Intro to Emptiness - Entering the Void

Entering the Void

Before we continue our investigation of contemplative antidotes to community ills, we would like to take a brief foray into the void.



By entering the void, we don't mean absolute oblivion or total annihilation, but a complete transformation of all one previously knew that will nonetheless prove to be revolutionary.

As will become clear in future posts, this foray serves as essential foundation for discussions of inter-relationality (including interconnection, intersubjectivity, interdependence, etc.). Such themes are central to radical inner revolution via contemplative practice and its translation into on-the-ground solutions to social and environmental challenges.

Emptiness

The terms "empty" and "emptiness" find themselves used frequently in reference to the Buddha's teachings, especially by later schools (i.e., Madhyamaka, as expressed in the work of Nāgārjuna), but can be traced back to even the earliest discourses. We provide a preliminary probing of these early traces here.

The early sources demonstrate that emptiness, unlike what its name implies, has no affective tone. It is not to be conflated with nothingness, not a sad or depressing state of affairs as might be assumed upon initial reading of the term, with all its connotations in the English language. Emptiness is not an absolute negative, but a negation.

A negation of what? Of inherent existence or self-nature (svabhāva). While this precise meaning doesn't yet emerge until the Paṭisambhidāmagga (e.g., "sabhāvena suññā"), a congruent meaning is conveyed in even earlier sources. Generally speaking, inherent existence or self-nature signifies that which supposedly bestows individuality unto any given phenomenon while itself remaining an unconditioned essence.

Importantly, for something to be "empty," it must be "empty of" something else, like an empty cup, which while lacking water, still, by some interpretations, contains air.

The World Is Empty

In the early Buddhist context, the term "empty" (suñña) is first used in reference to "the world" (loka) that we phenomenally (and phenomenologically) experience. Importantly, the world is deemed empty (suñño loko), which understandably gives rise to perplexity given its seeming absurdity. What does that even mean? Such a statement is a challenge even for contemplatives to wrap their heads around. For instance, see Ananda's question in the Suñña Sutta:

Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One, "It is said that the world is empty, the world is empty, lord. In what respect is it said that the world is empty?" (SN 35.85, trans. Thanissaro Bhikkhu)

As the Buddha's chief disciple, perhaps Ananda is asking on behalf of all of us. If the world is empty, wouldn't there be nothing? An empty world seems to imply non-existence. In that case, how would we explain the experiences we're all (presumably) having with regard to what appears to be an existing world? The reason these questions seem absurd is because we haven't yet understood what is meant by "the world."



Elsewhere, the Loka Sutta (SN 12.44) clarifies that "the world" arises dependent on the interaction between sense organs, sense objects, and sense consciousnesses (including mind, mental objects, and mind-consciousness), a form of contact that sets the dominoes in motion for the arising of feeling-tone, craving, clinging, becoming, birth, aging, sickness, death, and the entire mass of dissatisfaction.

In like manner, the Loka Sutta (SN 12.44) explains that "the world" subsides dependent on the remainderless cessation and fading away of craving. Sense experience remains, contact remains, feeling-tone remains. We are not cut off from "the world," but rather, we no longer give rise to subsequent links in the chain, which fundamentally changes the nature of the world we inhabit.



Given its relevance to revolutionary change, we will pick up on this subject in a forthcoming post. We turn now to the Buddha's response to Ananda's inquiry regarding the meaning of "the world is empty."

Empty of what?

Empty of Self

Despite what it sounds like, "emptiness" isn't some ominous, looming, metaphysical abstract. It isn't an other-worldly force hovering in space, waiting to consume us all in a wormhole-like vacuum. Neither the world nor our heads/brains/minds have to explode here.

However, both the world and our minds will be fundamentally transformed.

In the early Buddhist context, "emptiness" means to be empty of self or that which pertains to self (suññaṃ attena vā attaniyena vā). The Buddha's answer in the Suñña Sutta makes this exact point:

"Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty." (SN 35.85, trans. Thanissaro Bhikkhu)

Now that we have a basic understanding of the terms "empty" and "world," we encounter two new terms, "self" and "anything pertaining to a self." Additional variables enter the scene. The equation branches.

These branches reveal the personal relevance of the question.

Even if we've established that the world is that which is generated by sensory experience, while emptiness is to be empty of self, we now have to define self. What is "self"?

Who Am I?

Simply stated, "self" refers to whatever one may identify as "me" - including but not limited to whatever tends to follow "I am" in any sentiment, reflection, or statement. Ask yourself: Who am I? Whatever comes up inevitably falls under one of five categorical "heaps," often referred to as "aggregates" (Sanskrit: skandha; Pāli: khandha). What are these five?

1. form (Sanskrit, Pāli: rūpa)

2. feeling/sensation (Sanskrit, Pāli: vedanā)

3. perception/discrimination (Sanskrit: saṃjñā; Pāli: saññā)

4. cognition/formations/fabrications (Sanskrit: saṃskāra; Pāli: saṅkhāra)

5. consciousness (Sanskrit: vijñāna; Pāli: viññāṇa)

Each of these requires its own post and unpacking, but we'll leave it at this for now: any time I ask "Who am I?" and proceed to identify something as "me," it is either one or some combination of the above.

Compounded Phenomena: Characteristics, Categories, Constructs

Generally speaking, we may think of ourselves as our bodies, our experiences, our minds. We may feel that who we are maps onto characteristics such as compassionate or cruel, bright or dull (etc.) and categories such as mother, father, sister, brother, daughter, son, teacher, student (etc.)...

Yet each of these compounded phenomena are, in actuality, empty of self or what pertains to self. Conventionally speaking, there are form, feeling, perception, cognition, consciousness, there are identities such as compassionate, bright, sister, daughter, student, but none of them are "me" in any final or lasting way.

Likewise, "pertaining to a self" extends to "my" and "mine." Briefly, this may include "my job," "my reputation," "my family," "my car," and so on. We often tend to identify with these constructs as well.

Yet each of these constructs are, in actuality, empty of self or what pertains to self. Conventionally speaking, there are jobs, reputations, families, cars, etc., but none of them are "mine" in any final or lasting way.

These subjects will be addressed in greater detail soon enough, particularly through the simile of the chariot, which we will invoke in a later discussion of a treatise purported to document the intersection between Greek and Buddhist thought, the Milinda Pañha. With that said, it may be wise to end this brief intro with some reasons for why emptiness is even relevant.

Pedagogical Ponderings

Importantly, emptiness is a teaching technique, a skillful means, a pedagogical strategy.

It is a statement of both non-eternality and non-annihilation. Things neither sustain themselves forever, nor are they ever utterly destroyed. This is considered the middle way.

Emptiness is a teaching that all things are without a substance of their own and instead exist only conventionally, impermanently, and conditionally on account of manifold interacting causes and conditions. Its intention is to shake us loose from the solidity we assume in "things," an assumed solidity to which we typically cling so tightly. Its purpose is to unbind and unshackle.

Phenomena arise and subside on the basis of factors outside of them, which arise and subside on the basis of factors outside of them, which arise and subside on the basis of factors outside of them, ad infinitum. Everything is in constant, churning flux, but this does not suggest meaninglessness. In fact, perhaps the inverse is implied. Everything is interrelated.

Interrelated how? Leave us a comment if you'd like to contribute to the discussion and stay tuned for further meanderings.