[SaamanthaSterlyng]

I found this article whilst looking at Gil Fronsdal's website and thought I'd post it here and see if anyone had any comments.


Emptiness in Theravada Buddhism


Through Tricycle Magazine someone asked Gil Fronsdal:


"In the Mahayana schools, such as Zen, emptiness, or the realization of emptiness seems to be an important part of the path, less so in the Theravada tradition, am I mistaken? And having trained in both traditions how do you reconcile the two?"

Gil’s response:

"Emptiness is as important in the Theravada tradition as it is in the Mahayana. From the earliest times, Theravada Buddhism has viewed emptiness as one of the important doors to liberation. Two key Theravada sutras are devoted to emptiness: the Greater Discourse on Emptiness and the Lesser Discourse on Emptiness.

When I was practicing in Burma, I gave a copy of the Heart Sutra to my Theravada meditation teacher. Ignoring the opening and closing, he was happy with the emptiness teaching in the core of the text. He gave a profound dharma talk on the Heart Sutra, saying that this insight is what Vipassana practice aims at.

Over the centuries, emptiness came to have a range of meanings within Buddhism. The greatest change in meaning was in the Mahayana tradition where some quite diverse teachings on emptiness emerged. Even so, the great Indian philosophers of the Mahayana wrote that the standard understanding of emptiness within the Mahayana and within the earlier Buddhist traditions is the same. It is not emptiness which differentiates these traditions.

Though emptiness is important in the Theravada tradition, it is usually not taught as often as in the Mahayana. This might lead some to assume it is absent in the Theravada. One reason it is not taught as often is that emptiness is seen as a liberating insight rather then a philosophical view one needs to understand intellectually. Theravada’s gradual approach to awakening, includes extensive teachings on the functioning of the mind and the foundational practices that allow for the deep penetrative insight into emptiness. Emptiness is sometimes not taught until the student is ready for it.

Another reason Theravada contains fewer teachings on emptiness is that this is not always labeled “emptiness.” For example, Theravada will teach that all things are insubstantial and without essence without calling this an emptiness teaching, even though it is. The frequency with which the Mahayana talks about emptiness is probably matched by the frequency with which the Theravada teaches impermanence and not-self; in practice, both traditions are often pointing to the same thing in these teachings.

A final reason may be that the goal of Theravada practice is not emptiness. The goal is liberation. Emptiness is a means to liberation. While liberation comes with a deep understanding of emptiness, emptiness is secondary to Awakening."

http://www.insightmeditationcenter.o...vada-buddhism/

[metrocartockasur]

I am not aware of other Zen traditions or Soto schools. The one with which I practice has as its bigger concern the realization of the Four Noble Truths through the development of Right View and sitting meditation as a mean of getting skills for a dispassionate mind. As far as I have been in practice with the sangha, it is very uncommon to talk about emptiness. The teishos are focused more around ethical issues and skillful means for zazen and shikantaza. It is also remarkable that we do not get entangled decoding the mysteries and ocult meanings of most of the Mahayana literature.

[retrahdggd]

good stuff

[etdgxcnc]

The two suttas mentioned in the first paragraph of the article are :


MN 122 :Maha-suññata Sutta: The Greater Discourse on Emptiness

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....122.than.html

and:

MN 121: Cula-suññata Sutta: The Lesser Discourse on Emptiness

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....121.than.html

[Tumarimmicdak]

Though emptiness is important in the Theravada tradition, it is usually not taught as often as in the Mahayana. This might lead some to assume it is absent in the Theravada. One reason it is not taught as often is that emptiness is seen as a liberating insight rather then a philosophical view one needs to understand intellectually. Theravada’s gradual approach to awakening, includes extensive teachings on the functioning of the mind and the foundational practices that allow for the deep penetrative insight into emptiness. Emptiness is sometimes not taught until the student is ready for it. I agree with this segment to a point. Emptiness is a liberating insight which comes about via contemplation of Dependent Co-Arising. I have also noticed that in some Zen circles the emphasis is on just understanding it philosophically.

However It can be good to have an idea of what emptiness is, so that we know what the practice is about

[Tyncneiff]

Ive always wondered with this Sutta if the meditation described could be incorporated into Anapanasati or if it is a different system of meditation altogether


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....122.than.html

[jeaccatty]

Emptiness in Theravada schools or Mahayana schools is important,it is one of the most important concepts in Buddhism.Buddha when he achieved enlightenment beneath the Bodhi tree,he found that nothing had a independent nature of its own,Emptiness was that phenomenon;Emptiness teaches us to see through ourseleves.

[EmpokemyMok]

In that vein, anatta = emptiness?

[Suvuseh]

In that vein, anatta = emptiness?

Anatta is just the absence of a inherent self. And to say "just" is a way of expression; this aspect has very deep implications on our way we see and experience things. Emptiness later on, in hands of Mahayanism, become something more elaborated I have never been too interested to explore because sounds more like metaphysical speculation.

[tuszit]

In that vein, anatta = emptiness?

Hi FBM, - great to see you posting again !



During a question and answer session after a talk last year, for personal confirmation, I asked Ajahn Sumedho about the connection between anatta, emptiness and the unconditioned/deathless, and he said that they're all the same thing.

[Gometesstem]

Hi, Aloka-D! Thanks! I finally got a break from my studies. ^^

I think I'd agree with Ajahn Sumedho. I can't find anything that distinguishes them. Except words, I guess.

[igs00r]

Ive always wondered with this Sutta if the meditation described could be incorporated into Anapanasati or if it is a different system of meditation altogether


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....122.than.html

It's already part of anapanasati.

[ArrichMer]

I find Anatta, Sunnata, and Tathana to be three sides of the "same coin": Things are as they are (tathana), and as such they are sunnata empty of self (anatta) or anything pertaining to a self (not me, not mine -- an indictment of illusions of status and ownership).

[JNancy46]

Ajahn Chah mentions emptiness in 'Studying and Experiencing " from " A Still Forest Pool"


"The calmness of the mind at the beginning stage of concentration arises from the simple practice of one pointedness. But when this calm departs, we suffer because we have become attached to it. The attainment of tranquility is not yet the end, according to the Buddha. Becoming and suffering still exist.

Thus, the Buddha took this concentration, this tranquility, and contemplated further. He searched out the truth of the matter until he was no longer attached to tranquility. Tranquility is just another relative reality, one of numerous mental formations, only a stage on the path. If you are attached to it, you will find yourself still stuck in birth and becoming, based on your pleasure in tranquility. When tranquility ceases, agitation will begin and you will be attached even more.

The Buddha went on to examine becoming and birth to see where they arise. As he did not yet know the truth of the matter, he used his mind to contemplate further, to investigate all the mental elements that arose. Whether tranquil or not, he continued to
penetrate, to examine further, until he finally realized that all that he saw, all the five aggregates of body and mind, were like a red-hot iron ball.

When it is red-hot all over, where can you find a cool spot to touch? The same is true of the five aggregates-to grasp any part causes pain. Therefore, you should not get attached even to tranquility or concentration; you should not say that peace or tranquility is you or yours. To do so just creates the painful illusion of self, the world of attachment and delusion, another red-hot iron ball.

In our practice, our tendency is to grasp, to take experiences as me and mine. If you think, '1 am calm, I am agitated, I am good or bad, I am happy or unhappy," this clinging causes more becoming and birth. When happiness ends, suffering appears; when suffering ends, happiness appears. You will see yourself unceasingly vacillating between heaven and hell.

The Buddha saw that the condition of his mind was thus, and he knew, because of this birth and becoming, his liberation was not yet complete. So he took up these elements of experience and contemplated their true nature. Because of grasping, birth and death exist. Becoming glad is birth; becoming dejected is death. Having died, we are then born; having been born, we die. This birth and death from one moment to the next is like the endless spinning of a wheel.

The Buddha saw that whatever the mind gives rise to are just transitory, conditioned phenomena, which are really empty. When this dawned on him, he let go, gave up, and found an end to suffering.

You too must understand these matters according to the truth. When you know things as they are, you will see that these elements of mind are a deception, in keeping with. the Buddha's teaching that this mind has nothing, does not arise, is not born, and does not die with anyone. It is free, shining, resplendent, with nothing to occupy it. The mind becomes occupied only because it misunderstands and is deluded by these conditioned phenomena, this false sense of self.

Therefore, the Buddha had us look at our minds. What exists in the beginning? Truly, not anything. This emptiness does not arise and die with phenomena. When it contacts something good, it does not become good; when it contacts something bad, it does not become bad. The pure mind knows these objects clearly, knows that they are not substantial."


http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Bo...dhas Teachings

[Signabeademia]

Another reason Theravada contains fewer teachings on emptiness is that this is not always labeled “emptiness.” For example, Theravada will teach that all things are insubstantial and without essence without calling this an emptiness teaching, even though it is. The frequency with which the Mahayana talks about emptiness is probably matched by the frequency with which the Theravada teaches impermanence and not-self; in practice, both traditions are often pointing to the same thing in these teachings. Very true. Mahayanists also add a big dose of philosophy into the mix which accounts for a large body of work on this subject. This gives the impression that's there's more of it or that it's more important but closer inspection shows that this is not the case.

If you strip away the 'doctrine' of the two truths and the tenets and get down to the nitty gritty, there's no real difference at all, barring one... the Pali suttas are less cluttered and clearer.

[CxofxJFm]

It's already part of anapanasati.

i thought so...thanks daverupa