Im struggling to understand emptiness.

Prior to the past few weeks, Ive heard it just in passing as a sort of Truth I should accept. That everything is empty and nothing is solid. Okay. And my basic understanding of physics, biology etc shows some form of that to be true. The atoms that made up a blade of grass were all once something else, maybe a fly or a cloud. The big bang originated all of the matter we see in the universe today, even us. I get that.

I also get how the thoughts we have, arent solid. Meditation has shown me this clearly. Those are fabrications of energy ("emotion") and word formations. Okay. I get that.

But when people like, say, Rob Burbea go on about how everything is inherently empty, literally everything, I get a bit frustrated because Im like, what do you MEAN by that. I know there is matter. I know that even though all items are processes, came from change and will change in the future, they have some existence that I am witnessing, using, touching, etc. How can that be "empty"? Fleeting, sure. In constant flux? Yes. Empty? ??

A part of me feels like insisting on describing these things as "empty" rather than "processes" or "temporary" is a kind of... "woah I wanna blow your mind" type terminology that doesnt actually point to anything different from what the latter two words do. Yet I really enjoy Rob Burbeas teachings (I know of course hes not the only source of emptiness teachings, hes just a teacher Ive been recently exploring who considers it very important) and I know hes not trying to just exaggerate or whatever.

But someone who understands, can you point me towards some clearer picture of whats being painted here? Id really like to know the big secret. And also what relevance there is to stream entry in understanding/seeing "emptiness" as opposed to understanding "flux" or "dependent arising".

submitted by /u/nani_kore
[link] [comments]

from Buddhism https://ift.tt/2RR20Ks