Emptiness-Mathew Cole
Tashi Thinlas
In the last few days, there has been some discussion about emptiness in Buddhism. I've noticed that there have been a lot of incorrect opinions and disagreement with regard to what it means, so I'd like to put the record straight in this post.
Emptiness means that objects and phenomena have no inherent existence from their own side, in and of themselves. It is also stated by saying that objects have no self-essence.
With regard to humans, since we are objects just like any other objects, we too have no self essence, which is why the existence of a self is denied in Buddhism.
To see how this idea is correct, some examples are necessary. In the Buddhist sutras the example of a chariot is used, but I will begin with the example of a car to make it more contemporary.
Now a car can be pointed to. You can point at it and say "Car". It appears as a discreet object, separate from all other objects, existing in and of itself. But this is only one side of the story. If you were to separate all the parts of the car and lay them out on to the garage floor, you would no longer have a car. You would merely have a collection of parts. From this it can be seen that the car only comes into being (or originates) when the separate parts are arranged into very specific relationships with each other. Because of this, we can say that the car exists by virtue of the relationships between the parts which comprise it. If you destroy or disrupt those relationships, the car disappears. The car is said to be the originated object, whist the parts of the car are said to be the basis of origination of the object.
A simpler example is that of a fist. Roll up your fingers into the palm of your hand and make a fist. You can point to it (with your other hand), and say "Fist". But now unroll your fingers, and you see that the fist immediately disappears. So what then is a fist? It is no more than a concept or abstraction to which we give a label. If it were truly a discreet object, existing inherently from its own side, in and of itself, how would it be possible to make it appear and disappear so readily? Indeed for an object to be so, the whole would have to be identical to its parts and yet somehow be separate from them, and it would also have to exist in that form for all eternity.
Now the first point to realise is that this is true of absolutely everything, and on every scale. Objects are made of parts, which are made of chemicals, which are made of molecules, which are made of atoms, which are made of subatomic particles, which are made of more fundamental particles, and so on, and so on.
The second point is that the relationships between the parts which comprise objects are entirely imagined. They are imputed by the mind. To see this, imagine for a moment that you could put the entire planet through a blender so that you end up with a brown liquid. Where are the cars, the fists and all the other objects? It still weighs the same as the planet, and all the atoms are still present, but the relationships between the parts at every level have been disrupted, relationships which are only held in the mind.
Think instead of a pile of bricks. Take some of the bricks and pile them up to look like a house. In reality, all you have is bricks - it is the mind which imputes the existence of the house based on the artificial relationships between the bricks.
Take a cup and then smash it. Now the cup is gone. All you have is some pieces of china. Some of you may say that no, what you have is a broken cup, but that would be a mistake because that view is reliant on you knowing that the pieces of china were once in relationship to each other in a form that could be given the label 'cup'. That is not true in the present moment, and if you had never seen the cup before it was smashed, there would be no way for you to know that they had once formed a cup. From this you can see that a cup has no self-essence. It has no 'cupness' about it. It is merely an imagined object.
Now another point to note is that people say this view is nihilistic in that it appears to say that objects don't exist. This isn't true because it doesn't deny that objects appear to exist conventionally in an every day sense, only that when examined closely, that view can be seen to be incorrect. In the same way that an illusion is a real thing, the content of that illusion is not. This is called the doctrine of two truths - those being conventional/relative truth and ultimate/absolute truth. So although objects can be seen to exist conventionally, ultimately they do not.
This is a very simple explanation, and there are many more examples. Indeed, everything which is said to exist can be used as an example, and there is a lot more to be said on this subject.
It's main purpose is to short circuit our attachment to the world of objects and phenomena, such that suffering is negated.
The full implications of emptiness in Buddhism are vast and profound. A proper understanding of it, not just at the intellectual level but also at the experiential level via vipasanna (insight) meditation are all that are needed to achieve enlightenment.
There are some excellent resources in the files section of this group, such as the books "How Things Exist" by Lama Zopa Rinpoche and "Insight into Emptiness" by Khensur Jampa Tegchok. There are a also a couple of famous sutras, such as the Heart sutra and the Diamond sutra which have been used throughout history to great effect. I'd strongly recommend you read and try to understand these things if you are interested in emptiness