User:Dorje108/Shunyata

Meanings of Shunyata

While the term shunyata appears in texts of both the Theravada and Mahayana Buddhist traditions, the term is used in different senses in both traditions.

• In the Theravada tradition, the term appears only occasionally in the Pali canon, and it is most commonly used in the context of emptiness of self, or anatman.
• In the Mahayana Buddhist tradition, however, the theory of shunyata has developed into one of the key concepts of Mahayana philosophy.

In both traditions, the term signifies a lack of inherent existence in phenomena, and it is contemplated in order to lessen attachment to the material world.

Overview

Perception

Dalai Lama

The Dalai Lama (2005: p.?) states that:

"One of the most important philosophical insights in Buddhism comes from what is known as the theory of emptiness. At its heart is the deep recognition that there is a fundamental disparity between the way we perceive the world, including our own experience in it, and the way things actually are. In our day-to-day experience, we tend to relate to the world and to ourselves as if these entities possessed self-enclosed, definable, discrete and enduring reality. For instance, if we examine our own conception of selfhood, we will find that we tend to believe in the presence of an essential core to our being, which characterises our individuality and identity as a discrete ego, independent of the physical and mental elements that constitute our existence. The philosophy of emptiness reveals that this is not only a fundamental error but also the basis for attachment, clinging and the development of our numerous prejudices.

According to the theory of emptiness, any belief in an objective reality grounded in the assumption of intrinsic, independent existence is simply untenable. All things and events, whether ‘material’, mental or even abstract concepts like time, are devoid of objective, independent existence. To intrinsically possess such independent existence would imply that all things and events are somehow complete unto themselves and are therefore entirely self-contained. This would mean that nothing has the capacity to interact with or exert influence on any other phenomena. But we know that there is cause and effect – turn a key in a car, the starter motor turns the engine over, spark plugs ignite and fuel begins to burn… Yet in a universe of self-contained, inherently existing things, these events could never occur! So effectively, the notion of intrinsic existence is incompatible with causation; this is because causation implies contingency and dependence, while anything that inherently existed would be immutable and self-enclosed. In the theory of emptiness, everything is argued as merely being composed of dependently related events; of continuously interacting phenomena with no fixed, immutable essence, which are themselves in dynamic and constantly changing relations. Thus, things and events are 'empty' in that they can never possess any immutable essence, intrinsic reality or absolute ‘being’ that affords independence." ---- Dalai Lama (2005). The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality (Hardcover). Broadway. ISBN-10: 076792066X & ISBN-13: 978-0767920667

Mingyur Rinpoche

THE SENSE OF openness people experience when they simply rest their minds is known in Buddhist terms as emptiness, which is probably one of the most misunderstood words in Buddhist philosophy. It’s hard enough for Buddhists to understand the term, but Western readers have an even more difficult time, because many of the early translators of Sanskrit and Tibetan Buddhist texts interpreted emptiness as “the Void” or nothingness—mistakenly equating emptiness with the idea that nothing at all exists. Nothing could be further from the truth the Buddha sought to describe.

While the Buddha did teach that the nature of the mind—in fact, the nature of all phenomena—is emptiness, he didn’t mean that their nature was truly empty, like a vacuum. He said it was emptiness, which in the Tibetan language is made up of two words: tongpa-nyi. The word tongpa means “empty,” but only in the sense of something beyond our ability to perceive with our senses and our capacity to conceptualize. Maybe a better translation would be “inconceivable” or “unnamable.” The word nyi, meanwhile, doesn’t have any particular meaning in everyday Tibetan conversation. But when added to another word it conveys a sense of “possibility”—a sense that anything can arise, anything can happen.

So when Buddhists talk about emptiness, we don’t mean nothingness, but rather an unlimited potential for anything to appear, change, or disappear.

Swanson, Eric; Mingyur, Yongey Rinpoche; Daniel Goleman (2007-03-06). The Joy of Living: Unlocking the Secret and Science of Happiness (p. 58). Harmony. Kindle Edition.

Possibility

Emptiness is described as the basis that makes everything possible. —THE TWELFTH TAI SITUPA RINPOCHE, Awakening the Sleeping Buddha

Swanson, Eric; Mingyur, Yongey Rinpoche; Daniel Goleman (2007-03-06). The Joy of Living: Unlocking the Secret and Science of Happiness (p. 58). Harmony. Kindle Edition.

Background

The term ‘emptiness’ is not new to the Perfection of Wisdom literature; it is already employed, albeit somewhat loosely and only occasionally, in the Nikayas/Agamas and the canonical Abhidharma texts to characterize the experiences of meditation, and the five aggregates and dharmas.27 But the emphasis on perfect wisdom as that which understands emptiness becomes the hallmark of the Perfection of Wisdom literature and its philosophical explication by Nāgārjuna.

Two truths

The buddhas’ teaching of Dharma depends equally on two truths: ordinary conventional truth and truth from the point of view of the ultimate; those who do not perceive the difference between these two truths do not perceive the deep ‘reality’ (tattva) in the teaching of the buddhas. Without resorting to ordinary conventions, what is ultimate cannot be taught; without recourse to what is ultimate, nirvānṇa is not attained.29

But nirvāṇa is not some ‘Absolute Reality’ existing beyond the phenomenal conditioned world, behind the veil of conventional truth, for again this would commit us to eternalism. Emptiness is the ultimate truth of reality and of nirvāṇa—it too is empty of its own existence, it is not an existent. It follows that nirvāṇa cannot be understood as some thing, some existent, which is other than the conditioned round of existence, saṃsāra:

There is nothing that distinguishes saṃsāra from nirvāṇa; there is nothing that distinguishes nirvāṇa from saṃsāra; and the furthest limit of nirvāṇa is also the furthest limit of saṃsāra; not even the subtlest difference between the two is found.30

In emptiness, then, Nāgārjuna attempts to articulate very precisely what he sees as the Buddha’s teaching of dependent arising and the middle between annihilationism and eternalism: emptiness is not a ‘nothing’, it is not nihilism, but equally it is not a ‘something’, it is not some absolute reality; it is the absolute truth about the way things are but it is not the Absolute. For to think of emptiness in terms of either an Absolute or a Nothingness is precisely to turn emptiness into a view of either eternalism or of annihilationism. But in fact the Buddha taught Dharma for the abandoning of all views and emptiness is precisely the letting go of all views, while those for whom emptiness is a view are ‘incurable’.31

Gethin, Rupert (1998-07-16). The Foundations of Buddhism (pp. 239-240). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.