A question about Buddhist Emptiness

[django]

Can anyone tell me what is the difference between the 'emptiness that we try to fill endlessly' and Buddhist 'emptiness'?

[sky]

Originally Posted by django

Can anyone tell me what is the difference between the 'emptiness that we try to fill endlessly' and Buddhist 'emptiness'?

In Buddhism ' emptiness ' has different meanings so it depends ....

[Golden Eagle]

the emptiness most humans try to fill ..... is fear based (ego)

ego fears the Emptiness of the Buddha (Divine Consciousness)

ego cannot survive emptiness~

that is the Birth Place of the True Self (Divine Self)......Buddhist NO SELF (no ego self)

[sky]

Originally Posted by Golden Eagle

the emptiness most humans try to fill ..... is fear based (ego)

ego fears the Emptiness of the Buddha (Divine Consciousness)

ego cannot survive emptiness~

that is the Birth Place of the True Self (Divine Self)......Buddhist NO SELF (no ego self)

GE, Anatta is ' not self ' or ' non self ' rather than no self... there is no permanent substance that can be called a self, everything is constantly changing in sentient beings ( Skandas).

[Imzadi]

Originally Posted by django

Can anyone tell me what is the difference between the 'emptiness that we try to fill endlessly' and Buddhist 'emptiness'?

Excellent query! In my understanding and experience, I perceive the "emptiness that we try to fill endlessly" to be a psychological condition of spinning around in mental and emotional circles. I am referring to the aspect of the mental self that seems to be perpetually seeking, grasping, wanting, and needing more temporal content to fill and feed its sense of existence and identity. Have you ever acquired something you thought you certainly must have to be happy only to experience the elation falling away quickly? And shortly thereafter, you must now run and chase something else to capture the sense of elation once more? This is a temporal and conditional pleasure that leaves one feeling empty and continuously dissatisfied.

On the other hand, the "Buddhist emptiness" points to the seeing through of the circular mental prison of the conceptual identity. It is the realization that the impermanence and fleeting pleasures are essentially devoid of deeper meaning. Then occurs a dis-identification with the conceptual self and another question becomes pertinent. If I am no longer the one who is seeking, grasping, or unsatisfied, then who and what am I? When contemplating this question, often times it opens up a whole dimension of understanding that allows one to see reality simply as it is; empty. It is "empty" because there is no longer a subjective mental perspective filling it or coloring it with its ideological perceptions. However, this "Buddhist empty" is experienced more like a vast spaciousness and pure consciousness. And within this "Buddhist emptiness," a natural and unconditional/causeless joy and benevolence arise. :)

[sky]

The Pali canon uses the term emptiness in three ways: "(1) as a meditative dwelling, (2) as an attribute of objects, and (3) as a type of awareness-release."[8]

Emptiness of dhammas.

According to Bhikkhu Analayo:

In the Pāli discourses the adjective suñña occurs with a much higher frequency than the corresponding noun suññatā. This is not a matter of mere philological interest, but points to an emphasis in early Buddhism on qualifying phenomena as `being empty' rather than on an abstract state of empty-`ness'."[9]

One example of this usage is in the*phena sutta, which states that on close inspection, each of the five aggregates are seen as being vain, void and unsubstantial, like a lump of foam [SN 22.95].

The*Suñña Sutta,[10]*part of the*Pāli canon, relates that the monk*Ānanda,*Buddha's*attendant asked,

It is said that the world is empty, the world is empty, lord. In what respect is it said that the world is empty?" The Buddha replied, "Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ānanda, that the world is empty.

According to*Thanissaro Bhikku:

Emptiness as a quality of dharmas, in the early canons, means simply that one cannot identify them as one's own self or having anything pertaining to one's own self [...] Emptiness as a mental state, in the early canons, means a mode of perception in which one neither adds anything to nor takes anything away from what is present, noting simply, "There is this." This mode is achieved through a process of intense concentration, coupled with the insight that notes more and more subtle levels of the presence and absence of disturbance (see MN 121).[11]



Emptiness as a meditative state is said to be reached when "not attending to any themes, he [the bhikku] enters & remains in internal emptiness" (MN 122). This meditative dwelling is developed through the "four formless states" of meditation or*Arūpajhānas*and then through "themeless concentration of awareness."[8]

The Cūlasuññata-sutta (MN III 104) and the Mahāsuññata-sutta (MN III 109) outline how a monk can "dwell in emptiness" through a gradual step by step mental cultivation process, they both stress the importance of the impermanence of mental states and the absence of a self.


Different Schools of Buddhism do vary on what Buddha meant regarding ' Sunyata '

[Gem]

Originally Posted by django

Can anyone tell me what is the difference between the 'emptiness that we try to fill endlessly' and Buddhist 'emptiness'?

I think it mainly refers to the absence of any fundamental identity. Stuff happens without a 'thing which is happening'. Sky's post summed it up pretty good.

In my understanding emptiness points to Nibbana.

A state of mind that doesn't cling to anything.

"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

With love
Eelco

[Imzadi]

Originally Posted by catsquotl

In my understanding emptiness points to Nibbana.

A state of mind that doesn't cling to anything.



With love
Eelco

It appears to be synchronicity that I had just come across a random passage of the Tao Te Ching as follows:

"The Master keeps her mind always at one with the Tao; that is what gives her radiance. The Tao is not graspable. How can her mind be at one with it? Because she doesn't cling to ideas." :)

[Rain95]

Spiritual emptiness, It's being present without any filters one sees through. Experiencing directly. Not interpreting what is according to our conceptual conditioning. The word "empty" is referring to the extra content one can bring into the now from the conditioned habitual conceptual thought. The attention is not on that so it is not a part of experience. One is empty of it. But one is still wholly there and present, they are just not experiencing the thought based interpretation of it or the now. The now is still fully experienced and experienced deeper and more fully since the attention is fully on it and a part of it. There is nothing coming between the awareness and the what is. This is also why the term, being one with everything, comes into play. Without the conceptual "I," everything is richer and more profound, sometimes having a dream like quality. A heightened expansive experience. The word "emptiness" is really only describing the quality of the perceiver, not the quality or form of the experience or perception.