Coming across Hegel, it occurs to me that 'emptiness' might be reflected in the (odd) way I've taken to translate Om mane padre hum, namely "behold what is within without, behold what is without within."
If asked if I think of God, I respond "I think of nothing else."
While Hegel is not buddhist, his take on the void where "nothing is known… because it is defined as the very other-worldly beyond of consciousness…" puts me in mind of "within what-is without, without what-is within" as the void sive what-is, what-is sive void.
Yes within, yes without; no within, no without.
This does not affect the price of a cup of coffee, neither does it perpetrate war or extra-judicial killings, nor hostile kidnappings from city streets by government thugs.
We must not confuse the void with the meaninglessness of a demented mind running away from itself.
"Itself" -- is all there is. It would be considered insanity to try to run away from all that is.
The beyond is the simple turning-away of immediate objective existence from itself. To say that the laws of the world are beyond the immediately sensible world says nothing else than that this immediate world possesses negativity within itself. Immediate objects automatically exclude us from them; further, they (the objects) posit a beyond that mediates the differentiation of themselves. The world immanently excludes itself from itself, positing a beyond of itself from within itself. Thus, this supersensible realm that I must by necessity presuppose is not negatively nothing. It is the positive nothing that belongs to the objective world as such; it is what Hegel calls the “void:”
in the void, nothing is known… because it is defined as the very other-worldly beyond of consciousness… Suppose we are nonetheless to take there to be something in the void after all; this is a void which came about as the void of objective things but which now must be taken both as emptiness in itself, or as the void of all spiritual relations, or even as the void of the differences of consciousness as consciousness – and if the void is taken as this complete void, which is also called the holy, nonetheless there is supposed to be something with which to fill it out, even if it is only filled out with daydreams, or with appearances which consciousness itself creates. If so, then consciousness would just have to rest content with being so badly treated, for it would deserve no better, while daydreams themselves are still better than its emptiness (Hegel 2018: 87). 11
(from, Hegel's Understanding: Absence, Accident, Alienated, by Virgil Lualhati McCorgra, in International Journal of Zizek Studies,)
It is only temporary, but a painful temporary. The cult of insanity and inanity is full on right now. It is fixated on personal desires and the accumulation of raw power, hostile antagonism, and bedeviling logic about the priorities of a once idealist country being turned into an ideologically racist theocracy in the name of Christian Nationalism and Oligarchical Overlords.
I think the world is wrongly understood.
The separation of anthropoids from a cosmos of an inherently inter-reliant void is a mental opinion that creates devastating conclusions. Such as -- kill the aliens, separate out anyone not "us" -- get rid of anyone not sympathetic to our ideology -- incarcerate anyone who we perceive as not in our corner, not loyal to our ascendant stature.
Our appearance is troublesome.
E.M. Cioran wrote:
There is a kind of knowledge that strips whatever you do of weight and
scope: for such knowledge, everything is without basis except itself. Pure to the point of abhorring even the notion of an object, it translates that extreme science according to which doing or not doing something comes down to the same thing and is accompanied by an equally extreme satisfaction: that of being able to rehearse, each time, the discovery that any gesture performed is not worth defending, that nothing is enhanced by the merest vestige of substance, that “reality” falls within the province of lunacy. Such knowledge deserves to be called posthumous: it functions as if the knower were alive and not alive, a being and the memory of a being. “It’s already in the past,” he says about all he achieves, even as he achieves it, thereby forever destitute of the present
Unmaking, decreating, is the only task man may take upon himself, if he aspires, as everything suggests, to distinguish himself from the Creator.
(--in The Trouble With Being Born, ch.1, by E.,M. Cioran 1973, 1976, 2011)
Is this why we seem to love conflict and war so much?
Is our unmaking and decreating of laws, sensible policies, familiar national buildings, and all the agencies with their aid and assistance nationally and worldwide -- is this the only capability that an errant mind and skewed moral compass is able to conjure?
You cannot unmake or recreate the void.
Curiously, to buddhist and non-buddhist alike, the void might be our safest and healthiest refuge.
But we'll have to think about it -- and, then, harder still, unthink about it.
There is a current misanthropic tribe trying to mirror that entity against which the traditional prayer to St Michael pleads to assist us to face and forestall those "roaming the world seeking the ruin of souls."
Look at the faces, listen to their words, watch what they are doing.
They are trying to make something separate, disconnected, alienating.
They are "a-voiding" what is gathered, what is interconnected, of a piece, what is holy.
If you do not yet pray, allow yourself to begin.
Do not a-void wholeness, because as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end -- a prayer that empties out anything other in favor of what-is-Itself.
An undistinguished and non-distinguishing pilgrimage through difficult territory.