Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Understanding Emptiness by the Dalai Lama
taiyaki
Veteran
Since there is a lot of talk about emptiness maybe you will find some use from these wise words. Best wishes.
From the book entitled, Dzogchen: Heart Essence of the Great Perfection by The Dalai Lama.
Now we were speaking of the two truths seen from the point of view of Madhyamaka Prasangika, which is the understanding of the two truths common to both sutra and tantra. Here, as I said earlier, ultimate truth is defined as the mode of being of phenomena which is established through an investigation into ultimate nature of things, and conventional truth is defined as the aspect which is established by an analytical process that examines only the conventional nature of things. This definition of the two truths is presented from the perspective of how both conceptual and non-conceptual states of mind perceive things. However, if we were to define ultimate and conventional truth purely from a direct experiential point of view-the manner in which a non-conceptual awareness understands things-then we could say this: any phenomenon perceived by direct experience, in a manner in which all the duality of subject and object is dissolved, is ultimate truth. Whereas my object that retains a subject-object duality when directly perceived is conventional truth.
Now, the understanding of these definitions of the two truths is important in understanding the opening line of the quotation from the sutra, that is, "Mind is devoid of mind". If we were to take that quotation at face value, it would be totally illogical. We would have to maintain that mind does not exist as a mind, but this is not the case. The reason why Buddha spoke of mind being devoid of mind is that mind does not exist in its own right. Mind does not have an ultimate existence, but only exists in dependence upon other factors, causes and conditions. So that absence of independent existence of mind is the ultimate reality, or ultimate truth, of mind.
Here, when we use the term ultimate, it has two connotations. Firstly, from the point of view of how mind is perceived by direct experience, it should be noted that mind is not an object of a direct experience which realizes the ultimate nature of mind. This is because when you realize the ultimate nature of mind, that awareness only realizes the emptiness of mind and not the mind itself. Therefore mind is not ultimate. Secondly, mind is not ultimately existent for the reason that study, contemplation and meditation prove that it lacks an independent nature.
However, if we take ultimate reality-emptiness itself-what we will find is that emptiness is a phenomenon that is found as a result of an ultimate analysis upon a given object. Therefore, from that point of view, it is ultimate, and rightly called ultimate truth. Yet if we take the ultimate as an object in its own right and then examine it, search for its essence, and determine whether emptiness exists that this is not the case. This indicates that emptiness is also not ultimately existent. Understanding this will enable us to reconcile the seeming contradiction that arises when we say that emptiness is ultimate truth, but at the same time it is not ultimately existing.
All the phenomena that appear to our minds and exist in the universe, including the mind itself, depend for this very existence on causes and conditions. Since their nature is one of dependence, they are devoid of any independent existence. They cannot exist in their own right, and from their own side, and this absence or negation of independent existence is the ultimate reality or ultimate truth of all things.
Ultimate truth or emptiness, as presented in the writings of the Madhyamaka school of thought, such as Nagarjuna's Fundamental Treatise on the Middle Way, the root text on wisdom, or Candrakirti's Entering the Middle Way, is on of a type of phenomena called negative phenomena. Generally, phenomena are divided into two categories: affirmative phenomena and negative phenomena. Although there are reference to fifteen types of negative phenomena in certain texts, these can all be subsumed under two broad categories: non-affirming negative phenomena and affirming negative phenomena. Emptiness is a non-affirming negative phenomena.
This division of phenomena into two categories, affirmative and negative, is not made on the basis of things which are positive or negative, but rather from the view point of a subjective awareness: how do we perceive things, how do we develop knowledge of things and events?
Let us take space as an example. Space could be understood merely in terms of negation, simply as an absence of obstruction, and an absence of form. Then that absence of an obstructive quality is called 'space', so whenever we perceived we do so through negating an obstructive quality. But there are also phenomena that w can understand without having explicitly to negate something, and do it is on the basis of this different manner of perception that we make the division into categories of things which are negative and things which are affirmative.
For instance, there are two tables here, one by my side, and the other in front of me. On the table by my side, you can see there is a flower. In order to perceive that there is a flower, we do not need any other factor, such as having to negate something. Whereas the appearance of the flower presented to our perception enables us to perceive the presence of a flower on the table at my side, in order to perceive the absence of a flower on the table in front of me, first of all I have to identify 'flower', which is to be negated, and then by explicitly negating 'flower', I can understand the absence of any flower on the table before me. So we see that there are two different ways of understanding or perceiving things. And this emptiness that is simply the total absence of a flower on the table in front of me is a phenomenon which exists, because we can correctly perceive it.
To return to emptiness, if we were to question how the presence or absence of emptiness matters to us, the answer is: it doesn't! The fact that there is emptiness does not make any difference to us. What does make a difference, however, is our understanding and realization of the empty nature of things. This is of crucial importance, because understanding and realizing emptiness is directly related to our quest to purify the mind of afflictive emotions like hared, anger, and desire.
Generally speaking, whenever we perceive things, our perception is deluded, in that we project onto things a status of existence and a mode of being which is simply not there. We exaggerate things, and the way they then appear falsely to our minds gives rise to afflictive emotions. When we see our friends or enemies, for instance, we superimpose on them a quality of desirability or undesirability that is beyond the actual facts of the situation, and this superimposition or exaggeration sparks off fluctuating states of emption in our mind. Towards out friends we feel strong attachment and desire, and towards our enemies powerful anger and hatred. So if we are serious about trying to purify our minds of these afflictive emotions, an understand of emptiness becomes crucial.
This understanding of emptiness, when furthered, advanced an directly experienced, is one of the principal factors of the truth path. That direct realization of emptiness will have power to serve as an antidote, to overcome and dispel ignorance and afflictive emotions from our minds. For such insight cuts right through the illusion created by the misapprehension of grasping things and events as existing inherently, in and of themselves. When this function of the direct realization of emptiness as an antidote is taken further, it gradually eradicates delusions and ignorance from the mind altogether.
According to the philosophical schools of Nagarjuna and this followers, this direct realization of emptiness as an antidote that overcomes and removes delusions from the mind is a crucial and indispensable factor of wisdom not only for the practitioners of Mahayana, but also for followers of both the 'listener' vehicle' and the 'solitary realizers' vehicle. They maintain that for all three types of spiritual practitioners this realization of emptiness is a common requirement in order to attain liberation. Of course in the Mahayana sutras, the teaching of emptiness is set out more elaborately and more explicitly. Yet this does not mean that emptiness is never spoken of in the teachings of the Fundamental Vehicle, for Nagarjuna argues that there are explicit references to emptiness in the sutras of the Fundamental Vehicle as well.
From the book entitled, Dzogchen: Heart Essence of the Great Perfection by The Dalai Lama.
Now we were speaking of the two truths seen from the point of view of Madhyamaka Prasangika, which is the understanding of the two truths common to both sutra and tantra. Here, as I said earlier, ultimate truth is defined as the mode of being of phenomena which is established through an investigation into ultimate nature of things, and conventional truth is defined as the aspect which is established by an analytical process that examines only the conventional nature of things. This definition of the two truths is presented from the perspective of how both conceptual and non-conceptual states of mind perceive things. However, if we were to define ultimate and conventional truth purely from a direct experiential point of view-the manner in which a non-conceptual awareness understands things-then we could say this: any phenomenon perceived by direct experience, in a manner in which all the duality of subject and object is dissolved, is ultimate truth. Whereas my object that retains a subject-object duality when directly perceived is conventional truth.
Now, the understanding of these definitions of the two truths is important in understanding the opening line of the quotation from the sutra, that is, "Mind is devoid of mind". If we were to take that quotation at face value, it would be totally illogical. We would have to maintain that mind does not exist as a mind, but this is not the case. The reason why Buddha spoke of mind being devoid of mind is that mind does not exist in its own right. Mind does not have an ultimate existence, but only exists in dependence upon other factors, causes and conditions. So that absence of independent existence of mind is the ultimate reality, or ultimate truth, of mind.
Here, when we use the term ultimate, it has two connotations. Firstly, from the point of view of how mind is perceived by direct experience, it should be noted that mind is not an object of a direct experience which realizes the ultimate nature of mind. This is because when you realize the ultimate nature of mind, that awareness only realizes the emptiness of mind and not the mind itself. Therefore mind is not ultimate. Secondly, mind is not ultimately existent for the reason that study, contemplation and meditation prove that it lacks an independent nature.
However, if we take ultimate reality-emptiness itself-what we will find is that emptiness is a phenomenon that is found as a result of an ultimate analysis upon a given object. Therefore, from that point of view, it is ultimate, and rightly called ultimate truth. Yet if we take the ultimate as an object in its own right and then examine it, search for its essence, and determine whether emptiness exists that this is not the case. This indicates that emptiness is also not ultimately existent. Understanding this will enable us to reconcile the seeming contradiction that arises when we say that emptiness is ultimate truth, but at the same time it is not ultimately existing.
All the phenomena that appear to our minds and exist in the universe, including the mind itself, depend for this very existence on causes and conditions. Since their nature is one of dependence, they are devoid of any independent existence. They cannot exist in their own right, and from their own side, and this absence or negation of independent existence is the ultimate reality or ultimate truth of all things.
Ultimate truth or emptiness, as presented in the writings of the Madhyamaka school of thought, such as Nagarjuna's Fundamental Treatise on the Middle Way, the root text on wisdom, or Candrakirti's Entering the Middle Way, is on of a type of phenomena called negative phenomena. Generally, phenomena are divided into two categories: affirmative phenomena and negative phenomena. Although there are reference to fifteen types of negative phenomena in certain texts, these can all be subsumed under two broad categories: non-affirming negative phenomena and affirming negative phenomena. Emptiness is a non-affirming negative phenomena.
This division of phenomena into two categories, affirmative and negative, is not made on the basis of things which are positive or negative, but rather from the view point of a subjective awareness: how do we perceive things, how do we develop knowledge of things and events?
Let us take space as an example. Space could be understood merely in terms of negation, simply as an absence of obstruction, and an absence of form. Then that absence of an obstructive quality is called 'space', so whenever we perceived we do so through negating an obstructive quality. But there are also phenomena that w can understand without having explicitly to negate something, and do it is on the basis of this different manner of perception that we make the division into categories of things which are negative and things which are affirmative.
For instance, there are two tables here, one by my side, and the other in front of me. On the table by my side, you can see there is a flower. In order to perceive that there is a flower, we do not need any other factor, such as having to negate something. Whereas the appearance of the flower presented to our perception enables us to perceive the presence of a flower on the table at my side, in order to perceive the absence of a flower on the table in front of me, first of all I have to identify 'flower', which is to be negated, and then by explicitly negating 'flower', I can understand the absence of any flower on the table before me. So we see that there are two different ways of understanding or perceiving things. And this emptiness that is simply the total absence of a flower on the table in front of me is a phenomenon which exists, because we can correctly perceive it.
To return to emptiness, if we were to question how the presence or absence of emptiness matters to us, the answer is: it doesn't! The fact that there is emptiness does not make any difference to us. What does make a difference, however, is our understanding and realization of the empty nature of things. This is of crucial importance, because understanding and realizing emptiness is directly related to our quest to purify the mind of afflictive emotions like hared, anger, and desire.
Generally speaking, whenever we perceive things, our perception is deluded, in that we project onto things a status of existence and a mode of being which is simply not there. We exaggerate things, and the way they then appear falsely to our minds gives rise to afflictive emotions. When we see our friends or enemies, for instance, we superimpose on them a quality of desirability or undesirability that is beyond the actual facts of the situation, and this superimposition or exaggeration sparks off fluctuating states of emption in our mind. Towards out friends we feel strong attachment and desire, and towards our enemies powerful anger and hatred. So if we are serious about trying to purify our minds of these afflictive emotions, an understand of emptiness becomes crucial.
This understanding of emptiness, when furthered, advanced an directly experienced, is one of the principal factors of the truth path. That direct realization of emptiness will have power to serve as an antidote, to overcome and dispel ignorance and afflictive emotions from our minds. For such insight cuts right through the illusion created by the misapprehension of grasping things and events as existing inherently, in and of themselves. When this function of the direct realization of emptiness as an antidote is taken further, it gradually eradicates delusions and ignorance from the mind altogether.
According to the philosophical schools of Nagarjuna and this followers, this direct realization of emptiness as an antidote that overcomes and removes delusions from the mind is a crucial and indispensable factor of wisdom not only for the practitioners of Mahayana, but also for followers of both the 'listener' vehicle' and the 'solitary realizers' vehicle. They maintain that for all three types of spiritual practitioners this realization of emptiness is a common requirement in order to attain liberation. Of course in the Mahayana sutras, the teaching of emptiness is set out more elaborately and more explicitly. Yet this does not mean that emptiness is never spoken of in the teachings of the Fundamental Vehicle, for Nagarjuna argues that there are explicit references to emptiness in the sutras of the Fundamental Vehicle as well.
0
Comments
"Just found and bought a great book by His Holiness the Dalai Lama, 'Lighting the Way'. Here are some excerpts.
Generally speaking, there are two forms of meditation on emptiness. One is the space-like meditation on emptiness, which is characterised by the total absence or negation of inherent existence. The other is called the illusion-like meditation on emptiness. The space-like meditation must come first, because without the realisation of the total absence of inherent existence, the illusion-like perception or understanding will not occur.
For the illusion-like understanding of all phenomena to occur, there needs to be a composite of both the perception or appearance and the negation, so that when we perceive the world and engage with it we can view all things and events as resembling illusions. We will recognise that although things appear to us, they are devoid of objective, independent, intrinsic existence. This is how the illusion-like understanding arises. The author of the Eight Verses indicates the experiential result when he writes: 'May I, recognising all things as illusions, devoid of clinging, be released from bondage.'
When we speak of cultivating the illusion-like understanding of the nature of reality, we need to bear in mind the different interpretations of the term 'illusion-like'. The non-Buddhist Indian schools also speak of the illusion-like nature of reality, and there are different interpretations within Buddhist schools. For example, the Buddhist realist schools explain the nature of reality to be illusion-like in the sense that, although we tend to perceive things as having permanence, in reality they are changing moment by moment and it is this that gives them an illusion-like character.
In the context of our short text, the illusion-like nature of reality must be understood as relating to all things and events. Although we tend to perceive them as possessing some kind of intrinsic nature or existence, in reality they are all devoid of such reality. So there is a disparity between the way things appear to us and the way things really are. It is in this sense that things and events are said to have an illusion-like nature.
.......................
As I mentioned earlier, many texts on emptiness state that the understanding of dependent origination is the most powerful means of arriving at the knowledge of emptiness. When, as a result of engaging in deep meditation on emptiness, we fail to find the intrinsic reality of the object of our focus, we do not conclude from this that the object in question does not exist at all. Instead, we deduce that since our critical analysis has failed to find the true, independent existence of the object, its existence or reality must be understood only as dependent origination. Therefore, a genuine understanding of emptiness must really take place. The moment we reflect upon our understanding of the emptiness of inherent existence, that very understanding will indicate that things exist. it is almost as if when we hear the word 'emptiness' we should instantly recognise its implication, which is that of existing by means of dependent origination. A genuine understanding of emptiness, therefore, is said to be that in which one understands emptiness in terms of dependent origination.
A similar point is raised by Nagarjuna in his Precious Garland, where he explains the emptiness or selflessness of 'person' by a process of reductive analysis. This involves exploring how the person is neither the earth element nor the water element, fire element and so on. When this reductive process fails to find something called 'person' that is independent of these various elements, and also fails to identify the person with any of these elements, Nagarjuna raises the question: where, then, is the person? He does not immediately conclude by saying, 'Therefore "person" does not exist.' Rather, he refers to the idea of dependent origination, stating that: 'The person is therefore dependent upon the aggregation of the six elements.' Thus he is not negating the fact that the 'person' does exist and is real and undergoes experiences of pain and pleasure.
From my own experience I know that I exist; I know that I have non-deluded experiences of pain and pleasure. Yet when I search for the entity called 'self' or 'I' among the various elements that together constitute my existence, I cannot find anything that appears to possess intrinsic, independent reality. This is why Nagarjuna concludes that we can understand a person's existence only in terms of the principle of dependent origination.
At this point some people may raise the following objection: isn't saying that all phenomena are devoid of inherent existence tantamount to saying that nothing exists? Nagarjuna's response is to state that by 'emptiness' we do not mean a mere nothingness; rather, by 'emptiness' we mean dependent origination. In this way Nagarjuna's teaching on emptiness transcends the extremes of absolutism and nihilism. By rejecting intrinsic, independent existence his view transcends absolutism; and by stating that things and events do exist, albeit as dependent originations, he transcends the extreme of nihilism. This transcendence of the two extremes of absolutism and nihilism represents the true Middle Way.
At this point it may be helpful to reflect a little on the different levels of meaning of the principle of dependent origination. On one level dependent origination refers to the nature of things and events as understood in terms of their dependence upon causes and conditions. On another level this dependence can be understood more in terms of mutual dependence. For example, there is a mutuality of concepts between, say, long and short, in which something is posited as 'long' in relation to something else that is 'short'. Similarly, things and events have both parts and a whole; the whole is constituted of the parts, and the parts are posited in relation to the whole.
On another level still, the principle of dependent origination relates to the subject, which is the conceptual mind that creates designation, appellations, labels and so on. As we have briefly discussed before, when we give something a label or a name we generally tend to assume that the labelled object has some kind of true, independent existence. Yet when we search for the true existence or essence of the thing in question, we always fail to find it. Our conclusion, therefore, is that while things do exist on the conventional level, they do not possess ultimate, objective reality. Rather, their existence can only be posited as a mere appellation, designation or label. According to Nagarjuna, these three levels of meaning in the principle of dependent origination pervade our entire spectrum of reality."