what does this mean, "form is emptiness and emptiness is form"

[BigSkyDiamond]

what does this mean, "form is emptiness and emptiness is form"

and what is the context.

 

i have seen it mentioned several times in different threads.

where i get stuck is where it says they are dependent on each other, flip side of the same coin, can't have one without the other.

 

Thank you.

[Lairg]

As usual translating inner/spiritual statements between languages misses much of the meaning.

 

The physical plane/form is an effect and not a cause - hence is empty 

 

Beingness (containing no forms therefore empty) generates all manifestation

 

Empty is not a useful word for those working on the inner planes

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Cobie]

 

1 hour ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

what does this mean, "form is emptiness and emptiness is form" and what is the context.

Meaning depends on context: 

 

English dictionary:

‘emptiness’ - the state of containing nothing

‘form’ - the visible shape of something

Using English definitions the saying makes no sense.

Buddhism:

‘emptiness’ (sunyata) - impermanence and interdependence of all phenomena.

‘form’ - things of the physical world

Using the Buddhist definitions the saying seems almost superfluous to mention, obviously the case.

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 10:12 PM by Cobie

[BigSkyDiamond]

1 hour ago, Lairg said:

The physical plane/form is an effect and not a cause - hence is empty 

Beingness (containing no forms therefore empty) generates all manifestation

Empty is not a useful word for those working on the inner planes

 

the above is my understanding also.

i get how  Beingness (or God or Divinity or the Dao or first cause or Source) is non-physical and generates all forms (the physical plane, the universe and everything in it.   So the physical limited finite is dependent upon and requires the non-physical infinite.  But the non-physical infinite  is not dependent upon nor does it require the physical finite form.  And the finite form does not cause or generate the infinite Source.

 

Hence my confusion.

Thank you.

 

Edited Tuesday at 10:17 PM by BigSkyDiamond

[BigSkyDiamond]

19 minutes ago, Cobie said:

Buddhism:

‘emptiness’ (sunyata) - impermanent and interdependent (interdependence of all phenomena. 

‘form’ - things of the physical world

Using the Buddhist definitions the saying seems almost superfluous to mention, obviously the case.

 

 

 

I guess I am not understanding this in the Buddhist context. 

more questions i guess:

 

Is there a source or first cause in Buddhism?  in a general sense i am seeking to understand in the Buddhist context the relationship between the physical (body) and the non-physical (essence? pure awareness? the part that reincarnates?)  Buddhism does encompass not just reincarnation but also leaving the cycle of reincarnation, permanently.  So that relationship.

Edited Tuesday at 10:24 PM by BigSkyDiamond

[Cobie]

.

Edited Tuesday at 10:56 PM by Cobie

[Keith108]

The saying is from the Heart Sutra. The Heart Sutra reminds us of the ultimate truth, that there are no independently originated dharmas (things). In the case of the quoted part in the OP, it is referring to the skandha of form. There are 4 other skandhas, and they get the same treatment:

 

Quote

 

Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva when practicing deeply the Prajna Paramita  

perceives that all five skandhas are empty  

and is saved from all suffering and distress.

 

Shariputra, form does not differ from emptiness,  emptiness does not differ from form.  

That which is form is emptiness,  that which is emptiness form.

 

The same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses, consciousness. 

 

 

Text from here. 

 

It's a very big topic! My personal view is that the Heart Sutra instructs us to let go of our attachments, even to the Dharmic teachings. 

 

In the end, all of our ideas and opinions must be seen as empty of self nature, and let go of. 

 

_/|\_

Keith

Edited Tuesday at 11:12 PM by Keith108

[Keith108]

33 minutes ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

 

I guess I am not understanding this in the Buddhist context. 

more questions i guess:

 

Is there a source or first cause in Buddhism?  in a general sense i am seeking to understand in the Buddhist context the relationship between the physical (body) and the non-physical (essence? pure awareness? the part that reincarnates?)  Buddhism does encompass not just reincarnation but also leaving the cycle of reincarnation, permanently.  So that relationship.

 

There is no first cause in Buddhism. Cause and effect are so vast, they are considered timeless.

 

A "being" is considered to be an aggregation of 5 things (or skandhas): form, feelings, perception, impulses, consciousness.

 

There is pretty good discussion about the skandhas here. 

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 10:55 PM by Keith108

[BigSkyDiamond]

45 minutes ago, Keith108 said:

There is no first cause in Buddhism. Cause and effect are so vast, they are considered timeless.

A "being" is considered to be an aggregation of 5 things (or skandhas): form, feelings, perception, impulses, consciousness).

There is pretty good discussion about the skandhas here. 

 

bold above, that is a big piece.  thank you for clearing that up for me.  good to know.

so we sort of come in at the middle while the process or cycle is already in place.  OK, i can do that.  

 

Moving on to timeless.

 

regarding the 5 things listed,  [form, feelings, perception, impulses, sense-consciousness],  they are all "changing."  they all come and go, they all have a beginning and an end, they are all finite.  They are all impermanent.    (Using the article at link provided, yes it is helpful.)  Since they are all impermanent, then they can not be timeless.  So then, what is it that is timeless what are the characteristics?  or is it just the process itself of cause and effect that is timeless (it just keeps cycling through) .

 

Since the 5 things listed are not-self, and "There is no self in the created or the uncreated"

then what is left for self to be?  is there no "true self" at all in Buddhism?  What is it then that reincarnates?   And when we end the cycle of reincarnation altogether since there is no self do we just blink out and cease to exist?

 

This helps me a lot to understand.  Thank you everyone for patience with my questions and information provided.  I appreciate it a lot.  If a concept does not exist in this framework, then that is helpful too, that also provides clarity.

Edited Tuesday at 11:39 PM by BigSkyDiamond

[Keith108]

2 minutes ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

 

bold above, that is a big piece.  thank you for clearing that up for me.  good to know.

so we sort of come in at the middle while the process or cycle is already in place.  OK, i can do that.  

 

Moving on to timeless.

 

regarding the 5 things listed,  [form, feelings, perception, impulses, sense-consciousness],  they are all "changing."  they all come and go, they all have a beginning and an end, they are all finite.  They are all impermanent.    (Using the article at link provided, yes it is helpful.)  Since they are all impermanent, then they can not be timeless.  So then, what is it that is timeless what are the characteristics?  or is it just the process itself of cause and effect that is timeless (it just keeps cycling through) .

 

Since the 5 things listed are not-self, and "There is no self in the created or the uncreated"

then what is left?  is there no "true self" at all in Buddhism?  What is it then that reincarnates?   

 

This helps me a lot to understand.  Thank you everyone for patience and information provided.  I appreciate it.

There are two ways to consider rebirth: lifetime to lifetime, and moment to moment. 
 

Lifetime to lifetime rebirth is a typically religious notion that what you do in this life, has an effect upon whatever happens after you die. For some Buddhists, this is a “must believe” kind of thing. While it makes some sense to me, I am generally agnostic on this one. I have no idea what happens after I die, so no need to speculate. 
 

Then there is moment to moment rebirth. This we can experience in our lives. 

 

The teaching on rebirth is the 12 links of dependent origination. 

Again, it’s a very big topic, and rebirth is an especially contentious one. As always, the point of any teaching is dukkha, and its end. This is why I favor the moment to moment interpretation. That’s the only thing I have any control over.

 

🙏
 

 

[BigSkyDiamond]

Thank you Keith!

[BigSkyDiamond]

1 hour ago, Keith108 said:

In the end, all of our ideas and opinions must be seen as empty of self nature, and let go of. 

 

That is a great take-away.

 

For me in this moment i would feel a great sense of relief by letting go of that which i do not understand.  That is looking like a really attractive option for me.

 

Somewhere a long time ago i heard something that stuck with me and it comes to mind now:  "Delete the need to understand."

Edited Tuesday at 11:51 PM by BigSkyDiamond

[Keith108]

19 minutes ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

 

bold above, that is a big piece.  thank you for clearing that up for me.  good to know.

so we sort of come in at the middle while the process or cycle is already in place.  OK, i can do that.  

 

Moving on to timeless.

 

regarding the 5 things listed,  [form, feelings, perception, impulses, sense-consciousness],  they are all "changing."  they all come and go, they all have a beginning and an end, they are all finite.  They are all impermanent.    (Using the article at link provided, yes it is helpful.)  Since they are all impermanent, then they can not be timeless.  So then, what is it that is timeless what are the characteristics?  or is it just the process itself of cause and effect that is timeless (it just keeps cycling through) .

 

Since the 5 things listed are not-self, and "There is no self in the created or the uncreated"

then what is left?  is there no "true self" at all in Buddhism?  What is it then that reincarnates?   

 

This helps me a lot to understand.  Thank you everyone for patience and information provided.  I appreciate it.

I wanted address this separately. The skandhas are definitely not finite. Everything is constantly changing. No beginning, no end. 
 

While you will hear the notion of the “true self” pop up in Buddhist terminology, I would suggest instead that there is a “ true view”, instead. That avoids the mistake of reification of the idea that there is a thing behind our actions. 

[BigSkyDiamond]

22 minutes ago, Keith108 said:

I wanted address this separately. The skandhas are definitely not finite. Everything is constantly changing. No beginning, no end. 

 

i read in the article that they are impermanent.  I associate impermanent with finite, changing, has a beginning and an end.   Whereas i associate infinite with unchanging, permanent, no beginning no end.

 

 the physical form ends.  the feeling of delight ends.  sense perceptions end when a person loses their hearing or sight.    What am i mis-understanding?  If it is saying instead that "the process of changing contines without end goes on and on"  then i get that.     maybe something like a human body begins and ends (is conceived born and dies) and is thus finite.  However the cycle of humans living and dying, birth and death continues without end.  like that?

 

Form is impermanent
Feeling is impermanent
Perception is impermanent
Mental formations are impermanent
Sense-consciousness is impermanent

Edited Wednesday at 12:15 AM by BigSkyDiamond

[Cobie]

 

30 minutes ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

… "Delete the need to understand."

 

 

 I believe in God, it completely frees me of any need to understand. 
 

 

[BigSkyDiamond]

it's a process for me of identifying what resonates with me.

i figure there are lots of paths so that there is then something well suited for each and everyone.

[kakapo]

3 hours ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

what does this mean, "form is emptiness and emptiness is form"

and what is the context.

 

i have seen it mentioned several times in different threads.

where i get stuck is where it says they are dependent on each other, flip side of the same coin, can't have one without the other.

 

Thank you.

 

The void of outer space is full. 

 

Everything else is empty. 

 

Check out "A Universe From Nothing" by Dr. Lawrence Krauss MIT

 

Basically empty space is full of matter/antimatter particles fused together.  

 

Random quantum vacuum fluctuations can separate these into equal amounts of matter and antimatter. 

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 12:41 AM by kakapo

[Cobie]

 

20 hours ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

... i am seeking to understand in the Buddhist context the relationship between the physical (body) and the non-physical (essence? pure awareness? the part that reincarnates?)  ...

 

This thread might be of interest:

 

 

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 07:20 PM by Cobie

[Cobie]

 

20 hours ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

Is there a source or first cause in Buddhism? ...

 

“ There is, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned. If, monks there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, you could not know an escape here from the born, become, made, and conditioned. But because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, therefore you do know an escape from the born, become, made, and conditioned. “

 

(Khuddaka Nikāya - The Minor Texts; The Udana - Inspired Utterances of The Buddha; 73. Udāna 8.3: The Third Discourse about Nibbāna; Translated from the Pali by Ānandajoti Bhikkhu).  

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 07:20 PM by Cobie

[Keith108]

14 hours ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

 

i read in the article that they are impermanent.  I associate impermanent with finite, changing, has a beginning and an end.   Whereas i associate infinite with unchanging, permanent, no beginning no end.

 

 the physical form ends.  the feeling of delight ends.  sense perceptions end when a person loses their hearing or sight.    What am i mis-understanding?  If it is saying instead that "the process of changing contines without end goes on and on"  then i get that.     maybe something like a human body begins and ends (is conceived born and dies) and is thus finite.  However the cycle of humans living and dying, birth and death continues without end.  like that?

 

Form is impermanent
Feeling is impermanent
Perception is impermanent
Mental formations are impermanent
Sense-consciousness is impermanent

 

Understood. It's a bit of semantics, I suppose. The impermanence is a result of the lack of independent origination. There is no beginning, and no end, just a flow into something else. All dharmas are subject to dependent origination. Our bodies have minerals in them that are old as the stars. At the same time, by the time you finish reading this, the exact composition of your blood will be very different. Kind of amazing. 

 

Btw, I am no scholar, or even the last word on this stuff. It's just what I have learned and experienced over the years. 

Edited Wednesday at 02:37 PM by Keith108

[BigSkyDiamond]

43 minutes ago, Cobie said:

I have adopted this view:

 

3"There is, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned. If, monks there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, you could not know an escape here from the born, become, made, and conditioned. But because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, therefore you do know an escape from the born, become, made, and conditioned."

 

(Khuddaka Nikāya - The Minor Texts; The Udana - Inspired Utterances of The Buddha; 73. Udāna 8.3: The Third Discourse about Nibbāna; Translated from the Pali by Ānandajoti Bhikkhu).  Courtesy of old3bob who mentioned it before: https://www.thedaobums.com/topic/56871-what-is-meant-by-emptiness-especially-in-meditation/?do=findComment&comment=1055756

 

Yes !!!  I heard that in an Eckhart Tolle video on you tube.  Now i know the source. He draws on different traditions including Zen (with great humor).

 

Thank you!

[Keith108]

1 hour ago, Cobie said:

 

 

This thread might be of interest:

 

 

 

 

 

Alaya or 8th consciousness, is a Yogacara construct that is for sure not related to the idea of soul. Their is no soul in Buddhism.

 

For a deep dive into the weeds of Yogacara theory, check out this article.  There's a lighter read here. 

 

_/|\_

[BigSkyDiamond]

these are great insights and resources, thank you so much.  Including the other thread that was linked to.

This is exactly what i was looking for.   Now I can not-cling to it and un-grasp the questions i had . 

 

my own personal outpicturing of 'Ask and ye shall receive.'  and  'Before you ask it is already done.'

 

Edited Wednesday at 03:07 PM by BigSkyDiamond

[stirling]

3 hours ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

what does this mean, "form is emptiness and emptiness is form"

and what is the context.

 

i have seen it mentioned several times in different threads.

where i get stuck is where it says they are dependent on each other, flip side of the same coin, can't have one without the other.

 

The context is a sutra where the buddha Avalokitesvara has deep and complete realization of reality and is sharing that realization with the bodhisattva Sariputra. 

 

In Mahayana Buddhist terms this expression from the Heart Sutra points to the deeper reality that "emptiness" (or Dao/Unity) is the underlying quality of everything that appears in consciousness, it is in FORM ("things") that this "emptiness" is visible. You never have the unity without the illusory appearance of separate things. This is what is being pointed to. It is true, you can't have one without the other for this reason. Forgetting the theory of it for a moment, this is something anyone can be shown enlightenment or not. Seen from enlightened mind, this is obvious and is seen always and everywhere. 

 

"Emptiness" happens outside of space, time, and "self". It is not a quality OF seemingly separate things (form), yet it can only be seen in them since separate things are what there is to see it in. Indeed, it is in fact this emptiness/Dao/Unity that is the one salient characteristic of ALL phenomena that can be perceived, and the only permanent quality.

 

Space time and "self" are delusions. Enlightened mind sees that there is no separate "self", no separate here and there, and no separate time, only now. Anything else is a mental construction.

 

"Self" is a construction of the mind created by deciding that certain phenomena and sensations belong to "me". Space is imagining that there is any other place to be than here, or that there is any space between the imaginary "I" and anything else. Time is always now... the past and future are always thoughts you are having now. All thoughts, artifacts, and beliefs about a past or future always arise now. When the mind is still all of this can be seen.

 

-

 

Emptiness is the ABSOLUTE quality of "things", impermanence is a RELATIVE quality. Both can be seen at the same time. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine

 

Ultimately all of these explanations in ANY "non-dual" tradition are just mental constructs which are themselves intended as bridges to understanding. To say that ANY intellectual explanation is actually the absolute "truth" is an error:

 

Quote

“The awakened mind is turned upside down and does not accord even with the Buddha-wisdom.” - Hui Hai

 

[BigSkyDiamond]

1 hour ago, stirling said:

 

The context is a sutra where the buddha Avalokitesvara has deep and complete realization of reality and is sharing that realization with the bodhisattva Sariputra. 

 

In Mahayana Buddhist terms this expression from the Heart Sutra points to the deeper reality that "emptiness" (or Dao/Unity) is the underlying quality of everything that appears in consciousness, it is in FORM ("things") that this "emptiness" is visible. You never have the unity without the illusory appearance of separate things. This is what is being pointed to. It is true, you can't have one without the other for this reason. Forgetting the theory of it for a moment, this is something anyone can be shown enlightenment or not. Seen from enlightened mind, this is obvious and is seen always and everywhere. 

 

"Emptiness" happens outside of space, time, and "self". It is not a quality OF seemingly separate things (form), yet it can only be seen in them since separate things are what there is to see it in. Indeed, it is in fact this emptiness/Dao/Unity that is the one salient characteristic of ALL phenomena that can be perceived, and the only permanent quality.

 

Space time and "self" are delusions. Enlightened mind sees that there is no separate "self", no separate here and there, and no separate time, only now. Anything else is a mental construction.

 

"Self" is a construction of the mind created by deciding that certain phenomena and sensations belong to "me". Space is imagining that there is any other place to be than here, or that there is any space between the imaginary "I" and anything else. Time is always now... the past and future are always thoughts you are having now. All thoughts, artifacts, and beliefs about a past or future always arise now. When the mind is still all of this can be seen.

 

 

Emptiness is the ABSOLUTE quality of "things", impermanence is a RELATIVE quality. Both can be seen at the same time. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine

 

Ultimately all of these explanations in ANY "non-dual" tradition are just mental constructs which are themselves intended as bridges to understanding. To say that ANY intellectual explanation is actually the absolute "truth" is an error:

Quote

“The awakened mind is turned upside down and does not accord even with the Buddha-wisdom.” - Hui Hai

 

 

thank you for the response and references. This is helpful.  I appreciate it.

 

The part that jumps out at me is this:

 

1 hour ago, stirling said:

 Indeed, it is in fact this emptiness/Dao/Unity that is the one salient characteristic of ALL phenomena that can be perceived, and the only permanent quality.

 

Space time and "self" are delusions. Enlightened mind sees that there is no separate "self", no separate here and there, and no separate time, only now. Anything else is a mental construction.

 

Does this not also include form, i.e that which is physical?  whether that is the physical human body or the universe and everything in it.  Doesn't it follow also that too is a mental construction?   if space and  time  are "illusory" "a mental construct" then isn't form also illusory since form is reliant upon space.  without time and space there can be no form.

 

that is what naturally follows for me, and what i bump up against.  It doesn't bother me,though, i am fine with it, it is in harmony for me.

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 07:19 PM by BigSkyDiamond