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

[old3bob]

9 hours ago, stirling said:

 

Count me in!

 

sure, and preferably as healthy as possible, 

 

I've always loved homemade oatmeal raisin ones.

[BigSkyDiamond]

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 yesterday at 06:47 PM by BigSkyDiamond

[Mark Foote]

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)

 

 

 

[BigSkyDiamond]

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 yesterday at 09:19 PM by BigSkyDiamond

[old3bob]

.

 

Edited 18 hours ago by old3bob

[Lairg]

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 yesterday at 09:35 PM by Lairg

[Mark Foote]

 

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 23 hours ago by Mark Foote

[Mark Foote]

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 22 hours ago by Mark Foote

[stirling]

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?

[stirling]

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?

[BigSkyDiamond]

50 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 above.  And expanding upon it.

 

What are the past and future?   And present, too.  Time is a package deal.  it includes past, present, future, and "this moment."  My answer? Time is an artificial construct. It has no existence of its own.   Pure awareness is outside of time, beyond time, not bound by time.  Time is not an attribute or characteristic of pure awareness.

 

[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; a sense of "no time" passed]

 

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.

 

I am not seeking to argue or challenge.  This is just sharing and walking through my own practice as I experience it.  It in no way shape or form diminishes any other practices that anyone else does.  Just comparing notes for increased clarity and understanding and nuance.  Thank you.   For me, simply through the act of discussion and articulation, it helps me to see more clearly.  Another form of observing.

 

 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by BigSkyDiamond

[stirling]

22 hours ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

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.

 

It takes BOTH for emptiness to be visible. You can only ever see the Relative world. If you are enlightened, you can see that emptiness is there as well. Where can you see the Absolute otherwise?

[BigSkyDiamond]

16 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

It takes BOTH for emptiness to be visible. You can only ever see the Relative world. If you are enlightened, you can see that emptiness is there as well. Where can you see the Absolute otherwise?

 

while still in human form, the closest to seeing the Absolute  being the Absolute is the experience of pure awareness.  (we don't see the Absolute, we are the Absolute)

 

just like  clouds are not needed to see the sky  (outer sight of physical human)

time space and form are not needed to recognize being the Absolute (inner being, pure awareness)

 

Edited 4 hours ago by BigSkyDiamond

[stirling]

30 minutes ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

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 above.  And expanding upon it.

 

It isn't surprising, but I am happy to hear you say this. Since you signed onto the board you have seemed like someone who is taking practice seriously.  I generally find arguing about dharma repulsive, though I have been caught up in doing so in the past. 

 

This is also not an intellectual exercise for me, it is a moment to moment lived experience. 

 

30 minutes ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

What are the past and future?   And present, too.  Time is a package deal.  it includes past, present, future, and "this moment."  My answer? Time is an artificial construct. It has no existence of its own.   Pure awareness is outside of time, beyond time, not bound by time.  Time is not an attribute or characteristic of pure awareness.

 

[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; a sense of "no time" passed]

 

Agree. The "present" is still terminology. Having said that my experience is that there is awareness of being, happing now. To me, "time" is the idea that there are other places in "time" to be than this one.

 

I agree that those examples are fine proof to at least question or doubt the validity of the commonly shared model of time. 

 

30 minutes ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

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.

 

Yes. Like all dualities, time, space and awareness are not separate things. 

 

30 minutes ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

I am not seeking to argue or challenge.  This is just sharing and walking through my own practice as I experience it.  It in no way shape or form diminishes any other practices that anyone else does.  Just comparing notes for increased clarity and understanding and nuance.

 

_/\_

[stirling]

10 minutes ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

while still in human form, the closest to "being that"  is the experience of pure awareness.

(we don't see the Absolute, we are the Absolute)

 

Keeping in mind what you just said about time/space in your previous post, what other experience would there be? It's is worth digging into that one.

 

10 minutes ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

just like  clouds are not needed to see the sky  (outer sight of physical human)

time space and form are not needed to be the Absolute (inner being, pure awareness)

 

Right. But, they are always visible together, at least in "my" experience, as described so eloquently in the Heart Sutra.

[BigSkyDiamond]

55 minutes ago, stirling said:

Yes. Like all dualities, time, space and awareness are not separate things. 

 

that is your grouping.

 

my grouping is time space and form.  and yes those are all duality.

time space and form are not attributes of pure awareness.  

pure awareness is not duality.  and it is not non-duality. it is not one.  it is not not-one.

it is none of those.

 

in the framework i use.   I am seeing that we may be talking about two different states.

referenced in the first 4 lines chapter 42, Tao Te Ching

 

The framework i use, pure awareness is at the level of the Dao, before it begets the One.

Whereas the  One (which the Dao begets) may go by "unity" "wholeness" "One"  "All That Is".

A distinction is made between the Dao; and the One it begets.   Not everyone makes that distinction or sees them as any different.  That may explain why i see the Absolute (pure awareness, the Dao) as not including or having the characteristics of  time space and form.  While you see the One as yes including time space and form.    For me, the Dao alone is Absolute and all the rest are Relative meaning they are all mental constructs (One, Two, Three, 10,000 things). includes  time space form.

 

 

The Dao begets One.    

One begets Two.

Two beget Three.

Three beget the ten thousand things.

 

      ---from chapter 42, the Tao Te Ching:

 

 

and again, thank you for the in depth discussion.  On a favorite area for me. 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by BigSkyDiamond

[BigSkyDiamond]

the difference in our framework (S. and B.) might also be a reflection of Buddhist compared to Taoist.  From what i understand (as explained to me by people on this forum who know far far more about Buddhism than I do) is that in Buddhism there is no "in the beginning" , that we sort of jump in the middle of the process.  Whereas the Tao Te Ching does indicate an "in the beginning" sequence (for instance chapter 42).   And other paths have an "in the beginning" creation type of sequence also (Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism I am aware of; could be others i am not aware of).

 

That comes to mind for me.  How the experience we have of the path we practice may be affected by the framework presented to us which we learn or follow.

 

Edited 2 hours ago by BigSkyDiamond

[SodaChanh]

I would suggest a pointing out by a real Dzogchen teacher. 

 

Then you see the nature of mind and won't philosophize so much anymore. 

 

A real pointing out temporarily disables the selfing and non duality is shown. 

[Mark Foote]

3 hours ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

 

while still in human form, the closest to seeing the Absolute  being the Absolute is the experience of pure awareness.  (we don't see the Absolute, we are the Absolute)

 

just like  clouds are not needed to see the sky  (outer sight of physical human)

time space and form are not needed to recognize being the Absolute (inner being, pure awareness)

 

 

Earth to BigSkyDiamond... Earth to BigSkyDiamond... come in, please, Diamond... 

 

[BigSkyDiamond]

it is not philosophizing.  it is discussion of the practice.

and it is discussion of the framework used which can and does directly affect the practice. 

and it is seeking to share and understand how others understand and experience the practice and the framework.

 

Edited 1 hour ago by BigSkyDiamond

[BigSkyDiamond]

14 minutes ago, Mark Foote said:

Earth to BigSkyDiamond... Earth to BigSkyDiamond... come in, please, Diamond... 

 

a.  use your words please.  what is it that you are trying to say or express?  

 

b. and since your own posts often have a level of shall we say detail specificity and complexity to them, then what might your reaction or impression be of someone remarking to you "Earth to Mark Foote....Earth to Mark Foote...come in please, Mark"   as you discussed this or that fine point or nuance of your particular area of interest?  

 

 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by BigSkyDiamond

[dwai]

3 hours ago, stirling said:

3 hours ago, stirling said:

 

It takes BOTH for emptiness to be visible. You can only ever see the Relative world. If you are enlightened, you can see that emptiness is there as well.

They are not distinct from each other

Quote

Where can you see the Absolute otherwise?

Everywhere

 

In Advaita Vedanta, this "Samsara is Nirvana, Nirvana is Samsara" is presented as follows -

 

Asti, Bhati, Priyam, Nama and Rupa. 

 

Asti - Being

Bhati - Shining

Priyam - Love

Nama - Name

Rupa - Form

 

While ordinarily we only see Nama and Rupa, the wise also see the Asti, Bhati and Priyam aspect of phenomena. If we stick with only names and forms, there is impermanence. Once we see the Absolute Consciousness shining forth as Existence (Being), Consciousness (Shining) and Bliss (Love) through that impermance, we see the Absolute is always present. 

[BigSkyDiamond]

,

Edited 1 hour ago by BigSkyDiamond

[BigSkyDiamond]

30 minutes ago, SodaChanh said:

I would suggest a pointing out by a real Dzogchen teacher. 

Then you see the nature of mind and won't philosophize so much anymore. 

A real pointing out temporarily disables the selfing and non duality is shown. 

 

there is duality.  there is not-duality.  there is one.  there is not-one.

none of those are the Dao.  none of those are the Absolute.

 

that is the framework i am using.

In "The Dao begets One" the difference is indicated.

 

it may be that Dzogchen does not cover this. i'm fine with that.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by BigSkyDiamond

[Mark Foote]

@stirling and @BigSkyDiamond

I'm sure I've mentioned it before, so forgive me, but I often think of the three cankers (asavas) as imbalances resulting in attachment to particular time-frames:

 

sensory desire--> attachment to the present

 

inclination toward becoming, toward existence--> attachment to the future

 

inclination toward not being in the moment, toward ignorance of what is--> attachment to the past

 

As far as I can tell, the literature of Zen has many references to being where one is, but not many references to being there "now".

 

When I said it's all angels on the heads of pins without physical action, I did not mean volitive physical action, but I did mean physical action in the "consciousness-informed body".

 

knowing thus, seeing thus, there are no latent conceits that ‘I am the doer, mine is the doer’ in regard to this consciousness-informed body.
 

(MN 109, tr. Pali Text Society vol III p 68)