What Is the Meaning of "Emptiness"?

#emptiness #contextual #theMiddleWay

"Emptiness" means that everything is contextual and nothing can be regarded as absolute truth, not even the precepts. This understanding differs from seeing "emptiness" as a spatial void; rather, it reflects the Middle Way.

<Introduction to Buddhism I>

<What Is the Meaning of “Emptiness”?>

(Questioner) Hi, Sunim,
Hi, everyone.

Raising a question in such a large
group makes me a little nervous.

So, please bear with me.

The question that I have relates
to the concept of emptiness.

Emptiness has come up
in a few of your Dharma talks,

your videos, and textbooks a few times.

It also comes up in many
of the traditional texts and sutras

like Diamond Sutra and Heart Sutra.

Whenever I read through what emptiness
means in the Buddhist concept,

it leaves me a bit more confused

and sometimes a little bit dampened
and slightly demotivated.

The reason is because the way
I understand it is very shallow.

The way I understand it is that because of
the impermanence and the causality

being dependent on each other,
things become empty, or things are empty.

But my challenge and difficulty
with understanding the concept is

how do I approach it so that I'm not
undermining what is important in life,

for instance, family relationships
that matter, or ambitions that matter.

That's my question.

(Sunim) We usually express emptiness
using the Chinese character

meaning not filled, empty.

But how a word is interpreted
really depends on the context

of what came before,
and what follows after.

So, the same word can mean
multiple things.

For example, if you claim that
this word can only mean one thing,

it can be called "form."
But if it means multiple things

depending on the context,
we can call it "empty."

That's what emptiness means.

Emptiness in this context
does not mean a complete absence

of something or a complete void.

It really means that everything is
contextual and depends on the context

in which the words are used
or the definition the word falls under.

Let's take an example:
Somebody may look at you

and claim that you are a good person.

Another person may look at you
and say you are a bad person.

When somebody claims
that you're a good person

that means that you have
an essence of goodness in you.

If somebody says you're a bad person,
you have something within you that

that person perceives as bad.

So, whether it is a positive element
or a negative one, the very assertion that

such an element exists is what is referred
to as "form," in contrast to "emptiness."

What emptiness refers to is that
it's all about that person's perception

as being good, or that person's
perception as being bad,

but that there's nothing intrinsic
within you that's good or bad.

In other words, you don't have
an essential form, element, or attribute

within you that somebody can point to
and say that's good or bad.

It is just their perception of you, within
that specific context of space and time,

in which they claim you are good or bad.

So, when somebody says you are
a bad person or you're a good person,

I can say,
"You are neither good nor bad.

You just are. You are emptiness,
devoid of a fixed self."

In that case, empty doesn't mean
that you don't exist,

that there's nothing,
or that there's just a void.

It just means that there's no attribute
or an essence within you intrinsically

that we can call as good or bad.

Let's say we have this thing.

Somebody took a little bite
of this thing and got healed.

So, that person said,
"This is a great medicine."

But somebody else took a bite
of the same thing and got sick.

That person pointed the same thing
and said that's poison.

So, is this thing medicine or poison?

There are three things in this world.

One is medicine.

Second is poison.

And the third is that it has both
medicinal and poisonous properties

But this thing itself is empty.

That means that it neither has
toxic properties nor medicinal properties.

That means that this is just a thing.

In whatever context and situation
this thing has been applied to,

it sometimes has medicinal attributes
or sometimes has toxic attributes.

That's when you use the word
emptiness or Gong (空) to refer to that

this is neither medicinal nor toxic,
you are neither a good nor bad person.

All existence, whether that's
biological or non-biological,

or even a thought,
a mental phenomena,

is empty (of a fixed nature).
It's neither good nor bad.

That's why "the truth is emptiness."
In other words, it simply is what it is.

How it's represented or manifests
really depends on the situation,

the context, and the connections
in which it is allowed to manifest.

So, in some situations,
you are a good person

and in other situations,
you're a bad person.

In some situations, this thing is
medicine; in other, it is poison.

So, when we say Gong (空), or emptiness,
it refers to the true nature of existence-

just as it is-while Saek (色), or form, is
how that nature appears to us

in various ways,
depending on the context or situation.

Therefore, if you truly understand
that the essence of all existence

is really empty,
there's no cause for you to suffer

because you realize the person is
neither bad nor good.

That doesn't mean
that nothing exist.

That just means that the person
in a specific context of space and time,

under a specific set of conditions,
may appear to be good or bad to me.

It doesn't look like
you are fully clear on that.

(Questioner) I am thinking of
how you mentioned

good or bad sometimes is empty.

At the same time, I can't help
but think of historical dictators

that have caused a lot of hurt.

But also, I have in my head
explained to myself

that they have violated the precepts.
That's all.

(Sunim) Even the precepts themselves
are empty.

(Sunim Laughter)

(Questioner) I guess I am still
a little confused about

the precepts being empty.

Do you mean they are dependent

on the historical age we're in,
the society that we're in?

(Sunim) There's no precepts that can be
regarded as an "always objective truth,"

regardless of the context, time, and space
that we find ourselves in

because that is a very dangerous path.

So, the Buddha taught us
that the right way is always determined

by the space and time of the situation
that we are under.

It's like setting a compass down
in a new place and seeing

where it points north and
that's when you find the right way.

So, everything is dependent; it's not
that the right way is predetermined.

That's the middle way.

And the concept of the middle way, as it
transition over to Mahayana Buddhism,

became translated
or understood as "emptiness."

The concept and the word "emptiness" was
a criticism against Theravada Buddhism's

rigid traditionalism in which
they claimed that

a certain set of ethical construction
was the only true way.

So, the criticism in Mahayana Buddhism
against that was that

even the construct itself should be empty.

The original criticism against Theravada's
rigid absoluteness of the way was that

there is no fixed way and that eventually
got translated and consolidated

into the word "emptiness."

So, one claims that this the truth,
then the criticism is that there's nothing

that you can point to and say
that's the absolute truth,

and that got translated into
the sense of emptiness.

We misunderstand the term and the concept
of "emptiness" because the word is

primarily used in terms of space,
but it's only a part of all.

We usually obsess over somebody
if we like that person.

And we want to make that person behave
the way we want them to behave.

If they don't behave accordingly,
we feel bitter.

If that disappointment becomes too much,
we leave that person alone.

We become indifferent to them.

When we realize the concept of emptiness
and understand that

there's nothing to obsess over,
we can truly let go of our obsession.

Then we can allow them
to behave as they want.

If they ask for our help, we help.

If they don't ask for help,
we don't help.

In this case, we're neither indifferent
nor obsessive.