Dharma Wheel

I was contemplating the Emptiness in form that is spoken on in the Heart Sutra and it reminded me of a meditation I was having where Shiva is gazing at his creation and his creation is gazeing into him, pulling out all the unformed into the creation. As Shiva's essence entered Creation, it began to move and come alive. Therefore Shiva and Creation are co-dependant and therefore empty.

I have an impression that as a buddiste I am trying to awaken Shiva to his (our) illusion.

When all creation knows that it is his delusion, and hense realises that the creation is the dreamer. The dreamer will awaken.

But then there is nothing.
No suffering, but nothing else either.

Why as buddistes do we wish to awaken the dreamer?
To end all suffering is to end.

Why do we want to do that?

These are thoughts I have had in meditation, so they are false thoughts but I still wonder why I (we) choose to walk a path that although leading to ultimate truth, will end with non-existance.

The other idea is that when the dreamer (shiva) awakens, he will turn back to his reality and thus so shall we return to reality.

All your ideas and experiences with this thought would be wonderful to hear, so please share.

Jay

Anistar wrote:I still wonder why I (we) choose to walk a path that although leading to ultimate truth, will end with non-existance.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but does not this equate 'emptiness' with 'non-existence'? If so, this is not the place to stop on the trail of seeking 'emptiness'.

In English: "Form is emptiness, emptiness is form".

All is form (everything arises from causes and conditions).

Thus: "All is emptiness, emptiness is all".

Forgive me if I misinterpret...

Anistar wrote:I was contemplating the Emptiness in form that is spoken on in the Heart Sutra and it reminded me of a meditation I was having where Shiva is gazing at his creation and his creation is gazeing into him, pulling out all the unformed into the creation. As Shiva's essence entered Creation, it began to move and come alive. Therefore Shiva and Creation are co-dependant and therefore empty.

I have an impression that as a buddiste I am trying to awaken Shiva to his (our) illusion.

When all creation knows that it is his delusion, and hense realises that the creation is the dreamer. The dreamer will awaken.

But then there is nothing.
No suffering, but nothing else either.

Why as buddistes do we wish to awaken the dreamer?
To end all suffering is to end.

Why do we want to do that?

These are thoughts I have had in meditation, so they are false thoughts but I still wonder why I (we) choose to walk a path that although leading to ultimate truth, will end with non-existance.

The other idea is that when the dreamer (shiva) awakens, he will turn back to his reality and thus so shall we return to reality.

All your ideas and experiences with this thought would be wonderful to hear, so please share.

Jay

With the realization of emptiness you see appearances and bliss are on nonstop.

The meaning of non-existence is not that there is nothing there, but that what is there is beyond conceptual thought and elaboration. Our Buddha nature isn't a big nothing, thats just nihilism.

The reason that things appear to us at all is because they are dependent arisings.
A chair appears (exists conventionally) because it does not exist from its own side.

Shaun

Emptiness has a form or expression.
In our form the unformed can find emptiness in us
Or we can attune to expressions of the deities or our
other arisings.

In other words Shiva is a form but like our imagination
stops as soon as we do.

Thanks everyone for your replies.

I realise that I should not ask questions but simply ask who is the thinker .

I keep on falling into the illusion .

I completely disagree. Asking questions is key to the Buddhist path. In fact, investigation is the second factor of enlightenment. The trouble is asking the right questions, questions that in my mind are rooted in our experience.

Anistar wrote: I realise that I should not ask questions but simply ask who is the thinker .

Anistar wrote: Why as buddistes do we wish to awaken the dreamer?
To end all suffering is to end.

Why do we want to do that?

These are thoughts I have had in meditation, so they are false thoughts but I still wonder why I (we) choose to walk a path that although leading to ultimate truth, will end with non-existance.

The other idea is that when the dreamer (shiva) awakens, he will turn back to his reality and thus so shall we return to reality.

All your ideas and experiences with this thought would be wonderful to hear, so please share.

Jay

I think of "nothingness" and "emptiness" as not quite the same thing. Though it sounds a little awkward at first, if there is nothingness, then that nothingness exists in a meaningful sense. Far from being empty, such nothingness would actually fill reality in that it would entirely specify the state of reality everywhere. To me, the path is about transcending the binary of existence / non-existence... it's another delusional tendency to be dispelled.

Thundering Cloud wrote:

Anistar wrote: Why as buddistes do we wish to awaken the dreamer?
To end all suffering is to end.

Why do we want to do that?

These are thoughts I have had in meditation, so they are false thoughts but I still wonder why I (we) choose to walk a path that although leading to ultimate truth, will end with non-existance.

The other idea is that when the dreamer (shiva) awakens, he will turn back to his reality and thus so shall we return to reality.

All your ideas and experiences with this thought would be wonderful to hear, so please share.

Jay

I think of "nothingness" and "emptiness" as not quite the same thing. Though it sounds a little awkward at first, if there is nothingness, then that nothingness exists in a meaningful sense. Far from being empty, such nothingness would actually fill reality in that it would entirely specify the state of reality everywhere. To me, the path is about transcending the binary of existence / non-existence... it's another delusional tendency to be dispelled.

Furthermore, if there was nothingness then things existed in the past.

So by believing in nonexistence, one believes in both existence and nonexistence.

Understanding emptiness in form is so that forms do not affect you.

Emptiness is form, or form is emptiness is the first skandha of five. They are all empty which essentially means the five skandhas are illusory. In the Pheṇapiṇḍūpamasutta (SN 22.95) of the Samyutta-Nikaya, the skandha/khandha are regarded as empty (rittaka), hollow (tucchaka) and insubstantial (asâraka) (S. iii. 140–142).

My basic understanding of "form is emptiness" on just an intellectual level is just that what defines a thing as that thing..is the very lack of inherent existence of the thing.

For example we call a car a car, but in the component parts of a car there is no car, therefore "car" is empty, the same goes for anything that manifests or is conceviable, including the Skandhas that make up well...everything. that's why form is actually emptiness, anything we can name or conceptualize is fundamentally empty of itself, and in fact is defined by this characteristic.

Johnny Dangerous wrote:...anything we can name or conceptualize is fundamentally empty of itself, and in fact is defined by this characteristic.

It also cuts both ways - the we doing the naming is also just as empty, on the side of the object we have emptiness + dependent origination and on the side of the "self" we have emptiness, so we have something like emptiness squared + a karmic dependently originated remnant.

Johnny Dangerous wrote:My basic understanding of "form is emptiness" on just an intellectual level is just that what defines a thing as that thing..is the very lack of inherent existence of the thing.

For example we call a car a car, but in the component parts of a car there is no car, therefore "car" is empty, the same goes for anything that manifests or is conceviable, including the Skandhas that make up well...everything. that's why form is actually emptiness, anything we can name or conceptualize is fundamentally empty of itself, and in fact is defined by this characteristic.

Empty words. No meaning does inhere in these words. Just visible forms.

ground wrote:Just visible forms.

That's interesting you use the word "forms", because being a thoroughly modern kinda guy I always thought form meant structure rather then content, but later I realised that it meant matter - form in the sense used by the ancient Greek philosophers. Its kinda strange that whichever way you understand it, you still get a very similar result.

futerko wrote:

ground wrote:Just visible forms.

That's interesting you use the word "forms", because being a thoroughly modern kinda guy I always thought form meant structure rather then content, ...

Aren't words just visible structure? Words do not contain anything.Words are just manifestations, instances of visible structure, aren't they?

ground wrote:

futerko wrote:

ground wrote:Just visible forms.

That's interesting you use the word "forms", because being a thoroughly modern kinda guy I always thought form meant structure rather then content, ...

Aren't words just visible structure? Words do not contain anything.Words are just manifestations, instances of visible structure, aren't they?

Yes, that's it exactly. Even more than that, words form a net of a neverending cycle - every word is defined by another word and you never get a final word to end this endless circle - it is just like Mara's net.

ground wrote:

Johnny Dangerous wrote:My basic understanding of "form is emptiness" on just an intellectual level is just that what defines a thing as that thing..is the very lack of inherent existence of the thing.

For example we call a car a car, but in the component parts of a car there is no car, therefore "car" is empty, the same goes for anything that manifests or is conceviable, including the Skandhas that make up well...everything. that's why form is actually emptiness, anything we can name or conceptualize is fundamentally empty of itself, and in fact is defined by this characteristic.

Empty words. No meaning does inhere in these words. Just visible forms.

Yes, obviously my words also would share the same property..your point is?

futerko wrote:

ground wrote:

Aren't words just visible structure? Words do not contain anything.Words are just manifestations, instances of visible structure, aren't they?

Yes, that's it exactly. Even more than that, words form a net of a neverending cycle - every word is defined by another word and you never get a final word to end this endless circle - it is just like Mara's net.

To take up this never ending cycle ... actually words are not defined by other words but that which generates meaning upon eyes having contacted forms aka words habitually generates this or that meaning depending on having cultivated itself appropriately beforehand.