Thirty spokes will converge In the hub of a wheel But the use of the cart Will depend on the part Of the hub that is void With a wall all around A clay bowl is molded But the use of the bowl Will depend on the part Of the bowl that is void Cut out windows and doors In the house as you build; `but the use of the house Will depend on the space In the walls that is void. So advantage is had From whatever is there; But usefulness arises From whatever is not. Philosophers have forever been inquiring into the nature of reality. Basically, the arguments have been over what is real, that is, what can be said to exist. For instance, we might all agree that this book exist; you can see it and touch it. But what about beauty? Does beauty exist in the same way as this book? No, you can see or touch a beautiful thing, but not beauty itself. Would it be correct to say that beauty does not exist? No, because when we talk about it, we all know or have some idea about it, so it exists somehow. So if it does exist, where is it? Some say it only exists in your mind, that beauty is only a human conception, a human description of real things, used in the same way as when we describe something as red. Maybe it would be safer to say that beauty exists in a different way than this book does. Well then, lest us consider chiliagons. Picture a chiliagon in your mind. What is a chiliagon, you say? You mean you dont you know what it is, that you cannot picture it? Does that mean it does not exist? A chiliagon is a thousand-sided figure. Now picture it. Still have a problem? But now you know what it is! Does it exist yet? You might be more sure if we were discussing a three or even a ten-sided figure, that is easier conceptually. But this chiliagon is impossible to envision. That does not mean that it does not exist, though. With enough space you could build one. Now relate this to the idea or concept of beauty. Is beauty more real than the chiliagon? In your minds eye you can point to a chiliagon. How about unicorns? Can you picture a unicorn? You probably can, yet there is no such thing as a unicorn, is there? So which is more real, the chiliagon that you cannot conceive of but is possible to build, or the unicorn that you can picture but that you know will never see? Consider also the following: If you can see red and green, you know those colors exist! For a severely color blind person, who might be able to see red or green colors, red and green do not exist. Now we are exploring the subjective experience as a criterion for existence. Experiencing it with your senses tells you if it is real or not. The Zen Buddhist view of reality is neither subjective nor objective. In it there is no distinction between the I and the that. Neither consciousness (your own subjective experience) nor external reality(objective, having nothing to do with the experiencer, for example, beautifullness) is considered ultimate. The Zen view, as always, is a practical one. These considerations are irrelevant. Everything is real only in relation to other things. Everything is devoid of reality, that is, nothing has its own independent existence. Consciousness and external reality are both real only in relation to each other. Or to put it another way, all that exists, exists relative to other things. The traditional Zen Buddhist view is that the world is in a constant state of change. Nothing in the world ever is, it is always becoming. The nature of reality is process, a continuous changing flow, Nothing is absolute; it is always changing. This process, this flow, is kū, (emptiness). In the Shingyõ Sutra chanted by the Zen monk every morning appears the following: Form is here emptiness, emptiness is form; form is no other than emptiness, emptiness is no other than form; that which is form is emptiness, that which is emptiness is form. It is the relationship that is, not the things that relate. This relationship is kū. Musashi says, That which cannot be known is kū (emptiness). This emptiness is not a mathematical void; it does not mean nonexistence, that something does not exist. Neither is it something unknowable, in the sense of inexperienceable. Emptiness is meant to describe, something which is devoid of an independent reality. This something is in the nature of relationship, that is, a process, a flow, in which all things are in a continual state of change. It is this process that is kū. It is the realization of this process that the Zen practitioner is trying to attain. Experiencing this flow, this process, directly, personally and immediately is what is meant by being one with the moment. Understanding that the nature of reality is process implies that one has gone beyond the point of making distinctions, your mind stops and you are no longer aware of, or more critically, no longer in tune with this flow. To posit beauty or book or unicorn or chiliagon is to have your mind stop. To think of death when you are faced with your enemy is to have your mind stop. This why the swordsman must remain detached from worldly thoughts. Munen musõ takes on new meaning. if you can rid yourself of the stopping mind, you will achieve Satori, and experience the moment as if it were your own. You have your own flow, your own process. When Musashi suggests that you make kū, your path, and your path as kū, he is suggesting that there is a higher order of experience than the one you are on now. The emptiness is really fullness, the realm of all possibilities. What Musashi and the Zen practitioners are saying is that via Heikõ or whatever path you follow, one can attain an understanding of his own place in the process. If your mind is open, you are free to be with the flow, to be in the rhyme with the timing of change. EmptinESS Its not what you see but what you dont see which is important. Its not what you hear them say but what they dont say which is important. Apply this to everything.
Posted on: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 09:38:11 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015