Openness, emptiness, awareness
Thoughts have been occurring to me about a retreat I’m leading at Aryaloka later this month. The three words that will be guiding the teaching on the retreat, which I’m co-leading with my colleague, Sunada, are:
- Openness
- Emptiness
- Awareness
The first emphasis on the retreat, Openness, is encouragement to practice broad mindfulness of one’s experience. There are various equally valid approaches to meditation, each of which has its place. The first kind of meditation I learned involved developing a strong and narrow focus of concentration on the breath. Later I learned, mostly through the evolution of my own practice, that it was also possible to use the breath as a central reference point while becoming aware of the full breadth of my experience. It’s like when you’re looking at a picture you’ve just hung on the wall — you’re not just seeing the picture but you’re seeing it in relation to everything around it.
In normal life we tend to become very narrowly focused on thoughts, or on a task, and often notice little else. In mindfulness meditation we can be aware not only of thoughts, but of the sensations in the body, of feelings, emotions, sounds, space, light, odors, etc. The breath becomes a central and loosely held focus point around which everything else is perceived.
The second phase, Emptiness, involves noticing that all the various sensations we experience in this state of broad mindfulness are impermanent. Sounds, images, thoughts, pain, joy, itches: all of the experiences we have come into being and pass. So we sit, observing our experiences as they arise and as they fade away. And in doing so we notice that these experiences — the pleasurable ones and the painful ones — are empty of inherent existence. In other words they’re not solid things, as we tend to assume, but evanescent processes. They’re empty of “own-being” (svabhava). We also can realize that as well as lacking inherent existence, our experiences are not inherent in us. They’re not a part of us. again we tend to assume unconsciously that our experiences are us. But in meditation we can come to see that this isn’t the case.
One way we’ll be approaching this realization is through the Six Element practice, where we contemplate each of the elements of earth, water, fire, air, space, and consciousness in turn, seeing how “we” are made up entirely of elements that are borrowed from the “outside world” and how in fact we own nothing. We don’t so much let go of the elements in this practice are realize that we were never able to hold onto them in the first place. But we can learn to let go of the illusion of holding on, and of the attempt to cling to delusions.
Lastly, we can work on recognizing what is left. We’ve realized that our experiences are not us, that we are not the elements, so what is us? What’s left at the end of the six element practice is often just a sense of lunimous, radiant awareness. This awareness is the ground of our experiences: not separate from them, but relating to them (to use a traditional metaphor) in the same way that water and ice are related. They’re inseparable — you can’t have ice without water — but they’re not the same. Awareness: it’s ever-present and yet indefinable!
So that’s it: Openness, Emptiness, Awareness.
We’ll probably be reading and reflecting on the following poem rather a lot during the retreat.
FROM DILGO KHYENTSE RINPOCHE
If you conquer the primordial nature by distinguishing mind from awareness,
The view of the absolute will gradually become clear.
Even if inwardly awareness is not yet clear right now,
Simply keep the mind from wandering outside;
This will do, for awareness lies in the very depth of the mind.
They are, it is said, like water and ice:
Water and ice are not entirely the same,
For the latter is solid and can be held.
But molten ice is none other than water,
So, in truth, water and ice are not two things, but one.
Likewise mind is not awareness, being deluded,
But mind’s nature, when realised, is none other than awareness.
Although mind and awareness are different in sense,
They cannot be distinguished by analytic reasoning.
One day, as your confidence in awareness grows,
Mind will appear as witless as a child
And awareness as wise as a venerable old sage.
Awareness will not run after mind, but eclipse it;
In a relaxed, serene state, rest at ease.
8 Responses to “Openness, emptiness, awareness”
About this entry
You’re currently reading “Openness, emptiness, awareness,” an entry on Bodhipaksa's blog, bodhi tree swaying
Published: Mar 15 2006
Tags and categories
Category: Apropos of nothing
what is the relationship between awareness and consciousness? also, you say that you cannot have ice without water; they are inseparable, yet you can have water without ice. is there then such a “thing” as awareness without an object? ari
The nature of the relationship depends on how you define those terms. In the poem by Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche the distinction is drawn between mind and awareness, where mind is the individual contents of conciousness, while awareness is what is aware of those contents — the “space” as it were, in which thoughts and perceptions exist. Different traditions use different terms to make this distinction, although not all traditions do see a distinction. The distinction — even when it is drawn — isn’t absolute, however: as the poem points out, ice and water are not too things but one.
I think the existence of the distinction is more methodological than metaphysical. In other words we tend to get caught up in one or another mental state, and if we broaden our awareness so that we see an individual, and perhaps compelling, mental state as being just one part of our experience, then we are freer. From that perspective you can see the ice and water simile as simply a reminder not to reify the methodological distinction and turn it into a metaphysical statement.
So, in short, it doesn’t matter what terms you use if this distinction is made, but it can be useful to make it as long as you don’t get trapped by thinking that the two words (whatever they are) represent two absolutely different things.
To address your final question, the point of the metaphor is to highlight that awareness and its objects are inseparable. You can’t have awareness without something for that awareness to be conscious of. You can’t have ice without water. As you say, you can have water without ice, but it’s best not to try to stretch metaphors too far. The point is that water and ice are essentially the same thing.
dear bodhipaksa, what “object” is awareness aware of during deep dreamless sleep? arihanto
Unfortunately that’s not something I can know. If awareness functions in deep sleep (e.g. if there is some kind of dreaming going on), it presumably has some object, but since I have no recollection of what goes on in deep sleep I can never say what that object is or was. Likewise, if deep sleep is a state in which awareness is not functioning (i.e. there is no dreaming going on), then by definition it has no object. In the non-Buddhist Upanishadic tradition, it was/is believed that dreamless sleep is a kind of enlightenment experience. I’m afraid I don’t recall what the reasoning for this line of thought was.
from your reply, dear sir, i infer that your understanding of awareness is that it is intermittent, temporal, transitory like a dream. the upanishadic tradition holds that awareness is constant, permanent, eternal. how can this immense difference be resolved? ari
Since this question doesn’t have any bearing on my daily practice of cultivating mindfulness, lovingkindness, and observing the impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and non-intrinsicness of my experiences, it’s not one that I’m much concerned about. It might not even be answerable, and so devoting time to it might be rather like a man shot by an arrow who doesn’t want to pull it out until every question about it is answered.
dear bodhipaksa, thankyou for your rather dismissive reply. i do not want to risk asking you anymore questions that might disturb your practice and to which you are not “much concerned about”. farewell, ari
Hi Arihanto,
It’s simply not a question I’m interested in and as I said I’d rather deal with cultivating tranquillity and insight rather than speculate on things I know nothing about. I’m sorry if this sounds “dismissive.” If you read the sutta I linked to you’ll have seen that the Buddha gave equally “dismissive” responses to questions he thought were unanswerable or unnecessarily speculative. Buddhism is a path of practice and not a philosophy as such.
All the best,
Bodhipaksa