Up@dawn 2.0

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

empty of inherent existence

In How To See Yourself As You Really Are,

The Dalai Lama examines the concept of emptiness and the value of dependent arising.
Dependent arising is the idea that all phenomena, physical, mental, or otherwise, exist dependent upon certain causes and conditions. As a consequence of dependent arising, nothing operates exclusively under its own power. Everything is a consequence of causes and conditions. Without the realization of interdependency, we cannot fully grasp the meaning of emptiness of all phenomena including ourselves.

To quote Nagarjuna:
"The apprehension of inherent existence is the cause of all unhealthy views.
Afflictive emotions are not produced without this error.
Therefore, when emptiness is thoroughly known,
Unhealthy views and afflictive emotions are thoroughly purified."

When we falsely conceive the way in which something exists, an exaggerated mode of thought will follow in accordance with one's own perception. Thoughts are mental projections of our own imposed ideas and beliefs of reality. By superimposing qualities onto objects, other beings, and ourselves, attachments to things are formed based on these qualitites. We say this is "my body" or "my friends" and emphasize its attractiveness, while attributing characteristics to it as inherent qualities of its existence. To grant an object with integral quality is to mistakenly believe it exists within its own right. In regards to the self, we often think of "I" as separate from others. Consequently, we may say this is "my body" asserting it is "yours". Like an illusion, we view the mind and body as separate entities. In reality, the mind cannot exist without the body and the body without the mind. Yet when a hand is burned on the stove, it's hard not to exclaim, "ohh my hand!" Almost out of a mental reflex, we see the nature of how inherent independent arising is perpetuated over the true nature of things. "I" do not exist outside of the mind body. "I" am dependent upon the mind body. Without it, "I" do not exist; therefore, the conception of oneself as a seperate and independent entity is a mentally superimposed conception of the mind body. If we perpetuate the notion we are independently arising phenomena, it is not possible to reflect on our emptiness. Instead of looking inward at emptiness, we see a mental projection of the "I". If we reflect on our own inherent emptiness, much of the daily attachments we form to people and things we deem tantamount to happiness can slowly dissolve. Attachment to our own conceptions of things is the cause of afflictive emotions. As the Dalai Lama frames it, attachment will lead us to afflictive emotions, as if by a ring in our nose.

5 comments:

  1. Very well expressed, though I still struggle with understanding whose conceptions of things I should attach to, if not my own. No one's? Is that because "attachment" is inherently distortive and misleading? And is my emptiness not filled by precisely those attachments to people (and maybe some things) that have personal importance to me? Stuff to talk about...

    ReplyDelete
  2. I’m kind of confused about how it’s even possible to rid our mind of these attachments…is it not human nature to try to make order of things, categorizing people/things/experiences and reconfiguring our conceptual identity? I don’t see how I can look at myself and say, “this is emptiness” when the self is so much more than emptiness.

    I do agree with the mind/body synthesis. It reminds me of Kant, not that I always agree with Kant, but Kant made a good observation when he said that the dialogue between the mind and body is via knowledge and understanding. Knowledge is in the realm of physical sensation (the body’s experiences), and understanding is in the realm of concepts in the mind, abstract thinking. And neither can exist without the other. But as far as being empty, I think I’d probably just get angrier for not successfully believing I’m nothing. Could be some major egoism going on in my thinking, or I could be just a really awesome individual, or I’m not actually alone when I say that convincing myself of being empty is almost impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is sort of an ambition topic to summarize. Afterall, The Dalai Lama wrote a whole book on how to see yourself as you really are. In the book he expounds on how nihilism is a common response to the concept of emptiness. Sarte sort of favors a Buddhist view of the self in that he claims we only exist through our actions. Empty of inherent existence only means we are devoid of superimposed ideas of the self. A simpler way of thinking about it it is to reflect on the impermanence of individual qualities. It is fleeting, whereas the mind is constant. Emptiness as an empowering state as opposed to a void state of being

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you for the kind words, Dr. Oliver. I didn't have much of a chance to finish the previous comment earlier as noted by time stamp..
    I noticed after class we both mentioned Sarte in reference to this topic. I think Buddhist teaching coincides with the concepts Satre philosophized. What Buddhism considers emptiness, Sarte calls "freedom of the for itself" Re visiting Sarte, I am starting to think he was a Buddhist in another life!(just jokingly :) Here is what he says in Existentialism and Human Emotion: "Freedom in fact, is strictly identified with nihilation. The only being which can be called free is the being which nihilates its being. Moreover we know that nihilation is lack of being and cannot be otherwise. Freedom is precisely the being which makes itself a lack of being. But since desire, as we have established, is identical with lack of being, freedom can arise only as being which makes itself a desire of being; that is, as the project-for-itself of being in-itself-for-itself. Freedom is existence, and in its existence precedes essence. The upsurge of freedom is immediate and concrete and is not to be distinguished from its choice; that is, from the person himself. But the structure under consideration can be called the truth of freedom; that is, it is the human meaning of freedom." Freedom precedes essence, we are naturally free and essence or superimpositions, are secondary.

    Earlier in the book he says that humanism is fundamentally this: "man is constantly outside of himself, in losing himself outside of himself, he makes for man's existing;and on the other hand, it is by pursuing transcendent goals that he is able to exist; man being this state of passing beyond,and seizing upon things only as they bear upon this passing beyond, is at the heart, at the center of this passingbeyond. There is no other universe other than the human universe, the universe of human subjectivity . This connection between transcendency, as a constituent element of man in the sense of passing beyond-and subjectivity, in the sense that man is not closed on himself but is always present in a human universe is what we call existentialism humanism. Humanim, because we remind man that there is no law maker other than himself, and that in his forlorness he will decide by himself; because we point out that man will fulfill himself as aman, not in turning towardhimself, but in seeking outside of himself a goal which is just this liberation, just this particular fulfillment."
    He acknowledges that we are mured in our own subjectivity but also asserts there are instances of transcending these limitations outside of the self.

    There is also a chapter titled "the desire to be god". "...or if you prefer the desire to be god. This fundamental desire in turn expresses concretely in the world an abstract meaningful structure which is the desire of being in general; it must be considered as human reality in the person, and it brings about his community with others, thus makingit possible to state that there is a truth concerning man and not only concerning individuals who cannot be compared."
    As an atheist, I think of god as consciousness, or higher consciousness of the human mind. Striving for god, transcendence, enlightenment are all ways of saying higher consciousness, a different plane, out of the realm of samsara, or inner subjectivity.
    Did not intend to write such a lengthy comment, but Sarte is wordy, and I liked his words in this context.
    This page has a great explanation of the Buddhist notion on emptiness
    http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/emptiness.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. Re: "the desire to be god". "...or if you prefer the desire to be god -

    Well, as Woody Allen said: I've got to model myself after somebody!

    Sartre was wordy, wasn't it? Did anyone ever write more about Nothingness? But he was very terse when Mrs. Premise and Mrs. Conclusion went to ask him about freedom. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crIJvcWkVcs

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.