ultimate meaning of emptiness..

[Ceisiwr]

What do you mean by “essence”?

My guess is some version of salakkhaṇa or sabhāva.

I suspect as much, which would be contrary to this section.

[Coëmgenu]

Well, one has to give some room for learning. A lot of people have never encountered "classical" Theravāda before, and for some, if so, only via the polemics of "modernists." A lot of people just assume that Buddhism is Buddhism and that Theravāda will look like Madhyamaka where it "really counts."

[SarathW]

Perhaps we can look at the emptiness in both ways of empty of a particular factor or as dependently originated.
For instance, to make a coffee we need:
- The craving for the coffee
- water
- heat
- Coffee beans
- sugar
-milk

We can say this emptiness of the prepared coffee like this:
- There is no milk or coffee without milk
- Coffee without sugar
- coffee without heat - cold coffee
- just water only no coffee
- there is no water
- there is no craving

[Ceisiwr]

Well, one has to give some room for learning. A lot of people have never encountered "classical" Theravāda before, and for some, if so, only via the polemics of "modernists." A lot of people just assume that Buddhism is Buddhism and that Theravāda will look like Madhyamaka where it "really counts."

Yes that is true.

[mjaviem]

... emptiness does not mean there is nothing but we recognise that things are dependently originated.
I think emptiness is about knowing, that "I have this, but I do not have this" sort of thing.
Finally you come to the conclusion that in ultimate sense what is left is the thought of "I" so you let it go that as well.
Please read Sunnata Sutta.

I think you mean MN 121. Ok, but I see this Sutta as a teaching related to concentration while I wondered if in everyday life one could get to see the emptiness of all things.

Using a gross example, if I see a broom leaning against the wall I know that it is made of a stick and straw, I can easily tell you that. Yet what I see is a true broom, I know it was manufactured and it will decay but I still can't say to me that this is only a fabrication without a self. To me there is a proper broom standing there like many others around the world, it serves some purpose, it could be disassembled and burnt but even then it would have been always an independent entity in its own right. I can see the broom as a good broom or a bad one, a nice one or ugly one, as useful or not. What I wonder is what it would look like if there were no passion and ignorance in me. I'm sure it would look really differently if I had noble equanimity towards all things.

The mind constructs and is capable also of deconstruction.

I hope so.

... its not about seeing its about knowing so u wont have desire

Perhaps one day...

[SarathW]

... emptiness does not mean there is nothing but we recognise that things are dependently originated.
I think emptiness is about knowing, that "I have this, but I do not have this" sort of thing.
Finally you come to the conclusion that in ultimate sense what is left is the thought of "I" so you let it go that as well.
Please read Sunnata Sutta.

I think you mean MN 121. Ok, but I see this Sutta as a teaching related to concentration while I wondered if in everyday life one could get to see the emptiness of all things.

Using a gross example, if I see a broom leaning against the wall I know that it is made of a stick and straw, I can easily tell you that. Yet what I see is a true broom, I know it was manufactured and it will decay but I still can't say to me that this is only a fabrication without a self. To me there is a proper broom standing there like many others around the world, it serves some purpose, it could be disassembled and burnt but even then it would have been always an independent entity in its own right. I can see the broom as a good broom or a bad one, a nice one or ugly one, as useful or not. What I wonder is what it would look like if there were no passion and ignorance in me. I'm sure it would look really differently if I had noble equanimity towards all things.

The mind constructs and is capable also of deconstruction.

I hope so.

... its not about seeing its about knowing so u wont have desire

Perhaps one day...

I agree but what if you are blind?
Perhaps it could be just a picture or a replica some sort.
So in ultimate sense what we are sure is seen colors, touch etc but no broom as such.
In other words what we perceive in ultimate sense is Nama Rupa.

[pegembara]

... emptiness does not mean there is nothing but we recognise that things are dependently originated.
I think emptiness is about knowing, that "I have this, but I do not have this" sort of thing.
Finally you come to the conclusion that in ultimate sense what is left is the thought of "I" so you let it go that as well.
Please read Sunnata Sutta.

I think you mean MN 121. Ok, but I see this Sutta as a teaching related to concentration while I wondered if in everyday life one could get to see the emptiness of all things.

Using a gross example, if I see a broom leaning against the wall I know that it is made of a stick and straw, I can easily tell you that. Yet what I see is a true broom, I know it was manufactured and it will decay but I still can't say to me that this is only a fabrication without a self. To me there is a proper broom standing there like many others around the world, it serves some purpose, it could be disassembled and burnt but even then it would have been always an independent entity in its own right. I can see the broom as a good broom or a bad one, a nice one or ugly one, as useful or not. What I wonder is what it would look like if there were no passion and ignorance in me. I'm sure it would look really differently if I had noble equanimity towards all things.

The mind constructs and is capable also of deconstruction.

I hope so.

... its not about seeing its about knowing so u wont have desire

Perhaps one day...

What about a rainbow? Is it an independent entity in its own right?
Or Google for that matter? And yet we can sue "Google".

Many examples to see around you.

For the rainbow experience to happen we need sunshine, raindrops, and a spectator. It is not that the sun and the raindrops cease to exist if there is no one there to see them. But unless someone is present at a particular point no colored arch can appear. The rainbow is hence a process requiring various elements, one of which happens to be an instrument of sense perception. It doesn’t exist whole and separate in the world nor does it exist as an acquired image in the head separated from what is perceived; rather, consciousness is spread between sunlight, raindrops, and visual cortex, creating a unique, transitory new whole, the rainbow experience. Or again: the viewer doesn’t see the world; he is part of a world process.

Emptiness is not much talked about in Theravada but ...

The mind is the Bodhi tree,
The body is the mirror stand.
The mirror is originally clean and pure;
Where can it be stained by dust?

Bodhi originally has no tree,
The mirror(-like mind) has no stand.
Buddha-nature (emptiness/oneness) is always clean and pure;
Where is there room for dust (to alight)?

Platform Sutra

Sabbe dhamma anatta
The ultimate meaning is anatta through and through.

Haven't you had enough of all this yet? Those of you who have had lots of suffering in the rains retreat, join the club. This is suffering. All we are trying to do is to find out that which ends all that suffering and finishes this Holy Life business. We want to end it and to see that the core of nothingness is where it is ended. Imagine what that might be like when you know, because you've seen to the very depth of all things, that there's nothing there. That which you've taken to be consciousness, that which knows, you find that it's completely empty.

The Buddha called the appearance of something solid a magician's trick. The "magician" makes you think that there is something solid in this consciousness [SN,22,95]. But it is just things arising and passing away. That's all there is! That which knows is an empty process.

https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books3/Ajah ... Things.htm

[SarathW]

the viewer doesn’t see the world; he is part of a world process.

In my opinion this is the biggest problem.
We are trying to understand the world with the angle of the world.
It is like eye is trying to see the eye.
I just realise this only recently. (I am not saying that I became a Sotapanna or Arahant)

Once you know this you stop creating more of the same world (Sankhara) by way of body, speech or mind.

[asahi]

The viewer is the viewed . But there is no viewer in essence . That is ultimate emptiness . It is the absence of the viewer yet view process functioning .

[pegembara]

the viewer doesn’t see the world; he is part of a world process.

In my opinion this is the biggest problem.
We are trying to understand the world with the angle of the world.
It is like eye is trying to see the eye.
I just realise this only recently. (I am not saying that I became a Sotapanna or Arahant)

Once you know this you stop creating more of the same world (Sankhara) by way of body, speech or mind.

We are not creators. That is the point.

The mirror(-like mind) has no stand. Where is there room for dust (to alight)?
That is the ultimate realization -supreme emptiness as per Buddhadasa.

Sankharas are just impersonal phenomena.
By the very process of grasping them(upadana) a sense of self is created.
Even without picking them up(upadhi), the sankhara continue to arise and pass.

There's only one remedy and that is to be aware of the true nature of these dhammas, to know that THESE DHAMMAS ARE A FIRE, THAT THEY CANNOT BE GRASPED OR CLUNG TO. This is to be on the path of truth-discerning awareness, learning one's lesson, remembering that whenever anything is grasped at as "I" or "mine", fire is ignited. It is not a fire that burns the hand, but a fire that consumes the mind and heart. Sometimes it burns so deep that we aren't even aware that it's a fire at all or that it is burning, and so we sink into the fiery mass that is Vattasamsara (the round of birth and death).

The two sorts of emptiness, the emptiness of the non-clinging mind and the emptiness of all things are related. Because all things do truly have the characteristic of being empty of a self, a permanent, independent entity to be grasped at or clung to, we are able to see the truth of emptiness. If in fact they weren't empty of self, then it would be impossible to see their emptiness. But as it is, on the contrary, although all things are empty we see everyone of them as not-empty. The mind that is enveloped by defilements and ignorance grasps at and clings to all of them as self, even a speck of dust. Even a tiny particle of dust is conceived to be an independent entity, a 'second person'. We label the second person, the various things that surround us, as being this and being that, and in every case see them as being permanent independent entities.

Thus the mind seeing emptiness in all things disintegrates of itself, leaving only emptiness, everything as I have said from a speck of dust up to Nibbana. Material objects, people, animals, time and space, every sort of dhamma melt into emptiness through knowing the truth of this point. This is the meaning of the word empty.

The self is merely a condition that arises when there is grasping and clinging in the mind. We don't see it as empty, but see it as self, because that grasping and clinging with ignorance and defilement. There being ignorance or unknowing in the mind grasping arises by itself, it's not that we make a deliberate effort or consciously establish a self. When the mind contains avijja, it inevitably experiences all things as being independent entities, with no need for there to be any deliberate intention.

https://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha196.htm

[SarathW]

The mirror(-like mind) has no stand. Where is there room for dust (to alight)?
That is the ultimate realization -supreme emptiness as per Buddhadasa.

The problem with this is a mirror (like mind) that exists independent of dust.
The ultimate realisation is that mirrors also like dust.
So you completely turned away (no grasping) from any phenomena.
Because the mirror also dependently originated.

[mjaviem]

I agree but what if you are blind?
Perhaps it could be just a picture or a replica some sort.
So in ultimate sense what we are sure is seen colors, touch etc but no broom as such.
In other words what we perceive in ultimate sense is Nama Rupa.

Ok, there is the (visual) form of something that looks elongated and the perception that it's a broom. We can make an analysis of the experience but this doesn't solve the problem

What about a rainbow? Is it an independent entity in its own right?
Or Google for that matter? And yet we can sue "Google".
...

That's a good example. Even if I learn that the broom is illusory like a rainbow is, I know I still can't internally get rid of the idea of a self there. Even by learning that the rainbow is only an experience and that it depends on numerous conditions that concur at the same time, I still say "Wow! How nice" when I see one, I still have the concept of a rainbow. And I think having the concept, putting a name to it, it's enough for me (who holds delusion and defilements) to think there is a self. I can pretend to be dispassionate about the rainbow, not loving it nor hating it, but this is only the equanimity of a fool, no real wisdom, even when learning about illusory natures.

[pegembara]

What about a rainbow? Is it an independent entity in its own right?
Or Google for that matter? And yet we can sue "Google".
...

That's a good example. Even if I learn that the broom is illusory like a rainbow is, I know I still can't internally get rid of the idea of a self there. Even by learning that the rainbow is only an experience and that it depends on numerous conditions that concur at the same time, I still say "Wow! How nice" when I see one, I still have the concept of a rainbow. And I think having the concept, putting a name to it, it's enough for me (who holds delusion and defilements) to think there is a self. I can pretend to be dispassionate about the rainbow, not loving it nor hating it, but this is only the equanimity of a fool, no real wisdom, even when learning about illusory natures.

A journey of a thousand steps ...

"One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is called a faith-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.

"One who, after pondering with a modicum of discernment, has accepted that these phenomena are this way is called a Dhamma-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.

"One who knows and sees that these phenomena are this way is called a stream-enterer, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

[SarathW]

I agree but what if you are blind?
Perhaps it could be just a picture or a replica some sort.
So in ultimate sense what we are sure is seen colors, touch etc but no broom as such.
In other words what we perceive in ultimate sense is Nama Rupa.

Ok, there is the (visual) form of something that looks elongated and the perception that it's a broom. We can make an analysis of the experience but this doesn't solve the problem

What about a rainbow? Is it an independent entity in its own right?
Or Google for that matter? And yet we can sue "Google".
...

That's a good example. Even if I learn that the broom is illusory like a rainbow is, I know I still can't internally get rid of the idea of a self there. Even by learning that the rainbow is only an experience and that it depends on numerous conditions that concur at the same time, I still say "Wow! How nice" when I see one, I still have the concept of a rainbow. And I think having the concept, putting a name to it, it's enough for me (who holds delusion and defilements) to think there is a self. I can pretend to be dispassionate about the rainbow, not loving it nor hating it, but this is only the equanimity of a fool, no real wisdom, even when learning about illusory natures.

We are just like robot with consciousness. We will never free from this slavery unless we realise that and turn the power off.
However this idea seems like the annihilation.
Perhaps Nibbana is not exactly the same.

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=40396&p=626513&hilit=

[Padipa]

All things & all beings are devoid of essence. The degree to which one sees essence equals the degree to which one misunderstands emptiness: one's delusion is directly proportionate to one's clinging to essences.

What do you mean by “essence”?

Mutual interdependence is a more succinct way to describe it: everything affects, & is affected by, everything else.

Whilst popular with Mahayana and other schools of thought, it’s not something Theravada teaches.

Are you referring to my use of "mutual interdependence"? I've neither studied nor been taught anything in the realm of Mahayana. However, auto-didactically, I engage Theravāda Buddhism, daily, as a means by which to live life. I "identify" as a Theravāda Buddhist, focusing upon what SG taught & said, Theravāda texts, & time spent in Pāli studies. Though no expert, neither am I, in any way, a proponent or product of Mahayana.

When I use mutual interdependence, I'm referring to "Dependent Origination," which is what, according to SG himself, catalyzed him to fully awaken. For me, the simplest way to succinctly define the implications of Dependent Origination is to use the two words, "mutual interdependence." My grasp of MI is underpinned by decades of study in western Philosophy (particularly logic), Psychobiology, Cosmology &, to lesser degrees, other fields of study. "Paṭiccasamuppāda" can literally be translated:

paṭicca="because of"
sam= "together"
uppāda="coming into existence," from ud="up" + pad= "to come."

So, Dependent Origination means all things, dependently, come into & out of existence (the process is equally valid in reverse). From this, summarizing Dependent Origination w the 2 English words, "Mutual Interdependence" seems sustainable to me within a Theravāda discussion.

Concerning your question: "What do you mean by essence?"


Essences are the mental constructs we compile from the mutually-interdependent interplay of the pañcakkhandā (5 aggregates) & the histo-socio-economical setting into which we are born. As such, these constructs are unique to the individual experiencing them. So, while all individuals construct essences, essences among individuals differ, though some overlap must be acknowledged due to human commonality. But, it must be borne in mind, essences do not exist outside of human cognition.

Because human cognition meets the needs of its finite being, within an infinite existence, it's shot through with limitations. Evolution evolved human perception to equip it for the goal of reproduction, not for the goal of aññā (final knowledge). Our senses of sight, hearing, touch, smell & taste, in no way, encompass the entire spectrum of these phenomena; again, we simply evolved with the tools necessary to reach our evolutionary goal: reproduction.

As consciousness processes sensory input, notions such as good, indifferent, & bad arise & are attached to things outside of ourselves: we begin to build constructs (essences) of what we believe the things we interact with possess. The essences, for those who subscribe to them, make things appear distinct & more independent than they actually are.

The problem is, with on-board, mental notions of essences as our look-outs, we cannot perceive a thing outside of ourselves purely as the thing is in itself; rather, we can only perceive things from the manner in which they have interacted with us, previously. As time goes on, we compile stories as to what a thing's essence is, but this cognizing flows from the bias of our self: we miss the thing in itself, for what it really is. We gather emotional responses to things, further biasing our understanding of the things with which we interact.

Essences arise within the individual & are judgmental assessments of that individual's construction of reality: they are not reality in & of itself. Why not, because reality is the net sum of all things mutually, interdependently & incessantly interacting: all things are affected by everything else, at every moment. Emptiness, or the realization all things are always mutually interacting, interdependently, is the actual state of reality. Whoever attaches an eternal nature to a mountain, clings to an essence. But whoever sees the rise & crumble of the mountain, as equivalent to the rise & fall of a star, as equivalent to the rise & fall of a galaxy, as equivalent to the rise & fall of a Universe, sees emptiness. Cosmologically speaking, we know all matter in our very young universe was once completely hydrogen.*

In other words & paradoxically, Anicca (impermanence), via mutual interdependence & incessant interaction, not essences, permanently marks the state of everything. Essences are a construct of the unenlightened human mind which, left unattended, delude its owner to the actual state of things. Essences, an algorithmic software of evolution, designed to help a finite being subsist within infinity, have no place, themselves, in intimating infinity. However, if we drop the plural (essences) & opt for the singular (essence) we might rightly say the essence of everything is.......it has no essence; rather, only transience.

As Robert Wright says, essences are "central to the Buddhist concept of emptiness." ** What Wright meant is that leaving our essences behind is vital to grasping emptiness: as we free ourselves of essences, we free ourselves of delusion. As we empty our boats of delusions, we go lightly & quickly to the far shore.***

To fathom "Emptiness," we must strive to disentangle our perception from feelings. Essences are bound up with feelings (which are tied to instincts), which play a much larger role in our interpretation of reality than we realize. That is why meditation is the means through which SG & others break down essences: meditation identifies essences for what they are--transient comings & goings. The degree to which we break down essences equals the degree to which emptiness manifests. The degree to which emptiness manifests, equals the speed with which we cross to the far shore=nibbāna.
I believe the ultimate goal of emptiness is nibbāna & nibbāna is the ultimate goal of Theravāda Buddhism.

NOTES:

*Leaving aside the problem of Dark matter & Dark energy for the purpose of this discussion.

**See Robert Wright in “Why Buddhism is True: The Science and Philosophy of Meditation and Enlightenment.”

*** See, for example, Dhammapada #369.