http://www.scribd.com/doc/37481426/The-Ascent-to-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dispensed with and has been superseded by the identity “now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 “wherefrom 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 beingconsciousness-
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