Comments on: What is emptiness according to Buddhism? http://jasjuice.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/what-is-emptiness-according-to-buddhism/ not just another blog Wed, 08 Jul 2009 23:24:31 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: me http://jasjuice.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/what-is-emptiness-according-to-buddhism/#comment-874 me Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:32:42 +0000 http://jasjuice.wordpress.com/?p=317#comment-874 Waywardvoice: Language is a barrier here. The words "emptiness" and "selflessness" are but vague approximations of the meaning, as are the equivilent words in Pali, Sanskrit, Tibetan or any other language, including visual lanaguage. And the word/concept/picture of "illusion" is also an approximation. All of these words I type, all that I think is around me now is an illusion. Logic is an illusion. Not that illusion is a bad thing. We need it to walk around, to feed ourselves so we can stay alive and meander down the path to enlightenment, but don't confuse the words or even the concepts with something that must be experienced. Its like describing the color green to a blind person. Or a semi-blind person, or a color-blind person. Is that perfectly opaque now? Oh, by the way, I'm full of it. Waywardvoice: Language is a barrier here. The words “emptiness” and “selflessness” are but vague approximations of the meaning, as are the equivilent words in Pali, Sanskrit, Tibetan or any other language, including visual lanaguage. And the word/concept/picture of “illusion” is also an approximation. All of these words I type, all that I think is around me now is an illusion. Logic is an illusion. Not that illusion is a bad thing. We need it to walk around, to feed ourselves so we can stay alive and meander down the path to enlightenment, but don’t confuse the words or even the concepts with something that must be experienced. Its like describing the color green to a blind person. Or a semi-blind person, or a color-blind person. Is that perfectly opaque now? Oh, by the way, I’m full of it.

]]> By: waywardvoice http://jasjuice.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/what-is-emptiness-according-to-buddhism/#comment-873 waywardvoice Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:33:19 +0000 http://jasjuice.wordpress.com/?p=317#comment-873 A very calming thought, essentially in the end life can have no true worry. Though it does beg the question of why are there are the observer and the observed existing at all. Also the childhood belief example calls up. Now that there are observers and the observed, now that the state has changed (been hidden if you will), is the earlier state relevant? If we blur the identity of self (something that is perfectly reasonable), all identity in the end has to blur. Which takes us to emptiness. Obviously the emptiness is no longer perfectly empty (illusion being "something," regardless of it substance), where does the state of "empty of inherent existence" end and illusory existence begin? A very calming thought, essentially in the end life can have no true worry. Though it does beg the question of why are there are the observer and the observed existing at all. Also the childhood belief example calls up. Now that there are observers and the observed, now that the state has changed (been hidden if you will), is the earlier state relevant? If we blur the identity of self (something that is perfectly reasonable), all identity in the end has to blur. Which takes us to emptiness. Obviously the emptiness is no longer perfectly empty (illusion being “something,” regardless of it substance), where does the state of “empty of inherent existence” end and illusory existence begin?

]]> By: dougrogers http://jasjuice.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/what-is-emptiness-according-to-buddhism/#comment-872 dougrogers Tue, 19 Aug 2008 01:45:48 +0000 http://jasjuice.wordpress.com/?p=317#comment-872 "Without an observer, the observed doesn’t exist, and without an object to be observed, the observer doesn’t exist." Fascinating. Of course, because we observe ourselves, we 'exist'... we see ourselves existing, so we must be. When we stop observing ourselves being, then we just be and there is no one to observe the self being. Self, of course, depends on Dependent Origination. “Without an observer, the observed doesn’t exist, and without an object to be observed, the observer doesn’t exist.”

Fascinating. Of course, because we observe ourselves, we ‘exist’… we see ourselves existing, so we must be. When we stop observing ourselves being, then we just be and there is no one to observe the self being.

Self, of course, depends on Dependent Origination.

]]>