Greetings readers!
It is quite obvious that I am about to tackle
some major concepts within this blog post. I will not apologize for heavy
philosophical writing but I will, for the sake of all beings, attempt to make
this as simple as possible. Simplicity within Buddhism is a sacred element in
my opinion because it is key to the understanding of universality,
interactivity and the progression of Compassion.
So how on Earth can I possibly tackle such
major themes, which have everything to do with each other all in one post?
Can I go down a check-list of some sort and
check mark everything that I need to say about each and just move on to the
next one?
I hate the word blasphemy but I think it would
be appropriate for such a project. Not only do these have everything to do with
each other, I am going to make a case in stating that they are all the same
thing.
That is incredibly “unorthodox” of me to state
but those of you who are already thinking to yourself, “What? Why? You’re
crazy!!!” I beg you to hear me out. You will see that I am not “stretching”
things that far and even if I were, so be it, it must happen.
I will begin with
Emptiness!
Within my postmodern mindset it is difficult
for me to accept a notion of something being contentless. The only form of
contentless that I can even imagine is something having so much content that
some of it needs to be thrown out. There are a few ways to go about explaining
this. The classic question “why is there something instead of nothing” can be
turned into “why is there something instead of everything?”
To quickly ponder over those two questions and
to simultaneously move to my next point would be to answer in saying that
Nothing is not nearly as much chaos as Everything. Everything must be diluted,
Nothing is open, potential where as it is Everything that must be deconstructed
and made peace with. Something is a flux between the two, Everything and
Nothing even though it seems that this Something is Everything at the same
time. That’s as far as I will go with that but my major point here is saying
that there are things that could use a little bit of diluting, trimming and
throwing out of.
Such statements are beginning to sound a little
bit Nihilistic....that’s because they are. They are not Nihilistic in the sense
that everything is meaningless but rather the contrary, everything has so much
meaning that we do in fact need to peal some of it away, throw it away and then
take what is good, useful and pragmatic and continue on with that. Nihilistic
pragmatism? Yes. I would state that Buddhism has a lot of that very concept
embedded in the heart of it.
Okay so finally, Emptiness. What is emptiness?
We live and continue our days, day-by-day,
moment by moment. There is nothing new about this statement to Buddhism. What
about these moments? Now. What about right Now? As I am writing this
post and as you Now are reading this post. It is difficult to say that
the future exists at all because it is now here yet but it is also
impossible to say that there is anything static within this world as well.
We’re stuck saying things are Becoming. Things are constantly becoming
and so Now is a constant process of change. This too is nothing new to
Buddhism but here is where it gets interesting. Emptiness is not the idea that
there is, in fact, nothing that keeps “me” “you” “us” “we” and so forth but
rather it is moments. It is not things that are empty but time.
Moments in time from one moment to the next.
The flux between when one thing is about to end and when the next moment is
about to begin. There is absolutely no way to ever measure such a thing and so
we can say a few things here. We can either say that because there is no
quantification of such a thing and such a claim to Emptiness would force
Emptiness to be attributed to Now, since Now is all we have, and then
everything is Emptiness.
But wait!
How can everything be Empty so fundamentally
when we have already discussed that things have content to them, they have
meaning, potency and potential? Can, with such a view everything be Empty at
the same time? Because stating Now is Empty only with time, but always Empty
would force the way we view content itself to change.
So no. That’s out!
We’re not forced to say that Emptiness does and
should have content, we are blessed to be able to say that. This is where
Emptiness meets Desire.
Part II: Desire as Emptiness. Emptiness as
Desire.
Desire is believed to be the thing that keeps
us within Samsara (at least in Theravada.) Samsara to me is more so a
continuation of the breaking of community and the lack of realization of
interdependency, interactivity and compassion. That definition would make
Samsara a negative aspect of reality.
Traditional logic, and the Four Noble Truths
state that with the breaking of Desire, Enlightenment can be attained. This
understanding continues to do good when Desire and Enlightenment are properly
situationally explained but as a general ontological point, I think it leads us
way off the road.
Desire as a more conceptual thought cannot be
ridden of and all Buddhists know this. The Dalai Lama always tells people it is
not Desire that we’re trying to get rid of, it is “bad” Desire. Desire to do
evil things like harming people and animals and such.
Okay so back on course. The statement I made
was that Desire and Emptiness are the same thing, neither of which is
contentless. That last point is incredibly important and please do not forget
that! It. Is. Not. Contentless!!!
As moments continue to arise and fall,
constantly changing, it is Desire that continues interactivity and community.
It is that process, the Desire for those two things which keep the Cosmos and
Everything somewhat stable in place. Because we don’t have any idea as to what
sort of Desire that is, the basis of it, the reason behind it, the point in
which the Desire is Ultimately Fulfilled (or brought to a close) we must call
it Empty.
There is one more reason we must call it Empty.
As things come from the past and are thrown into the present and continue on,
infinitely into the “future” there is a interactivity between what we call
Being and Non-being. Being is Existence, transcendent of itself and constantly
changing and Non-being are those moments of Emptiness where there is a flux
between what has taken place and what is about to take place. Non-being and the
word Creativity can be interchangeable here and they both have the quality of
being “Empty.” They’re empty because they’re potentials, neither determined nor
isolated from anything else, rather influenced by everything instead. It is
that slightest moment when we have an Empty choice to do something Good or Evil
that is Empty. The manifestation of the action is the leaving of Non-being and
into Being and also then becomes either Enlightenment or a continuation of
Samsara.
Desire as Enlightenment.
This is where the unorthodoxy really kicks in
guys, so please, hold on!
I have now stated that Emptiness is not
contentless but is moments in which Good and Evil are in flux and that choice
is made. There is no isolation and no determinism but rather influence. Being
and Non-being are dynamical in that Empty/Creative/Desire(ful) moments lead to
choices to be made which can be Good or Evil.
Samsara has been defined as a breaking of
community and interactivity, an ignorance that everything is interdependent and
connected.
Enlightenment must be some form of the opposite
of that (with exception, of course. It’s not always the case that if it’s not
“A” then it has to be “not A.)
Please excuse the logic lesson there!
So Desire can be Enlightenment only if Desire
is essentially viewed as favorable. I am talking about the same Empty Desire
that I talked about just a few minutes ago. The way that it can be viewed as
favorable and be viewed as Enlightenment is if the understanding of Desire is
positive in the first place. Empty moments must somehow more likely lead to
Good than Evil for them to be Enlightenment.
Right?
Well....almost. Yes because I am openly an
idealist regarding humans and just the world and do believe that most people
will make a Good choice as opposed to an Evil one but more so because there is
nothing left to call Enlightenment. That sounds like a strange thing to say but
I mean it, there is nothing left other than these moments to call
Enlightenment.
The “Criteria” for Desire to be Enlightenment
generally gets fulfilled.
1)
It is mysterious
2)
It is objectively present but subjectively participated with
3)
It is empty on its own thus requiring context.
4)
It is its realization that can change some people.
5)
For Mahayana, the realization of this for others is more likely to
happen than a realization in one’s own mind.
These similarities do not make it necessary that
Enlightenment and Desire are the same thing so I will now move on quickly to
Enlightenment.
Enlightenment as
Apophatic Participation with Everything
Before I begin here I will have to give some terms. This
will seem as the largest “break” from what I have written so far in this post
yet it will all tie in together again, I promise.
To describe some terms here, apophatic means negation. It is
generally used in theological terms but I believe it to be useful when
discussing Enlightenment as well. What I mean exactly by negation is saying
that we can only say what something is not
instead of what something is. I
link this sort of term closely with mysticism but not always.
What Enlightenment is not….
Enlightenment is not a
state one enters and leaves that is isolated from some and available for
others. Thus Enlightenment cannot be
isolated, it must be constant, integrated with everything around it. Attempting
to isolate it will go against one of the most important of all Buddhist
principles of interconnectivity.
Enlightenment cannot “truthfully realized” via a belief of
raw experience.
I mention this statement almost in every post because I
honestly believe it is a misconception many Buddhists have, especially in the
tradition that I am a part of, Zen.
Through no attempt may a person find a “hidden” or “final”
truth about oneself that is completely common, simple and universal to all
things. Regardless of whether this “hidden” “Buddhanature” is a positive
quality to humanity or not, a raw experience not only is not a way to discover
such a religious and subjective term, raw experience itself is not possible. As
stated above, the closest we can come to Emptiness is Desire, which is not
contentless so no amount of meditation will take a person to a place where
“Buddhanature” is discovered.
(On a quick note I am not attempting to make humanity seem
as if though it is not in a state of Buddhahood, my explanation for Buddhahood
is much different than that and it will be explained more thoroughly in my next
post!)
The list can go on and on but I find those to be the most
important. With such statements it is possible to justify such intensive
history of Buddhist mysticism and monasticism.
Buddhism began as a predominantly monastic faith available
to few but as concepts that had to do more and more with everybody arose, the
tide shifted into a religion of laity and not of the monks. Buddhism lends
itself easily to introspective isolation with such stress on the individual but
it is a mistake to assume the individual is, in fact, one single “I.”
Realization of anything within Buddhism goes through the motions of discovering
the principles that Buddhism presents and one of those is interconnectedness
and community. The “I” is only as “we” continue and still personhood is a
tricky subject. I will not say much more about this because this will begin the
“Self” discussion which is not the purpose of this post.
To Sum Up!
We have now stated that Emptiness is Desire is
Enlightenment.
Enlightenment is a mysterious thing, empty in that it is not
contentless but rather so mysterious that it is empty. Desire is the
progression of each moment in continuation towards community and interdependency,
the healthy kind. Enlightenment is such
because it is generally characterized as a realization of the Buddhanature
within all things but this suggestion is that the Desire that propels
everything and its realization is the Enlightenment that we seek. We respond
and participate in such ways that it becomes so subjective, yet recurrent that “Empty”
is a word that can be used.
There will be more posts on all of these topics as I go into
more depth but that is a nutshell introduction to how I view Buddhist
philosophy.
