On emptiness
I spent Monday & Tuesday of this week working at a UNESCO conference on religions & cultural diversity, focusing specifically on mediation in urban areas.
One of the speakers in a session on conflict prevention and mediation talked about how the police in Barcelona use religious leaders in mediation. She said they always included Buddhist representatives in the teams because the practice of emptiness is an integral part of their lives and their presence helps create space between the parties in conflict. Their approach is very different from that of other religious reps, who usually fall into a kind of preaching mode.
(My thought at this point: Buddhists don't evangelize like other religious groups. They're not always on the lookout for potential converts and trying to make sure the current members of their flock don't stray. Ergo, the Buddhists have no need to control anybody else. I wonder if that's one of the consequences of "the practice of emptiness," as they call it.)
Anyway, her remark really hit home with me and I've been turning it over in my mind these past few days (one of those rare occasions when I manage to retain some of the substance of a conference when I'm doing the interpretation). It also occurred to me that I'm not very clear on what they mean by emptiness, in spite of my time spent practicing Buddhism some years back. What I mean is, I haven't grasped it very well on a gut level; it's still mostly intellectual for me. So this morning I picked up a book I haven't looked at for years (Meditation on Emptiness, by Jeffrey Hopkins -- one of the Dalai Lama's official interpreters).
So what is it? I quote:
And that's where I am right now. Next step, make it something more than just an intellectual concept.
One of the speakers in a session on conflict prevention and mediation talked about how the police in Barcelona use religious leaders in mediation. She said they always included Buddhist representatives in the teams because the practice of emptiness is an integral part of their lives and their presence helps create space between the parties in conflict. Their approach is very different from that of other religious reps, who usually fall into a kind of preaching mode.
(My thought at this point: Buddhists don't evangelize like other religious groups. They're not always on the lookout for potential converts and trying to make sure the current members of their flock don't stray. Ergo, the Buddhists have no need to control anybody else. I wonder if that's one of the consequences of "the practice of emptiness," as they call it.)
Anyway, her remark really hit home with me and I've been turning it over in my mind these past few days (one of those rare occasions when I manage to retain some of the substance of a conference when I'm doing the interpretation). It also occurred to me that I'm not very clear on what they mean by emptiness, in spite of my time spent practicing Buddhism some years back. What I mean is, I haven't grasped it very well on a gut level; it's still mostly intellectual for me. So this morning I picked up a book I haven't looked at for years (Meditation on Emptiness, by Jeffrey Hopkins -- one of the Dalai Lama's official interpreters).
So what is it? I quote:
"Phenomena are empty of a certain mode of being called 'inherent existence', 'objective existence', or 'natural existence'. This 'inherent existence' is not a concept superimposed by philosophical systems but refers to our ordinary sense of the way that things exist -- as if they concretely exist in and of themselves, covering their parts."Yikes! Pretty dense way of saying it, I thought, but it rings a bell and I begin to remember. To summarize: Phenomena (i.e., objects, actions, events, etc.) have no meaning/significance in themselves, only what we put into them, which is a mirror of our own thoughts, feelings, beliefs... Basically, whatever is going on inside ourselves.
And that's where I am right now. Next step, make it something more than just an intellectual concept.
posted by the dolphin at 14:30
0 comments
