‘Emptiness’ is a screen on which much can be projected.
HA! Of course lots of things are emerging from ’emptiness’. Things of which you may search for some ‘conceptual cause” which cannot be found in that ’emptiness’, because there is simply no ‘conceptual cause’ present in it. That is just what ’emptiness’ means: ’empty’ of concepts and therefore empty of ‘conceptual causes’ too.
HA! Things happen ‘spontaneously’ there.
HA! ‘ Emptiness’ is a domain with all kinds of egocentric things that do not know what to do with themselves (normally they can contain themselves through stickiness).
Unfortunately, it is a common reaction that ’emptiness’ is being blamed for one’s own desperation.
‘Emptiness’ is not to blame. It’s all innocence. It is ‘virginally empty’. Real ’emptiness’ doesn’t even know what guilt is.
HA! But ’emptiness’ is not a dimension less. It is a dimension more. In other words, it is the source itself. Where everything is created. Where everything exists.
A filled teacup (which also wants to see itself as being ‘full’), wants to do it by itself.
It wants to remain at the helm because of the impression of control. Maybe in the meantime, the helm is just hanging in the air… but there is still the impression. An ’empty’ teacup on the other hand, permanently shows what in such a full setting ‘cannot’ and ‘should not’ … in other words: what is considered unacceptable by a filled teacup in a ‘no-matter-what’ way.
Filled teacups “would do everything for it, really everything, doctor …” except the idea that they are actually full of stuffing. Alas. Alas.
How far can this go? Make no mistake: shockingly far.
This is not a beautiful reality
Filled teacups keep themselves fearfully filled.
That fear often keeps its head low or only shows itself as a crack in the teacup.
Fear? I? What are you talking about?
While the crack becomes bigger and bigger.
Filled teacups are really persistent concerning this. They keep coming, keep pushing, even keep hitting, full of themselves but at the same time not of themselves at all. ‘Themselves’ are being pushed away, like an egg from a cuckoo’s nest.
Full is full of. ‘Empty’ is ’empty’ for.
Who knows what is coming? Yeah. Who knows what’s in it?
It cannot. It should not. It is not. Is this all?
In the abstract, a filled teacup is deprived of ’emptiness’.
The intention was/is to make …. dependent (starting with: parents who mean well, then teachers, then organizations of all sorts, etc.). Power thus, if you look at it from another angle.
Additional problem: it is also a dependence from within.
That is to say: it hangs onto the situation, as a kind of addiction to superficiality. Own material, an alien form of captivity.
Do not try to convince a full teacup. It’s senseless.
Letting it emerge from such teacup is difficult too of course if the source itself is gone.
Solution? A source is never gone. It’s sometimes hard to find, so: functionally gone. At the one hand this is just as gone as gone. At the other hand, everything is always quite there. You don’t have to find it elsewhere. You even cannot find it elsewhere.
But beware: a full teacup might beg you to give her ‘that’
As long as ‘that’ is something it’s full of, it is hopeless to give it what it wants. First it should clear the own mind. That may happen in a flash. That may also take 1(0(0)) year(s).