Is Emptiness What It's All About?

[@edgepixel8467]

"I am a process in a world of processes." You won me at that. I had a realization along similar lines: "There are no objects, there are only processes."

[@derekmathers2824]

Very clear ; learnt more from this video than the numerous books I have read on the subject.

[@Zenways_zen]

Glad it was helpful, Derek. Thank you so much.

[@cesarmo469]

The first step took me at least ten years of meditation. Staying in the stream is the difficult challenge.

[@שגהש]

This reminds me of Shinzen Young’s video where he talks about enlightenment being an ox and you have to stay on the ox

[@Vince-ml9gw]

🤩 another great video. Thank you!!

[@Zenways_zen]

You are very welcome!

[@benrusher581]

its all 'in' the smile at the end folks!

[@USFilm1]

Thank you for your insights! Your insparational calmness.

[@Zenways_zen]

You are very welcome, Ulbe

[@stoicafanel]

A clear mind

[@Zenways_zen]

Thank you

[@BungleZippie]

I still struggle with this. Would it be similar to a pantheistic worldview, where the universe is the energy or source (god) and the focus is on that unfolding? Human life, like all life, is an element or cog in that unfolding. It is part of that source, but 'exists' in a specific form only for a while before it re-enters the whole and is then reformed into something else - plants, trees, etc. What is it of 'us' in terms of constitution actually has anything we can tangibly relate to as enlightened? It seems to me that beyond the scope for realization in the life we currently have there isn't anything? Ultimately then, besides this realization, isn't it actually very close to nihilism?

[@Zenways_zen]

Great points. Would you like we put it on the list for a response?

[@BungleZippie]

@@Zenways_zen yes, please :)

[@robbiepeterh]

You say that the Buddha observed himself over time and found nothing fixed or eternal. Well, what about the looker who did this looking? Surely, that one would have to be constant or fixed in order to watch himself? Isn’t that one, then eternal? If not, then such an observation would not have been possible.

[@Zenways_zen]

I'm not sure I follow you. Does the human eye need to be eternal in order to observe?

[@gunterappoldt3037]

Sorry, but it seems that Buddhist argumentation just goes in circles (tautologies), like: When you propose to overcome "substantialism" by positing "the process", you just repeat the standard SP(O)-grammar on another level. Could it be that the Buddha (as a synthetic role-model) asked the wrong questions, resp. was not really "beyond any frame", as is often suggested by apologists, but himself (as "character" of the lore) was (auto-)conditioned?

[@yoya4766]

It's hard to know what you are saying. But I agree Buddhist go around in circles. Ultimately, it relies on blind belief, there is no clear description of the goal or how to get to it.

[@joserodriguez-pu9ev]

@@yoya4766 the goal is realize the true nature of things is emptiness,everuthung rely in everything,there is change in everywhere,even the self is a mental concept so there is no a permanent thing we can call the self.The concept of self arise from mental activity as well as consciousness,and all mental issues are emptiness.

[@joserodriguez-pu9ev]

i think that human consciouness maybe is emptiness,but there is a global consciouness wich is eternal and permanet and includes everything.