Gerard Posted November 23, 2011 Emptiness isn't empty! A really hard blow to those having Emptiness as their main daoist concept It is a common misunderstood concept due to the heavy influence of intellectualisation. Emptiness doesn't mean that things are devoid of substance as such, what it really means is that things/phenomena are not separate from one another as if possessing "a singular quality." In other words: "All phenomena are arising together in a mutually interdependent web of cause and effect." (The Buddha) "Space is not empty. It is full, a plenum as opposed to a vacuum, and is the ground for the existence of everything, including ourselves. The universe is not separate from this cosmic sea of energy." (David Bohm) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thelerner Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) I'm reminded of my Aikido Sensei John Eley. He used to say, punch with nothing; ofcourse there is the nothing that is nothing and the nothing that is something. He had a 1 inch punch like a pile driver. He made the same point about meditation. When meditating there is the emptiness that includes everything, and the emptiness that is just mindlessness; be empty, but not mindless. Edited November 23, 2011 by thelerner Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted November 23, 2011 No you haven't. Otherwise you would understand that emptiness IS fullness! Also, if you want I can point to some passages from some Taoist texts that talk of the interdependent nature phenomena (including in the Tao Te Ching and Chuang Tzu if you want?) But I do already understand that. It is just that so many other do not; therefore I speak to it. When I first joined this forum VJ and I had a very nice discussion about "emptiness" and the final agreement was that "emptiness is fullness". So rather than playing little word games and saying "Everything is empty but empty is full so everything is full" I just say everything is full. Yes, Chuang Tzu tells us to empty our mind. He tells us this over and over again. To empty our mind of all static concepts because nothing can change if it remains in a static condition. Interdependency is a Buddhist concept that some feel must be taught to its followers. It is a given in Taoism and is therefore not spoken to. Why call something empty when it is really full? Sure, noting is forever. That should also be a given and therefore need not be spoken to. So when I hear talk of 'nothing is real' I get stirred into action because I feel this thought process can lead to nihilism. That sucks! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted November 23, 2011 And once again I will say (not because it needs be said but just because I want to say it) emptiness is not empty, it is full of potential. The universe if full of potential. People are full of potential within their own each's set of capabilities and capacities. When we are empty we are full of potential for making great advances; however, we have the potential for making great errors as well. Choose wisely! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lienshan Posted November 23, 2011 And just for fun can we also play with wave particle duality? Now I'm just playing here but lets say light flows and when this flow is inhibited, this is a mystery, it condenses perhaps like a construct (structure?). So perception may be said to be derived from the flow as it condenses but is it still the flow because it is still in motion? Hmm or should we say it's still because it has condensed? 萬物負陰而抱陽 沖氣以為和 Everyone carries Yin on the back and hold Yang in arms. Boiling and evaporating are considered in harmony. Laozi's chapter 42 seems too to deal with your play with your 'wave particle duality'? The first line tells, that a human being is neccessary to make the Yin-Yang harmony work. The next line tells, that energy is neccessary to make the boiling-evaporating harmony work. And it's the same with the swedish scientists; they needed energy to create light from emptiness. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Patrick Brown Posted November 23, 2011 萬物負陰而抱陽 沖氣以為和 Everyone carries Yin on the back and hold Yang in arms. Boiling and evaporating are considered in harmony. Laozi's chapter 42 seems too to deal with your play with your 'wave particle duality'? The first line tells, that a human being is neccessary to make the Yin-Yang harmony work. The next line tells, that energy is neccessary to make the boiling-evaporating harmony work. And it's the same with the swedish scientists; they needed energy to create light from emptiness. Yes sacred geometry! Forty-twoThe Tao begot one. One begot two. Two begot three. And three begot the ten thousand things. The ten thousand things carry yin and embrace yang. They achieve harmony by combining these forces. Men hate to be "orphaned," "widowed," or "worthless," But this is how kings and lords describe themselves. For one gains by losing And loses by gaining. What others teach, I also teach; that is: "A violent man will die a violent death!" This will be the essence of my teaching. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lienshan Posted November 23, 2011 Yes sacred geometry! Quote: The Tao begot one. One begot two. Two begot three. And three begot the ten thousand things. I read the lines as dealing with the consequences of the opening Ta Yi Sheng Shui line: The Great One gives birth to Water. Dao giving birth once is the first born second. The second giving birth to a third is a third born everyone. The ancient chinese characters meaning one, two, three did too mean once, twice, trice and first, second, third. That'll say I read the chapter as speaking against dualism. Both the Yin/Yang dualism and the boiling/evaporating dualism. And therefore implicit too against the emptiness/fullness dualism. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
