Buddhism

Fullness vs Emptiness

James of the Buddhist Blog commented on one of my posts: http://ambud.org/WordPress/2009/09/15/critics-of-buddhism-part-v

James said:

’ I liked your interpretation of anatta. Once I understood the bigger picture; the idea of anatta didn’t make me feel fatalistic or like a zombie. Once I saw it in my day to day life and observations it made me feel balanced, whole and at peace with everything. I think part of the problem is the words used in English and other western languages. We need a different way to describe these things than saying “emptiness” and “no-self.” I’ve been struggling for different words to use for some time. It’s hard to describe anatta at all but to have to do it in just a few words is harder still.’

Ambud Said:

He was speaking about how emptiness and other such concepts in Buddhism tend to give American readers the hebegebes. I concur with what James said, and I’ve been thinking about an alternative to ‘emptiness’.

What about ‘Fullness’, as in being full of that which is not self.
Once we begin to see that things don’t exist without dependence on their parts and causes our mind relaxes to a greater experience. We notice that attachment to temporary and impermanent phenomenon is greatly reduced, opening the doorway to unconditioned love and the flow of reality.
We become full of life and experience its self by reducing our own self involvement.

This could become known as having ‘fullness’, rather than realizing ‘emptiness’.

Certainly, there are many more concepts and ideas that could be worked with to help stop putting people off to Buddhism; just because of language and interpretation. In fact, even as I tried to write a synopsis above, my first sentence speaks about, ‘that which is not self’, probably another breakdown needed there.

What do you think?

Ambud

Trackback Post