"A human being is part of a whole, called by us the
'universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his
thoughts and feelings, as something separate from the rest - a kind of
optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for
us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affectation for a few
people near us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by
widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the
whole of nature in its beauty." Albert Einstein
From Living Buddha, Living Christ by Thich Nhat Hanh:
"Enlightenment for a wave in the ocean is the moment the wave
realises that it is water."
Wisdom in Buddhism can refer to two
types of insight: conventional wisdom and ultimate wisdom.
Conventional wisdom relates to understanding the conventional world,
or the world as we know it. Traditionally it refers to understanding the way in
which karma functions; to understand which actions bring us happiness and
which bring us suffering. Conventional wisdom covers all understanding of the
world as it functions, including science, but apart from ultimate wisdom.
Ultimate wisdom refers to a direct realisation which is non-dualistic,
and contradicts the way in which we ordinarily perceive the world. The
experience of ultimate truth or emptiness is beyond duality. It is
important to remember that emptiness here does not refer to nothingness or some
kind of nihilistic view. Emptiness refers to the fact that ultimately, our
day-to-day experience of reality is wrong, and is empty of many qualities that
we normally assign to it. Describing this non-dual experience in words is not
really possible as language is based on duality and contrasts. Trying to explain
this experience - which contradicts our normal perception - is a bit like
explaining colours to someone who is born blind; difficult to say the least.
WHY TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IT?
If it can not really be explained in words, why bother writing about it?
According to the Buddha, as long as we do not realise emptiness directly -
especially of our idea of how our "I" exists - we do not properly understand how
the world functions and we will continue to create causes for our own misery.
As Shantideva expressed:
"How much suffering and fear, and How many harmful things are
in existence? If all arises from clinging to the "I", What should I do
with this great demon?"
Merely starting to doubt our perception of the world is invaluable if we ever
hope to break the bondage to uncontrolled cyclic existence and suffering.
In order to familiarise ourselves with this all-important experience, we can try
to familiarise ourselves with it on an intellectual level. When we would
experience emptiness, we would then be able to recognise it. Instead of
believing we have suddenly gone mad, recognition would encourage us to enhance
the experience and achieve liberation from suffering.
The wisdom of emptiness refers to a lack of something: 'inherent existence'.
'Inherent existence' means that things appear to exist independently, in- and
out of themselves, from the side of the object, by way of its' own character,
self-powered, autonomous. Ultimately however, things exist in dependence upon
causes and conditions. For example, a human being ceases to exist in a vacuum,
we would instantly die when all conditions for life are suddenly gone. On
another level, a human being needs to come into existence by the combination of
a sperm from the father joining an egg from the mother and all the right
conditions to grow into an embryo. So, considering ourselves as independently
existing, fully autonomous is a mere illusion and does not accord with ultimate
reality.
Ultimate wisdom can be compared to eco-thinking in biology: a century ago,
biology focused mainly on categorising species of animals and plants and
describing their specific aspects. Plants and animals were cut to pieces to
analyse how they function. However, nature also functions at a completely
different level; as relations and processes between living beings. Ecology
appeared as a new branch of biology, more dealing with relations, cycles and
interdependence of living beings. This is somewhat similar to the view of
emptiness. Instead of focusing on differences and individuality, the realisation
of emptiness is about realising that nothing exists by itself alone, but depends
on other things. Just as all living beings rely on other living beings - at
least their ancestors, so do even inanimate objects depend on other objects and
processes to arise and disappear.
The fact that we normally do not realise emptiness and the relatedness of
things is directly related to our perception. As soon as we perceive
something in the outside world, it feels different from our own body or mind. We
feel as if other things are "out there", separate from "my self", which is "in
here". But are they really separate? To begin with, if the outer object
would not somehow "relate" to us in the form of sound, smell, light etc., we
would be unable to perceive it. So our perception of objects depends on
interaction, rather than the fact that we are separate. To put it simple, our
perception of the world is only possible because of interaction, interrelation,
dependence and exchange of information.
When we perceive an object, we automatically tend to label it (like nice,
bad, wet, dry, light, dark, etc.). As soon as our mind puts a label on
an object, the label takes the place of the actual object in our mental
processes. As our mental image or label can never represent all the different
qualities and characteristics of any object, it is always just a simplified,
usually exaggerated, subjective snap shot. However, our mind reacts on the
basis of our own mental label of an object. No wonder we tend to react
simplistic, exaggerated and subjective situations. All perceived objects are
conditioned by our senses and our own mind. This leads to the dramatic
conclusion that we are not and by definition can never be objective! Or,
as the physicist Werner Heisenberg said,
"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of
questioning"....
Our labeling leads to problems like anger and attachment, but
also to the more basic problem that we think we are somehow separate from the
outside world. But are we separate from the outside world? When we see
something - for example a table - it appears to be separate from the rest of the
world, just standing there by itself, but is that correct? How could the table
stand there without the ground supporting it? How could the table exist without
a carpenter making it from pieces of wood? The pieces of wood come from a tree,
which comes from a seed, water, soil, air, the sun and its nuclear fusion of
hydrogen atoms etcetera.... Every object needs causes and conditions to exist,
just like we need our parents, food, air, clothes and many more things. Apart
from that, our perception of an object is strongly coloured by our own senses,
mental state and memories. In this way, it becomes impossible to maintain that I
am separate from the outside world, however much it feels that way.
1. Dependent on their parts 2. Interrelated, not
isolated 3. Merely labeled
To prevent misunderstanding, we
must avoid the "two extremes", that is, believing that:
1. Things are permanent, independent of their parts, and
independent of our labeling 2. Things do not exist at all
(nihilism).
HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO ME?
This view has consequences when it is applied to whatever I call "I" and
"mine":
I am not isolated from my surroundings and other living beings.
I "create" the world with my own concepts and ideas. The world is
like an illusion: how I see the world depends on my own ideas. This
world is "my" film, "my" projection, I run the show, so I can change my
experience of the world. I can change the world, if I start with my own
mind. I can change, as "I" is only a concept, impermanent and
dependent on causes and conditions, just like all phenomena (even emptiness
itself). Although I can understand this intellectually, I don't perceive
the world that way until I directly realise emptiness!
To realise emptiness, externally we need a qualified teacher, and internally
we need enough merit (or karma), purification, practice of ethics, keeping our
vows and generating single-pointed concentration. In the Tibetan tradition:
first one tries to intellectually understand it, then later the realisation can
ripen in the well-prepared field of our mind.
It is advised to analyse the "I" first, and then later one analyses other
phenomena in the same way, for example using the "fourfold analysis":
1. Identify object of negation: inherently existent "I" 2. Determine
possibilities of how the "I" exists: is it the body, the mind, both or
different? (We can say, "I have have a body and a mind", which would indicate
that the "I" is something different from the body and the mind, but is that
possible?) 3. Is the "I" same as body and/or mind? 4. Is the "I" other
than body and mind?
Advice from Lama Zopa Rinpoche:
"While you are meditating there is an "I" (representing the Self)
which appears to exist from its own side. Right on top of that think, the I is
merely labeled Just meditate on the meaning of the I being merely labeled I is
a name; a name does not exist from its own side, a name is given, imputed by
the mind. We can completely agree with that. This I is merely labeled;
concentrate on just that. Try to feel that. This automatically eliminates
eternalism, the view of a truly existent I."
With this explanation, you may be tempted to think that emptiness is all
about playing with words and doing complicated mind games. However, it is said
that realising emptiness directly can solve all our problems, as all our
problems are caused by our misunderstanding of the world. As all our
communication is based on words which cannot express the ultimate truth, please
try to discover the real meaning behind the words for yourself!
Another thing that should be kept in mind is that when one directly
experiences emptiness, the mind cannot perceive anything dualistic, meaning it
cannot perceive anything of the "normal" world. This is why discussions on
emptiness often tend to go astray and may have an "otherworldly" feel to them.
It is said that only a fully realised Buddha can experience emptiness and
ordinary existence simultaneously.
