masters of it ourselves or just “play” on the fringes. It doesn’t matter. You will still find people who hate Beethoven’s music for example and it leaves those who understand and appreciate him aghast that people so inclined can possibly even exist; and yet they do. So, if I’ve explained it well enough, it means that all we are doing (whatever we practice or preach, including Buddhism) is following our own inclination in a certain sphere which is just the resultant vector of a million other experiences. It’s an incredibly diverse world.

Having said all of that, let me just deal with one or two statements in Tim’s post because he’s just appeared on the scene here and is obviously a keen proponent of Buddhism and wishes to reiterate some clichés that we’ve probably heard before.

Buddhism is not so much about gaining things, but about losing illusions.
Most people take what is unreal as real, and what is real as unreal.
The four noble truths outline our situation, as it appears,
and the eightfold noble path offers a systematic approach to ultimately
see the real as real, and the unreal as unreal.

This is a supreme piece of sophistry that has absolutely no meaning. These statements are exactly the sort of thing I’m talking about when I say that unless something is well defined and understood, it can be nothing but a religion. How can we possibly take what is real or unreal as the benchmark if we have no way of defining what is real in the first place? Here is an analogy. Two observers in space with no third point of reference experience that they are moving closer to each other but only one of them is in motion, the other is stationary. How does one or the other know which of them is moving?

It is the same with the idea of “losing illusions”. How do you know what is an illusion if as you claim everything is an illusion – in other words the idea of illusion itself might in fact be just an illusion and leads to an infinite regress. Philosophers have wrestled with this for centuries without really coming to any sort of a satisfactory conclusion but notwithstanding all of that, the spiritual disciplines continue to pay lip service to scripture written thousands of years ago in the hope that it is something that transcends everything else and takes us to the Promised Land.

Here’s the next one.

The essence of this awakening/realization is found in all religions
but given the difficult nature of transmitting or teaching a qualitative reality
which is beyond, yet includes the mind, those still identified with 3rd dimensional
forms and concepts, often misunderstand what is being offered, or try to put it
into a context with what they already know.

So there exists a “qualitative reality” which is beyond those “still identified with 3rd dimensional forms and concepts”. Reading between the lines all this says is that in order to reach this “qualitative reality”, one must relinquish the identity associated with the 3d world forms and concepts. In other words, one must do x and y to achieve z. Religion.

It may surprise you to hear that I do not have a disdain for religion, organised or otherwise. I am filing the whole thing under Art as explained above. You may choose to adore Rembrandt, I like Gainsborough. Since neither one of us can prove one to be better than the other the challenge then becomes not whose religion is better but how to co-exist without killing each other over it.

Though one may conquer a thousand times a thousand men in battle,
yet he indeed is the noblest victor who conquers himself.

Again, the aim is to conquer oneself. No doubt the step by step guide is also close at hand. The unmistakeable formula is there yet again. Do x and y and become z. Over and over again the same pattern repeated using different words by different gurus, different religions, different philosophies, different gods, different prophets and different teachers but the same old indefatigable pattern paraded under a different mask.

So where does all of that leave us? If you can agree that almost all our endeavours have the unmistakable odour of religion, which we probably want to reject, what is the alternative? I really don’t think we came to witness or live in this abject world just so we could spend it speculating about the next one. I mean, that is all it boils down to right? If there is a next world, it will manifest itself soon enough. If there isn’t, it won’t. But either way, there is more than enough confusion and illusion to ensure we never quite reach a unanimous and satisfactory answer in this world so we have no option but to wait.

In the meantime we have jobs to go to, challenges to ride, relationships to service, commitments to fulfil, diseases to cure, wrongs to right, hungry to feed, the sick to comfort, the children to raise, the ethics to teach and a great deal besides. The story unfolds each day for all of us and the option to flick over to the last page has been disabled; may we all find whatever it is we’re looking for.

[ulli]

Great post Bollinger. Each paragraph was a piece of art and my experience of reading the post in it's totality became like walking through an art gallery.
The particular art work that caused me to stop in my tracks was this

It is the same with the idea of “losing illusions”. How do you know what is an illusion if as you claim everything is an illusion – in other words the idea of illusion itself might in fact be just an illusion and leads to an infinite regress.

Because it contained the striking dynamic that resonated immediately...the 'infinite regress',
the vortex or tunnel that can blow one's mind and make the (illusiory?) promise of another reality when in fact it is just layers and layers of the same reality.
Thank you.

[Tenzin]

Ultimately, there is no duty or mission or obligation to fulful if one has aspired for Nirvana. Of course if one chooses to lead a very human life, it is definitely not a wrong pursuit to right the wrongs of the world, and by our intellectual perspective and reasonings, it might be the only the right thing to do. Everything has come and gone for aeons and will continue to have wrongs to be right without end. If one choose to play the game, then you can choose to jump right back in the loop over and over again.

When the Buddha was asked who he was after his enlightenment, he clearly said he was not a human being anymore.

The Truths of the Dharma taught by the Buddha in large parts have been shrouded in perverse optimism which has been extremely well received by countless people who will buy into any preaching that appeals to our yearning for mundane happiness.

[another bob]

Buddhism in a Nutshell:
The Four Seals of Dharma
By Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche

"Buddhism is distinguished by four characteristics, or 'seals.' If all these four seals are found in a path or a philosophy, it can be considered the path of the Buddha."


People often ask me: “What is Buddhism in a nutshell?” Or they ask, “What is the particular view or philosophy of Buddhism?”

Unfortunately, in the West Buddhism seems to have landed in the religious department, even in the self-help or self-improvement department, and clearly it’s in the trendy meditation department. I would like to challenge the popular definition of Buddhist meditation.

Many people think meditation has something to do with relaxation, with watching the sunset or watching the waves at the beach. Charming phrases like “letting go” and “being carefree” come to mind. From a Buddhist point of view, meditation is slightly more than that.

First, I think we need to talk about the real context of Buddhist meditation. This is referred to as the view, meditation and action; taken together, these constitute quite a skillful way of understanding the path. Even though we may not use such expressions in everyday life, if we think about it, we always act according to a certain view, meditation and action. For instance, if we want to buy a car, we choose the one we think is the best, most reliable and so on. So the “view,” in this case, is the idea or belief that we have, that is, that the car is a good one. Then the “meditation” is contemplating and getting used to the idea, and the “action” is actually buying the car, driving it and using it. This process is not necessarily something Buddhist; it’s something we’re doing all the time. You don’t have to call it view, meditation and action. You can think of it as “idea,” “getting used to,” and “obtaining.”

So what is the particular view that Buddhists try to get used to? Buddhism is distinguished by four characteristics, or “seals.” Actually, if all these four seals are found in a path or a philosophy, it doesn’t matter whether you call it Buddhist or not. You can call it what you like; the words “Buddhist” or “Buddhism” are not important. The point is that if this path contains these four seals, it can be considered the path of the Buddha.

Therefore, these four characteristics are called “the Four Seals of Dharma.” They are:

All compounded things are impermanent.

All emotions are painful. This is something that only Buddhists would talk about. Many religions worship things like love with celebration and songs. Buddhists think, “This is all suffering.”

All phenomena are empty; they are without inherent existence. This is actually the ultimate view of Buddhism; the other three are grounded on this third seal.

The fourth seal is that nirvana is beyond extremes.

Without these four seals, the Buddhist path would become theistic, religious dogma, and its whole purpose would be lost. On the other hand, you could have a surfer giving you teachings on how to sit on a beach watching a sunset: if what he says contains all these four seals, it would be Buddhism. The Tibetans, the Chinese, or the Japanese might not like it, but teaching doesn’t have to be in a “traditional” form. The four seals are quite interrelated, as you will see.

The First Seal:
All Compounded Things are Impermanent

Every phenomenon we can think of is compounded, and therefore subject to impermanence. Certain aspects of impermanence, like the changing of the weather, we can accept easily, but there are equally obvious things that we don’t accept.

For instance, our body is visibly impermanent and getting older every day, and yet this is something we don’t want to accept. Certain popular magazines that cater to youth and beauty exploit this attitude. In terms of view, meditation and action, their readers might have a view—thinking in terms of not aging or escaping the aging process somehow. They contemplate this view of permanence, and their consequent action is to go to fitness centers and undergo plastic surgery and all sorts of other hassles.

Enlightened beings would think that this is ridiculous and based on a wrong view. Regarding these different aspects of impermanence, getting old and dying, the changing of the weather, etc., Buddhists have a single statement, namely this first seal: phenomena are impermanent because they are compounded. Anything that is assembled will, sooner or later, come apart.

When we say “compounded,” that includes the dimensions of space and time. Time is compounded and therefore impermanent: without the past and future, there is no such thing as the present. If the present moment were permanent, there would be no future, since the present would always be there. Every act you do—let’s say, plant a flower or sing a song—has a beginning, a middle and an end. If, in the singing of a song, the beginning, middle or end were missing, there would be no such thing as singing a song, would there? That means that singing a song is something compounded.

“So what?” we ask. “Why should we bother about that? What’s the big deal? It has a beginning, middle, and end—so what?” It’s not that Buddhists are really worried about beginnings, middles or ends; that’s not the problem. The problem is that when there is composition and impermanence, as there is with temporal and material things, there is uncertainty and pain.

Some people think that Buddhists are pessimistic, always talking about death, impermanence and aging. But that is not necessarily true. Impermanence is a relief! I don’t have a BMW today and it is thanks to the impermanence of that fact that I might have one tomorrow. Without impermanence, I am stuck with the non-possession of a BMW, and I can never have one. I might feel severely depressed today and, thanks to impermanence, I might feel great tomorrow. Impermanence is not necessarily bad news; it depends on the way you understand it. Even if today your BMW gets scratched by a vandal, or your best friend lets you down, if you have a view of impermanence, you won’t be so worried.

Delusion arises when we don’t acknowledge that all compounded things are impermanent. But when we realize this truth, deep down and not just intellectually, that’s what we call liberation: release from this one-pointed, narrow-minded belief in permanence. Everything, whether you like it or not—even the path, the precious Buddhist path—is compounded. It has a beginning, it has a middle and it has an end.

When you understand that “all compounded things are impermanent,” you are prepared to accept the experience of loss. Since everything is impermanent, this is to be expected.

The Second Seal:
All Emotions are Painful

The Tibetan word for emotion in this context is zagche, which means “contaminated” or “stained,” in the sense of being permeated by confusion or duality.

Certain emotions, such as aggression or jealousy, we naturally regard as pain. But what about love and affection, kindness and devotion, those nice, light and lovely emotions? We don’t think of them as painful; nevertheless, they imply duality, and this means that, in the end, they are a source of pain.

The dualistic mind includes almost every thought we have. Why is this painful? Because it is mistaken. Every dualistic mind is a mistaken mind, a mind that doesn’t understand the nature of things. So how are we to understand duality? It is subject and object: ourselves on the one hand and our experience on the other. This kind of dualistic perception is mistaken, as we can see in the case of different persons perceiving the same object in different ways. A man might think a certain woman is beautiful and that is his truth. But if that were some kind of absolute, independent kind of truth, then everyone else also would have to see her as beautiful as well. Clearly, this is not a truth that is independent of everything else. It is dependent on your mind; it is your own projection.

The dualistic mind creates a lot of expectations—a lot of hope, a lot of fear. Whenever there is a dualistic mind, there is hope and fear. Hope is perfect, systematized pain. We tend to think that hope is not painful, but actually it’s a big pain. As for the pain of fear, that’s not something we need to explain.

The Buddha said, “Understand suffering.” That is the first Noble Truth. Many of us mistake pain for pleasure—the pleasure we now have is actually the very cause of the pain that we are going to get sooner or later. Another Buddhist way of explaining this is to say that when a big pain becomes smaller, we call it pleasure. That’s what we call happiness.

Moreover, emotion does not have some kind of inherently real existence. When thirsty people see a mirage of water, they have a feeling of relief: “Great, there’s some water!” But as they get closer, the mirage disappears. That is an important aspect of emotion: emotion is something that does not have an independent existence.

This is why Buddhists conclude that all emotions are painful. It is because they are impermanent and dualistic that they are uncertain and always accompanied by hopes and fears. But ultimately, they don’t have, and never have had, an inherently existent nature, so, in a way, they are not worth much. Everything we create through our emotions is, in the end, completely futile and painful. This is why Buddhists do shamatha and vipashyana meditation—this helps to loosen the grip that our emotions have on us, and the obsessions we have because of them.

Question: Is compassion an emotion?

People like us have dualistic compassion, whereas the Buddha’s compassion does not involve subject and object. From a buddha’s point of view, compassion could never involve subject and object. This is what is called mahakaruna—great compassion.

I’m having difficulty accepting that all emotions are pain.

Okay, if you want a more philosophical expression, you can drop the word “emotion” and simply say, “All that is dualistic is pain.” But I like using the word “emotion” because it provokes us.

Isn’t pain impermanent?

Yeah! If you know this, then you’re all right. It’s because we don’t know this that we go through a lot of hassles trying to solve our problems. And that is the second biggest problem we have—trying to solve our problems.

The Third Seal:
All Phenomena are Empty; They Are Without Inherent Existence

When we say “all,” that means everything, including the Buddha, enlightenment, and the path. Buddhists define a phenomenon as something with characteristics, and as an object that is conceived by a subject. To hold that an object is something external is ignorance, and it is this that prevents us from seeing the truth of that object.

The truth of a phenomenon is called shunyata, emptiness, which implies that the phenomenon does not possess a truly existent essence or nature. When a deluded person or subject sees something, the object seen is interpreted as something really existent. However, as you can see, the existence imputed by the subject is a mistaken assumption. Such an assumption is based on the different conditions that make an object appear to be true; this, however, is not how the object really is. It’s like when we see a mirage: there is no truly existing object there, even though it appears that way. With emptiness, the Buddha meant that things do not truly exist as we mistakenly believe they do, and that they are really empty of that falsely imputed existence.

It is because they believe in what are really just confused projections that sentient beings suffer. It was as a remedy for this that the Buddha taught the Dharma. Put very simply, when we talk about emptiness, we mean that the way things appear is not the way they actually are. As I said before when speaking about emotions, you may see a mirage and think it is something real, but when you get close, the mirage disappears, however real it may have seemed to begin with.

Emptiness can sometimes be referred to as dharmakaya, and in a different context we could say that the dharmakaya is permanent, never changing, all pervasive, and use all sorts of beautiful, poetic words. These are the mystical expressions that belong to the path, but for the moment, we are still at the ground stage, trying to get an intellectual understanding. On the path, we might portray Buddha Vajradhara as a symbol of dharmakaya, or emptiness, but from an academic point of view, even to think of painting the dharmakaya is a mistake.

The Buddha taught three different approaches on three separate occasions. These are known as The Three Turnings of the Wheel, but they can be summed up in a single phrase: “Mind; there is no mind; mind is luminosity.”

The first, “Mind,” refers to the first set of teachings and shows that the Buddha taught that there is a “mind.” This was to dispel the nihilistic view that there is no heaven, no hell, no cause and effect. Then, when the Buddha said, “There is no mind,” he meant that mind is just a concept and that there is no such thing as a truly existing mind. Finally, when he said, “Mind is luminous,” he was referring to buddhanature, the undeluded or primordially existing wisdom.

The great commentator Nagarjuna said that the purpose of the first turning was to get rid of non-virtue. Where does the non-virtue come from? It comes from being either eternalist or nihilist. So in order to put an end to non-virtuous deeds and thoughts, the Buddha gave his first teaching. The second turning of the Dharma-wheel, when the Buddha spoke about emptiness, was presented in order to dispel clinging to a “truly existent self” and to “truly existent phenomena.” Finally, the teachings of the third turning were given to dispel all views, even the view of no-self. The Buddha’s three sets of teaching do not seek to introduce something new; their purpose is simply to clear away confusion.

As Buddhists we practice compassion, but if we lack an understanding of this third seal—that all phenomena are empty—our compassion can backfire. If you are attached to the goal of compassion when trying to solve a problem, you might not notice that your idea of the solution is entirely based on your own personal interpretation. And you might end up as a victim of hope and fear, and consequently of disappointment. You start by becoming a “good mahayana practitioner,” and, once or twice, you try to help sentient beings. But if you have no understanding of this third seal, you’ll get tired and give up helping sentient beings.

There is another kind of a problem that arises from not understanding emptiness. It occurs with rather superficial and even jaded Buddhists. Somehow, within Buddhist circles, if you don’t accept emptiness, you are not cool. So we pretend that we appreciate emptiness and pretend to meditate on it. But if we don’t understand it properly, a bad side effect can occur. We might say, “Oh, everything’s emptiness. I can do whatever I like.” So we ignore and violate the details of karma, the responsibility for our action. We become “inelegant,” and we discourage others in the bargain. His Holiness the Dalai Lama often speaks of this downfall of not understanding emptiness. A correct understanding of emptiness leads us to see how things are related, and how we are responsible for our world.

You can read millions of pages on this subject. Nagarjuna alone wrote five different commentaries mostly dedicated to this, and then there are the commentaries by his followers. There are endless teachings on establishing this view. In Mahayana temples or monasteries people chant the Prajnaparamita Heart Sutra—this is also a teaching on the third seal.

Philosophies or religions might say, “Things are illusion, the world is maya, illusion,” but there are always one or two items left behind that are regarded as truly existent: God, cosmic energy, whatever. In Buddhism, this is not the case. Everything in samsara and nirvana—from the Buddha’s head to a piece of bread—everything is emptiness. There is nothing that is not included in ultimate truth.

Question: If we ourselves are dualistic, can we ever understand emptiness, which is something beyond description?

Buddhists are very slippery. You’re right. You can never talk about absolute emptiness, but you can talk about an “image” of emptiness—something that you can evaluate and contemplate so that, in the end, you can get to the real emptiness. You may say, “Ah, that’s just too easy; that’s such crap.” But to that the Buddhists say, “Too bad, that’s how things work.” If you need to meet someone whom you have never met, I can describe him to you or show you a photograph of him. And with the help of that photo image, you can go and find the real person.

Ultimately speaking, the path is irrational, but relatively speaking, it’s very rational because it uses the relative conventions of our world. When I’m talking about emptiness, everything that I’m saying has to do with this “image” emptiness. I can’t show you real emptiness but I can tell you why things don’t exist inherently.

In Buddhism there’s so much iconography that you might think it was the object of meditation or an object of worship. But, from your teaching, am I to understand that this is all non-existent?

When you go to a temple, you will see many beautiful statues, colors and symbols. These are important for the path. These all belong to what we call “image-wisdom,” “image-emptiness.” However, while we follow the path and apply its methods, it is important to know that the path itself is ultimately an illusion. Actually, it is only then that we can properly appreciate it.

The Fourth Seal
Nirvana is Beyond Extremes

Now that I have explained emptiness, I feel that the fourth seal, “Nirvana is beyond extremes,” has also been covered. But briefly, this last seal is also something uniquely Buddhist. In many philosophies or religions, the final goal is something that you can hold on to and keep. The final goal is the only thing that truly exists. But nirvana is not fabricated, so it is not something to be held on to. It is referred to as “beyond extremes.”

We somehow think that we can go somewhere where we’ll have a better sofa seat, a better shower system, a better sewer system, a nirvana where you don’t even have to have a remote control, where everything is there the moment you think of it. But as I said earlier, it’s not that we are adding something new that was not there before. Nirvana is achieved when you remove everything that was artificial and obscuring.

It doesn’t matter whether you are a monk or a nun who has renounced worldly life or you are a yogi practicing profound tantric methods. If, when you try to abandon or transform attachment to your own experiences, you don’t understand these four seals, you end up regarding the contents of your mind as the manifestations of something evil, diabolical and bad. If that’s what you do, you are far from the truth. And the whole point of Buddhism is to make you understand the truth. If there were some true permanence in compounded phenomena; if there were true pleasure in the emotions, the Buddha would have been the first to recommend them, saying, “Please keep and treasure these.” But thanks to his great compassion, he didn’t, for he wanted us to have what is true, what is real.

When you have a clear understanding of these four seals as the ground of your practice, you will feel comfortable no matter what happens to you. As long as you have these four as your view, nothing can go wrong. Whoever holds these four, in their heart, or in their head, and contemplates them, is a Buddhist. There is no need for such a person even to be called a Buddhist. He or she is by definition a follower of the Buddha.


Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche was born in Bhutan in 1961 and was recognized as the second reincarnation of the nineteenth-century master Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo. He has studied with and been empowered by some of the greatest Tibetan masters of this century, notably the late Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche and the late Dudjom Rinpoche. Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche supervises his traditional seat of Dzongsar Monastery in Eastern Tibet, as well as newly established colleges in India and Bhutan. He has also established meditation centers in Australia, North America and the Far East. This article is based on a talk entitled, “What Buddhism Is, and Is Not,” given in Sydney, Australia in April of 1999.

Buddhism In a Nutshell: The Four Seals of Dharma, Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche, Shambhala Sun, March 2000.

[nearing]

I have yet to find an explanation of emptiness that actually helps me to understand what it is.

I still search.

[ulli]

I just quoted something about emptiness in the Here and Now thread.

Emptiness is less than the black in the eye of a dead ant.
There ya go.

Which leads to another question:
What is real fullness?

[another bob]

Posted by nearing (here)
I have yet to find an explanation of emptiness that actually helps me to understand what it is.

I still search.

Here's a pretty good basic exposition, with a follow-up that may help too:


Emptiness
By Thanissaro Bhikkhu


Emptiness is a mode of perception, a way of looking at experience. It adds nothing to and takes nothing away from the raw data of physical and mental events. You look at events in the mind and the senses with no thought of whether there's anything lying behind them.
This mode is called emptiness because it's empty of the presuppositions we usually add to experience to make sense of it: the stories and world-views we fashion to explain who we are and the world we live in. Although these stories and views have their uses, the Buddha found that some of the more abstract questions they raise -- of our true identity and the reality of the world outside -- pull attention away from a direct experience of how events influence one another in the immediate present. Thus they get in the way when we try to understand and solve the problem of suffering.

Say for instance, that you're meditating, and a feeling of anger toward your mother appears. Immediately, the mind's reaction is to identify the anger as "my" anger, or to say that "I'm" angry. It then elaborates on the feeling, either working it into the story of your relationship to your mother, or to your general views about when and where anger toward one's mother can be justified. The problem with all this, from the Buddha's perspective, is that these stories and views entail a lot of suffering. The more you get involved in them, the more you get distracted from seeing the actual cause of the suffering: the labels of "I" and "mine" that set the whole process in motion. As a result, you can't find the way to unravel that cause and bring the suffering to an end.

If, however, you can adopt the emptiness mode -- by not acting on or reacting to the anger, but simply watching it as a series of events, in and of themselves -- you can see that the anger is empty of anything worth identifying with or possessing. As you master the emptiness mode more consistently, you see that this truth holds not only for such gross emotions as anger, but also for even the most subtle events in the realm of experience. This is the sense in which all things are empty. When you see this, you realize that labels of "I" and "mine" are inappropriate, unnecessary, and cause nothing but stress and pain. You can then drop them. When you drop them totally, you discover a mode of experience that lies deeper still, one that's totally free.

To master the emptiness mode of perception requires training in firm virtue, concentration, and discernment. Without this training, the mind tends to stay in the mode that keeps creating stories and world views. And from the perspective of that mode, the teaching of emptiness sounds simply like another story or world view with new ground rules. In terms of the story of your relationship with your mother, it seems to be saying that there's really no mother, no you. In terms of your views about the world, it seems to be saying either that the world doesn't really exist, or else that emptiness is the great undifferentiated ground of being from which we all came to which someday we'll all return.
These interpretations not only miss the meaning of emptiness but also keep the mind from getting into the proper mode. If the world and the people in the story of your life don't really exist, then all the actions and reactions in that story seem like a mathematics of zeros, and you wonder why there's any point in practicing virtue at all. If, on the other hand, you see emptiness as the ground of being to which we're all going to return, then what need is there to train the mind in concentration and discernment, since we're all going to get there anyway? And even if we need training to get back to our ground of being, what's to keep us from coming out of it and suffering all over again? So in all these scenarios, the whole idea of training the mind seems futile and pointless. By focusing on the question of whether or not there really is something behind experience, they entangle the mind in issues that keep it from getting into the present mode.

Now, stories and world views do serve a purpose. The Buddha employed them when teaching people, but he never used the word emptiness when speaking in these modes. He recounted the stories of people's lives to show how suffering comes from the unskillful perceptions behind their actions, and how freedom from suffering can come from being more perceptive. And he described the basic principles that underlie the round of rebirth to show how bad intentional actions lead to pain within that round, good ones lead to pleasure, while really skillful actions can take you beyond the round altogether. In all these cases, these teachings were aimed at getting people to focus on the quality of the perceptions and intentions in their minds in the present -- in other words, to get them into the emptiness mode. Once there, they can use the teachings on emptiness for their intended purpose: to loosen all attachments to views, stories, and assumptions, leaving the mind empty of all greed, anger, and delusion, and thus empty of suffering and stress. And when you come right down to it, that's the emptiness that really counts.




HOW TO INTEGRATE EMPTINESS INTO DAILY LIFE
Lama Thubten Yeshe, 1983

What is emptiness? Emptiness (shunyata) is the reality of the existence of ourselves, and all the phenomena around us. According to the Buddhist point of view, seeking reality and seeking liberation amount to the same thing. The person who doesn't want to seek reality doesn't really want to seek liberation, and is just confused.

If you seek reality and you think that it has to be taught to you by a Tibetan Lama, that you have to look for it outside yourself, in another place - maybe Shangrila! - then you are mistaken. You cannot seek reality outside yourself because you are reality. Perhaps you think that your life, your reality was made by society, by your friends? If you think that way you are far from reality. if you think that your existence, your life was made by somebody else it means that you are not taking the responsibility to understand reality.

You have to see that your attitudes, your view of the world, of your experiences, of your girlfriend or boyfriend, of your own self, are all the interpretation of your own mind, your own imagination. They are your own projection, your mind literally made them up. If you don't understand this then you have very little chance of understanding emptiness. This is not just the Buddhist view but also the experience of Western physicists and philosophers - they have researched into reality too. Physicists look and look and look and they simply cannot find one entity that exists in a permanent, stable way: this is the Western experience of emptiness. If you can imagine that then you will not have any concrete concepts; if you understand this experience of physicists then you will let go of your worldly problems - but you don't want to understand.

It seems to me that we twentieth century people are against nature, against reality, the very opposite of reality. Each moment we build up our artificial, polluted ego; we cover ourselves with heavy ego blankets - one, two, ten, one hundred blankets against nature, against reality. Modern life is the product of the intellectual mind, and we create it. The intellectual mind is superstition. We don't understand reality, and the intellectual life that we lead keeps us far from reality. So we don't accept who we are. We are always looking to cover ourselves with thick blankets and say "this is me". We hide our own reality and run away from natural beauty, completely neglecting it. By not touching our reality, our modern life becomes so complicated and we create problems with our superstition. We are like a spider spinning his web, climbing on his thread then falling down; climbing up again and falling down again. In the same way we build our own intellectual web, a way of life, that is so complicated, that doesn't touch reality, that is so difficult to live in. This construction arises from our own mind and does not arise from anything else.

If I told you that you are nothing, you are zero, that you are nothing that you think you are, then you would be shocked. "What is this monk saying?" But what if I say that it is the truth! In fact you are non duality, non self existence. You do not exist, relatively or absolutely, as you think you do. If you really understood this then you would become more realistic and you would really gain satisfaction and peace. But as long as you hold on to the fantasy, concrete conception of yourself and project this wrong conception onto your environment, then no way will you understand reality... Our thoughts, our mind or consciousness are mental energy and cannot be localised in the body. It cannot be touched; it has no form and does not travel in time and space. We cannot touch it or grasp it...

What I mean is this: you should recognise how every appearance in your daily lift is in fact a false projection of your own mind. Your own mind makes it up and becomes an obstacle to touching reality. This is why, our entire life, no matter what kind of life we have, it is a disaster. If you have a rich life, your life is a disaster. If you have a middle class life, your life is a disaster. If you have a poor life, your life is even more of a disaster! You become a monk and your life is a disaster. If you become a Christian your life is a disaster. A Buddhist, disaster... Be honest. Be honest with yourself.

In fact reality is very simple. The simplicity of the mind can touch reality, and meditation is something that goes beyond the intellect and brings the mind into its natural state. We have the pure nature already, this reality exists in us now, it is born with us... The essence of your consciousness, your truth, your soul is not absolutely negative, it does not have an essentially negative character. Our mind is like the sky and our problems of ego grasping and self pity are like clouds. Eventually they all pass and disappear. You should not believe, "I am my ego, I am my problems, therefore I cannot solve my problems". Wrong. You can see. Sometimes we are so clear in our life we are almost radiating. We can have this experience right now. Now!

So it is wrong to think that we are always a disaster. Sometimes we are clean clear, sometimes we are a disaster. So, stay in meditation, just keep in that clean clear state as much as possible. All of us can have that clean clear state of mind... Actually, maybe this is the moment to meditate. My feeling is to meditate now. So, close your eyes, don't think, "I am meditating", just close your eyes and whatever view is there, whatever view is there in your mind, just be aware. Don't interpret good, bad. Just be like a light - light doesn't think "I like this, I like that".

Excerpt from Lama Yeshe's talk at VajraYogini Institute, France, September 5, 1983.

[ulli]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)

Posted by Bollinger (here)
...

...define Buddhism in say 50 words and let’s see if other Buddhists agree.

...

Here is a challenge. Name 5 things that you have gained from Buddhism that you could not have gained in any other way.

heheheheh I reject your challenge! I cannot describe a drop of water in 50 words.

Left brained Buddhism?

A Venn diagram showing Christian/Biblical concept of reality would include at least 2 non-intersecting circles, maybe a third. One circle for God, one for the physical Universe (including humanity/Earth), and perhaps a third for heaven.

A Venn diagram of Buddhist concept of reality would have either a single circle, or a blank sheet of paper. Every atom of physical matter, every charge of plasma is all God. God=Universe. You could decide that the single circle was the correct way to diagram it (all individual "things" in the Universe contained within the Universe), or that a blank sheet of paper (no individual "things" actually exist) is more correct. Individuating things is a human mental construct. No things = nothing. So, "nothingness" isn't emptiness but rather the acceptance that individual "things" do not really exist individually.

In Christian concepts, it might be accepted that all of the individual creatures are in an interdependent food-web, for example, but it would not be said that there is only one thing (or no thing, nothing) in the Universe. (Or that we humans, even the most evil, are pieces of God.)

I would agree that there are religious bumper-stickers that have been stuck to Buddhism. Ritual, prayer, lighting incense or a candle, spinning a prayer wheel - I suspect that those activities would be ignored by a "Buddha conscious being" (my outsider's guess at some sort of encapsulated "being" that has the real, full awareness of oneness. Note that I don't have this perspective and can only guess, but suspect that in that state, the Buddha ceases to exist as an individual. Only by temporarily abandoning that state and "taking up residence", encapsulated "in" a body - from human perspective - can this being communicate to other humans.)

Taking a bite of an apple, feeling the wind, or going to the bathroom are probably equally as powerful as chanting or meditation, to a Bodhisattva. My impression is that none of the trappings of Buddhism are Buddhism - yet the trappings are the way some wish to describe Buddhism, thus making it seem to be a religion. With all the trappings gone, we are left with just the consciousness of the Buddha, and we humans tag it as "philosophy." It isn't that tag, either, but it certainly isn't religion.

Imagine studying for a lifetime about the ocean, while living in an inland desert. Imagine having the highest level of (scientific, didactic, empirical) knowledge of the ocean. Then one day, this person actually arrives at the ocean. Experiences the sound, the feeling of the waves of sound, of air, of water, and of energy. Experiences walking into the ocean - buoyed, jostled, caressed, danced. Experiences the ions of the dissolved salts and minerals infusing into skin - the division between ocean and human body becoming less and less distinct, the pulse of ocean and heart becoming one... this experiential knowledge - in one instant - supersedes all knowledge gained before that point. Buddhism is not left-brained. The way Jill Bolton Taylor describes her experience, it might appear that Buddha consciousness is right-brained, but I suspect the right brain may only be the portal to "one-brained", or "no-brained" experience.

I'm kinda like an early version of the desert-dwelling, casual "scholar" of the ocean. But at least I know what I don't know. I know I don't know Buddha consciousness, other than fragmentary glimpses, but certainly nothing deeply all-encompassing. So, can I say for sure that Buddhism provides some tools to help a seeker experience Buddha consciousness? Not yet.

Buddhists are not trying to find five things. Just One. (Or, "none.")

Dennis

Lot's of goodies in this post.
Some stood out more than others and I bolded them.
The last part about the inland desert had my eyes crossed as I first read it as desert island...due to my slight dyslexia.
Which then reminded me of this joke. I have shared it before but love it so much it needed repeating:

[greybeard]

This is not correct but a way of looking at it.
Everything is energy.
There is the manifest and the UN-manifest.
So the formless becomes form but it is first "thought of" in the un-manifest- formless,
God is both form and formless both and "neither."
I suspect the void- no-thing is the "neither"
Awareness is just aware--- it does not need anything to be aware of.
Beyond formless does not manifest or do anything.
All thats just a concept-- I take no responsibility for the thoughts expressed here
Happy to be corrected

Chris

[ulli]

Posted by greybeard (here)
This is not correct but a way of looking at it.
Everything is energy.
There is the manifest and the UN-manifest.
So the formless becomes form but it is first "thought of" in the un-manifest- formless,
God is both form and formless both and "neither."
I suspect the void- no-thing is the "neither"
Awareness is just aware--- it does not need anything to be aware of.
Beyond formless does not manifest or do anything.
All thats just a concept-- I take no responsibility for the thoughts expressed here
Happy to be corrected

Chris

Nothing to correct here.
Unless I suspect you to be another UN-mole?
Are you the UN-manifesto guy?

[nearing]

Posted by greybeard (here)
This is not correct but a way of looking at it.
Everything is energy.
There is the manifest and the UN-manifest.
So the formless becomes form but it is first "thought of" in the un-manifest- formless,
God is both form and formless both and "neither."
I suspect the void- no-thing is the "neither"
Awareness is just aware--- it does not need anything to be aware of.
Beyond formless does not manifest or do anything.
All thats just a concept-- I take no responsibility for the thoughts expressed here
Happy to be corrected

Chris

The closest I can come to a definition of emptiness from the above is that in the 3D, all energy is placed into a form but this form is really an illusion of we look at it from the 4th or 5th or 6th, etc. dimensions. When we are alive in a human form in the 3D we experience form but it's like swimming in a fishbowl, outside of the fishbowl, there is no form, just energy.

[another bob]

Posted by nearing (here)
The closest I can come to a definition of emptiness from the above is that in the 3D, all energy is placed into a form but this form is really an illusion of we look at it from the 4th or 5th or 6th, etc. dimensions. When we are alive in a human form in the 3D we experience form but it's like swimming in a fishbowl, outside of the fishbowl, there is no form, just energy.

What the concept essentially refers to is the lack of anything fixed and/or permanent within any being, human or otherwise.

The Heart Sutra says, "Form is emptiness; emptiness form." What this means is that all beings (forms) are empty of anything fixed and/or permanent and that emptiness is not a thing that can stand alone but is a condition manifested by all forms.



Here's something else that might clarify and elaborate:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=sYhti6fcVIk

In the above video, Thich Nhat Hanh explains emptiness through a piece of paper. Where is the paper if we take away the rain, the earth, the sun, the logger who cut down the tree? Without these and many, many other conditions, the paper would not exist. It is empty of a separate self but full of all of the other things that make it up.

How does this knowledge give us comfort? While the emptiness of a piece of paper is interesting, its not particularly helpful in our daily lives. The answer is that emptiness applies to more than the material world of form.

Our mental processes are just as empty as the piece of paper. Thoughts, feelings, likes, dislikes and all other mental phenomena are likewise the result of many external conditions which are quite beyond our control or even our knowledge. The knowledge of emptiness liberates us from guilt and sorrow. We must understand , however, that emptiness does not absolve us from responsibility for our actions.

The knowledge of emptiness allows us to practice mindfulness and see how mental phenomena arise and pass away. When we see this process we become free and we see how others are overwhelmed by life because of ignorance. Our responsibility is to practice loving kindness and help others see the path to liberation .

[greybeard]

Posted by ulli (here)

Posted by greybeard (here)
This is not correct but a way of looking at it.
Everything is energy.
There is the manifest and the UN-manifest.
So the formless becomes form but it is first "thought of" in the un-manifest- formless,
God is both form and formless both and "neither."
I suspect the void- no-thing is the "neither"
Awareness is just aware--- it does not need anything to be aware of.
Beyond formless does not manifest or do anything.
All thats just a concept-- I take no responsibility for the thoughts expressed here
Happy to be corrected

Chris

Nothing to correct here.
Unless I suspect you to be another UN-mole?
Are you the UN-manifesto guy?

Who me???
Spell check, spell check.
Im dyslexic

always appreciate your posts and comments Ulli

Chris

[jorr lundstrom]

Posted by another bob (here)

Posted by nearing (here)
The closest I can come to a definition of emptiness from the above is that in the 3D, all energy is placed into a form but this form is really an illusion of we look at it from the 4th or 5th or 6th, etc. dimensions. When we are alive in a human form in the 3D we experience form but it's like swimming in a fishbowl, outside of the fishbowl, there is no form, just energy.

What the concept essentially refers to is the lack of anything fixed and/or permanent within any being, human or otherwise.

The Heart Sutra says, "Form is emptiness; emptiness form." What this means is that all beings (forms) are empty of anything fixed and/or permanent and that emptiness is not a thing that can stand alone but is a condition manifested by all forms.



Here's something else that might clarify and elaborate:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=sYhti6fcVIk

In the above video, Thich Nhat Hanh explains emptiness through a piece of paper. Where is the paper if we take away the rain, the earth, the sun, the logger who cut down the tree? Without these and many, many other conditions, the paper would not exist. It is empty of a separate self but full of all of the other things that make it up.

How does this knowledge give us comfort? While the emptiness of a piece of paper is interesting, its not particularly helpful in our daily lives. The answer is that emptiness applies to more than the material world of form.

Our mental processes are just as empty as the piece of paper. Thoughts, feelings, likes, dislikes and all other mental phenomena are likewise the result of many external conditions which are quite beyond our control or even our knowledge. The knowledge of emptiness liberates us from guilt and sorrow. We must understand , however, that emptiness does not absolve us from responsibility for our actions.

The knowledge of emptiness allows us to practice mindfulness and see how mental phenomena arise and pass away. When we see this process we become free and we see how others are overwhelmed by life because of ignorance. Our responsibility is to practice loving kindness and help others see the path to liberation .

Ive often through life looked upon different things in this way.
For example a loaf of bread on the table. If we trace all relations
back in time, that made this bread possible we end up watching
all human history and the whole world mirrored in this bread.
And this loaf being just an event happening in this moment.

All is well


Jorr