Emptiness and Existence
-
by Tenzin Gyatso, His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama
To generate the type of love and compassion that motivates you to seek buddhahood, not for yourself but for the sake of others, first you must confront suffering by identifying its types. This is the first noble truth. From the time we are born to the time we die we suffer mental and physical pain, the suffering of change, and pervasive suffering of uncontrolled conditioning. The second and third noble truths lead us to understand the causes of suffering and whether or not those causes can be removed. The fundamental cause of suffering is ignorance—the mistaken apprehension that living beings and objects inherently exist.We all have a valid, proper sense of self, or “I,” but then we additionally have a misconception of that “I” as inherently existing. Under the sway of this delusion, we view the self as existing under its own power, established by way of its own nature, able to set itself up.
However, if there were such a separate I—self-established and existing in its own right—it should become clearer and clearer under the light of competent analysis as to whether it exists as either mind or body, or the collection of mind and body, or different from mind and body. In fact, the closer you look, the more it is not found. This turns out to be the case for everything, for all phenomena. The fact that you cannot find them means that those phenomena do not exist under their own power; they are not self-established.
Sometime during the early sixties when I was reflecting on a passage by Tsongkhapa [founder of the Gelugpa school to which the Dalai Lama belongs] about unfindability and the fact that phenomena are dependent on conceptuality, it was as if lightning coursed within my chest. Here is the passage:
A coiled rope's speckled color and coiling are similar to those of a snake, and when the rope is perceived in a dim area, the thought arises, “This is a snake.” As for the rope, at that time when it is seen to be a snake, the collection and parts of the rope are not even in the slightest way a snake. Therefore, that snake is merely set up by conceptuality.In the same way, when the thought “I” arises in dependence upon mind and body, nothing within mind and body—neither the collection which is a continuum of earlier and later moments, nor the collection of the parts at one time, nor the separate parts, nor the continuum of any of the separate parts—is in even the slightest way the “I.” Also there is not even the slightest something that is a different entity from mind and body that is apprehendable as the “I.” Consequently, the “I” is merely set up by conceptuality in dependence upon mind and body; it is not established by way of its own entity.
The impact lasted for a while, and for the next few weeks whenever I saw people, they seemed like a magician's illusions in that they appeared to inherently exist but I knew that they actually did not. That experience, which was like lightning in my heart, was most likely at a level below completely valid and incontrovertible realization. This is when my understanding of the cessation of the afflictive emotions as a true possibility became real.
Nowadays I always meditate on emptiness in the morning and bring that experience into the day's activities. Just thinking or saying “I,” as in "I will do such and such,” will often trigger the feeling. But still I cannot claim full understanding of emptiness.
A consciousness that conceives of inherent existence does not have a valid foundation. A wise consciousness, grounded in reality, understands that living beings and other phenomena—minds, bodies, buildings, and so forth—do not inherently exist. This is the wisdom of emptiness. Understanding reality exactly opposite to the misconception of inherent existence, wisdom gradually overcomes ignorance.
Remove the ignorance that misconceives phenomena to inherently exist and you prevent the generation of afflictive emotions like lust and hatred. Thus, in turn, suffering can also be removed. In addition, the wisdom of emptiness must be accompanied by a motivation of deep concern for others (and by the compassionate deeds it inspires) before it can remove the obstructions to omniscience, which are the predispositions for the false appearance of phenomena—even to sense consciousness—as if they inherently exist.
Therefore, full spiritual practice calls for cultivating wisdom in conjunction with great compassion and the intention to become enlightened in which others are valued more than yourself. Only then may your consciousness be transformed into the omniscience of a Buddha.
Selflessness
Both Buddhists and non-Buddhists practice meditation to achieve pleasure and get rid of pain, and in both Buddhist and non-Buddhist systems the self is a central object of scrutiny. Certain non-Buddhists who accept rebirth accept the transitory nature of mind and body, but they believe in a self that is permanent, changeless and unitary. Although Buddhist schools accept rebirth, they hold that there is no such solid self. For Buddhists, the main topic of the training in wisdom is emptiness, or selflessness, which means the absence of a permanent, unitary and independent self or, more subtly, the absence of inherent existence either in living beings or in other phenomena.
The Two Truths
To understand selflessness, you need to understand that everything that exists is contained in two groups called the two truths: conventional and ultimate. The phenomena that we see and observe around us can go from good to bad, or bad to good, depending on various causes and conditions. Many phenomena cannot be said to be inherently good or bad; they are better or worse, tall or short, beautiful or ugly, only by comparison, not by way of their own nature. Their value is relative. From this you can see that there is a discrepancy between the way things appear and how they actually are. For instance, something may—in terms of how it appears—look good, but, due to its inner nature being different, it can turn bad once it is affected by
conditions. Food that looks so good in a restaurant may not sit so well in your stomach. This is a clear sign of a discrepancy between appearance and reality.These phenomena themselves are called conventional truths: they are known by consciousness that goes no further than appearances. But the same objects have an inner mode of being, called an ultimate truth, that allows for the changes brought about by conditions. A wise consciousness, not satisfied with mere appearances, analyzes to find whether objects inherently exist as they seem to do but discovers their absence of inherent existence. It finds an emptiness of inherent existence beyond appearances.
Empty of What?
Emptiness, or selflessness, can only be understood if we first identify that of which phenomena are empty. Without understanding what is negated, you cannot understand its absence, emptiness.You might think that emptiness means nothingness, but it does not. Merely from reading it is difficult to identify and understand the object of negation, what Buddhist texts speak of as true establishment or inherent existence. But over a period of time, when you add your own investigations to the reading, the faultiness of our usual way of seeing things will become clearer and clearer.
Buddha said many times that because all phenomena are dependently arisen, they are relative—their existence depends on other causes and conditions and depends on their own parts. A wooden table, for instance, does not exist independently; rather, it depends on a great many causes such as a tree, the carpenter who makes it, and so forth; it also depends upon its own parts. If a wooden table or any phenomenon really were not dependent—if it were established in its own right—then when you analyze it, its existence in its own right should become more obvious, but it does not.
This Buddhist reasoning is supported by science. Physicists today keep discovering finer and finer components of matter, yet they still cannot understand its ultimate nature. Understanding emptiness is even deeper. The more you look into how an ignorant consciousness conceives phenomena to exist, the more you find that phenomena do not exist that way. However, the more you look into what a wise consciousness understands, the more you gain affirmation in the absence of inherent existence.
Do Objects Exist?
We have established that when any phenomenon is sought through analysis, it cannot be found. So you may be wondering whether these phenomena exist at all. However, we know from direct experience that people and things cause pleasure and pain, and that they can help and harm. Therefore, phenomena certainly do exist; the question is how? They do not exist in their own right, but only have an existence dependent upon many factors, including a consciousness that conceptualizes them.Once they exist but do not exist on their own, they necessarily exist in dependence upon conceptualization. However, when phenomena appear to us, they do not at all appear as if they exist this way. Rather, they seem to be established in their own right, from the object's side, without depending upon a conceptualizing consciousness.
When training to develop wisdom, you are seeking through analysis to find the inherent existence of whatever object you are considering—yourself, another person, your body, your mind, or anything else. You are analyzing not the mere appearance but the inherent nature of the object. Thus it is not that you come to understand that the object does not exist; rather, you find that its inherent existence is unfounded. Analysis does not contradict the mere existence of the object. Phenomena do indeed exist, but not in the way we think they do.
What is left after analysis is a dependently existent phenomenon. When, for example, you examine your own body, its inherent existence is negated, but what is left is a body dependent on four limbs, a trunk, and a head.
If Phenomena Are Empty, Can They Function?
Whenever we think about objects, do we mistakenly believe that they exist in their own right? No. We can conceive of phenomena in three different ways. Let us consider a tree. There is no denying that it appears to inherently exist, but:
We could conceive of the tree as existing inherently, in its own right.
We could conceive of the tree as lacking inherent existence.
We could conceive of the tree without thinking that it inherently exists or not.
Only the first of those is wrong. The other two modes of apprehension are right, even if the mode of appearance is mistaken in the second and the third, in that the tree appears as if inherently existent.If objects do not inherently exist, does this mean that they cannot function? Jumping to the conclusion that because the true nature of objects is emptiness, they are therefore incapable of performing functions such as causing pleasure or pain, or helping or harming, is the worst sort of misunderstanding, a nihilistic view. As the Indian scholar-yogi Nagarjuna says in his Precious Garland, a nihilist will certainly have a bad transmigration upon rebirth, whereas a person who believes, albeit wrongly, in inherent existence goes on to a good transmigration.
Allow me to explain. You need a belief in the consequences of actions to choose virtue in your life and discard nonvirtue. For the time being, the subtle view of the emptiness of inherent existence might be too difficult for you to understand without falling into the trap of nihilism, where you are unable to understand that phenomena arise in dependence on causes and conditions (dependent-arising). Then for the sake of your spiritual progress it would be better for now to set aside trying to penetrate emptiness. Even if you mistakenly believe that phenomena inherently exist, you can still develop an understanding of dependent-arising and apply it in practice. This is why even Buddha, on occasion, taught that living beings and other
phenomena inherently exist. Such teachings are the thought of Buddha's scriptures, but they are not his own final thought. For specific purposes, he sometimes spoke in nonfinal ways.
In What Way Is Consciousness Mistaken?
Because all phenomena appear to exist in their own right, all of our ordinary perceptions are mistaken. Only when emptiness is directly realized during completely focused meditation is there no false appearance. At that time, the dualism of subject and object has vanished, as has the appearance of multiplicity; only emptiness appears. After you rise from that meditation, once again living beings and objects falsely appear to exist in and of themselves, but through the power of having realized emptiness, you will recognize the discrepancy between appearance and reality. Through meditation you have identified both the false mode of appearance and the false mode of apprehension.Let us return to the central point: All of us have a sense of "I" but we need to realize that it is only designated in dependence upon mind and body. The selflessness that Buddhists speak of refers to the absence of a self that is permanent, partless, and independent, or, more subtly, it can refer to the absence of inherent existence of any phenomenon. However, Buddhists
do value the existence of a self that changes from moment to moment, designated in dependence upon the continuum of mind and body. All of us validly have this sense of “I.” When Buddhists speak of the doctrine of selflessness, we are not referring to the nonexistence of this self. With this “I,” all of us rightfully want happiness and do not want suffering. It is when we exaggerate our sense of ourselves and other phenomena to mean something inherently existent that we get drawn into many, many problems.
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/dalai2.html/\
-
I think philosophy has already addressed this. I have also made mention of it. It is the distinction between contingent and necessary beings.
If we think we are necessary beings then I submit we are indeed deluded! For we are all contingent beings i.e. we need not exist at all. But I think few people will think they are necessary beings.
-
@BroInChrist
That's interesting. Please elaborate more about contingent and necessary beings because what you said is very brief and if you had explained it before, please share the url so we can actually go in and read what you have said. Anyway, Is what you saying part of the Christian belief system ? It is the first time I am hearing this. Please share. Thank you.
-
yeah. anyway thanks for making it un-follow-ing, so i can reply lesser. rest for a while.
/\
-
Originally posted by Steveyboy:
@BroInChrist
That's interesting. Please elaborate more about contingent and necessary beings because what you said is very brief and if you had explained it before, please share the url so we can actually go in and read what you have said. Anyway, Is what you saying part of the Christian belief system ? It is the first time I am hearing this. Please share. Thank you.
Please see http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-cosmological-argument/the-argument-from-contingency/ and we can discuss further. -
@BroInChrist - I read the webstie. Emptiness is not voidness, it is phenomena that lacks inherent existence. It is a fact that everything in this universe are what you call contigent existence. There's nothing that will not decay. In physics, we know that atoms and molecules are in constant flux and they will eventually break down over time.
In other words, everything is impermenant and can change so there's nothing we can perceive that is permanent or absolute as in a necessary existence. If God truly exists, he must be the only necessary being out there. But where is he? We only know he exists because a book written by men says so. If he is God, why does he need to stay hidden from us?
-
Originally posted by Steveyboy:
... molecules are in constant flux and they will eventually break down over time. In other words, everything is impermenant and can change so there's nothing we can perceive that is permanent or absolute as in a necessary existence. If God truly exists, ...
The problem is, your view above only applies to the material universe and all that is in it. It does not apply to God who is Spirit or the spiritual realm.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
The problem is, your view above only applies to the material universe and all that is in it. It does not apply to God who is Spirit or the spiritual realm.
How do you that? How do you know that God who is a spirit of the spiritual realm and is not subject to impermanence?
-
Originally posted by Steveyboy:
How do you that? How do you know that God who is a spirit of the spiritual realm and is not subject to impermanence?
You said earlier that everything in the universe is subject to impermanence, I prefer the word "contingent". So I completely agree! Everything IN this universe is contingent. In fact, the universe itself is contingent. The universe has no existence in and of itself. It's existence is dependent arising from that which is external to it and not part of it and does not have its characteristics, otherwise it would also require an explanation and then we go back to "turtles all the way down" which explains nothing. But the cause that creates time, space and matter must certainly be eternal, omnipresent and omnipotent.
Of course, the above itself is just reasoning, just like in Buddhism, it does not answer the question of how I know. This can only be known via revelation from God Himself, who declares Himself that He does not change.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
This can only be known via revelation from God Himself, who declares Himself that He does not change.
i wonder how it was said?
-
Originally posted by Steveyboy:
@BroInChrist - I read the webstie. Emptiness is not voidness, it is phenomena that lacks inherent existence. It is a fact that everything in this universe are what you call contigent existence. There's nothing that will not decay. In physics, we know that atoms and molecules are in constant flux and they will eventually break down over time.
In other words, everything is impermenant and can change so there's nothing we can perceive that is permanent or absolute as in a necessary existence. If God truly exists, he must be the only necessary being out there. But where is he? We only know he exists because a book written by men says so. If he is God, why does he need to stay hidden from us?
You are right in concluding that everything in the universe, and the universe itself for that matter, is contingent and impermanent in that they could not exist independent of something else. But since the universe is contingent, then it stands to reason that the cause of the universe must be necessary. And since the universe is time, space and matter, the cause of the universe must be timeless, not bound by space, nor made of matter. This is fully consistent with what the Bible teaches about God. And yes, God is the ONLY necessary being. Where is God? He is everywhere. It is not true that we only know God exists because the Bible says so. There are people who come to this conclusion apart from the Bible. In fact, the Bible teaches that people KNOW there is a God when they consider the fact of creation around them. But people SUPPRESS this truth in unrighteousness.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
You are right in concluding that everything in the universe, and the universe itself for that matter, is contingent and impermanent in that they could not exist independent of something else. But since the universe is contingent, then it stands to reason that the cause of the universe must be necessary. And since the universe is time, space and matter, the cause of the universe must be timeless, not bound by space, nor made of matter. This is fully consistent with what the Bible teaches about God. And yes, God is the ONLY necessary being. Where is God? He is everywhere. It is not true that we only know God exists because the Bible says so. There are people who come to this conclusion apart from the Bible. In fact, the Bible teaches that people KNOW there is a God when they consider the fact of creation around them. But people SUPPRESS this truth in unrighteousness.
So, there are other ways. Some call it god, gods, universe, true self, buddhahood etc. Just different paths, right?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
And yes, God is the ONLY necessary being.
no need to be a "being" what ..God is the ONLY necessary (full stop); Tao is the Only necessary.
ps: but the rest of the explaining i can relate, some what mystical in a sense.
-
Originally posted by zeus29:
So, there are other ways. Some call it god, gods, universe, true self, buddhahood etc. Just different paths, right?
No. The Buddha did not recognise many ways. Neither did Jesus. Both made EXCLUSIVE claims. Buddha claimed to show the way. Jesus claimed to be THE Way.
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
no need to be a "being" what ..God is the ONLY necessary (full stop); Tao is the Only necessary.
ps: but the rest of the explaining i can relate, some what mystical in a sense.
Why not? In fact, a personal Being makes better sense than some inanimate force. You can't give what you do not have. It is irrational to believe that inanimate forces can be the cause of moral values, consciousness, reason etc.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
No. The Buddha did not recognise many ways. Neither did Jesus. Both made EXCLUSIVE claims. Buddha claimed to show the way. Jesus claimed to be THE Way.
karma, rebirth etc also adopted from hinduism which exisited before the gautama buddha's time. err, dude. the buddha did say there are 84,000 dharma doors.
you kept mentioning jesus is the way. what way??
-
Originally posted by zeus29:
karma, rebirth etc also shared by hinduism which exisited before the gautama buddha's time. you kept mentioning jesus is the way. what way??
Jesus said no one comes to God except through Him.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Jesus said no one comes to God except through Him.
huh? you mean walk through him?
from my other post:
I still don't understand what is the salvation you talked about? You mentioned he's the way. What way? Be like him? Dress like him? Walk his path, right? Just like the metaphor I used earlier. What's the difference? Don't tell me it's okay to walk on the path left by jesus that is lit by his teachings and not okay the path left by the buddha that is lit by his dharma.
-
Originally posted by zeus29:
huh? you mean walk through him?
It means trusting and depending on Him for salvation.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
It means trusting and depending on Him for salvation.
depending on his teaching, right?
ours is trusting and depending on the dharma for our salvation and the salvation of others.
-
Originally posted by zeus29:
depending on his teaching, right?
ours is trusting and depending on the dharma for our salvation and the salvation of others.
No. Depending on Him. An analogy would be like trusting the fireman to carry you on his back to take you out of the burning house, as compared with someone who pointed out that you have to find your way out of the burning house by yourself.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
No. Depending on Him. An analogy would be like trusting the fireman to carry you on his back to take you out of the burning house, as compared with someone who pointed out that you have to find your way out of the burning house by yourself.
i see. hence, the many dharma doors. pureland buddhists believe the same, too. mahayanists believe boddhisattvas will hold our hands and guide us out. theravadins believe in reading the floorplan and get out.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
No. Depending on Him. An analogy would be like trusting the fireman to carry you on his back to take you out of the burning house, as compared with someone who pointed out that you have to find your way out of the burning house by yourself.
you're very persistent
hope you'll see the impermanence in life... sorry i'm not cursing you to be diagnosed with cancer or accidents
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Why not? In fact, a personal Being makes better sense than some inanimate force. You can't give what you do not have. It is irrational to believe that inanimate forces can be the cause of moral values, consciousness, reason etc.
give what you do not have? Tao is not inanimated what. moral values, consciousness, reasoning are reflected back on the individual beingS. Tao only act as a law or control. beings reap what they sow. they are their own architect of life. because if Tao become a being, then it will also be affected by it's own emotion, then even if one do good, Tao can out of his own emotional conditions change the outcome of the person. it can become very unfair. own life own architect is most rational and fair.to us the devas or gods in the heaven can out of their emotions affect the outcome of people here. then they will also be control or Judge by Tao. Tao is equal and fair to all. it does not mean that when u are the law enforcer or even the "creator", u can anyhow break the law. Polices, Lawyers, Judge, President, King... all need to abide by the Law/Tao.
/\
-
we also said there's nothing outside the mind, to seek something outside the mind is external teaching of mara aka adharma.
/\