How do we know?

[m0rl0ck]

If everything is void of own-being, how do we know?

As in the process of knowing ourselves and the world.

I guess the question im asking here is: How is the knowing empty?

[Heruka]

hands down, the best introspective, multifaceted question i have ever seen asked on the web.

how did the void become self aware?

how did duality split consciousness, it stir and move and ask, is this me, or am i that over there?

[Huifeng]

If everything is void of own-being, how do we know?

As in the process of knowing ourselves and the world.

I guess the question im asking here is: How is the knowing empty?

"empty" in this context, means "empty of permanence, durability, substantiality".

This can be seen in that phenomena, including the act of knowing phenomena, are impermanent, and change due to conditions.

[muni]

If everything is void of own-being, how do we know?

As in the process of knowing ourselves and the world.

I guess the question im asking here is: How is the knowing empty?

Maybe to be aware of a thought is having no separate existence of empty nature, empty cognizance, then no owner can be as thought is empty knowing itself. Then no me can arise or must subside.

Duality isn't.

[catmoon]

We know that sense impressions exist because we are immersed in them constantly. But that wasn't really what you were asking was it?

[muni]

how did the void become self aware?

how did duality split consciousness, it stir and move and ask, is this me, or am i that over there?

Primordial knowing?

Dividing concepts, object-subject.

[m0rl0ck]

If everything is void of own-being, how do we know?

As in the process of knowing ourselves and the world.

I guess the question im asking here is: How is the knowing empty?

Maybe to be aware of a thought is having no separate existence of empty nature, empty cognizance, then no owner can be as thought is empty knowing itself. Then no me can arise or must subside.

Duality isn't.

So thought and awareness are emptyness knowing itself?

If i am getting what you are saying, i dont see how it helps much.
To put the thing another way, empty me walks out and sees an empty tree.
Even if im totally enlightened, have seen thru the veils that stand between "me"and reality, im still me and still see the tree and the tree exists as an object of awareness. How and where did the awareness arise? If awareness were a thot construct it would be seen thru and dissapear, would it not? If that were the case tho people would wink out of existenence at the moment of enlightenment so thats got to be wrong. So if all is empty, why isnt awareness? Is awarenes a quality of prajna? A fundemental property so to speak? Does awareness need an object? If it werent dependent on an object, that would explain its ever present quality, but then it wouldnt be empty.

EDIT: i think i gave myself a headache, im going to go lie down now.

[m0rl0ck]

If everything is void of own-being, how do we know?

As in the process of knowing ourselves and the world.

I guess the question im asking here is: How is the knowing empty?

"empty" in this context, means "empty of permanence, durability, substantiality".

This can be seen in that phenomena, including the act of knowing phenomena, are impermanent, and change due to conditions.

How is it that awareness seems ever present then? is it a quality of prajna?

[muni]

If everything is void of own-being, how do we know?

As in the process of knowing ourselves and the world.

I guess the question im asking here is: How is the knowing empty?

Maybe to be aware of a thought is having no separate existence of empty nature, empty cognizance, then no owner can be as thought is empty knowing itself. Then no me can arise or must subside.

Duality isn't.

So thought and awareness are emptyness knowing itself?

If i am getting what you are saying, i dont see how it helps much.
To put the thing another way, empty me walks out and sees an empty tree.
Even if im totally enlightened, have seen thru the veils that stand between "me"and reality, im still me and still see the tree and the tree exists as an object of awareness. How and where did the awareness arise? If awareness were a thot construct it would be seen thru and dissapear, would it not? If that were the case tho people would wink out of existenence at the moment of enlightenment so thats got to be wrong. So if all is empty, why isnt awareness? Is awarenes a quality of prajna? A fundemental property so to speak? Does awareness need an object? If it werent dependent on an object, that would explain its ever present quality, but then it wouldnt be empty.

EDIT: i think i gave myself a headache, im going to go lie down now.

Thought is taking form in the empty cognizance like a wave of the sea takes form from the sea. When we chase behind thought, solidify it and by that take ownership of it, mind is settled in delusion.

Where is that empty me that sees a empty tree?

[Astus]

Awareness is not ever present. Consciousness depends on what it is conscious of. So the Buddha categorised consciousness into six major forms. And the sixth can be examined according to the four aggregates of the name group. But if you look up what the manifold dharmas are in the Abhidharma texts you find that awareness is very far from being always there, more like momentary. And there are even beings in a heavenly realm without consciousness. See SN 12.61 discussing why it is a great mistake to identify oneself with the mind as if it were permanent while on the contrary it changes rapidly. Therefore it is empty.

[m0rl0ck]

Awareness is not ever present. Consciousness depends on what it is conscious of. But if you look up what the manifold dharmas are in the Abhidharma texts you find that awareness is very far from being always there, more like momentary.

You are right, sleep and unconsciousness no awareness there. And as far as awareness being momentary, i agree that at some levels of perception it seems grainy, like pixels in a photograph. But what is the paper that those pixels are printed on? How is that empty?

To quote something you quoted from another thread: "What knows being and nonbeing, center and extremes, inside and outside, is mind. This mind is empty yet perceptive, silent yet aware. Round and bright, perfectly clear, it does not fall into ideas of annihilation or eternity. Spiritual awareness radiantly bright, its discrimination is not false." (Foxin Bencai, tr. by T. Cleary)"

How is that empty? What does it depend on?

[muni]

Interdependency or interbeing. Found this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYhti6fc ... re=related
While listening and looking to this images, those appear in mind. Where is mind?

Happy relax interbeing.

[Astus]

m0rl0ck,

Without concepts there is nothing conditioned and nothing to condition, so it is called the unconditioned, which is emptiness. An empty mind is no-mind (wunian/munen).

[5heaps]

If everything is void of own-being, how do we know?

As in the process of knowing ourselves and the world.

I guess the question im asking here is: How is the knowing empty?

voidness refers to the absence of things existing in impossible ways. in other words it's not that things dont exist, but rather how they exist that is the question.

[White Lotus]

Noble Friends,

If everything is void of own-being, how do we know?

As in the process of knowing ourselves and the world.

I guess the question im asking here is: How is the knowing empty?

beautiful question.

everything is void of own-being, one must see the void within oneself to know the void outside oneself, so that inside and outside are one... empty. form is emptiness, emptiness is form. you can see this for yourself, it is so simple that people miss it. until you see the void within, it is i would say impossible to see that all forms are empty. so... seeing the emptiness of your own nature leads to seeing the emptiness of all things. it is one taste. one flavour. all is empty... not even emptiness.

the knowing is empty, and the knower is empty. there is no arising of knowledge, nor arising nor ceasing of knower. just emptiness. there is not even emptiness, there is not even no thing... and yet you can see it and taste it.... the void of mind. why call it such a fancy name as the void. just look inside yourself right now and feel this normal 'me'. you will see it. emptiness is not some special feeling. it is this me. just as i feel it right now. and you will see that it is empty.

without tasting, conceptually it is possible to say...

An empty mind is no-mind (wunian/munen).

this is fine, but actually there is no mind at all anywhere, it is only called mind. infact it is also called emptiness, self nature and form, but ultimately it is "________"
there is no mind anywhere and there never has been. nor has there ever been a true nature. taste the emptiness within you. it does not taste like emptiness.

no mind is where mind and body have been seen and are seen to be empty. it is where you see that there is no mind to think. therefore how could there be any conceptualizing. concepts are empty. there are no concepts and there never have been. Hui Neng conceptualized with no mind, because he had no mind at all he could say that he was beyond concepts. having no mind at all is seeing that you have no mind... tasting mind, seeing that it is just this normal emptiness.

all im talking about is emptiness which is not even emptiness, nor is it nothingness. it is not. and yet you can still taste it within yourself. its a normal feeling youve had all your life. you just dont see it because it is so normal.

love, White Lotus. x

simple just ask...
what do i feel like when i am meditating, or sitting at the computer. what is this me? i feel it all the time. or ask... how does the computer feel? try it. then again ask how do i feel? is there a difference?

[Will]

These translations of Nagarjuna are very helpful in understanding what sunyata means. It is not a "void" - it is void-ness. It is the character or nature or manner of all - consciousness, objects; all dharmas.

Chandrakirti's comments on the 60 Stanzas of Nagarjuna bodhisattva clarified much.

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/nagarjuna.pdf

[Dexing]

If everything is void of own-being, how do we know?

As in the process of knowing ourselves and the world.

I guess the question im asking here is: How is the knowing empty?

This world is illusory, created by mind. But since all is illusory, nothing is in fact produced or extinguished. Since there is no object, there can be no subject. No "I, my, me".

Nonetheless, there is just seeing, just hearing, etc..

Don't make anything, and there is no problem. Make something and attach to it, then you have a big problem. So put it down, then just see, just hear, just help others.

[White Lotus]

Don't make anything, and there is no problem. Make something and attach to it, then you have a big problem. So put it down, then just see, just hear, just help others.

the following is beautiful:

It is not a "void" - it is void-ness. It is the character or nature or manner of all - consciousness, objects; all dharmas.

it is not empty, it is empty-ness, were it empty, it would still be something and subject to change. there is not a thing in it at all and it is not a thing to be named, nor is there not a thing in it, and not a name that does not express it. the name emptiness though often helpful, needs to be dropped from time to time. using the term void may be helpful, but that too is not as clear as direct experience of what 'this' is, just so. (form/emptyness)

actually rather than calling it emptiness or voidness, you could just ask yourself what 'this' feels like... if you can feel 'this', you can feel emptyness.

best wishes, White Lotus.

[m0rl0ck]

Don't make anything, and there is no problem. Make something and attach to it, then you have a big problem. So put it down, then just see, just hear, just help others.

[White Lotus]

It is not a "void" - it is void-ness

on examination, it is not a void, nor is it nothing... it is 'this'. everything is 'this'.
mind is this, own nature is this, subject and object are merged as one in 'this'.

master keizan said "between life and death there is only 'this'." i agree with him.
sound is 'this', form is this, emptiness is 'this'.

initially one thinks that one has emptiness, actually on examination it is not emptiness, nor is it a void. it has the feeling of 'this'ness.

i know a guy called Master Best, and have argued with him over the issue of emptiness, he has always asserted that there is no emptiness. i had disagreed, now i know that there is only 'this'. this may sometimes seem like voidness, but it is not.

try to feel thisness within you and around you... its easy, and more direct/accurate than trying to sense emptiness, since emptiness is contained in 'this'.

best wishes, White Lotus.

seen, heard, tasted, touched.
just enjoy an ice cream...
this is it.