Wrote to Raan:
You're implying that emptiness of phenomena leads to Self, and I
can certainly see where you might get that impression -- Advaita
Vedanta (both traditional and neo) might say things like the world
is illusory and eventually subsuming the world to be Brahman - pure
Subjectivity.
Emptiness teachings do not do such a thing -- we do not subsume nor
reduce one pole to another -- whether Object into Subject, nor
Subject into Object. By saying X is empty, we do not therefore
imply that only Y is real. This is precisely why its called
Nonreductive Nonduality -- we do not reduce everything into one
thing. By seeing the emptiness of Self, we realize 'Self' is merely
a conventional label collating the conventional parts, aggregates,
and dependencies, empty of any intrinsic self/Self/agent behind or
within those phenomena. By realizing the emptiness of phenomena, we
liberate our clinging and notions of inherent existence or absolute
arising/abiding/subsiding of phenomena, revealing the world to be
mere conventional reality and play of intricate interdependencies,
non-arisen, illusory yet vividly appearing. Conventionally table is
still table, you are still you, he is still he, only the inherent
view is seen through. We do not subsume all conventional realities
into One absolute, ultimate X. This is all very different from
saying "There is only X [Self/object/The
Absolute/Awareness/This/Brahman] and no other", or "You are Me, I
am You".
And it is not the case that Madhyamika does not focus on the
emptiness of Self... you might want to read Chandrakirti's analysis
of the chariot in relation to self and aggregates? The same
emptiness of self is applied both to the subject/agent/person as
well as all dharmas and phenomena. It came to be known as "twofold
emptiness". As Greg Goode wrote in http://nonduality.com/goode6.htm
-- "In Middle Way teachings, it is said that without realizing the
selflessness of persons, it is not possible to realize the
selflessness of phenomena.[2] So the meditative reasonings
are done first on persons."
Therefore, Madhyamika is thoroughly nonsubstantialist,
nonreductive, non-subsuming, non-reifying kind of teaching.
Prasangika Madhyamika is definitely like that. (Can't say the same
for certain interpretations of Madhyamika such as Shentong, which
in its more extreme forms are essentially no different from Vedanta
teachings, however Shentong is still a minority view in Vajrayana
and most Vajrayana practitioners take Prasangika view to be
definitive. It is also my understanding that Shentong takes other
non-Madhayamika views like the Yogacara or Tathagatagarbha
teachings as definitive)
On the other hand, I think Zen (as well as Vajrayana and even to
some extent Theravada) is a very mixed bag. I have found some
Zennists to be very substantialist, and some Zennists to be very
nonsubstantialists, and of course there's always room for views
that are somewhere in between. In my impression, Linji the founder
of Rinzai in China was in fact emphasizing more on the I AM -- you
can find many quotes by Linji talking about the formless Self ("If
you want to be free, Get to know your real self. It has no form, no
appearance, No root, no basis, no abode, But is lively and buoyant.
It responds with versatile facility, But its function cannot be
located. Therefore when you look for it, You become further from
it; When you seek it, You turn away from it all the more. - Linji
").
But the founder of Soto Zen -- Dogen -- was more of a
nonsubstantialist kind, rejecting all notions of a changeless
Absolute and explaining Buddha-nature in terms of non-self,
impermanence and interdependencies. Japanese Rinzai Zen is based on
Hakuin the father of Rinzai in Japan, who seems to be teaching
nondual but I'm not sure if his view is as nonsubstantialist as
Dogen, never studied too deeply into Japanese Rinzai.
That being said, of course, there are also adherents of Soto Zen
that hold a very substantialist view. And certainly some of the
predecessors of Dogen could have held a substantialist view? (I do
not really believe in the 'unbroken lineage of the same
realization' thing). It all depends on the individual.
A small excerpt from
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2012/06/emancipation-of-suchness.html
explains the view of Soto/Dogen:
"In studying the fasicle Bussho, we find that Buddha-nature
is not a thing that represents some kind of foundation.
Buddha-nature is impermanence and interconnectedness. It is
essentially empty. Dogen breaks down the “thingness” or
solidness of all things by deconstructing time, space and
body. He only writes of the whole body or entire being, and
the total functioning or interconnectedness of life. The
temporal conditions are the coming together of all the factors
which produce the formation of this very moment. That
formation itself is Buddha-nature."