Don't cry for me you Argentine.

Hi all,

there are several approaches in meditation, of course. The most common are the "calming" ones where the person attempts to be mindful to a certain object of meditation, like for example the breath. These techniques are very useful to deal with anxiety attacks, stress etc. IMO there is no "denial" here: simply one tries to maintain self-control by trying to remain focused on some objects. For example this type of meditation is called "samatha" in Buddhism. These calming techniques are accessible to all, regardless their philosophy, religion etc

However there are of course other types of meditation. In Christianity there is the "contemplative prayer"*, for example (in fact the "eastern" meditative approaches should be called IMO "contemplation"...). In Buddhism as @Wayfarer mentioned there is the "insight meditation" (vipassana, zazen..) where one "observes" the arising and ceasing of bodily/mental feelings to realize their transient, unsatisfactory** and "not-self" nature. In the Chuang-Tzu (Daoism) there are mentioned various approaches. For example the "zuowang" (ch. 6) where one "sits and forgets" to become one with the Dao. In all these cases the idea is that one manages to acquire, so to speak, a different perspective on existence, rather than become calm and focused. But IMO it is necessary to emphasize the differences between the traditions. For example the "zuowang" appears similar to "zazen", "vipassana" etc but whereas in Daoism one tries to "unite" with the cosmic proccess, in Buddhism one tries to stop the "I-making" and "my-making", i.e. he tries to be free from identification and possession (and therefore in Buddhist eyes the Daoist approach is still characterized by a subtle tendency of "I-making", "my-making".).Therefore in Buddhism saying that one has the goal to become "joined" the "whole universe" is mistaken: in fact while "monists" seek to trascend duality to become "one", in Zen one searches to become "not-two" and "not-one", i.e. beyond all possibile conceptualization. Christianity is of course very dissimilar: one here searches to build a better relationship with a Divine Person, who is distinct from oneself (this is why the "total absorption in the Divine" is regarder "heretical" or at least "heterodox" in Christianity). To a skeptic maybe Buddhist "insight meditation", zazen etc are more appealing since are simply based on the observation of the experience. By the way even these "specific" types are seen to bring a better relation with life, i.e. they also have a sort of "calming" effect. This list IMO is very limited, however. ***

Despite the enormous differences between the various techniques however I should not call meditation as a type of "denial". Actually in order to meditate one must face his own problems, try to find the best technique that "fits" with himself, one must have a LOT of patience (since while some results are sometimes immediate the progress might take even years). IMO "denial" might manifest in an unwillingness to adimit that "something is wrong" and trying to "live as nothing is wrong". This at least should be clear with the "calming approaches" (and in them I include approaches of modern psychology like CBT, autogenic training...), but the same can be said for the "specific" techniques that are unique to each religion.

Finally I wanted to add that despite the enormous differences the "calming result" in most approaches (to my knowledge) arises from the "letting go". We let go our tendency of "controlling" (excessively) our lives. For example a Christian might try to have a more solid "faith" with God (in the same sense to the "faith" that we have with a friend, i.e. it is a "trusting" rather a "dogmatic faith"). A Daoist seeks to "go along with the flow of the ten thousand things". A Buddhist of course seeks to "let go completely of his tendency to grasp" etc it seems that an authentic meditation practice involves a radical effort to "let go", "trusting", "surrender" etc.However this "surrender" allows one to live better, i.e. to paradoxically "win".

*Of course for devotional practicies (i.e. those involving the worship of one or more "higher beings") arguably all types of prayer are a form of "meditation" and in fact they are expected to bring the same "better relationship" as the "contemplative prayer".
** to be more precise the momentary experiences are regarded "unsatisfactory" because of our attachment. However the contemplation on their impermanent nature should render us "dispassionate" (neither attached nor averse) to all of them.
***For example we might include all types of devotional practices, mantras etc

Edit: I forgot to mention also the post of @gurugeorge, who treats almost exactly the things I have said in a slightly different way.

Proof that I am busy, unlike you who talks non-stop about business and appears non-stop to be on TPF. Gosh, some people. (L) — TimeLine

Ohhh poor TimeLine feels the need to say she has a bigger one :D

Ohhh poor TimeLine feels the need to say she has a bigger one :D — Agustino

Bigger heart? So true. I am a fluffy bunny feet. You are a disease-spreading flushable. :P

Demanding does not necessarily include expecting, and not being satisfied does not necessarily include frustration. :) — Janus

Absolutely, you are right, how could I have made such a mistake. Of course demanding does not necessarily include expecting, and not being satisfied does not necessarily include being frustrated...

fluffy bunny feet — TimeLine

With the same shoes everyday :P

(Y)

[Delete] @Baden

lmao

So, it’s intersting to note that theosophy, and then New Ageism (growing out of theosophy) grew out of a more magical approach to mysticism. Which would put secular meditation, yoga, etc, purely in the camp of magic, not mysticism. Spiritual practice for personal power and gain, not for a movement towards union with the divine — Noble Dust

What's wrong with spiritual practice in order to improve your efficiency and capacity in the world?

I think that many of the spiritual and religious traditions believe that a "union with the divine" entails a kind of ethical mastery as opposed to the kind of power and gain that one might achieve at the expense of others. Its an interesting question to see if we can disentangle the will to power from the more "benevolent" or "altruistic" elements that might aim at something similar to Rousseau's conception of the general will.

Agreed.

As I said in my post I think for most authentic spiritual practices the idea is that one has to "surrender", to "let go", to "trust" etc. Paradoxically that "surrender" is correlated to (the highest) "victory" according to many religious traditions. The idea is that the "ego" shrinks to zero, so to speak, while the mind "joins" the infinite (in whatever form). The self-mastery has nothing to do with an egoistic drive. The self-mastery increases as "egoism" decreases.

This in fact contrary to our intuition. In fact we would expect that one who is "in control" is one who rules everything, or even imposes his will against others. But those who try to "impose" their will actually are those who actually lose (and are those who suffer the most).

Sadly it is very difficult to surrender :(

As I said in my post I think for most authentic spiritual practices the idea is that one has to "surrender", to "let go", to "trust" etc. Paradoxically that "surrender" is correlated to (the highest) "victory" according to many religious traditions. The idea is that the "ego" shrinks to zero, so to speak, while the mind "joins" the infinite (in whatever form). The self-mastery has nothing to do with an egoistic drive. The self-mastery increases as "egoism" decreases.

This in fact contrary to our intuition. In fact we would expect that one who is "in control" is one who rules everything, or even imposes his will against others. But those who try to "impose" their will actually are those who actually lose (and are those who suffer the most).

Sadly it is very difficult to surrender — boundless

I agree that meditation is a quieting of the will. In Daoist philosophy this would be called quieting of the Zhi (Daoism it's very specific in need regards to the nature of the human spirit). However, you don't surrender. There is no way to surrender. Surrender is a marketing term, that is unachievable (sort of like a carrot in front of the donkey). What happens is as the will (Zhi) it's quieted, some other aspect of the spirit (Shen) arises. It is a totally different feeling and provides greater insight into the nature of the human spirit. There is no big enlightenment moment. Just gradual understanding and increasing feeling.

This is the big thing. Any goal, and attempt to moderate will, any effort to find the Yi, is counterproductive. It just happens when it happens. Normally it is suggested that one just bring their mind to the breath, which is fine, but even this "bringing" is use of will. It is all just quiet. My approach is Tai Chi which allows me to gradually sink into the state. One complete routine is usually about 27 min. At the end I feel the energy in my body as water flowing inside of me and moving me without will (Zhi). Something else is moving me.

Probably the word "surrender" here can create problems.

What I meant was not really very so different to what you said now. The will cannot cease (while alive, of course). However as you say it can be quieted, calmed. And even calming the will is something that seems to go against our "intuition": we think that the "victor" is one who manages to "impose" on reality his/her will. Instead what I meant is that paradoxically it is the one who calms, quiets etc his will.

I do not know very well Daoist meditation (except for what I read about "zuowang" - sitting and forgetting) when for example you say:

It is all just quiet. My approach is Tai Chi which allows me to gradually sink into the state. One complete routine is usually about 27 min. At the end I feel the energy in my body as water flowing inside of me and moving me without will (Zhi). Something else is moving me.

it strongly suggests me the idea of "surrender". The will is completely calmed, there is no need to "control" everything etc. But if I am not misinterpreting what you say, you actually are "going along with the flow", at least for a while. In this sense I think that we can agree that the word "surrender" can apply.

What is more controversial is the possibility of a total let go/surrender. Regarding such a possibility I am more skeptical. But what I can say is that that a moderate "surrender" IMO is exactly the "calming" effect that you describe.

IMO in fact we are inclined to think, even unconsciously, that we can control everything. This leads us to express our "will to power" in order to "dominate". When however we begin to realize that such a control is impossible and our attempts in doing so are counterproductive we begin at least to question the validity of our expectations, desires, attempts to control etc. From the perspective of our instinct to dominate, the calming is really a surrender, I think.

As I said the real "denial" is actually continue to negate our inability to control things;)

it strongly suggests me the idea of "surrender". The will is completely calmed, there is no need to "control" everything etc. — boundless

The distinction is very subtle. One doesn't "surrender". One just does (in my case the Tai Chi form). After thousands of times if practice, the "shift" just happens. I don't know anyone personally who has experienced this shift practicing Tai Chi, though many talk about it as a matter of course. The key is patience.

I agree with what you say.

Interesting. Thank you.

Yeah, I agree that the term "surrender" might be misleading. In fact what I have in mind is only a "surrender" of a particular type of will. But not of the "will itself". So IMO our perspectives are very similar on this. On the level of the will itself there is only a "calming", a "stilling" etc, not a real surrender. But normally our actions are somewhat conditioned by the "will to power". In order to achieve the calmness this "will to power" should at least in part "disappear".

I think it is only a matter of perspectives. If I realize that I cannot "rule over everything" I will in some sense surrender and give up my expectations. Possibly then I can work for calming my mind etc. After that as you say the will is spontaneous.

Actually this perspective reminds me a lot of Chan/Zen Buddhism (other than of course Daoism) where spontaneity, free action is seen as a liberated action. In both traditions the goal seems to be a state with no more plans, chains etc only spontaneity, freedom - the same spontaneity found in the flow of a river (except of course that we are aware and the river is not :) ).

Maybe on Zen @Wayfarer can confirm (or reject) what I have said.

So what about rephrasing the issue in these terms: It is a "surrender" of a particular type of will, namely the "will to power". But when we consider the "will" in fact the process is not really a surrender but only a calming, stilling etc.

only spontaneity, freedom - the same spontaneity found in the flow of a river (except of course that we are aware and the river is not :) ). — boundless

Yes. I agree.

You will find that there is much marketing in many traditions nowadays so there are lots of what write which you will not find in practice. Creating a commercial business of any tradition will necessarily affect the tradition.

Excellent ;)

Regarding the marketing... yeah sometimes I have the same impression!

Well, I have been endeavouring to practice meditation consistently for quite some time - actually about 35 years now, although with some lapses (although I am intending to sit every day in 2018.) The motivation for that grew out of my personal quest to understand this enlightenment business. (Notice the link between 'quest' and 'question'.) I pursued the Zen approach mainly because of the no-nonsense attitude of Sōtō Zen, particularly the well-known book, Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind. It puts a lot of emphasis on Dogen's idea that 'zazen IS enlightenment' and 'practicing without any gaining idea'. That book is actually the founding text of the San Francisco Zen Centre (although recently I have met a Rinzai Zen teacher who lives near where my son lives so I am intending to go and practice with him at some point in the future - https://www.korinji.org/).

So, early in the piece, I realised that to pursue any kind of practice in this way is 'a religious discipline'. I mean, you could say that of almost any form of training - sports training or musical practice - if you just do it, no matter what, then it's said 'oh, he practices religiously.' So out of that, grew a kind of natural appreciation of the Buddhist approach - that it takes devotion, dedication. You learn do it for the sake of doing it, not to get somewhere or gain something. Like the Nike ad. And even to do that, is to live a different way, in a world that is entirely geared towards getting somewhere.

But at the same time, I also faced many obstacles and hindrances - bad habits, emotionality, laziness, procrastination. And when you persist for long period, there are barren times, and times when you feel as though your efforts are pointless. There are times when you give up, think, oh well, that was just a phase. But I persisted.

And overall, the insights that arose have been more than worthwhile. In my case, I had an initial realisation around the time I got married. There was a definite shift, something like an inner re-configuration. That, I realised, was actually a conversion experience. 'Conversion' is not simply adopting an attitude or identifying with a religion - it is a psycho-physiological change in the way of being. In Greek philosophy, it was called metanoia; in Indian, it is 'pravritti'. How those things come about is obviously a mystery, there's no formula or method for it, but they're real.

As far as 'surrender' is concerned - one aspect of that is the realisation that 'I' don't matter; I have become less consumed by the anxiety about me and mine. It's just the concerns of 'me'. And this is the same for everyone. All beings have this state of self-concern, even animals. So I think part of what shifts in meditation, is that you see from a perspective which is not so self-centred, in a natural way. Of course it doesn't mean one becomes entirely free of self-centeredness overnight, but again it's a change in the way you see.

And on that note - going to sit.

Your statistical assessment is just a guess, and even if it were accurate, you would still have no warrant for classing me with the 'most of' rather than the 'few'. You could have simply asked the question instead, as any good investigator would do. :P

thank you for sharing your experience! Excellent post (Y)

Personally I studied a bit of eastern philosophy almost four years ago. I read the "Tao Te Ching" simultaneously with some insights of Wittgenstein's "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" and for whatever reason I found a strong similarity between them (I remember that for many days I had a sort of "intellectual excitement" that suggested that there was surely a connection between the two works). Then I began my quest to discover eastern philosophies motivated also by the fact that eminent physicists like Einstein, Schroedinger, Bohr, Bohm, Heisenberg etc were attracted too. So I started to digging in the net and at first I conflated Buddhism, Vedanta and Taoism thinking that "they were the same" (actually reading "The Zen and the Art of motorcycle maintenance" did not help with this error). Then I began to appreciate their difference and I began to be more attracted by Buddhism, especially Theravada. Anyway until last summer it was merely an intellectual interest, nothing more. However when I understood that my intellectual questioning (especially about the "Unconditioned/Nibbana" and the doctrine of "rebirth") was meaningless without the actual experience, I decided (actually after a suggestion of a friend) to start meditation (at the same time I also read the "Way of Zen" of Alan Watts). Now I am trying to maintain a constant practice of both vipassana and samatha. I found the effects of medition immediate but a mixture of intellectual skepticism, doubt, laziness, anxiety, horrible time management etc is interfering with my "actual progress". Still this living experience is actually confirming the benefits of spiritual practices. Anyway while I am still higly skeptical of many "supernatural" claims made by religions and ancient philosophies I have to admit that in reality in many ways they store a lot of pratical and intellectual wisdom, sadly unrecognized in contemporary society.

Also I found that - to my knowledge - most (if not all) forms of Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and Daoism all agree about the importance of trying to be not self concerned (and at the same time however you become aware of the "higher perspective" (e.g. in Buddhism the realization that all conditioned things are impermanent leads one to detach and to be less concerned...) -another paradox).

"Spiritual" practice make possible to actually, so to speak, experience the "wise words" of the sages. An intellectual understanding can of course give a "glimpse" on them, but the practice in fact permits to actually "see" them.

Right! Concerning Wittgenstein - his approach was actually apophatic, which is expressed in his aphorism, 'that of which we cannot speak...' Also, his well-known comparison of philosophy to a ladder - to be discarded after being climbed - is very much in keeping with the Buddhist understanding. (There's a good essay on Wittgenstein's spiritual side here.)

Way of Zen was an early favourite of mine. Also got a lot out of Supreme Identity and Beyond Theology. I love Watts' writing. I read Zen and the Art back in the 70's. Another favourite from that time was Tao of Physics (despite its detractors).

Regarding the obstacles to practice - encountering those is an essential aspect of the practice. There's a Zen teacher called Dosho Port whose online portal is called Vine of Obstacles - the name says it!

An intellectual understanding can of course give a "glimpse" on them, but the practice in fact permits to actually "see" them. — boundless

(Y)

Thanks for the link about Wittgenstein (I knew about his "spiritual side" which IMO is often unrightly disregarder - however it is true that he sometime compared to both buddhist and daoist philosophers).
Regarding Watts I only read that book and I found it well written. I like in particular his "free" quest, outside any particular organisation (in this experientially I feel very similar to him).

Actually to be more precise Buddhism attracts me on the pratical side rather than the "doctrinal" (which from a buddhist point of view might sound "weird" since "right view" is the first step) due to both skepticism and to some "views" that I have that might be regarded as "eternalistic" in a buddhist community. Also I have a hard time to accept a particular doctrine since I still percieve that there is an immense treasure of wisdom in other traditions. Doctrinal problems aside, on the experiential level I am finding Buddhism the most "accessible" since it refers to the actual immediate experience (to practice it one simply can start from his immediate experience without taking "tenets" on faith). On the other hand however other "doctrines" fascinate me a lot (and above all the unexpected similarities between them!). So I consider myself still a (very confused) questioning "agnostic".

Regarding the obstacles, thank you also for this link! It confirms my idea that spiritual life is full of paradoxes.

By the way I learned to accept my limitations in the practice. At first I expected only immediate results. After some time I came to realize that the practice is gradual and it must be done, as you say, to the "sake of doing it". It required some time (and also some suggestions from a "online" friend). But IMO if one cannot come to terms with himself the practice becomes impossible. So actually meditation, if anything, even stripped of its "spiritual" connotations should IMHO be performed to the simple sake to come to terms with oneself, to have a better outlook on life etc. But there is too much "hurry" in the modern society as others have mentioned: deadlines, bureocracy*, part-time jobs, obsessiveness with productivity, "publish or perish" attitude in the academia etc. From the Tao Te Ching (Lau translation, https://terebess.hu/english/tao/lau.html):

20

The multitude are joyous
As if partaking of the offering
Or going up to a terrace in spring.
I alone am inactive and reveal no signs,
And wax without having reached the limit.
Like a baby that has not yet learned to smile,
Listless as though with no home to go back to.
The multitude all have more than enough.
I alone seem to be in want.
My mind is that of a fool - how blank!
Vulgar people are clear.
I alone am drowsy.
Vulgar people are alert.
I alone am muddled.
Calm like the sea;
Like a high wind that never ceases.
The multitude all have a purpose.
I alone am foolish and uncouth.
I alone am different from others
And value being fed by the mother.

Yeah with all this "hurry" even meditating for reduce anxiety can lead to a certain amount of isolation, sadly.




*the Italian one seems to be quite infamous (I am Italian BTW)

So I consider myself still a (very confused) questioning "agnostic". — boundless

I think you’re in a good place! I also question my own relationship to Buddhism; there are many things said and done by Buddhists that I don’t necessarily agree with. But I think Buddhism does encourage a kind of healthy scepticism - not niggling doubts, but a deep questioning. And like you I also find great wisdom in other traditions particularly Christian Platonism. And the Tao.

At least in theory, you're using the techniques that draw one into the divine, but using those techniques for one's own accomplishment in a temporal life which end's with death. Which is essentially demonic. So the use of spiritual practice is essentially nihilistic. And this is the same for yoga nerds as it is for satanists or Thelemasts. Again, in theory.

Well, thank you! Our approach seems quite similar. Curiosly, I have a deep interest in platonism, too (I am very inclined to beleieve that there are "eternal truths" - and I do not think that this is in contrast with Buddhism since truths are not necessarily "substantial", however I saw that many Buddhists would disagree as it happens*).

To clarify what I meant by "experiential", let me quote an excerpt of the Dhammapada (from: http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=093):
"His path [i.e. that of a liberated individual] ,like that of birds in the air, cannot be traced."
This suggests to me a total freedom from all designations. Regardless of the acceptance of the "doctrine" of a particular school, this "image" is one of an absolute freedom. This - united to the fact that the there is a strong emphasis on the "here and now" - is what attracts me to Buddhism. While I think that the "metaphysics" is also interesting, I think that this "experiential" part is even more important (I admit that this a somewhat "perennialist" approach, but IMO it is the experiential part that is important regardless the fact that the "doctrine" is actually true or not). This experiential, in fact, part suggests me an absolute "boundlessness" (and actually my nick reflects my interest on the concepts of "infinite, boundless, ineffable" etc X-) ) .

Meditation therefore for me it is meant to "see" really important aspects of our existence that in "normal" life we neglect. And I also think that in ancient times where lives were less "constructed", so to speak, meditation (and other techniques) were possibly more effective. And the "boundlessness" which I referred before. At the same time this "openness to the higher", so to speak, must be accompained by a reduction of the "ego". If there is not this "reduction" the danger is a sort of "vainglory" (which is a quite important issue according to a very large number of traditions).

P.S. (maybe too much OT)
In many Buddhists for example I encountered a sort of "fear of the eternal". But IMO while, of course, transience is of a fundamental importance in Buddhism, nowadays it seems to much "emphasized". I read, for example, opinions (even among very respectable and serious teachers and/or monks) suggesting that "Nibbana/Nirvana" is nothingness, an "absolute void". I find such interpetrations somewhat "off" (albeit sometimes very logical and rigorous), I cannot articulate the feeling but it seems that I am "certain" that they are "wrong" (maybe it is only "clinging" X-) ). Personally while maybe nowadays it is a common interpretation, it appears that in ancient times, in fact, it was not. For example it seems that the ancient Theravadins held that Nibbana was "permanent, eternal..." as you can see here https://suttacentral.net/en/kv1.6 (however considering it "something" is maybe inappropriate. But considering it "nothing" is even worse..., possibly "no-thingness" in contrast to "nothingness" ). Anyway, I also see that even before the beginning of the Common Era there was a wide range of views about many tenets. This, oddly, quite conforts me and actually motivates my "skepticism/questioning".

At least in theory, you're using the techniques that draw one into the divine, but using those techniques for one's own accomplishment in a temporal life which end's with death. Which is essentially demonic. — Noble Dust

I don't see how that is demonic. Didn't Abraham and his sons all pray to God and engage in spiritual practices to better guide them in their worldly activities? Of course they did.

I read, for example, opinions (even among very respectable and serious teachers and/or monks) suggesting that "Nibbana/Nirvana" is nothingness, an "absolute void". I find such interpetrations somewhat "off" (albeit sometimes very logical and rigorous), — boundless

It is definitely an error. Actually there are canonical statements to this effect:

Śāriputra, foolish ordinary beings do not have the wisdom that comes from hearing the Dharma. When they hear about a Tathāgata’s entering nirvāṇa, they take the wrong view of cessation or extinction. Because of their perception of cessation or extinction, they claim that the realm of sentient beings decreases. Their claim constitutes an enormously wrong view and an extremely grave, evil karma.

“Furthermore, Śāriputra, from the wrong view of decrease, these sentient beings derive three more wrong views. These three views and the view of decrease, like a net, are inseparable from each other. What are these three views? They are (1) the view of cessation, which means the ultimate end; (2) the view of extinction, which is equated to nirvāṇa; (3) the view that nirvāṇa is a void, which means that nirvāṇa is the ultimate quiet nothingness. Śāriputra, in this way these three views fetter, hold, and impress [sentient beings].

http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra14.html

But nihilism is nevertheless a pitfall for Buddhists. It comes from interpreting śūnyatā as merely nothingness or non-existence. In actual fact, śūnyatā refers to ‘conditioned existence’ i.e. all objects of perception, sensation, thought, etc are compound, subject to decay, and so on.

My view is that Nirvāṇa and the unconditioned is never an object of perception however the mind constantly tries to find or identify it as an object. Ceasing from that false effort is ‘the way of negation’. Actually it’s somewhat similar to the mystical approach ‘cloud of un-knowing’, except that it is not focussed on deity.

Thank you for sharing the sutra, very interesting and clear! So both the Mahayana and like the classical Theravada refute in a very expliciti way this type of "nihilism" (apparently however in different ways). Sadly it seems that reductionism influenced many Buddhist out there.

My view is that Nirvāṇa and the unconditioned is never an object of perception however the mind constantly tries to find or identify it as an object. Ceasing from that false effort is ‘the way of negation’. Actually it’s somewhat similar to the mystical approach ‘cloud of un-knowing’, except that it is not focussed on deity. — Wayfarer

Yeah that is also my interpretration. In fact the language is "apophatic" in order to not "cling" to a false concept of Nirvana. Regarding the "cloud" I agree the approach is similar.

But nihilism is nevertheless a pitfall for Buddhists. It comes from interpreting śūnyatā as merely nothingness or non-existence. In actual fact, śūnyatā refers to ‘conditioned existence’ i.e. all objects of perception, sensation, thought, etc are compound, subject to decay, and so on. — Wayfarer

Agreed! the "voidness" simply points to the lack of "fixity" * of the conditioned. It is a "no-thingness" rather than a "mere nothingness". It allows change and therefore also life. After all if we were "fixed" we could not have any chance of make progress.

*I prefer the term "fixity" rather than "permanence" since Buddhism refutes "annihilationism", i.e. the view that at death the "self" is destroyed (and therefore it refutes the view that "something" can remain "fixed/stable" for a while and at a certain point being destroyed).

Thank you very much for the insights! (Y) :)

You’re more than welcome, it is a joy having someone join the Forum who in on a similar wavelength.