True Emptiness for all Seekers
True Emptiness for all Seekers
What is the state of Emptiness and how can it be perceived? It is sometimes assumed that the state of “being?” termed emptiness is uniquely associated with Buddhist thinking. This appears to be primarily due to the Buddha’s insistence to the effect that no true Self or super-Self can be detected anywhere beyond the false personal self. That is, no self of any kind exists in human consciousness or beyond and that furthermore, all appearances that give rise to the idea of a self are merely chimera’s arising as the result of exercises in personal gratification. Yet it can readily be observed that the world of name and form certainly appears to exist as an externality to ordinary human consciousness.
This leads to the proposition that either the world truly exists as an externality or it arises as a direct projection of mind, at some deeper level of consciousness (at least). If the world arises as the result of such a mind-dependent projection or, if the proposition to the effect that form is emptiness and emptiness is form is allowed then a dependency on either the act of discrimination or of mind alone must be admitted If success is achieved following the systematic attempt to deconstruct the ego or personal s self (as by raising the question “who am I?”)the very first realization (recollection really) that the ground-consciousness will experience is the “observation” that the entire infrastructure comprising the world immediately “falls away”. By this I mean the physical world disappears (dissolves) and the observing identity realizes that both the attributes of the personal self and those of the world exist only in consciousness.
The realized observer is then conscious, aware that both foregoing categories (personal self and the world) are non-substantial, existing only in consciousness and can be reassembled “at will”. And that furthermore, the realized identity alone has been (was) responsible for assembling both the personal self and the infrastructure that supported it. If the process of self-realization proceeds further three additional spiritual facts emerge (are remembered). The first such recollection is that the subject identity is alone and ever has been so. The second is that the figment of “time” has been dispensed with and has been superseded by the identity “now only” and third that a nearly infinite array of personal lives exist simultaneously in consciousness along with the recently vacated “current life”.
It is the realization, recollection of this seemingly endless array of “alternate” lives that coalesces into the state of being-consciousness-bliss. Thus, there is indeed a state of being-consciousness-bliss but it is nowhere near to being an “absolute”. For one thing it is a state of consciousness – it can be and is “known” but it does not itself know that it is the source of all that exists (so to speak) and nor does it directly claim to be such although the creative capacity is none-the-less inherent in each incarnation that it has undertaken to produce. It only knows itself to be a “state of grace” hence the term: being-consciousness-bliss. It knows beyond itself only that it is the true (but not absolute) source of the constantly reincarnating personal self. Hence, upon reaching this state, the fusion therewith is equivalent to “homecoming” one might say. This is the timeless reality known as the Atman, the direct source of the array of reincarnating personalities.
This state of being-consciousness-bliss however, can be immediately banished by the query “from whence being-consciousness-bliss”? The instantaneous result thereof being visitation into the profound, a state that cannot be recalled into consciousness for the simple reason that it entails no trace of consciousness and is thus prior to “being-consciousness-bliss” (which itself, as detailed above, is a consciously achieved state). What claim could possibly be raised to justify this? Simple really, the conscious consequence there-from is a subsequently emergent identity which can be characterized as “I am that from which all derives”. This state is termed Brahman, the divine reality and it is the underlying ground of the world. However, although it appears subjectively as the support of all, it is properly the intermediate source of the world of name and form.
It is a mistaken identity in that although it is the primary appearance in/as consciousness (issuing from the profound) and it does see itself as source of all that follows, it none-the-less emerges from the profound (from emptiness itself) and is therefore not the true source, even if it is a fully formed identity i.e. a “capacity” in consciousness. Being a “first appearance” it considers itself the “originator” of all that is and all that there is to be.
If emptiness is truly outside of consciousness how can such a state be apprehended? Careful inspection reveals that there is a “gap” in experience between the question “where from being-consciousness-bliss” as raised within “being-consciousness-bliss” and the emergence of the identity “I am that from which all derives”. This gap (or reflection sphere, for want of a better term than “emptiness”) can be alluded to as constituting “true emptiness”. Emptiness is thus something "solitary", unspeakable, un-knowable, un-reportable into which consciousness disappears as soon as discrimination ceases and this immediately follows the query "where-from being-consciousness-bliss?"
The seed of the creator and the creator's universe subsequently emerges (from emptiness) under the false (deluded) identity "I am that from which all derives" but the true "source" (reflection point/sphere) ever remains as "emptiness" the condition that arises as when discrimination ceases............unknowable in consciousness because (it is) beyond (prior to) the capacity which supports consciousness which latter, in turn possesses the ability to know itself and thereby (to manifest) manifests "the world of name and form" and all therein.
The term “Para-Brahman” the formless aspect of Divinity beyond Brahman is equivalent to “true emptiness”.
So, how may we seek to explain elemental Advaita (non-duality) in relation to its “single-minded” insistence that "There is only ever the non-dual reality and, from the vantage point of the person in the world, there is either knowing this or not knowing it" or again "All is presence in which all apparent thoughts and concepts, events and actions, arise spontaneously" and so forth. Well, once again, the answer to this question is simple, such advocates have overlooked the aspect of “emptiness” simply because they have not “seen or detected” it and have projected themselves directly into the erroneous and deluded identity being the state of “I am that from which all derives” and this is rephrased as “all is presence in which all apparent thoughts and concepts, events and actions, arise spontaneously” and again “there is only ever the non-dual reality” and so forth. Emptiness is a state of (presumed) being about which nothing can be said.
It is known to exist by consciousness only as a gap therein. It is the gap between being consciousness- bliss (Atman) and the immediately emergent identity or "being that knows itself as 'that from which all derives'"(the manifest Self or Brahman). However, although the state of “I am that from whence all derives” sees itself as instigator, when fully realized it is also immediately aware of the pain and suffering experienced by all sentient beings which it posits against the pure nature of the perfection which it conceives of as being consonant with its origin.
Compassion does not arise de novo from emptiness but as the result of emptiness scanning the effects of its emergent creative impulse. The Heart Sutra speaks clearly and decisively to this. Similarly the statement , roared by the Upanishads, to the effect "That Thou Art" is a definite state but it is not the "Absolute" and one can know that because it can be recalled as “I am that from which all derives”. The absolute state cannot be recalled because it is "void", Nirvana (all sense of small self and of Higher Self (Atman-Brahman) "blown out" as the Buddha said, "something solitary...") - so how can it possibly be "recalled"? The “Awakening of Faith” (a Mahayana root-text) speaks of final enlightenment in the following terms: to be fully enlightened is to have reached the fountainhead of the mind.
Such a designation refers to those free from deluded thought, able to perceive that which is beyond thought, and to have thus awakened to the perception that ALL THOUGHT can be likened to "dream only”. I could go on in detail but you will get the point. It’s all one ....thing man! One thing that is a no-thing or everything depending entirely on the attainment achieved by the observer/reporter – from the comparative simplicity volunteered by the plethora of those that adhere to the creed currently trumpeted by neo advaita to more discerning and sophisticated versions of nirvana-emptiness- compassion and so forth coupled with the intellectual and practical infrastructure provided by modes of practice in one form or another, some conservative some seemingly otherwise.
Goldenage
