by Greg Goode
The meditator who follows the tantric, Mahamudra or Dzogchen teachings eventually realizes the empty and luminous nature of his or her own mind and of the nature of all phenomena. Studying Western emptiness, as we describe it in this book, can be similarly helpful for that purpose, we believe, as the traditional emptiness teachings are taught to be. It is not sufficient though.
If you are interested in these particular achievements, you need to train and meditate with an authentic teacher in one of those traditions. Fortunately, there are many wonderful teachers from those lineages teaching in the West today. For me (Tomas), studying with these teachers has been a great help for understanding and appreciating how beautiful an empty, compassionate life can be.
For example, the Tibetan teacher Tsoknyi Rinpoche had us floored with laughter many times at the exceptional Dzogchen retreats he taught. One time, he told us a story about how he was walking by the Bodhi tree in Northern India under which the Buddha had gotten enlightenment. It was a beautiful day, and about ten spiritual practitioners in flowing robes, immersed in deep meditation, sat under the tree. Suddenly, a precious leaf fell from the tree and landed directly at my teacher’s feet. Immediately, he thought, “Wow! How amazing, a leaf from the Bodhi tree!” He bowed down to pick it up and noticed through the corner of his eye that all these meditators jumped up and ran over. But before he could pick up the leaf all their hands were stacked on top of his own, and a little tussle ensued. These seemingly deeply meditating practitioners had all just been waiting for souvenirs! In the end, they offered the leaf to Rinpoche and now it hangs nicely framed in his house in Kathmandu. Our class couldn’t proceed for a whole fifteen minutes as Rinpoche, the translator and the students kept infecting each other with waves of laughter. The warmth, wisdom and lightness of being that this Dzogchen master embodied in his interactions with his students is still an inspiration to me.
Here are two quotes from great masters of those lineages to give you a taste of their approach.
The profound attitude of Vajrayana is pure perception or sacred outlook, viewing all things as pure. The practice of Vajrayana entails imagining that the world is a buddha field, our dwelling place is a celestial palace, all male and female beings are dakas and dakinis, all sounds are mantra, and that the thoughts and emotions of all sentient beings are the continuity of immense, innate wakefulness. In this way, sights, sounds, and thoughts are perceived as the exalted mandala of the deity, mantra and wisdom. This is called training in seeing things as they really are, not superimposing something artificial.
Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche (2011)
The source of all phenomena of samsara and nirvana is the nature of mind – void, luminous, all-encompassing, vast as the sky.
When in that state of skylike vastness, relax into its openness; stay in that very openness, merge with that skylike state: naturally it will become more and more relaxed – wonderful!
If you become accomplished in this method of integrating mind with view, your realization will naturally become vast. And just as the sun shines freely throughout space, your compassion cannot fail to shine on all unrealized beings.
Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche (1996)
Christianity
This openness from the emptiness of the teachings is even available in monotheism. For example, I (Greg) have some experience in the Christian tradition, which can be as dogmatic and close-minded as you can imagine. But even here, openness and emptiness can be found. God and the Christian teachings can be seen as empty, and the prayers and mystical journeys are all the more powerful for it. The mystical journeys can be guided by the teachings without being rigidified by them.
Of course, this openness is an acknowledged characteristic in the “inner” teachings, that is, the esoteric, mystical, unitive, or negative-theology approaches to Christianity. But it can also be found even in the most orthodox branches. For example, I was a deacon in an evangelical, pentecostal denomination in the 1980s. The official teachings were so fundamentalist that members weren’t allowed to wear jewelry or makeup, go to the movies or kiss before marriage.
We had two venerable older missionaries in my church who could be considered joyful ironists. Officially, they were called “mothers of the church.” Mother Washington was in her late sixties and Mother Anderson was in her late seventies. They had been in the church their entire lives. They were widely respected for their wisdom. Sometimes they were chided for not being strict enough with some of the many church rules, or for spending too much time with newcomers. When I was a newcomer, they were among my most powerful teachers.
Mother Anderson and Mother Washington both had a favorite activity. It wasn’t preaching to the entire church, but teaching the Bible to small groups. There were many times in these small meetings when I could intuit the mystical illumination that would descend upon them. They would read a passage from the scripture (King James version of course!), and discuss the words and meaning. And then all of a sudden, Mother Anderson would give a humorous, almost sassy smile. Mother Washington loved to look straight at us and give a wink of the eye. And at the most profound times! With these smiles and winks, I could feel these great mystics stepping aside from the literal meaning of the scripture and communicating to us heart to heart. I witnessed what I would now call their joyful irony. These were teachings I will never forget.
Poetry
Poetry is a wonderful way to acquaint oneself with what mysticism is about. For example, you may contemplate a verse by Angelus Silesius:
The rose blooms without why; it blooms because it blooms; it cares not for itself; asks not if it’s seen.
You may chew on sentences by Heidegger, who is one of my (Tomas’) favorites. Heidegger loved play as well:
Why does it play, the great child of the world-play Heraclitus brought into view in the aion? It plays, because it plays.
The “because” withers away in the play. The play is without “why.” It plays since it plays. It simply remains a play: the most elevated and the most profound.
Heidegger (1996)
Or you can try diving into the poetic, mystical work of the 17th-century English poet-mystic, Thomas Traherne:
...[F]or the World is both a Paradise and a Prison to different persons.
You never enjoy the world aright, till the Sea itself floweth in your veins, till you are clothed with the heavens, and crowned with the stars... Till you can sing and rejoice and delight in God, as misers do in gold, and Kings in scepters, you never enjoy the world.
The world is a mirror of infinite beauty, yet no man sees it. It is a Temple of Majesty, yet no man regards it. It is a region of Light and Peace, did not men disquiet it. It is the Paradise of God. ... It is the place of Angels and the Gate of Heaven.
Centuries of Meditations
How can emptiness help you experience this exalted vision? Experiencing such a beautiful unity with the whole universe is definitely assisted by dismantling the Cartesian view that we are a thinking substance trapped in our heads, separated from the external world. The contemporary philosopher Alva Noë finds the Cartesian view to be “ugly” and “alienating.” He writes against it in his own original way, arguing that consciousness doesn’t really happen in your skull anyway, but is more of a dance you perform with your environment. Without doubt, Traherne doesn’t locate himself within his own skull, and the mystical wisdom shines through his writings in the most beautiful way.
A Lover of Diversity
Diversity confronts us each day. Air travel and electronic media bring remote teachings and parts of the world closer than ever. You may know (or you may be) a person who loves this diversity and has embraced the spiritual journey in this way.
Even fifteen years ago, a multifaceted approach to spirituality might have been called spiritual fickleness, but for many people, it is considerably deeper. For example, you may even know a few people who’ve traveled on spiritual quests to India, Japan, China, Greece, Southeast Asia, and the Native American lands of North an
d South America. Lovers of diversity may have a variety of images and icons on their home altars, which may include Jesus, Buddha, La Virgen de Guadalupe, Kwan Yin, the Om symbol, Tibetan seed symbols, and quotes from the Bible, the Dhammapada, the Upanishads, the Zohar, as well as from Philip K. Dick, Meister Eckhart, Thich Nhat Hanh, Aldous Huxley, Ramana Maharshi, Hafiz, Rumi, Shakespeare, Chief Sitting Bull, Shunryu Suzuki, Lao Tzu, and Alan Watts.
The emptiness teachings support this approach, just as they support the conservative Mahayana Buddhist monk who remains in one lineage his entire life.
Lovers of diversity who study the emptiness teachings may have a final vocabulary, a single view which, deep down, feels the most comfortable. And their favorite view may even change from time to time. But for you as an emptiness student and joyful ironist, the favorite view is not held as intrinsically superior to the others. In fact, the very richness and diversity of views are a very important part of the experiential flavor of this way of life. They are also a very powerful emptiness teaching.
How to Love Diversity While Avoiding Extreme Views
There are two kinds of extreme views into which the lover of diversity sometimes falls. But if this way of life is combined with the emptiness teachings, you will be able to avoid these dualistic extremes. Actually, these two extreme views are quite common examples of a non-empty attitude towards thought, language and the world. You will end up seeing through these two views. And you don’t have to be a lover of diversity!
“Anything Goes” Relativism
This is the view that truth, values, legality, morality, beauty or other standards are relative to something more basic and invariant. A common kind of relativism claims that standards are relative to your culture. A familiar example would be driving a car. On which side of the road is it correct to drive your car? In the U.S., it is correct to drive on the right side of the road. In the U.K., it is correct to drive on the left side. According to relativism, we shouldn’t say, “Over there, they drive on the wrong side of the road.” Another example is that in Western Europe, the dominant notion of God is that there is only one God. In India, the dominant notion of God allows for many Gods. According to cultural relativism, there is no single objective standard about God that applies to both cultures. Therefore, we shouldn’t judge the other culture to be mistaken in this respect.
This seems generous. Refraining from judging other cultures about driving and about God seems to exemplify sensitivity and a respect for diversity. It counteracts cultural chauvinism.
But there are some tough cases that make cultural relativism more difficult to accept. Critics of cultural relativism mention these cases. A prominent example is female genital cutting (FGC), in which the external female genitalia are partially or totally removed. Reasons of religion, chastity or tradition are often given for this practice. Proponents of FGC compare it to circumcision, which is more generally accepted by FGC’s detractors. According to the World Health Organization and the womenshealth.gov websites, FGC is usually carried out on young girls between infancy and 15 years of age. FGC is performed in many countries in central Africa, the southern Sahara and the Middle East.37
This is admittedly a strong example. In fact, this example seems as though it should be an exception to cultural relativism, or a disproof. That is, even if we feel that standards are relative to culture in general, something like FGC is objectionable everywhere, no matter who is in favor of it. But with a generalized cultural relativism of the “anything goes” variety, all standards are seen as relative to the local culture in which those standards are articulated. So there is no way that one culture’s standards can apply to a culture with different standards. The result of this “anything goes” relativism would be that we, who may live in the modern West, have no legitimate way to object to something that happens in a very different culture.
What do the emptiness teachings say about all this?
First, and most importantly, the emptiness teachings emphasize compassion and caring. The teachings would not recommend an approach to morality that makes you unable to object to an act of cruelty.
Second, according to the emptiness teachings, “anything goes” relativism falls into the extreme of essentialism. It treats culture as non-empty. Relativism allows standards to change, as relative to culture, but treats culture as fixed and invariable. In general, when relativism says that “X is relative to Y,” it is treating X as variable and Y as fixed. And if the “Y” is culture, then seeing it as fixed prevents us from objecting to something outside our own cultural boundaries.
But according to the emptiness teachings, nothing is fixed or held as invariable. Everything is empty. Culture is as variable and empty as standards. When “culture” itself is investigated, it is discovered as unfindable. When you look deeply, you may find culture to be based on an abstraction. The label “culture” is applied to a very loose group of ideas and practices carried out by a vastly diverse collection of people. Does everyone in Egypt advocate FGC, regardless of age, gender, education and background? Or do the FGC advocates tend to come from among older, conservative male spokespeople and authority figures? And even then, many authority figures may be against FGC.
If culture is understood as empty, then it is not impermeable. Culture cannot block our ability to advocate healthy actions and object to cruel actions. When culture, actions and standards are all seen as empty, they all depend on each other and upon many other things. Because moral standards are empty and not objective or universally valid moral laws, they are free to respond to conditions for the benefit of others. We then find that we are not locked inside a culture or other scheme.
Understanding emptiness helps avoid nihilism, essentialism, and relativism. And at the same time, we are free to be passionate and caring towards others, wherever they are.
A View from Nowhere
Relativism is one extreme that can befall lovers of diversity. Another common extreme is known as “the view from nowhere” or the God’s-eye view. The emptiness teachings offer profound ways to avoid this extreme.
The view from nowhere is what anti-essentialists call the assumption that we can have a totally balanced, neutral, objective way of assessing the world, and other views. When you think your view is objective and impartial, it’s as though you think that you have a neutral meta-view that can adjudicate between other views when they seem to differ. Sometimes science is considered to be the view from nowhere. Quite often, people consider their favorite view, whatever it is, to have this ability to objectively assess other views.
The emptiness teachings offer serious and profound critiques to the presumption of a view from nowhere. The critiques point out the many ways in which the supposedly objective view is just like any other view. They point out how, in spite of claims to objectivity, the view in question has just as many biases, self-interested angles, and perspectival blind spots as any other view, but fails to recognize them. The views on presumptions of objectivity are misplaced. No view escapes these critiques, not even the views used by the proponents of the emptiness teachings. The difference is that the proponents of the emptiness teachings are well aware of the limitations baked into their own views.
Imagine how you would go about evaluating the claim of Fox News that it is fair and balanced. You would show that the same kinds of critiques leveled at other purveyors of opinion apply to them as well.
The resulting insight is that all views are regarded as empty. All views come to be held lightly. They need to earn their way as they go, taking pragmatic, contingent, perspectival factors into account. When we hold views as empty and not objective, we can certainly examine and critique other views, but not from a presumed privileged basis of objectivity.
Thinking about views in this relational, empty way is business as usual for lovers of diversity who are joyful ironists!
As spiritual, or indeed philisophical, inquirers in the modern world, we encounter many paths. It is easy for us to fall into the trap of regardin
g our way of assessing paths as though it were an over-arching view that incorporates all other views. We feel that we are able to examine, evaluate and rank the paths from a place that transcends and incorporates them all. It is easy to think of this viewpoint as inherent and unconditioned. Where the paths themselves might be regarded as culturally dependent, this view is assumed to be neutral and unconditioned.
In a way, this extreme is the converse of “anything goes” relativism. Where relativism treats all viewpoints as being inherently trapped inside ways of life, this extreme does the opposite. This extreme treats one’s special view from nowhere, the neutral meta-language, as inherently outside all ways of life. Sometimes the lover of diversity falls into both extremes at once, believing that (i) the usual spiritual paths and ways of life are culturally dependent, but that (ii) this special view that judges them is free from such dependencies.
Again, the joyful ironist who loves diversity not only avoids relativism, but also avoids the view from nowhere. The key is seeing views as empty, even your own. A view is empty because it depends on many things. It depends on convention and culture, but this is just one element. A view also depends on the objects grasped or understood by that view. It depends on the person and mind viewing and also on other views, which help give it its individual flavor and perspective.
The extreme of relativism makes views into powerless objects that are separate and apart, as though they are sealed off from each other. The extreme of the view from nowhere assumes itself to be all-powerful, inherent and privileged, exempt from the dynamics that condition other views. The middle way doesn’t fall to either extreme. It is precisely because views are empty that they can view each other. This way, views can be either subjects or objects, serving sometimes as seer, and sometimes as seen.
Lovers of diversity who are also joyful ironists derive great satisfaction and enthusiasm from the richness of life, while at the same time seeing how all views are empty, including their own.