As quoted in this previous article, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso says that if we have some experience of emptiness:
Geshe Kelsang at Madhymaka Centre, early 1980s
“Everything becomes very peaceful and comfortable, balanced and harmonious, joyful and wonderful.”
Countless meditators before us have had this experience and there seems to be no reason to think that Buddha or our kind teachers are just making this up. Once we’ve had teachings on emptiness, we do generally get the sense that it is the answer to all our problems, don’t we? Also, while compassion is arising strongly it is a major motivator for realizing emptiness, as I saw when looking after Ralph the kitten.
So my question is, “Why don’t we just go for it?”
A lot of you answered this question on the previous article, thank you.
Samsara or freedom?
I think the major reason we don’t go for it in earnest — a reason even underlying our other reasons and sabotaging our compassion — is because we are attached to inherently existent things. We don’t particularly like the idea of our house, for example, being burnt up in the fire of exalted wisdom. We’ve worked years for that house and we really quite like it! We need it! We want it to be real. Not to mention our partner, our children, our enjoyments, our vacation, our money… Have you ever lost your wallet? This is a very significant absence. We don’t like it. Why would we want to meditate on the absence of inherent existence of our wallet and everything else?!
“Why, oh why, didn’t I take the blue pill?”
In the first Matrix movie, Cypher wants to return to the unreal world of false appearances because he is attached to it. Cutting up a juicy steak in a restaurant in the Matrix (of mistaken appearance) with Agent Smith (self-grasping ignorance), he ruminates that he knows the steak is merely the simulation telling his brain that it is delicious and juicy, but after nine years he has discovered that “ignorance is bliss.” He strikes a deal with the enemy Agent Smith because he wants to be rich and powerful, “an actor” maybe.
Years ago I saw a Star Trek episode where Captain Kirk entered a dream-like world. He knew he was dreaming and he had control over his dream, but he didn’t like it. He spent the whole episode trying to get back to “real” life. He could not enjoy the creative freedom of being able to make up his own world, and the movie supported his view that it is better if things are solidly real.
And I’ve often wondered why brilliant Western scientists who have delved into quantum physics for a lifetime haven’t realized emptiness directly. (I’m assuming, for the sake of argument, that most haven’t). They seem so close — they have almost entirely de-constructed an objective world. But they haven’t got to the point of acknowledging that, no matter how much money they spend on particle accelerators blowing tinier and tinier things up, they will never find the ultimate constituent of the universe. Why? Because there isn’t one. There is nothing out there, not even the smallest gluon, tachyon, or neutrino. Everything is projected by mind (even mind itself).
Granted, this is just my theory, but I think they’ll keep looking because they are attached to an inherently or objectively existent universe. They don’t want to dismantle it entirely because they’re attached to it being real. (Their assumption is also part of the Western creator view of a first beginning and a final end, but that’s another story.)
Buddha’s teachings are so clear on the subject – I think it could be easier and quicker to realize emptiness than spend a lifetime becoming an expert in quantum mechanics, string theory, parallel universes and so on! Yogis — who are experts in the field of the mind and of emptiness — are free and blissful all the time. Therefore, Buddha is not just positing a theory, for what he says has worked in practice for millenia to free the mind. Scientists, on the other hand, are as brainy as can be, but are also as neurotic as the rest of us.
We need renunciation, the mind of liberation
Buddha said that a pre-requisite for realizing emptiness directly is the non-attachment of renunciation. That is the only way we can enter a supramundane spiritual path – without at least renunciation we will remain trapped in samsara indefinitely. Some people wonder why we need renunciation – why, if we are intelligent, can’t we realize emptiness first and then develop aversion for samsara?! After all, the teachings on emptiness can seem more fun to begin with.
However, I think this is only because we’re not clear what it is we are actually renouncing. Yes, we are renouncing the places, enjoyments and bodies of samsara, but this is because we apprehend them as inherently existent. What we are actually renouncing is the ignorance in our minds.
We are renouncing, or wishing to give up, our self-grasping ignorance apprehending inherent existence because we know that it is the source of all our other delusions such as anger and attachment, and of all our suffering. If we are renouncing the mind of ignorance, we are also renouncing the object of that mind – inherently existent things. We want neither the conception nor the appearance of inherent existence any more, whatever these are associated with – nice things or nasty things. That is real renunciation, it seems to me.
And it is the minimum motivation we need for realizing emptiness. With it, we are delighted to spend time in emptiness, dissolving mistaken appearances away. Without it, we are at best half-hearted. And we just want to go lay on the real beach, followed by a real juicy steak, and a movie.
nobody can make us happy...
Unless we start developing some non-attachment for inherent existence, we’ll be lucky just to get glimpses of the possibilities of the spiritual path. Through blessings and/or good karmic imprints, we may have one or two good meditation sessions — letting go and abiding in a peace we’ve never experienced the like of before. But then due to our habitual attachment we will allow ourself to cling again to inherent existence, thinking of it as innocuous or even desirable.
Do you agree? (Especially the scientists among you who are reading this?!)
I love quantum theory! They’re so very close yet so far away from Buddha’s truth. If they could only push their very sharp logic enough on subtle impermanence and things being ‘mostly empty’…..
Logic alone won’t do it, they need to want to go there.
I ain’t no scientist, just a Kadampa trying to be happy and agree with you 100%. I have been telling people 4 years thst without renuncation we are not on a spiritual path leading to liberation.
True dat.
I agree that part of the problem is our attachment to wordly things (it certainly is with me). But emptiness meditation is concerned with the basis of this attachment, a mind that so completely conceives inherence that we (i) cannot control it, even if we are aware of it, and (ii) projects itself onto all reality as default behaviour.
We are like a dysfunctional robot with a hard-wired program that we cannot shut down. Personally, I think that We have no idea what it is like to live without it. Imagine, for example, our waking experiences appearing like a dream. This is like when we have strong, clear thoughts of someone or something, hurried imagery, massive maneuverability, a lack of consitency, and so on. Things wouuld appear to be ‘empty’, or ‘not really existent’ .. like our imagination. Compare that with our self-grasping waking mind! And even our dreams are ‘contaminated’ with self-grasping!
Whatever the intellectually intriging, horrifyingly difficult, or blissfully inducing aspects of emptiness we are considering, we would do well to realize that the purpose of this teaching is to reduce the power of the self-grasping mind, and to practise emptiness is to deliberately, fastiduously, and single-pointedly undermine it’s power, whether meditating on it’s negation directly, or by using strategic forms of argumentation that undermine it’s self-conviction, the method that Nagarjuna developed. Only then can we might get an idea of what it’s like to exist without it.
Teachings on emptiness are difficult (and even sometimes seem inconsistent), and there are many aspects that are still unclear to me. But we must not abandon the motivation to meditate or the will to engage in debate and intellectual discourse about emptiness, trying to remember the point of talking about it whilst we are doing that. I have compassion for those not predisposed to all the intellectual hoohah, but I still strongly encourage them to consider their own self-grasping mind, the basis of other delusions, and how the emptiness teachings are aimed at undermining it.
Crikey, this could be a blog article in itself
Thanks. I do agree that it is important we study emptiness.
I think the magic of the chapter on ultimate bodhichitta is that, in truth, Ven Geshe-la has managed to explain incredibly profound truths in a way that is instantly accessible and extraordinarily clear — but it requires careful (and slow) reading, and reading many times.
If people are then curious to know more, Heart of Wisdom is probably your best next stop. Then, if people want to know even more, aim at studying Ocean of Nectar. Ideally you’d study these with a teacher
My house caught on fire and all I could think about was the teaching that was given to me by Geshe-la. It was only a house, we can get a new one. What an amazing experience of impermanence. Things that appear are ever changing. Nothing exists inherently. Let it all go…. be free in the clear blue sky mind.
Wonderful that you succeeded in doing this.
Just seeing that beautiful picture of Geshe La melted that solid old world away.
Thank you
It was taken at a tea party in the garden at Madhyamaka Centre circa 1982, before Madhyamaka Centre moved to Kilnwick Percy Hall in 1986. (The centre was based in WH Auden’s old house in York at the time).
Hi Luna,
Thanks for an interesting article. As regards the refutation of inherent existence, both Geshe-la and particle physicists are in agreement that ‘fundamental’ particles are not ‘things in themselves’ , but are collections of ever-changing aspects and relationships. A fundamental particle exists as a set of mathematical relationships, and it only becomes ‘real’ for the brief moment that it is observed.
http://seanrobsville.blogspot.com/2009/11/quantum-buddhism-buddhist-particle.html
I guess if it is considered real even for a moment it means it is real enough.
Thank you for the link, good stuff.
Hi Luna, is that the main reason, that we are so attached to the things we are familiar with? And so we really need a good deal of renunciation to have any hope of making progress with emptiness? What if we had strong determination and doggedly persevered with the meditation day after day and became very familiar? Would this still not have the power to really change our minds, due to lack of strong motivation?
Depends why we’re doing it, I think.
In my dream last night I was saying “I get it now, its just mere karmic appearance”.
I am working with the dream analogy a lot trying to understand and experience how it is just like my waking experience. I think where people get confused, and by people I mean me, is that if I dream of a beautiful new master bathroom I don’t get up in the morning and go buy new towels for it. I get that, it was an appearance to the subtle mind, It disappears completely. But the bathroom in my waking world, which is not nearly as nice, keeps appearing and I do have to buy towels for that.
Its the consistency that throws me off.
Yes, we are more mindful when awake, so things appear more consistent, they seem to last longer. Plus we have more collective/shared karma ripening while awake, so it is easy to find people to agree with our perceptions.
As Shantideva says, whether a dream lasts for a minute or a thousand years, when we wake up it is still just a dream. That is what our death will be like. Remembering death and impermanence is one of the very best ways to understand how our waking world is like a dream.
(Doesn’t mean we don’t have to keep the bathroom supplied with towels
But our motivation is different.)
Wonderful article Luna…one of the best article´s waking live dream ever…. : )
Thank you Maria
Brialliant article once again, thankyou Luna. I definitely agree with you, and have often wondered myself what is holding me back from letting go? How perverse that we are so attached to grasping at the inherent exsistence of objects. It feels to me like it is fear of really changing our mind and letting it abide in emptiness, which is the complete opposite of our otherwise habitual grasping. Hooray that Guru Wisdom Buddha has come to the rescue!
Yes, well put.
This morning I was having thoughts like “how can we own the sky, the air, trees, the ground we walk on, etc? And by that logic, how can we own our thoughts, our body our mind?”
I think I was trying to get to an understanding of the generic image of the body and mind, in order to know how to abandon it, which is the beginning of renunciation.
And then I received your article on going for it and dissolving everything into emptiness.
I’m wondering if I dreamed your article to appear at this time to help me with this understanding.
“There are no accidents.” (ha ha, i just watched Kung Fu Panda 2!)
We are abandoning the generic image of an inherently existent body and mind, its true. Self-grasping superimposes inherent existence on our (existent) body and mind.
You can read more about the view of the transitory collection conceiving mine in Ocean of Nectar, explaining how we can meditate on the emptiness of I in possessive mode (of me or “I’s”). No inherently existent I or me means no inherently existent mine or I’s, which means no inherently existent objects owned by me.