Ummon's Emptiness

[Guest guest]

Ummon said, " true emptiness doesn't negate things,

true emptiness is not different from things. "

 

How is this different from 'emptiness is form?'

Ummo's statement is more specific, less

philosophical. When emptiness downs, it's the

emptiness of ideas which becomes clear. Rice,

and rocks remain the same.

 

Pete

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote:

> Ummon said, " true emptiness doesn't negate things,

> true emptiness is not different from things. "

>

> How is this different from 'emptiness is form?'

> Ummo's statement is more specific, less

> philosophical. When emptiness downs, it's the

> emptiness of ideas which becomes clear. Rice,

> and rocks remain the same.

>

> Pete

 

 

Lewis: A question to ask is what does one see and understand before

emptiness when seeing rice and rocks? Are not rocks and rice defined

and used as they can be and are seen and used as inherently

self-existing things, - they exist independently on their own as

separate objects with all their uses and purposes and complex web of

meanings, perceptions, emotions, thoughts conceptions, attachments

etc. involved in them?

 

Now, after emptiness dawns, what does one see and understand when now

seeing what was formerly rice and rocks?

 

Is it possible for rocks and rice to remain the same after sunyata as

device is properly understood and applied?

 

Can one name, label, call out rice and rocks, and declare them the

same in emptiness?

 

How can this be?

 

If all self-inherent existence is removed, how can they remain as

rocks and rice, divided, separately named, identified and then equated

or discriminated and used in the same way or fixated upon?

 

After emptiness, what can be said of it?

 

Emptiness is form, form is emptiness. A form needs no inherent

self-existence, no name, no definition, no purpose, no use, no

division, no separation, no ideation, no thing.....

 

It is mere appearance. Form. Empty of inherent self-existence and

conceptual meaning required to make it so.

 

So, not rice or rocks.

 

Such form, appearance, then becomes available to make whatever of it,

to fill the form, to conceptualize the appearance, to make it into

some " thing " as preferred. It can now be whatever.

 

So appears story of the monk who desires to teach compassion first to

the greedy ruler rather than sunyata, and knowing that the greedy king

will realize that all appearances are mere form and in seeing that

such a king will realize that any thing can be made of these forms and

in such freedom made and used as the king wishes for whatever purpose

and in that the monk knew the greedy king may kill him to keep his

secret, the true meaning of the teaching emptiness is form and form is

emptiness. The king would use it to further his power rather than to

help his kingdom in compassion.

 

Lewis