[fenter1]

Hello Bothi,

I think the opposite of emptiness in Buddism would be Plato's ideas of perfect (eternal) forms.

Regards,
Bundokji

[LomodiorCon]

But as emptiness cannot truly exist, it cannot have an opposite.

Nice Zen answer

[VDAu5p33]

What does ''self '' mean in Buddhism?

"Selfing" is a mental tendency (anusaya) each human being is born with, as a survival instinct

But ultimately, "self" is a mental formation or construct, born of craving & ignorance

[DextExexy]

The Self Is No-Self

Very basically, the Buddha taught that "you" are not an integral, autonomous entity. The individual self, or what we might call the ego, is more correctly thought of as a by-product of the skandhas.

the Buddha taught "not-self" rather than "no-self". Anatta means 'not-self'

on its most basic level, anatta means 'not-mine', i.e., it does not belong and cannot be possessed. thus 'not' is the correct translation

it is the same as when a mother tells their child: "Do not touch that thing. It is not yours!"

the mother teaches her child correct language. mother says: "Not yours!" rather than "no yours!"

on a further level, anatta applies to the conventional self, i.e., a 'self' that is not a real self. so, again, 'no-self' does not make sense

also, "self" is not a by-product of the [five] skhandhas. "self" is a misinterpretation of reality by one of the skhandas. "self" is a by-product of one skhandha rather than of five skhandhas

anyone with direct realisation would understand this. how can "self" be a by-product of the physical body, which is a skhandha?

kind regards

[johnteriz]

Wow, Element, thanks for that post.

Which Skandha is the one that is regards itself as self, conciousness?

"Here, monks, the uninstructed worldling... regards body as the self, the self as having body, body as being in the self, or the self as being in the body. [Similarly with 'feelings,' 'perceptions,' 'mental formations,' 'consciousness.'] So this way of regarding arises: it occurs to him to think 'I am.'[1]

I'm just thinking of the above from the Samanupassannaaa Sutta

Thanks in advance.

[patrycjakolekk]

hi Traveller

according to the suttas, the skandha that regards itself and/or the other khandhas as 'self' is sankhara (fabrications) khandha

kind regards



There is the case where an uninstructed person assumes form, feeling, perception, fabrication, sense consciousness to be "the self".

That assumption is a fabrication.

Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication?

To an uninstructed person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication [of 'self'] is born of that.

And that fabrication is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. That craving... That feeling... That contact... That ignorance is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen.

Parileyyaka Sutta

[RussellPG]

Nice Zen answer

Emptiness exists, emptiness occupies its own volume...Without emptiness noting can exist...Remember form...Anything if has a volume, that means it exists...

Please lets be mindfull...

[JanetMorris]

the Buddha taught "not-self" rather than "no-self". Anatta means 'not-self'

on its most basic level, anatta means 'not-mine', i.e., it does not belong and cannot be possessed. thus 'not' is the correct translation

it is the same as when a mother tells their child: "Do not touch that thing. It is not yours!"

the mother teaches her child correct language. mother says: "Not yours!" rather than "no yours!"

on a further level, anatta applies to the conventional self, i.e., a 'self' that is not a real self. so, again, 'no-self' does not make sense

also, "self" is not a by-product of the [five] skhandhas. "self" is a misinterpretation of reality by one of the skhandas. "self" is a by-product of one skhandha rather than of five skhandhas

anyone with direct realisation would understand this. how can "self" be a by-product of the physical body, which is a skhandha?

kind regards

Dear Element,

In reality no self or not self indicate the same truth.
a) It has no self.
b) It has not self.

What is the difference in the meaning...They all indicate that that whatever it is, it has no self. That is as a conclusion, there is no self over there...

To feel a self, we need all the 5 skhandhas. Only one skhandha is not enough to feel the self.

Without any of these skhandhas one can not feel the self. So it is by product for sure...

[FailiaFelay]

With this answer comes emptiness.

[Pjayjukr]

Emptiness exists, emptiness occupies its own volume...Without emptiness noting can exist...

Emptiness does not mean a "ground of being" or a "vaccuum", like space, in which the planets exist, or like a "blank canvas" an artist paints on

It is not correct to equate emptiness with a "ground of being" or with 'God'

The Bible states:

Genesis 1

The Beginning
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. What the Bible refers to is not emptiness

Emptiness is a characeristic of all things, such as red colour and water are characteristics of blood

Emptiness does not occupy its own volume...

"Without emptiness nothing can exist" is a non-sensical statement; in no way representitive of any existing reality

That things are empty of self, in the same way pure water is empty of metal, is the nature of things

However, things do not depend on emptiness for their existence

A tree is empty of self but depends on water, sun, soil, nutriment, etc, for its existence

Kind regards

[baskentt]

In reality no self or not self indicate the same truth.
a) It has no self.
b) It has not self.

Definitely not. Although "self" is not a permanent intrinstic reality, "self", as a mere concept, exists.

The Buddha extensively taught how the notion of "self" arises, therefore it does exist (in unenlightened minds).

Human beings act under the delusion of "self", such as killing other human beings to protect their "self" or serve their "self interest".

If there was no self anywhere, the world would be 100% peaceful, without any suffering or conflict.

Also, if there was no self anywhere, beings would probably not look after their children & belongings, which they consider "theirs", "ours" or "mine".

To feel a self, we need all the 5 skhandhas. Only one skhandha is not enough to feel the self. How can a "self" be "felt" if you formerly said there is no self? Further, the phrasing here is inaccurate thus irrelevent.

Sure, for the mind to develop the view of "self" requires all five aggregates because the mind cannot exist without the body.

But Buddha was concerned with how "self" is concocted and only one aggregate concocts "self". That is why the Buddha taught the origin of self identity is craving leading to becoming. Craving & becoming are only one aggregate.

Although the mind depends on body and craving depends on feeling & perception, etc, only one aggregate concocts "self" belief. Similarly, to be free from "self" requires right view by only one aggregate. Thus, only one khandha creates "self", as the Buddha taught.

Craving cannot exist without the other aggregates. "Self" cannot exist without the play of all five aggregrates. But all five aggregates can exist without "self". All "self" can end via the right understanding of one aggregate.

Thus, ultimately, the sole cause of "selfing" is ignorance (avicca). Ignorance is the product of only one aggregate.

Also, the notion of "the self" is absurd. There is merely a temporary thought that cries out "me" (when under the power of defilement). There is no "the self". There is merely temporary becoming.

Without any of these skhandhas one can not feel the self. So it is by product for sure... No. Self is not something "felt". "Self" is constructed by thought formation.

Regards

[Buddha said:]

He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' Thus was it said. With reference to what was it said? 'I am' is a construing. 'I am this' is a construing. 'I shall be' is a construing. 'I shall not be' is a construing. Construing is a disease, construing is a cancer, construing is an arrow. By going beyond all construing, he is said to be a sage at peace.

Dhatu-vibhanga Sutta 'The origination of self-identification, the origination of self-identification:' it is said, lady. Which origination of self-identification is described by the Blessed One?

The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming: This, friend, is the origination of self-identification described by the Blessed One.

Culavedalla Sutta

[Nothatspecial]

Please lets be mindfull...

Indeed. For a beginner to Buddhism, as Aloka-D did, I recommend the following essay.

All the best

[Annevecenqp]

I find it useful to contemplate on what arises from the concept of self - tonight I can see that in and of ourselves, we'll never be enough.

[alanamosteller]

The original question from Bothi is: " In Buddhism, what is the opposite of ''emptiness''. I'm going to stick with that because it seems to me that it does not actually need a lot of unraveling at all.

If you approach the word 'emptiness' as a concept then there will be an obvious opposite which my 4 years old child could tell us right away. "Buddhism" itself is one such concept. For example, In Buddhism the opposite of hot is cold. This is not a hard question at all if my child can answer it. My child however, might not be able to get the subtleties of: "In Non-dual traditions, what are words for?"

All words are concepts based on other concepts. There is no end to this when using the mind that conceptualizes. However one will not understand the first thing the Buddha taught by using the conditioned conceptual mind. The Four Noble Truths tell clearly about how this grasping after, and pushing away conceptual identifications, as if they had inherent existence, will cause suffering. One can however, use that mind and it's concepts to deconstruct it's habitual and conditioned way of working - to re-train it. Actually there are no other choices for that re-training - even the wisdom gained in meditation and contemplation will arise into the conscious mind as one's own teaching tool.

The Buddhist scripture, the Heart Sutra, teaches that form is emptiness and vice-versa. An adult will be able to understand this but only after understanding that words are concepts which may be used to point to meanings that are not-conceptual. The Vimalakirty Sutra is dedicated to exposing the necessity of using words to point to meaning that is not inherent in those words. I'm sure there are others but coming from a Zen perspective, I haven't studied them.

The question: "In Buddhism, what is the opposite of ''emptiness'' is a little like asking "If the truck runs over the monk, what will he be made of?" In Buddhism conventional questions and answers have their place. If they did not, no one could study and practice.

Edited:, Oh sorry, I forgot to answer the question.

In Buddhism the opposite of emptiness is fullness.

_()_

[Pa33anger]

The original question from Bothi is: " In Buddhism, what is the opposite of ''emptiness''. I'm going to stick with that because it seems to me that it does not actually need a lot of unraveling at all.

If you approach the word 'emptiness' as a concept then there will be an obvious opposite which my 4 years old child could tell us right away. "Buddhism" itself is one such concept. For example, In Buddhism the opposite of hot is cold. This is not a hard question at all if my child can answer it. My child however, might not be able to get the subtleties of: "In Non-dual traditions, what are words for?"

All words are concepts based on other concepts. There is no end to this when using the mind that conceptualizes. However one will not understand the first thing the Buddha taught by using the conditioned conceptual mind. The Four Noble Truths tell clearly about how this grasping after, and pushing away conceptual identifications, as if they had inherent existence, will cause suffering. One can however, use that mind and it's concepts to deconstruct it's habitual and conditioned way of working - to re-train it. Actually there are no other choices for that re-training - even the wisdom gained in meditation and contemplation will arise into the conscious mind as one's own teaching tool.

The Buddhist scripture, the Heart Sutra, teaches that form is emptiness and vice-versa. An adult will be able to understand this but only after understanding that words are concepts which may be used to point to meanings that are not-conceptual. The Vimalakirty Sutra is dedicated to exposing the necessity of using words to point to meaning that is not inherent in those words. I'm sure there are others but coming from a Zen perspective, I haven't studied them.

The question: "In Buddhism, what is the opposite of ''emptiness'' is a little like asking "If the truck runs over the monk, what will he be made of?" In Buddhism conventional questions and answers have their place. If they did not, no one could study and practice.

Edited:, Oh sorry, I forgot to answer the question.

In Buddhism the opposite of emptiness is fullness.

_()_

Dear Stoneflow,

If one does not attach the mind to Buddhist sutras, dhammas and all the others, right knowledge, right speech clearly open up...

Your kind reply regarding my question is very well given. So I am indebted to you with all my heart.

With compassion and mindfulness,

[ReggieRed]

So I am indebted to you with all my heart.

I also love Buddha but, Buddha was a human too.

If one does not attach the mind to Buddhist sutras, dhammas

This reply does not accord with emptiness. Emptiness is to be free from "I" and "my".

When the arahants realised dhamma, they were free from "I making" and "my making".

The enlightened mind always adheres to Dhamma

But the enlightened mind does not create "self" such as "all of my heart" or create the Buddha as a "person" to love.

It is important to distinguished between proper understanding & misunderstanding.

The Dhamma in the Buddhists suttas reflects right understanding & is a proper guide for practise.

All the best

Even if there were change & alteration in the Teacher [the Buddha], my friend, there would arise within me no sorrow, no lamentation, no pain, no distress or no despair. Still, I would have this thought: 'What a great being, of great might, of great prowess, has disappeared! For if the Blessed One were to remain for a long time, that would be for the benefit of many people, for the happiness of many people, out of sympathy for the world; for the welfare, benefit & happiness of human & divine beings.'"

"Surely," [said Ven. Ananda,] "it's because Ven. Sariputta's I-making & mine-making and latent tendencies to conceit have long been well uprooted that even if there were change & alteration in the Teacher, there would arise within him no sorrow, no lamentation, no pain, no distress or no despair."

Upatissa Sutta For a long time, Lord, I have wanted to come and set eyes on the Blessed One, but I had not the strength in this body to come and see the Blessed One.

Enough, Vakkali! What is there to see in this vile body? He who sees Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma. Truly seeing Dhamma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dhamma.

Vakkali Sutta

[CoallyPax]

I also love Buddha but, Buddha was a human too.

If one does not attach the mind to Buddhist sutras, dhammas

I can only suggest to learn from the suttas.

To love the Buddha, as a person, and to reject the Dhamma, is not Buddhist practise.

Buddhist practise is to reject the Buddha, as a person, and to embrace the Dhamma, as Truth, Path & Fruit.

The Buddha, according to Dhamma, according to emptiness, is not a "person" or a "human being".

All the best

And so, my friend Yamaka — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death'?

Previously, my friend Sariputta, I did foolishly hold that evil supposition. But now, having heard your explanation of the Dhamma, I have abandoned that evil supposition and have broken through to the Dhamma.

Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the break-up of the body, after death?

Thus asked, I would answer, 'Form is inconstant... Feeling... Perception... Fabrications... Consciousness is inconstant. That which is inconstant is unsatisfactory. That which is unsatisfactory has ceased and gone to its end.

Very good, my friend Yamaka. Very good.

Yamaka Sutta

[Pedsshuth]

the buddha, according to dhamma, according to emptiness, is not a "person" or a "human being".

then the bhikkhuni vajira, having understood, "this is mara the evil one," replied to him in verses:

Why now do you assume 'a being'?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found.

Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
the word 'chariot' is used,
so, when the aggregates are present,
there's the convention 'a being.'

it's only suffering that comes to be,
suffering that stands and falls away.
Nothing but suffering comes to be,
nothing but suffering ceases.

Then mara the evil one, realizing, "the bhikkhuni vajira knows me," sad and disappointed, disappeared right there.

vajira sutta 'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?"

Any desire, passion, delight or craving for form, when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'

Any desire, passion, delight or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications...

Any desire, passion, delight or craving for consciousness: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'

Just as when boys or girls are playing with little sand castles: as long as they are not free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever & craving for those little sand castles, that's how long they have fun with those sand castles, enjoy them, treasure them, feel possessive of them.

But when they become free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever & craving for those little sand castles, then they smash them, scatter them, demolish them with their hands or feet and make them unfit for play.

In the same way, you too should smash, scatter & demolish form, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for form.

You should smash, scatter & demolish feeling, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for feeling.

You should smash, scatter & demolish perception, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for perception.

You should smash, scatter & demolish fabrications, and make them unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for fabrications.

You should smash, scatter & demolish consciousness and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for consciousness — for the ending of craving, is Nibbana.

Satta Sutta

[Indessasp]

If you approach the word 'emptiness' as a concept then there will be an obvious opposite which my 4 years old child could tell us right away. However one will not understand the first thing the Buddha taught by using the conditioned conceptual mind. The Four Noble Truths tell clearly about how this grasping after and pushing away conceptual identifications, as if they had inherent existence, will cause suffering.

welcome Stoneflow

Emptiness, in the original Pali, does not mean "empty of concepts".

The Pali reports the Buddha taught each of the five aggregates is empty. One of the five aggregates is conceptual thought (sankhara khandha).

Thus, it seems, conceptual thought itself is empty.

Empty of what? Empty of 'self' or anything pertaining to 'self'.

The Four Noble Truths tell clearly about grasping with self-identifications.

Best wishes




Now suppose that a man desiring heartwood, in quest of heartwood, seeking heartwood, were to go into a forest carrying a sharp ax. There he would see a large banana tree: straight, young, of enormous height. He would cut it at the root and, having cut it at the root, would chop off the top. Having chopped off the top, he would peel away the outer skin. Peeling away the outer skin, he wouldn't even find sapwood, to say nothing of heartwood. Then a man with good eyesight would see it, observe it & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a banana tree?

In the same way, a monk sees, observes & appropriately examines any [conceptual] fabrications that are past, future or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing them, observing them & appropriately examining them — they would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in fabrications?

Phena Sutta: Foam And what is the emptiness mind-release? There is the case where a monk, having gone into the wilderness, to the root of a tree or into an empty dwelling, considers thus: 'This is empty of self or of anything pertaining to self.' This is called the emptiness awareness-release.

MN 43 'Self-identification, self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which self-identification is described by the Blessed One?

There is clinging to these five aggregates, friend Visakha: form, feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness. This clinging to the five aggregates is the self-identification described by the Blessed One.

'The origination of self-identification, the origination of self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which origination of self-identification is described by the Blessed One

The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming: This, friend Visakha, is the origination of self-identification described by the Blessed One.

The cessation of self-identification, the cessation of self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which cessation of self-identification is described by the Blessed One?

The remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release & letting go of that very craving: This, friend Visakha, is the cessation of self-identification described by the Blessed One.

'The way of practice leading to the cessation of self-identification, the way of practice leading to the cessation of self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which way of practice leading to the cessation of self-identification is described by the Blessed One?

Precisely this noble eightfold path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration: This, friend Visakha, is the way of practice leading to the cessation of self-identification described by the Blessed One.

MN 44

[dicemets]

The Buddhist scripture, the Heart Sutra, teaches that form is emptiness and vice-versa.

This understanding certainly conforms with original Buddhism. 'Form' is 'empty of self' and 'empty of self' is form

This understanding does not negate form but properly negates 'self' in form, form as 'self', etc,...

The Vimalakirty Sutra is dedicated to exposing the necessity of using words to point to meaning that is not inherent in those words. I'm sure there are others but coming from a Zen perspective, I haven't studied them.

This explanation of the Vimalakirty Sutra is not related to original Buddhism. It is a different and alien philosophy, similar to Taoism.

The Buddha himself, as reported in the Pali, did not concern himself with 'meaning inherent or uninherent' in words.

The Buddha himself, was concerned with understanding that leads to dispossession & thus liberation.

Both words & no words are not related to the goal of Buddhism.

In genuine Buddhism, attachment to no words (silence) is not the goal and blameworthy (unlike non-attachment to words).

Non-attachment to words is a greater freedom than attachment to no words.

Buddha taught non-attachment towards both words & no words.

It is important to distinguish between Buddhism and Taosim (or Hindu Advaita-Samadhi).

All the best



Buddha said:

One neither fabricates nor mentally fashions for the sake of becoming or un-becoming. This being the case, one is not sustained by anything in the world (does not cling to anything in the world). Unsustained, one is not agitated. Unagitated, one is totally unbound (Nibbana) right within. One discerns there is nothing further for this world.

MN 140 Lao Tzu said:

The Tao that can be told is not the
eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the
eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of
heaven and Earth.
The named is the mother of the ten
thousand things.

Tao Te Ching