Originally Posted by Bohdiyana
There is no emptiness without a person, only a person can "color" or declare whatever is as being empty.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ground
But what if 'a person' turns out to be an emptiness? Can an emptiness ""color" or declare whatever is as being empty" or is there the action of "coloring or declaring" without agent?
And who then is the agent imputing all of this?  |
But what if 'a person' turns out to be an emptiness?
One can say a person can be an emptiness. No contradiction there. It's basically referring to what responds or doesn't respond. The agent of reaction. The statement is not inferring anything about the experience of such a "person." But then your post got complicated.
Can an emptiness ""color" or declare whatever is as being empty" or is there the action of "coloring or declaring" without agent?
And who then is the agent imputing all of this?
Here we have to get into the words "color" and "declare" and point out what is meant by them. An "empty person" can say whatever they want. But of course whatever they say is an attempt to point somebody else to being empty. At least if that is their motivation in that moment. There are probably a million different motivations they may have in a moment based on their present circumstances, interests, and depth of emptiness. But your statement infers they are talking with somebody else about emptiness or thinking of such. Otherwise the concepts would not come up.
So in this context, the "empty person" is not coloring or declaring anything that is not present. The are referring to what is there in themselves. "Coloring" refers to adding a layer over what is already present. An
unneeded layer that only exists to define and contextualize something as something. An empty person using language and words to try to communicate what it is they are experiencing and are as the experiencer, is "coloring" in the sense it is being heard by a colorer. So yea on the hearer side, it is being used to color or experienced as coloring. But the "empty" person is not coloring. They are using "crayons" or words to describe or point to what is present or the way in which now is seen.
Empty "agents," are free to color and declare as much as they want. This does not change their emptiness. Even when empty, we are individuals and our experience is ours and unique. One could experience the source itself and the experience would still be unique because what we are, even as emptiness, is unique and ours alone. See emptiness only describes the state of the being, it does not describe the depth of the state or the nature of the being. Inbedded in the idea of "emptiness" seems to be concepts of perfection but the evolution of conscious energy is unlimited. We can truly find our own niches and corners in the vast realm that is reality. We have our own social groups here and in the non-physical world. We have our own interests and pastimes and relationships. The notion of "perfection" or one "empty" state is not accurate. One is empty and retains their individuality. Of course religions such as Buddhism has conceptualized some lofty end state were we truly become "nothing" but of course this nothing is a something if you reason it out.
But when I make a statement like,
Empty "agents," are free to color and declare as much as they want, there is a huge difference between what coloring and declaring is for one who is empty and one who is not. It's like the difference between laughing underwater or on dry land. They are not the same at all. In the empty, concepts can be used to describe the world but they never become the world. In the non-empty, one rarely consciously leaves the conceptual world.
****************************
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ground
Well the word 'empty' may refer to innumerable phenomena because the word 'empty' alone leaves open the question empty of what?.
|
I get different meanings from your sentence. Like I agree with,
Well the word 'empty' may refer to innumerable phenomena.
To me, empty only refers to a particular state of being. So yes such a being can experience anything, (except non-empty being.) The second part of your sentence,
because the word 'empty' alone leaves open the question empty of what? I see differently. Empty of what, to me, is not a mystery or non-defined. But then it can be described in a myriad of ways. Like lack of ego, being "personless" awake, unconditioned and on and on, and none of these descriptions can make one find emptiness. All they do is point to a door. The person has to figure out what it "means" and figure out how it is applied or realized, what the action is in the moment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bohdiyana
In other words, those who are truly empty, experience fullness. Those who experience emptiness, are stuck within the prison walls of person-hood or ego and so have no qualities of being empty.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ground
Hmh ... what if your 'other words' are empty of truth?
|
Well yes they are empty of truth. The only truth is what me and you and everybody else is experiencing. A loving parents points out truths to their children, like don't touch a hot stove, but the truth is not in this instruction, it is in the knowledge of the child. They actualize the teaching and make it a part of their reality. It's the same in spiritual teachings, they are meaningless in themselves, but when they become actualized, then their truth is realized.
you cant get enlightenment by seeking it, you can only make yourself worthy of it