Awakening to Reality: It is exactly because things are “empty” that they can function

I now have alot of questions when I see u

Can. U bribe with coffee I ok d

- Reply
- 1d

Will one of those questions be, "What are you smoking?"

- Reply
- 23h

I was telling victor few days back, met him for coffee - see I’m not looking at you, you are looking at yourself then he’s like wtf

Then I tell him .. see the music is hearing itself .. he wtf again .. then we change topic to

Complainign about our parents

- Reply
- 23h

Yin Ling I'm glad you're out of the closet and not trying to hide your nutcase condition. Yogi Power United!

- Reply
- 23h

Hahaha..... what are u smoking and can I have some ?

Yin Ling we need to continue the conversation ( not the complaning parents part )

- Reply
- 22h

Mr./Ms. VWC smoke smoke your head smoke air la lol.

- Reply
- 22h

Smoke coffee

- Reply
- 22h

Is there "illusoriness" for you in any of this? Would you say something about that?

Hi Stian.

Yes.

Once conviction arise - nargajuna MMK repetitively negate essence throughout its 27 chapters , again and again and again,

To tell us only one thing- that essence cannot function.

Seed cannot become sprout

Movement cannot happen

Cause and effect untenable

4 noble truths cannot work

Nor does path and fruit, no one can get enlightened

If essence is posited

the opposition premise of essence is faulty

Firsf principle is wrong

Where else can we go?

Essencelessness.

The whole world turns fluid, fuzzy, soft, not solid anymore.

Especially if one have anatta insight, - they could sense this illusoriness as objects don’t appear physical to them but “physical +mental” which is “vivid yet empty” in one taste.

This is my xp, do u relate, though?

- Reply
- 1d

Gotama often asked first, is form constant or inconstant? Permanent or impermanent?

Maybe part of his point was that absolute things do not change. In a sense, he is asking, is form absolute? Are feelings absolute? Fixed, unchanging, static, constant. Like absolute is.

But those things are not absolute.

So since they are not absolute, they are relative. Actually, they are "relative to their source" or dependently arisen. All things do not stand alone, and instead stand *in relation*, and for Gotama the principal *standing in relation* was the one called "when this is, that is" and "when this arises, that arises". The idappaccayatā.

Things that have causes are relative; are not absolute.

But relative things have a certain illusoriness about them. For example, a rainbow doesn’t really exist as it appears. The coming together of myriad causes and conditions merely gives an appearance of being a rainbow in the sky over there.

Such is the *nature* of relative things, their "suchness".

And the realization that these considerations are linked together is penetrating insight: that things that change are relative, and not absolute, and the comprehension of what the nature of relative (dependently arisen) things are, which is the understanding that clarifies the absolute nature, and the two truths.

For me the illusoriness has to do with comprehending the nature of these appearances, and their nature can be understood by seeing that they are dependently arisen. This can be expressed as non-arising. That is, since these thing *do indeed* arise dependently, therefor they are illusory, since arising doesn’t work, and yet, look at them go! Arising! When arising is impossible! And yet they do! Thus they are illusory, since their mode of arising is only valid as magic, illusion.

That is an expression from a young realization of emptiness. A more mature expression would hone more precisely in on how it is not exactly the "reality" of appearances which are negated by emptiness, but intrinsic existence.

Anyway, this is getting too long!

- Reply
- 1d

> That is, since these thing *do indeed* arise dependently, therefor they are illusory, since arising doesn’t work, and yet, look at them go! Arising! When arising is impossible! And yet they do! Thus they are illusory, since their mode of arising is only valid as magic, illusion.

This is where function and empty and illusory meet for me. Appearances function *because* they are not absolute, but are instead relative. And this itself makes them illusory; that is, that they are relative—like a rainbow, or reflections.

Hence, being empty, they function. Functioning, they are relative. Being relative, they are illusory: Only as magic display do they function.

- Reply
- 1d
- Edited

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland well said stian!

- Reply
- 1d

André A. Pais

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Is there a place where the display can retain its magic and yet lose its illusoriness and "relative nature"?

Like it's said in the Mahamudra tradition, the *conviction* that things are empty (lesser 2nd yoga) and that things are one taste (lesser 3rd yoga), such conviction must be removed if one is to attain the greater levels of those yogas. 'Emptiness' and 'non-duality' are reference points that "stain" the primordially pure nature of mind.

So, can the illusoriness go, and yet the magic - the wonder - remain?

- Reply
- 21h
- Edited

André A. Pais

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland I do think you're pointing to something very significative, and I wonder if it relates to something that I've seen you refer to briefly: the spacelike- and the dreamlike samadhi.

- Reply
- 21h

Mr./Ms. YEH

difficult to understand for the mind.

Mr./Ms. YEH haha it’s ok.

It’s very hard to sense this without some insight though imo.

But I think the theory can be explained quite thoroughly

- Reply
- 1d

Mr./Ms. YEH

Yin Ling haha.

I’m very curious about the theory.

- Reply
- 1d

Mr./Ms. YEH

Yin Ling funny that a person (also empty) can be run over by a car (also empty)

haha. Yes, science explains it very well, that matter doesn’t really exist and it’s all nothing but energy

- Reply
- 1d

Mr./Ms. YEH precisely! Quantum physics found nothing lol

- Reply
- 1d

Mr./Ms. JJ

Aren't you making a jump here from how you perceive things to then making statements about how the world has to be in order to work?

Mr./Ms. JJ the other way. The analysis first then the perception will change

- Reply
- 1d

Mr./Ms. JJ

Hm OK, maybe I'll understand it when I get there. Personally, I do not believe that we human beings can analyse or perceive how things really are. So these statements are in the realm of guesses. Our nervous system is extremely limited and hence our access to so called reality is as well.

- Reply
- 1d

Mr./Ms. JJ haha have hope! Our nervous system can be quite malleable

- Reply
- 1d

Hey Jachym. Just to pick a materialist brain for a bit, to see for myself how the materialist view works.

Can the human nervous system access itself from outside itself? And if not, how can there be talk of human nervous system?

- Reply
- 1d

Geovani Geo

Mr./Ms. JJ, any notion of "how things REALLY are" is just one more concept. What if the very absence of how things really are is how they REALLY are?

For example: dream-nature is how dream-things really are. That does not mean they are not, neither that they are.

- Reply
- 1d
- Edited

Mr./Ms. JM

Love this. I don't know if I experience it the way u do.. But what was written evokes an ease and aliveness all at once, which are nevertheless empty.. Which is wonderful.

- Reply
- 1d

I never understood why the word "empty" is chosen to describe reality.

Are we simply saying that there aren't things, but essentially what everything is is a dynamic system.

So shouldn't "dynamic" be clearer than "empty"?

Reply
23h
Edited

More like empty of independent and inherent existence ahaha

Then again so many definitions of emptiness between schools everyone have their own meaning

So it’s just like a word representing lots of meanings

- Reply
- 23h

William Lim empty of inherent nature would bee

a better way of seeing it

- Reply
- 23h

"Dynamism" does seem to convey the lack of independent and inherent existence better yah?

Maybe it's just me, "empty" has a "stuck" connotation in the everyday understanding of the word.

Then you end up having to qualify it with "empty of..." and "Emptiness is not void but..."

Then empty is actually not the quality itself, but used as a modifer.

- Reply
- 23h
- Edited

Shapeshifting brah

Btw William Lim I wrote to you on messenger

- Reply
- 23h
- Edited

Then "empty" (in the normal understanding of the word) doesn't actually convey the quality itself, but the word is used as a modifer instead.

- Reply
- 23h
- Edited

William Lim yeah but then ppl will ask you, what is dynamic.

The name dynamic

Or the nature dynamic

Or the self become dynamic

Lol. It’s coz the nature that Buddhism wanted to put forth is unprecedented hence any word we use would be pretty troublesome imo

- Reply
- 23h

I suspect there might be a reason why "empty" is used or translated as such, just that I dun really "get it".

Is it used to describe the non-arising aspect of reality?

- Reply
- 23h

Yin Ling isn't the correct answer "everything is dynamic"... the entire cosmos is a dynamic system in flux and therefore there aren't independent things with inherent existence

- Reply
- 23h

William Lim smack ur head.

How does dynamism liberate u from the cyclical existence? Although "emptiness" entails dynamism, "emptiness" relates more to the nature of consciousness.

The mind is "molded" and trapped to think in a dualistic and inherent pattern due to many factors esp reinforced by objective and hard science. But when consciousness becomes primary and is added to the equation of understanding reality, everything changes and turns fuzzy and paradoxical as it does not adhere to the materialistic paradigm.

U don't need emptiness if consciousness is excluded.

- Reply
- 23h
- Edited

Dynamic yet still. Stillness in dynamism. No inherent and independant quality and all inherent and dependent qualities at the same time

- Reply
- 23h

John Tan lol thanks this makes sense . I’m already stuck

- Reply
- 22h

John Tan, thanks for the Zen smack

Yes, because most people define Emptiness as the lack of independent and inherent existence, I do understand it from the perspective that everything is dynamic and in a flux (and hence there are no independent things that has an inherent essence).

Which is why I'm questioning if I understood the word "empty" correctly beyond "dynamism", or am I missing something.

- Reply
- 22h

Yin Ling emptiness of emptiness… or just silence

- Reply
- 22h

William Lim yes as I said essencelessness "entails" dynamic manifestation but much more. In fact post anatta insight, it is easier to authenticate directly essencelessness but much more difficult to understand through logical analysis. It requires time, genuine and sincere contemplation to constantly check with one's radiance clarity.

The issue about logical analysis is it is presented in apophatic negation as we can't use one thesis to prove the invalidity of another, it is like comparing apple and orange. Therefore Nagarjuna is unable tell them what he actually experienced and tasted.

So Nagarjuna can only show the realists and essentialists that their inherent view is untenable and lead to absurd consequences by using their own premise. Hence u negate the false until nothing "false" is left. U negate "essence and substance" until insight of "essencelessness" dawns. Therefore if u go by analytical reasoning, that is the best u can do imo. Unless u approach another way.

Do take note that by emptiness here I m referring to empty of self-nature, not emptiness as freedom from all elaborations/conceptualities aka primordial purity of non-gelug schools which is altogether a different praxis. However both of them do meet ultimately (imo).

- Reply
- 22h
- Edited

Yin Ling ur radiance must be very soothing, very light and transparent; like space, free and liberating. Appearances turn illusory and magical, joy keep surfacing in every authentication and hopefully also helps to release part of ur energy imbalances.

Enjoy practicing!

- Reply
- 22h

Thanks John for your help. Couldn’t have intuit it without. Slowly slowly getting there .. really slowly . emptiness insight really takes a lot of practise time.. so far so good.

In my xp it’s completely a different “realm” , Anatta insight melt into the whole xp and completely integrated. Very interesting .. quite surprise actually

- Reply
- 22h

Soh Wei Yu

Everyone understands dynamic but not everyone understands what is dynamic is dependently originating and non arising like a rainbow or reflection. Vividly present yet nothing there. Hence the dynamic phenomena is also free of some sort of real existence undergoing arising, abiding and ceasing.

Dynamic phenomena can be mistaken as not empty - that is, it may be mistaken that there exists phenomena that have some sort of real essence or existence that is truly undergoing arising, abiding and ceasing by its own self existence, even if that process happens momentarily and quickly.

- Reply
- 21h
- Edited

Soh Wei Yu

“Pursuant to the middle view, Tson-kha-pa cites Nagarjuna's Yuk-tisastika and Candrakirti's Yuktisastika-vrtti.

Nagarjuna:

What arises in dependence is not born;

That is proclaimed by the supreme knower of reality

Buddha).

Candrakirti:

(The realist opponent says): If (as you say) whatever thing arises in dependence is not even born, then why does (the Madhyamika) say it is not born? But if you (Madhyamika) have a reason for saying (this thing) is not born, then you should not say it "arises in dependence." Therefore, because of mutual inconsistency, (what you have said) is not valid.)

(The Madhyamika replies with compassionate interjection:)

Alas! Because you are without ears or heart you have thrown a challenge that is severe on us! When we say that anything arising in dependence, in the manner of a reflected image, does not arise by reason of self-existence - at that time where is the possibility of disputing (us)!” - excerpt from Calming the Mind and Discerning the Real: Buddhist Meditation and the Middle View

- Reply
- 21h

Angelo Grr

William Lim to me it’s a word that can be easily misapplied, but is apt for this direct experience. Empty of necessity for fixed position, dimension or size. Empty of meaning or purpose and thus can accommodate anything, all movements. Empty of identity thus accommodates all positions, formulations, views. Also empty of defined nature even emptiness so not apart from experience, appearance, formulation. In some way, experientially quite robust, intimate, alive, tactile, radiant, yet not limited to those ways of being. Can be on both sides at once. Can be simultaneous opposites, easily. Can be a front without a back. Can be the bearded Bodhidharma with no beard.

- Reply
- 19h

William Lim I like your inquisitiveness. And I actually like the way Mr./Ms. JST replied here. His answers are quite apt! Because he points out the duality, and because he indicates non-conceptuality.

Soh also put his finger on it.

Let me try to add a little to what they said.

At a kind of higher level overview, I want you to notice that "dynamic" or "dynamism" is part of a complimentary pair—a duality. This can clue you in on that your mind is "stuck" in a "dualistic fixation" (like we all are all the time). You have ended up with one end of the stick: dynamic, and not static; dynamism, and not staticness.

Just notice that "dynamic" is part of this complimentary pair, together with "static".

"Empty" is "empty" because when your realization occurs, your mind and vision is empty of all of those (that is, all of those, eh, 'sticks'—or, rather, 'ends'). At least at first.

Do you understand what I mean?

Always we go from one end to the other. From static to dynamic; empty to non-empty; arising to ceasing; existence to non-existence; subject to object; attainment to non-attainment; attachment to freedom; cause to effect; affirmation to negation. Note that these are pairs. Always we go from one end to the other. And wonder now: How should I conduct myself so that instead of just going from one end to other, or back again, how can the whole stick—with both its sides or ends—be let go of?

Dependent arising/designation.

Do you understand?

These *pairs* are *complimentary*. What does this mean?

Well, what is dynamic without static? What is non-empty without empty? What is non-existence without existence? What is subject without object? In dependence on one, the other is designated. This is mutual.

The path of logical reasoning teaches you how to make *one swift cut* through the complimentary pair instead of cutting/negating one end and ending up at/affirming the other. They are called the (dualistic) extremes (or 'ends'—"anta" as in madhyānta), and dependent arising is the middle way, the king of reasons.

If dynamism and staticness are designated in mutual dependence, which come or arise first? Ponder this.

In emptiness there is neither dynamism nor staticness.

I would also recommend some writings of mine where I try to illustrate the double-edged cut, but I’m on my phone now, so I’ll get you a link later.

- Reply
- 4h
- Edited

Mr./Ms. DL

A better description might be "neutral state"). (Absolute Entrophy?)

Mr./Ms. DL better description for emptiness? Or?

Hmm.. Not exactly neutral though.. it’s really not about being neutral but rather about negating an imposition of Inherency by the humans mind onto the world.

- Reply
- 9h

Mr./Ms. DL

Yes, in this particular emptiness or nothingness state, energy still exists (quantum energy) right? It does not have a physical form. It can exist in physical form, it just doesn't because all of the positive energy is perfectly counterbalanced by all of the negative energy. Time has no meaning, because there are no atoms to move around and give meaning to time.

Maybe We don't have a word in common English to properly describe such a state because this situation only existed prior to the existence of the universe?

Emptiness is the content of a volume, or a state of something. While nothingness is an entity, emptiness is its content.

- Reply
- 8h