My opinion: doubtful.

Whereas those who realize Emptiness describe a spacious characteristic, I think it would be an error to conclude that space and the Divine Nothing are one in the same. The error being made here is akin to Wilber's pre/trans fallacy. To equate space and Spirit, we would be treating a gross level reality (space) as if it were the Transcendent (Emptiness). This is like glorifying the moral character of a toddler over that of a mature adult.

It seems more likely that Emptiness gives rise to space in a top-down manner. Besides, we often use gross realm terms to describe subtle, causal, and non-dual realities. Just the limits of language and symbolic representation.

Like I said, it's just my opinion.

Jackson

Hmm ok thanks.

So we could say that "emptiness" is the place where things manifest, including space-time, which itself is not emptiness? So space-time is theoretically regarded as a phenomenon in itself, rather than the absence of phenomena.

But how do we distinguish both? I mean it is clear that space has arisen, but how do we know that it will pass away? Because it changes with gravity, while emptiness (supposedly) remains the same?

I mean, it is clear that our perceptual _representation_ of time and space change during meditation, but time-space itself? We are hard-pressed to find an example of such a change without going into stories of siddhis and similar descriptions. Interesting

Hello,

To avoid the "category errors" mentioned by Dan, it is important that we properly understand what "Emptiness," "Awareness," and "Void" (all the same thing in this situation, and I will cease to use quotations/capitalization for them from here on out as a matter of convince) actually are.

Emptiness, awareness and void (all referred to from here on as "awareness") are seen to be "something other" and yet "nothing at all," which is the basis that all "transient phenomena" arise and vanish from and into. The experience of awareness as spoken of in context is correctly seen as such, because that is what it is. Awareness as spoken of in mystical context is actually just the body's innate sensual awareness, it is the mind without the self and/or the underlying, baseline level of awareness seen to be underneath the self/Self. This mind-- a function of the brain-- is capable of thinking, reflecting, etc and this body is always sensing (hence the "something other" that "always is" when conscious). If conscious at all, the senses in some capacity are present; hence: the baseline awareness of the mind. So, when speaking of an awareness which sees the jhanas, for instance, it is the body's baseline awareness witnessing the various formations of one faculty of the mind (the affective/instinctual/identity/self or Self) as it morphs. Notice that no matter how much the self morphs -- in the case of jhanas for example -- the baseline awareness remains the same. It simply isn't a structure that morphs (your eye, for instance, are not structurally changing without outside influence of an eye poking it, for instance); it is static awareness. This does not mean awareness is some mystical or divine "otherness" or anything of the like. It is just the body's baseline awareness. Now, the reason why this is seen as mystical and foreign and as an "other" is because it is actually an other. It is not "you," it is the universe itself (what you actually are as a flesh and blood human being). Your body, which includes the brain which gives rise to this stable awareness, is the same perdurable matter which constitutes the rocks and trees and animals and oxygen and water and so forth. And there -- here, now, as the universe experiencing itself as a human being bereft of identity -- is where no self is experienced as an actuality.

As an aside, if you reflect on that in regard to Jackson's comments of "emptiness giv(ing) rise to space in a top-down manner," it holds water in that the body's base awareness ("emptiness") is there prior to an intellectual recognition of space or an intuitive identification with said space. Because, again, if you are conscious at all, this baseline awareness is present. Though it does not make much sense to say that it "gives rise to [space];" it is simply part of the experience of recognizing space as space.

With that out of the way, we can move on to answering the question "Is emptiness = space?" The answer is: no. Emptiness/awareness/void/oblivion/whatever is the suspicion or experience or intellectual reasoning that there is an awareness beneath one's self (normal, ego structured, personal identity) or Self (abnormal, ego abandoned, enlightened, unpersonalized identity). And, as this body is not space itself, but is rather a composition of molecular arrangements fueled by caloric foodstuffs, I suspect that it is pretty clear to see how that arrangement of matter is not space itself but rather exists within the space of this universe. And this indeed "is the place where things happen."

With that said, I disagree with Dan's sentiments that "...there is no time, no space..." as this "place where things happen" is the actual universe wherein time is eternal and space is infinite. Time and space are not "missing," it is that they of the breadth that can only be experienced sensually when the identity is gone or in temporary recession (any other way of trying to recognize it won't work, because, for instance, the intellect/instincts use causality for their products). We can take steps to recognize this through various means. For instance, my body recognizes that there is a monitor in front of it, and there is apparently space between the two. If I had my companion enter the room, she would verify that I am not hallucinating-- there is actually a distance between this body and the monitor. This space is objectively verifiable. Hence, there is space, it's just that this location of space is not anywhere specific at all. In regard to time, ponder this: have you ever noticed how the moment is never not now? It has been now the entire time I typed this response, and it will be now when I click "send/save" and it will be now in a few hours when I check to see if there is a response. This is a demonstration of how time is eternal, meaning that this moment has no duration. I also challenge the statement that it is ..."just transient phenomena." Because although the individual compositions of matter in the universe are the way they are for finite periods (this body will eventually cease to exist and become food for plants or whatever), or are only recognized by this body for finite periods of time, the totality of the matter in the universe is not transient in the sense that it is coming or going anywhere specific. With the basis of rationale being that time is eternal and space is infinite, it follows that matter is also perdurable; and thus this actual universe that we're living in is indeed permanent. Infinity has no opposite, after all. We can verify that, at least a bit, by simply seeing that I was born and that I will die, and also paleontology shows that there was a universe here before we humans, despite all of our imaginative cosmogony about "big bangs" and the like.

Regards,
Trent