The Stillness Within

• Aik TC

  3 Apr 14, 14:08

   

  I read an article, ‘The Stillness Within’ in ST Mind your Body quoting this passage from the Tao Te Ching.

  "Becoming totally empty, quiet the restlessness of the mind, only then will you witness everything unfolding from emptiness and see all thing flourish and dance in endless variation and again merge back into perfect emptiness. Their true repose their nature, emerging, flourishing, dissolving, back again. This is the eternal process of return".

  Does anyone have this kind of experience on impermanence and emptiness of all things during their meditation practice?

   

• Bio-Hawk

  3 Apr 14, 14:52

  I am curious too?And also to know why 'everything unfolds fromm emptiness and merge back into emptiness'? Why not the emptiness stay as it is? In Vedantic religions and Buddhism its the same concept.Why all this creation and destruction and our existence from which we need to liberate?Totally silly from a larger point of view.

• An Eternal Now

  3 Apr 14, 19:24

  The emptiness spoken above is not the same as the emptiness being taught in Buddhism.
  
  As I wrote in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/critique-on-bhikkhu-bodhis-article.html:
  

  Emptiness is not a background of phenomena, not a unifying principle, not a principle beneath our experience, but the very nature of all phenomena/experience is to be empty of any intrinsic existence at all.

  
  

  Furthermore, the dependent and empty nature of emptiness should show that there is no 'underlying emptiness behind everything'. If the emptiness of a cup depends on a cup, how can this emptiness be said to be some universal underlying principle behind all phenomena?

  
  

  Greg Goode put it well:

  
  

  "Emptiness Itself is Empty

  
  

  Even emptiness is empty. For example, the emptiness of the bottle of milk does not exist inherently. Rather, it exists in a dependent way. The emptiness of the bottle of milk is dependent upon its basis (the bottle of milk). It is also dependent upon having been designated as emptiness. As we saw above, this is alluded to in Nagarjuna’s Treatise, verse 24.18.

  
  

  Understood this way, emptiness is not a substitute term for awareness. Emptiness is not an essence. It is not a substratum or background condition. Things do not arise out of emptiness and subside back into emptiness. Emptiness is not a quality that things have, which makes them empty. Rather, to be a thing in the first place, is to be empty.

  
  

  It is easy to misunderstand emptiness by idealizing or reifying it by thinking that it is an absolute, an essence, or a special realm of being or experience. It is not any of those things. It is actually the opposite. It is merely the way things exist, which is without essence or self-standing nature or a substratum of any kind. Here is a list characteristics of emptiness, to help avoid some of the frequent misunderstandings about emptiness, according to the Buddhist Consequentialists:

  
  

      Emptiness is not a substance

      Emptiness is not a substratum or background

      Emptiness is not light

      Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness

      Emptiness is not the Absolute

      Emptiness does not exist on its own

      Objects do not consist of emptiness

      Objects do not arise from emptiness

      Emptiness of the "I" does not negate the "I"

      Emptiness is not the feeling that results when no objects are appearing to the mind

      Meditating on emptiness does not consist of quieting the mind"

  
  

  http://www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html

   

• An Eternal Now

  3 Apr 14, 19:30

  Originally posted by Bio-Hawk:

  I am curious too?And also to know why 'everything unfolds fromm emptiness and merge back into emptiness'? Why not the emptiness stay as it is? In Vedantic religions and Buddhism its the same concept.Why all this creation and destruction and our existence from which we need to liberate?Totally silly from a larger point of view.

  The Vedanta religion is not talking about emptiness, it is talking about awareness. It is a different realization. This awareness is taken to be inherently existing in Hinduism as their ultimate reality Brahman, but in Buddhism we realize that Awareness too is empty of inherent existence (any kind of intrinsic, independent, changeless existence) or Self-hood. That is emptiness realization.
  
  Secondly I think what I wrote here is relevant to your question because you are presuming that there is a 'purest state in the beginning':

  Thusness addressed the question of first cause years ago to me, and I wrote this then based on what he said:

  Actually we don't have an original nature, we have an empty nature, that has no beginning nor ending. To visualise a purest state from the start is a dualistic view. Emptiness is not a void, not absence of suffering, emptiness is the nature of suffering and all phenomena. Getting 'lost' and becoming dualistic is natural when we develop those conditions that make us 'lost', for example being attached to our luminosity is one of the factor. When condition is there, samsara (dualistic vision) simply manifests...
  
  The assumption that there is a purest state and we will not becoming dualistic is itself a dualistic view. There is no purest state, when condition is there, delusion manifests, every states are dependently originated and are empty, and being empty all states are equally pure. Suffering too is empty and pure. Even the state of delusion is empty and pure but we just don't recognize it due to our karmic obscurations (or deep conditionings, karmic propensities of falsely projecting 'self' and 'inherency') that blinds us from seeing.
  
  And no, realising the luminosity aspect alone can't lead to liberation. As I said... other religions talk about that aspect as well and not just Buddhism, but when its empty nature is not known, it becomes a metaphysical essence, and all phenomena becomes like dust on the mirror. And then there is a mirror reflecting external conditions. That becomes dualistic and 'inherent'. The cause of samsara is still not uprooted, and one of the fundamental causes as Thrangu Rinpoche* stated is the attachment to luminosity due to not perceiving its empty nature. If you read my friend's experience you see that there must be further insights into the anatta and sunyata nature of awareness.
  
  But emptiness is also not just empty, so you must realise the union and inseparability of luminosity and emptiness. Having conviction in our luminous nature as everpresent, never lost, is important, but having glimpses of that pure luminosity is just the beginning and we are still far from perceiving its nature.

   * Thrangu Rinpoche answers: If the nature of mind is this all-pervading, brilliant union of luminosity and emptiness, ungraspable, how is it that it could be obscured, even for a moment, let alone lifetime after lifetime?

   

   

• Weychin

  4 Apr 14, 02:43

  The first chapter of Tao De Jing, "The tao that can be named is not eternal Tao"

  My deepest impression of Tao comes from the book "Tao of leadership" by John Heider.

  "Wu wei" or non action is the highest state attained . It simply means centered in quietitude. Observing a group "field" or dynamics when in a group, the furry of life coming about in a seemingly still forest. Ripples forming across a mirrored lake when the wind blows. Simply observe without labelling or conceptions.

  Day to day, without being flustered yourself, watch the patterns and cyclical nature arise from a hurried haphazard daily routine of live. As we simply observe, out comes the flow and ebb, day by day , month by month, year by year.

  I believe if you are grounded with shamatha and vispassana practice, you should be able to observe "Tao".

• Weychin

  4 Apr 14, 03:10

  

  The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
  The name that can be named is not the eternal name
  The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
  The named is the mother of myriad things

  Thus, constantly free of desire
  One observes its wonders
  Constantly filled with desire
  One observes its manifestations

  These two emerge together but differ in name
  The unity is said to be the mystery
  Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders

  
  
• Weychin

  4 Apr 14, 03:13

  http://www.taoism.net/ttc/chapters/chap01.htm

• Aik TC

  4 Apr 14, 11:05

  Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

  The emptiness spoken above is not the same as the emptiness being taught in Buddhism.

  
  So what is this emptiness that the Tao Te Ching referring to after stillness sets in on the mind. What could arise after that if you are spiritually advanced in your practices?

• An Eternal Now

  4 Apr 14, 19:03

  •   Three+ months ago had this conversation with Thusness:
  
   1/24, 2:50am
  Thusness
  It all depends on how one is trained and taught
  •  
   1/24, 2:51am
  AEN
  what u mean
  •  
   1/24, 2:51am
  Thusness
  Surprising most translated it that way...probably affected by James legge...coz he translated it first...lol
  But surprising even Thomas cleary also seems to translate it that way
  Funny...
  The first chapter should b abt �体 and �用
  That is 无 and 有
  But difficult to write and explain
  So it depends how the master teach and like dzogchen, direct introduction into this 无 and 有
  •  
   1/24, 2:57am
  AEN
  what is wu and you in taoism
  •  
   1/24, 2:58am
  Thusness
  Read first chapter
  U got original Chinese txt?
  ���，�常�。���，�常�。無�天地之始；有��物之�。故常無欲，以觀其妙；常有欲，以觀其徼。此兩者，�出而異�，�謂之玄。玄之�玄，衆妙之門。
  無�天地之始；有��物之�. Depends on where u put the punctuation, the meaning changed entirely
  It can b 無,�天地之始；有,��物之�.
  Or It can b 無�,天地之始；有�,�物之�.
  •  
   1/24, 3:03am
  AEN
  oic.. whats the difference
  •  
   1/24, 3:04am
  Thusness
  Also it can b 故常無,欲以觀其妙；常有,欲以觀其徼。
  Or 故常無欲,以觀其妙；常有欲,以觀其徼。
  So the entire meaning changes
  •   

• jlowbog

  4 Apr 14, 21:48

  lao zi is believed to be an reincarnation of an arhat tat y his teaching share some similarities with Buddhism, since he was an arhat, he was more interested in getting self enlightenment rather than to preach and if not because a gatekeeper force him to write something, we wont even able get to c this spectacular work of tao de jin...however if im not mistaken, this jin was talking abt the law and behaviors of nature, never abt meditation, let alone the exps of meditation...
• An Eternal Now

  5 Apr 14, 10:21

  (continued)
  
  
   1/24, 3:05am
  AEN
  wu ming is the beginning of tian and di... or wu is the source of tian and di... wu ming is = nameless?
  wu is like nothingness
  •  
   1/24, 3:05am
  Thusness
  Yes
  •  
   1/24, 3:06am
  AEN
  oic.. so which meaning applies here
  Does lao tzu mean it in both ways
  •  
   1/24, 3:07am
  Thusness
  So u can treat the entire chapter is talking abt �體 as 無 and �用 as 有...then the entire chapter makes sense and with direct introduction all will b clear
  But most translations seem to take it as "無�/nameless" and "無欲/desireless"
  •  
   1/24, 3:10am
  AEN
  I see so lao tzu actually means nothingness rather than drsireless right
  •  
   1/24, 3:15am
  Thusness
  Depends how u see it and introduced...lol
  I think it should b understood that way
  But u read most of the net, almost all translated that way .., lol
  •  
   1/24, 3:21am
  AEN
  Oic..
  How does taoism understand nothingness
  •  
  1/24, 3:22am
  Thusness
  U hv to b introduced like direct pointing ... It depends on ur masters...like gradual or sudden approach
  When u read the text on chapter one...what is ç„¡ is defined
  But if u read it as 無�..then u won't see it
  •  
   1/24, 3:25am
  AEN
  Its seen as the source of everything?
  No wait
  The beginning.. so its like primordial
  •  
  1/24, 3:26am
  Thusness
  Don't think and try to understand it intellectually
  Yes...it is a state of primordial beginning
  A state where the yin yang and 5 elements r undifferentiated
  •

• An Eternal Now

  5 Apr 14, 10:22

  jlowbag:
  
  Arhants do not reincarnate. If they reincarnate they are not arahants, arahants are free from rebirth.

   

  Also Lao Tzu existed before Buddha's times if I'm not wrong

• Aik TC

  5 Apr 14, 13:54

  Originally posted by jlowbog:

  however if im not mistaken, this jin was talking abt the law and behaviors of nature, never abt meditation, let alone the exps of meditation…

   

  I am not well versed in Mandarin, and my conclusion is arrived at on the assumption that the quoted passage in the opening post is the actual translation of the Chinese version where it is states:

  "Becoming totally empty, quiet the restlessness of the mind”.

  Such states of totally empty mind i.e., when all thoughts cease, restlessness disappeared and the mind rest in quiet peace can only happen during dreamless sleep, when we are dead, or during deep concentration or vipassana meditation. It is no more a thinking process, but it is when the intuitive mind takes over and starts to ‘see’, feels the nature of all living things, the becoming, birth and death as it happens.

   

• libido

  5 Apr 14, 18:20

  Which jhanas does Tao come under? Obamas of Nothingness?

  Is laozi a pacekka Buddha?

  Did he travel west and the destination is India?

• jlowbog

  5 Apr 14, 22:57

  I guess this is the original text in Chinese 致虚�，守�笃，万物并作，�以观�。夫物芸芸，�归其根。归根曰�，�曰�命。�命曰常，知常曰明，�知常，妄作，凶。知常容，容乃公，公乃王，王乃天，天乃�，�乃久。没身�殆。 致虚�,守�笃� 人的心本�就是虚�。��的。(人之�性本善就�这��一样人出生的时候就是虚����的。) “万物并作,�以观�� 但是人往往会被欲望所控制，因此观察其物而�得其正（就是�能看到事物的本质��能看到很多�而常人之观察到事物的表�），因为观察期物�得其正所以行事的时候也是失其常。 “夫物芸芸，��归其根，归根曰�，是为�命，�命曰常，知常曰明� 万事万物纷纷芸芸，�自回到它们的根本。归根���，�则�命，既��到了�生��的状�，��在常�，因而���“常�了解了“常�的����“明� so basically it is talking abt our mind should be empty and tranquil. then talks abt observing things fr various perspective free fr interferences or influences eg desire so as to be accurate. then move on to describing the construction n deconstruction of matters to its original form(nothingness) in order to be eternal, understood this a person is enlightened. so I doubt it was talking abt the sensation exp while meditating. reincarnate n rebirth r 2 diff concepts. reincarnate is 化身, rebirth 投胎. idk y some dicts gave the same meaning. simply put, we don't have control over rebirth...totally governed by the karma... Buddha, bodhisattva n arhat reincarnate, they know the realms they r going 2 help n teach the creatures there. I think arhants do reincarnate when requested by Buddha. lao zi era was the booming era of philosophers...in the other part of the world we had Aristotle, Socrates, plato, india we had Buddha n china we had lao zi n Confucius. since buddhism transcends time, it doesn't matter who comes 1st.
• Aik TC

  6 Apr 14, 12:15

  Originally posted by jlowbog:

   

  understood this a person is enlightened. so I doubt it was talking abt the sensation exp while meditating.

  In Buddhism, understanding the nature of existence, reducing or even total removal of desire would not lead one to enlightenment, enlightenment have to be experience and eventually realized. That requires one to practices the 3 paths of purification which consists of morality, meditation (mind) and the eventual arising of transcendental wisdom.

   

• jlowbog

  6 Apr 14, 21:37

  Originally posted by Aik TC:

  In Buddhism, understanding the nature of existence, reducing or even total removal of desire would not lead one to enlightenment, enlightenment have to be experience and eventually realized. That requires one to practices the 3 paths of purification which consists of morality, meditation (mind) and the eventual arising of transcendental wisdom.

   

  
  yes, guess I used the wrong word... achieve a better insight to the law of nature should be more correct.
• M the name

  6 Apr 14, 21:51

  � : http://youtu.be/Z1mDDjhwrb4

• Kanzeo

  9 Apr 14, 23:34

  Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

  jlowbag:
  
  Arhants do not reincarnate. If they reincarnate they are not arahants, arahants are free from rebirth.

   

  Also Lao Tzu existed before Buddha's times if I'm not wrong

  Yes Arhants do not reincarnate when they have reached nirvana however will still reincarnate during their journey to attainment. Sorry for boldness.

  "On attaining this first stage, the would be Arhat will no longer be reborn in any of the lower realms of existence. He will be reborn no more than seven times in the human or heavenly planes of existence before he attains Nirvana."

  http://xuanfa.net/introduction-to-buddhism/holy-beings/arhats-four-stages/

• libido

  10 Apr 14, 08:56

  You confuse with the four stages of attainments.

• 2009novice

  10 Apr 14, 22:31

  I think Kanzeo's reply was right... it's just that the "would be arhat" sound a little vague... from stream enterers to anagami