Sign in to follow this  
BigSkyDiamond

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

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, stirling said:

 

Count me in!

 

sure, and preferably as healthy as possible, 

68a1c5b21c4fd_oatmealcookie.jpg.3b993c28797b3174b1637c54205135af.jpg

 

I've always loved homemade oatmeal raisin ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, stirling said:

Form IS real. It is where emptiness appears. The PROOF that form exists and has a reality is actually the emptiness that can be seen in it.  It is the idea of things with a separate reality from each other that is the delusion. 

 

regarding bold above, for me that is backwards.  It is the other way around.

using the analogy of clouds (physical form) passing through the sky (empty space, pure awareness)

it is the clouds that appear in the sky.  It is not the sky that appears in the clouds.

 

the sky is always there, constant.  

the clouds are not always there.  they come and go.

 

so no.  emptiness does not appear in form.  sky does not appear in clouds.

rather it is the other way around:  form appears in emptiness.  the clouds appear in the sky.

 

the emptiness (sky) contains form.  the emptiness (sky) also exists when there are no clouds. we've all seen a blue sky with no clouds in it.  Whereas clouds require the sky,  there can be no clouds without the sky.  form by its very nature requires space.  but NOT the other way around.   

 

 

[i have big sky in my screen name for that very reason. to keep that before me at all times.  I AM the sky and not the clouds passing through.]

 

Edited by BigSkyDiamond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, BigSkyDiamond said:


For me the working hard is to avoid the distractions that would delay returning home.

for me that is not being attached  (i quite like the phrase that was used earlier) "to the complexities of the ten thousand things."  (technically it is not "working hard" at all, but rather a non-doing; resting in pure awareness) 

 

in every place in my life, it feels better for me, when things are simple.  Rather than when they are complex.    i think i remember hearing somewhere way back when, that even the greatest wisom is simple. (not easy, but simple).  and for that reason we may tend to either overlook it or reject it.   .  complexity makes things harder for me, rather than easier.

 



"... a non-doing; resting in pure awareness."

I think it was Stirling who quoted a Zen teacher as saying (and I'm only paraphrasing):  when there is pure awareness there is nothing outside it, but when there are things outside, there is no pure awareness.

 

Nevertheless, for me at least there is a sense of location with awareness, with "pure awareness" which for me is awareness without will, intent, or deliberation.

For me, the fun is in "actualizing the fundamental point" that is the location of awareness ("actualizing" after Dogen, in "Genjo Koan"). Also my necessity. Realizing the activity of the body that takes place automatically through the location of pure awareness, first and foremost in the movement of breath.


Be aware of where you really are twenty-four hours a day. You must be most attentive.

(Zen Letters, Teachings of Yuanwu, translated by J.C. Cleary and Thomas Cleary,p 53)

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark Foote said:

"... a non-doing; resting in pure awareness."

I think it was Stirling who quoted a Zen teacher as saying (and I'm only paraphrasing):  when there is pure awareness there is nothing outside it, but when there are things outside, there is no pure awareness.

 

bingo. yes.  

i am taking that at face value.  

hence the universe and everything in it vanishes.

 

just like when a person wakes up from a dream, then the dream is no longer there.  it vanishes.

 

Edited by BigSkyDiamond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is useful to distinguish consciousness from awareness,

 

Human consciousness requires a physical brain that anchors mental energies - like a TV antenna.

 

Awareness is possible on all the planes of Existence on which the entity has accumulated substance and developed  sense organs.  

 

There are a lot of planes.  The 7 planes humans relate to, turn out to be subplanes of the Cosmic Physical Plane.  And the cosmic planes turn out to be subplanes of the Universal Physical Plane.   And human traditions generally do not have names for yet higher physical planes.  

 

 

 

 

Edited by Lairg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


 

A key aspect of the bodily self is self-location, the experience that the self is localized at a specific position in space within one’s bodily borders (embodied self-location).
 

(Journal of Neuroscience 26 May 2010, 30 (21) 7202-7214)

 


In my experience, practice follows the retention of consciousness with embodied self-location, until an effort is made and practice follows embodied self-location retained with consciousness.


To me, it's angels on the head of a pin, until we're talking about physical action that takes place in the absence of will, intent, or deliberation.

Piece of cake, got milk?

 

 

Edited by Mark Foote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2025 at 3:00 PM, stirling said:
  On 8/16/2025 at 2:26 PM, Mark Foote said:

That last sentence stands out to me:  "“Shariputra, form does not differ from emptiness. . .” is a more detailed explanation of “All five skandas are empty.”"

-Kobun

 

It is worth pointing out that, while this is true, the reverse isn't. The early Buddhist Tripitaka teachings work fine in Mahayana teaching, but the later Emptiness teachings point at something wider in scope than the early Buddhist teachings do.
 

 

 

The later teachings overstep the mark, IM(less than humble, I will admit)O. 

"Wider in scope", like Russell and Whitehead's attempt to put all of mathematics on an axiomatic basis--such a basis in mathematics will also give rise to paradoxes and contradictions (per Godel), and I would say there are similarly a lot of paradoxes and contradictions in the "later Emptiness teachings" (?).

 

That's what I like about the four early Nikayas, though I try not to reference sermons attributed to Gautama's disciples, as I find them already "wider in scope" than Gautama's sermons. Gautama leaves things out, but maybe they don't need to be said, and attempts by his disciples to fill in the blanks in their sermons give rise to contradictions.

 

 

Quote

 

Emptiness conceptually doesn't really feature in the early Buddhist works, EXCEPT possibly (depending on your opinion) in a few places by association, like the the Bahiya Sutta:

 

  Quote

"Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya.


"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering." - Buddha, Bahiya Sutta

 

 

The notion of emptiness as an entity doesn't feature in the early Buddhist texts, but Gautama did speak of (the concept of) emptiness: 
 

. [One] regards that which is not there as empty of it. But in regard to what remains [one] comprehends:  'That being, this is.' Thus, Ananda, this comes to be for [such a one] a true, not mistaken, utterly purified and incomparably highest realisation of (the concept of) emptiness.

 

(Culasunnatasutta, MN III 121  Pali Text Society vol III p 151-2; gender-neutral pronouns used to replace masculine pronouns in original)

 

Regarding the "unborn" or the "deathless", here's a quick quote from Sugato Bhikkyu, regarding K.R. Norman's essay on "Mistaken Ideas about Nibbana" (https://discourse.suttacentral.net/uploads/short-url/gfAuYRNMnJLV8GVYIS1bxHmQDmd.pdf)
 

Norman points out that epithets such as ajāta or amata when applied to Nibbana don’t actually mean that Nibbana itself is “unborn” or “deathless”. Rather, they mean that it is the state where there is no being born or dying. A subtle distinction to be sure!

 

 

Quote

 

The Buddha's instruction is similar to the instruction of shikantaza in Soto Zen. There is merely awareness resting in it's own nature. This is an instruction to point at emptiness of "self" and other. Most of the early Buddhist teachings only point to emptiness of self (or "no-self").

 

"Emptiness" teachings are a feature of Mahayana and Vajrayana trainings, which the Heart Sutra is a major fixture.
 

 

 

Your lineage, isn't it?

 

It is not possible to continue (shikantaza) more than one hour, because it is intense practice to take hold of all our mind and body by the practice which include everything. So in shikantaza, our mind should pervade every parts of our physical being. That is not so easy.

(I have nothing in my mind, Shunryu Suzuki, July 15, 1969, San Francisco)

 

Sort of like Gautama's:
 

… (a person) steeps, drenches, fills, and suffuses this body with zest and ease, born of solitude, so that there is not one particle of the body that is not pervaded by this lone-born zest and ease.

(AN 5.28, tr. Pali Text Society vol. III pp 18-19, see also MN 119, tr. Pali Text Society vol. III pp 132-134)

 

 

Quote

 

Yes, I recall that you aren't a fan of the Bahiya Sutta. :) I am!
 

 

 

Actually,  don't mind that particular quote.

 

 

Edited by Mark Foote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2025 at 7:43 PM, BigSkyDiamond said:

it's not a trick question. 

 

it is just recognizing that as humans we use free choice every day. That is my observation.  I can and do change my mind several times about which pair of Doc Marten boots to wear on my daily walk in nature. That is me using my free choice.  I don't engage in abstruse philosophical pondering on this,  i just verify it for myself in practice.   

 

but we can agree to disagree, that's fine too.

 

Being able to rest in stillness is where you can see just what "reality" is... that is where your observations should be made. It requires a practice where the mind stops and there is stillness, AND you can notice that stillness and just observe it. Most people can begin arriving at this place within a month or so of meditation training. In that space ask yourself: Where is the "self"? What are the past and future? Is there any other moment or place except what arises in thought?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2025 at 8:21 PM, Lairg said:

When I follow those purposes to their sources, many can be found anchored within the Absolute/Dao.  It seems that the Dao is not purposeless - and hence many in human format may be swept into the complex outworking of the Dao.

 

That is good because few humans wish to be purposeless

 

Purpose is a thought constructed in your mind, much like human rights, and free will are.

 

Quote

Who can test the above?   What about a vote?

 

You can! Meditate until your mind becomes still. In that stillness, do you notice "purpose" unless it arises as a thought?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

Being able to rest in stillness is where you can see just what "reality" is... that is where your observations should be made. It requires a practice where the mind stops and there is stillness, AND you can notice that stillness and just observe it. Most people can begin arriving at this place within a month or so of meditation training. In that space ask yourself: Where is the "self"? What are the past and future? Is there any other moment or place except what arises in thought?

 

yes, useful guidelines, and useful practice.  (Note:  this is not an intellectual exercise for me, it is a daily boots-on-the-ground practice, or more accurately a sit-on-the-floor practice; and also a walk-in-nature practice and go-through-my-day practice.)   

 

and for me it is this (see below).  Yes, I am agreeing with what is put forth.  And expanding upon it.

 

What are the past and future?   And present, too.  Time is a package deal.  it includes past, present, and future.  

[This is "experienced" during practice (not always, but regularly) as say sitting for 40 minutes by the clock, but having it feel like only 3 or 4 minutes passed.  Or any activity that is deeply absorbing.  Starting a book at say 10am, and then looking up to see it is getting dark and is now 8 pm. "lost track" of that time.]

 

Is there any other moment or place except what arises in thought?  No.  And that includes all moments and all places, and all forms in all those places.  They all just arise in thought.  Time space and form are also a package deal.

 


 

Edited by BigSkyDiamond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this