Emptiness
Emptiness is a key concept in Buddhist philosophy, or more
precisely, in the ontology of Mahayana Buddhism. The phrase "form
is emptiness; emptiness is form" is perhaps the most celebrated
paradox associated with Buddhist philosophy. It is the supreme
mantra. The expression originates from the Prajna Paramita Hridaya
Sutra, commonly known as the Heart Sutra, which contains the
philosophical essence of about six hundred scrolls making up the
Maha Prajna Paramita. The Heart Sutra is the shortest text in this
collection. It belongs to the oldest Mahayana texts and presumably
originated in India around the time of Jesus Christ.
The Heart Sutra.
Translation by Edward Conze
Homage to the Perfection of Wisdom, the Lovely, the Holy!
Avalokita, The Holy Lord and Bodhisattva, was moving in the deep
course of the Wisdom which has gone beyond. He looked down from on
high, He beheld but five heaps, and he saw that in their own-being
they were empty.
Here, Sariputra, form is emptiness and the very emptiness is form;
emptiness does not differ from form, form does not differ from
emptiness; whatever is form, that is emptiness, whatever is
emptiness, that is form, the same is true of feelings, perceptions,
impulses and consciousness.
Here, Sariputra, all dharmas are marked with emptiness; they are
not produced or stopped, not defiled or immaculate, not deficient
or complete.
Therefore, Sariputra, in emptiness there is no form, nor feeling,
nor perception, nor impulse, nor consciousness; No eye, ear, nose,
tongue, body, mind; No forms, sounds, smells, tastes, touchables or
objects of mind; No sight-organ element, and so forth, until we
come to: No mind-consciousness element; There is no ignorance, no
extinction of ignorance, and so forth, until we come to: there is
no decay and death, no extinction of decay and death. There is no
suffering, no origination, no stopping, no path. There is no
cognition, no attainment and non-attainment.
Therefore, Sariputra, it is because of his non-attainment that a
Bodhisattva, through having relied on the Perfection of Wisdom,
dwells without thought-coverings. In the absence of
thought-coverings he has not been made to tremble, he has overcome
what can upset, and in the end he attains to Nirvana.
All those who appear as Buddhas in the three periods of time fully
awake to the utmost, right and perfect Enlightenment because they
have relied on the Perfection of Wisdom.Therefore one should know
the prajnaparamita as the great spell, the spell of great
knowledge, the utmost spell, the unequalled spell, allayer of all
suffering, in truth - for what could go wrong? By the
prajnaparamita has this spell been delivered. It runs like
this:
Gone, gone, gone beyond, gone altogether beyond, O what an
awakening, all-hail!
Translations and commentary.
Avalokita = Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva of compassion
Sariputra = disciple of the Buddha
sunyata = emptiness, void
prajna = wisdom
paramita = that which has reached the other shore
prajnaparamita = wisdom acquired experientially, by means of
intuitive insight, and perfected through cultivation to the level
of transcendental knowledge
hridaya = heart
nirvana = ultimate attainment
bodhi = awakened mind
sattva = being
According to Buddhist scholars, the dialog between Avalokiteshvara
and Sariputra is inspired by the Buddha. This is to say it occurs
spontaneously without the speaker's intention. The content of the
conversation is determined entirely by the power of the Buddha's
concentration. The bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara represents the idea
of perfect universal wisdom, while Sariputra is regarded as one of
the Buddha's closest and brightest disciples. The dialog takes
place at the Vulture Peak near the ancient city of Rajgaya where
the Buddha and his community of monks stayed. Sariputra requests
Avalokiteshvara to instruct him on the practice of the perfection
of wisdom, which means prajnaparamita in Sanskrit.
The perfection of wisdom refers to the wisdom that directly and
intuitively understands the ultimate nature of phenomena. Sariputra
answers with the profound words, "Emptiness is form; form is
emptiness," and proceeds to state the emptiness of the five
aggregates (skandhas), the emptiness of the teachings (dharmas),
and the emptiness of all phenomena. The sutra ends with the
celebrated mantra "gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha"
which can be translated with "Homage to the awakened mind which has
gone over to the other shore." The one who has gone over means: the
enlightened one, who has done away with views, ideas, and
perceptions and who looks upon reality without any obstructions of
mind.
What is emptiness?
The Buddhist notion of emptiness is often misunderstood as
nihilism. Unfortunately, 19th century Western philosophy has
contributed much to this misconstruction. Meanwhile Western
scholars have acquired enough knowledge about Buddhism to realize
that this view is far from accurate. The only thing that nihilism
and the teaching of emptiness can be said to have in common is a
skeptical outset. While nihilism concludes that reality is
unknowable, that nothing exists, that nothing meaningful can be
communicated about the world, the Buddhist notion of emptiness
arrives at just the opposite, namely that ultimate reality is
knowable, that there is a clear-cut ontological basis for
phenomena, and that we can communicate and derive useful knowledge
from it about the world. Emptiness (sunyata) must not be confused
with nothingness. Emptiness is not non-existence and it is not
non-reality.
What is emptiness then? To understand the philosophical meaning of
this term, let's look at a simple solid object, such as a cup. How
is a cup empty? We usually say that a cup is empty if it does not
contain any liquid or solid. This is the ordinary meaning of
emptiness. But, is the cup really empty? A cup empty of liquids or
solids is still full of air. To be precise, we must therefore state
what the cup is empty of. Can a cup be empty of all substance? A
cup in a vacuum does not contain any air, but it still contains
space, light, radiation, as well as its own substance. Hence, from
a physical point of view, the cup is always full of something. Yet,
from the Buddhist point of view, the cup is always empty. The
Buddhist understanding of emptiness is different from the physical
meaning. The cup being empty means that it is devoid of inherent
existence.
What is meant with non-inherent existence? Is this to say that the
cup does not ultimately exist? - Not quite. - The cup exists, but
like everything in this world, its existence depends on other
phenomena. There is nothing in a cup that is inherent to that
specific cup or to cups in general. Properties such as being
hollow, spherical, cylindrical, or leak-proof are not intrinsic to
cups. Other objects which are not cups have similar properties, as
for example vases and glasses. The cup's properties and components
are neither cups themselves nor do they imply cupness on their own.
The material is not the cup. The shape is not the cup. The function
is not the cup. Only all these aspects together make up the cup.
Hence, we can say that for an object to be a cup we require a
collection of specific conditions to exist. It depends on the
combination of function, use, shape, base material, and the cup's
other aspects. Only if all these conditions exist simultaneously
does the mind impute cupness to the object. If one condition ceases
to exist, for instance, if the cup's shape is altered by breaking
it, the cup forfeits some or all of its cupness, because the
object's function, its shape, as well as the imputation of cupness
through perception is disrupted. The cup's existence thus depends
on external circumstances. Its physical essence remains
elusive.
Those readers who are familiar with the theory of ideas of the
Greek philosopher Plato will notice that this is pretty much the
antithesis to Plato's idealism. Plato holds that there is an ideal
essence of everything, e.g. cups, tables, houses, humans, and so
on. Perhaps we can give Plato some credit by assuming that the
essence of cups ultimately exists in the realm of mind. After all,
it is the mind that perceives properties of an object and imputes
cupness onto one object and tableness onto another. It is the mind
that thinks "cup" and "table". Does it follow that the mind is
responsible for the existence of these objects? - Apparently, the
mind does not perceive cups and tables if there is no visual and
tactile sensation. And, there cannot be visual and tactile
sensation if there is no physical object. The perception thus
depends on the presence of sensations, which in turn relies on the
presence of the physical object. This is to say that the cup's
essence is not in the mind. It is neither to be found in the
physical object. Obviously, its essence is neither physical nor
mental. It cannot be found in the world, not in the mind, and
certainly not in any heavenly realm, as Plato imagined. We must
conclude that the objects of perception have therefore no inherent
existence.
If this is the case for a simple object, such as a cup, then it
must also apply to compound things, such as cars, houses, machines,
etc. A car, for example, needs a motor, wheels, axles, gears, and
many other things to work. Perhaps we should consider the
difference between manmade objects, such as cups, and natural
phenomena, such as earth, plants, animals, and human beings. One
may argue that lack of inherent existence of objects does not imply
the same for natural phenomena and beings. In case of a human
being, there is a body, a mind, a character, a history of actions,
habits, behavior, and other things we can draw upon to describe a
person. We can even divide these characteristics further into more
fundamental properties. For example, we can analyze the mind and
see that there are sensations, cognition, feelings, ideas. Or, we
can analyze the brain and find that there are neurons, axons,
synapses, and neurotransmitters. However, none of these
constituents describe the essence of the person, the mind, or the
brain. Again, the essence remains elusive.
Emptiness of the five skandhas.
The Heart Sutra expresses the same idea by stating the emptiness of
the five skandhas, i.e. the emptiness of the body, sensations,
perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness. The five
skandhas are commonly translated into English as the five
aggregates. According to the Buddha, these aggregates are what
constitutes a person. As adumbrated above, it is possible to
deconstruct the five skandhas in the same manner as objects.
However, this method of deconstruction assumes a third person
perspective. It analyses phenomena perceived as external to the
observer. When we talk about the essence of a person, the situation
is slightly different, because we talk indirectly about ourselves.
It may therefore be more intuitive to look at things from a first
person perspective. The first person perspective allows us to make
statements about the internal state of the observer thereby
producing self-reference. What is observed is the observer. Perhaps
this will lead to new insights into the essence of mind and
body.
First, let's look at experience. What exactly is experience? -
Obviously, we experience objects and phenomena through the senses.
This is one form of experience. We also experience feelings, moods,
thoughts, and emotions. The former can be called sensory
experiences and the latter mental experiences. Upon contemplating
the distinction we may find that there is no clear boundary between
sensory and mental experience. As soon as we perceive a physical
object, for example an apple, the corresponding mental experiences
are immediately triggered. First, we think "apple". This is
identification. Following this thought, a number of things we
associate with apples may come to mind, for example "sweet, edible,
green, red, healthy, delicious, juicy," and so on. These
associations may be followed by the buildup of a desire to touch or
to taste the apple. Once the desire is strong enough, our thoughts
may be occupied with consuming the apple and we start weighing the
merits and demerits of consuming the apple now or later. All these
mental experiences are caused by, yet independent of the original
object. If the apple is withdrawn, the memory of it may be able to
sustain the chain of thoughts for a short time, yet it will
eventually cease.
We can infer that mental experience requires sensory experience, or
respectively memory of sensory experience. Sensory experience in
turn requires the body. If we carried through a thought experiment
and examined whether each of the skandhas is able to exist without
the other four, we would find that this is not possible. The latter
four aggregates all depend on the body. Without the brain and the
nervous system there is no consciousness, no sensation, no
perception, and no mental formations. On the other hand, we cannot
imagine the body to function without the mind. The body and the
mind depend on each other, the five skandhas depend on each other.
We must conclude that none of the skandhas is fundamental. Body,
sensations, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness are
interrelated. Experiences emerge from the interaction of all five
skandhas. Just as objects, experiences are conditioned by the
interplay of multiple phenomena. Experience has no inherent
existence either.
Our brain is advanced enough to reflect on its experiences. By
means of self-reference we can direct mental activity onto itself.
For example, we can think about thought. From this arises a
division between subject, percept, and object. The percept is the
mental impression, the subject is the owner of it, the thinker, and
the object is that which causes the mental impression. This
threefold division seems so natural to us that it is reflected in
the grammar of most human languages. We perceive the separation of
subject, percept, and object as real, because mind attributes an
owner to experience and thought. This owner is the "self", the
subject, the center of consciousness, the supposed psychological
entity. Surprisingly, this entity remains completely undetectable.
Body, feeling, perception, and mental formations are not the self.
Consciousness is not the self either, otherwise it would follow
that the self temporarily ceases to exist during unconscious
states, for example during deep sleep.
We might ask how "self" can be independent of a surrounding world.
Is it possible for the self to exist in a mental vacuum, a world
devoid of sense impressions, thought, and mental images? Would the
self not literally run out of fuel if it lacked thoughts and
contents to identify itself with or to set itself apart from? It
seems there is no basis an independent entity. It seems more that
the self is an emergent phenomenon arising from the application of
complex interpretative schemes to perception. In particular, it
arises from the conceptual division between subject, object, and
percept. Through introspection it is possible to realize that the
"self" is not fundamental. It is created by the mind through
identification and discernment. The "self" is itself a mental
formation - a product of mind. It is therefore empty of inherent
existence.
The emptiness of matter.
The ancient Greeks believed that matter is composed of indivisible
small elements with certain characteristics, such as the
characteristics of earth, water, air, and fire. They called these
elements atoms and they held that atoms were solid and fundamental,
like microscopic billiard balls. Ernest Rutherford invalidated the
billiard ball theory by conducting an experiment, which suggested
that atoms have an internal structure. He established that atoms
have a nucleus containing most of its mass and that electrons orbit
the nucleus. Moreover, he established that the nucleus of an atom
is only about one ten-thousandth of the diameter of the atom
itself, which means that 99.99% of the atom's volume consists of
empty space. This is the first manifestation of emptiness at the
subtle level of matter. Not long after Rutherford's discovery,
physicists found out that the nucleus of an atom likewise has an
internal structure and that the protons and neutrons making up the
nucleus are composed of even smaller particles, which they named
quarks after a poem of James Joyce. Interestingly, quarks are
hypothesized as geometrical points in space, which implies that
atoms are essentially empty. This is the second manifestation of
emptiness at the subtle level of matter.
The terms "quarks" and "points in space" still suggest something
solid, since they can be imagined as irreducible mass particles.
Yet, quantum field theory does away even with this finer concept of
solidity by explaining particles in the terms of field properties.
Quantum electrodynamics (QED) has produced an amazingly successful
theory of matter by combining quantum theory, classical field
theory, and relativity. No discrepancies between the predictions of
QED and experimental observation have ever been found. According to
QED, subatomic particles are indistinguishable from fields, whereas
fields are basically properties of space. In this view, a particle
is a temporary local densification of a field, which is conditioned
by the properties of the surrounding space. Ergo, matter is not
different from space. This is the third manifestation of emptiness
at the subtle level of matter.
An important class of phenomena in the subatomic world is defined
by the various interactions between particles. In fact, there is no
clear distinction between the notions of phenomena, particles, and
interactions, although interactions can be described clearly in
mathematical terms. For example, there are interactions between
free electrons by means of photons that result in an observed
repelling force. There are also interactions between the quarks of
a nucleon by means of mesons, interactions between the neighboring
neutrons or protons, interactions between nucleus and electrons,
and interactions between the atoms of molecules. The phenomena
themselves -the nucleon, the nucleus, the atom, the molecule- are
sufficiently described by these interactions, meaning by the
respective equations, which implies that interactions and phenomena
are interchangeable terms. Interestingly, the interrelations of
quantum physics do not describe actual existence. Instead they
predict the potential for existence. A manifest particle, such as
an electron, cannot be described in terms of classical mechanics.
It exists as a multitude of superposed "scenarios", of which one or
another manifests only when it is observed, i.e. upon measurement.
Therefore, matter does not inherently exist. It exists only as
interrelations of "empty" phenomena whose properties are determined
by observation. This is the fourth manifestation of emptiness at
the subtle level of matter.
Emptiness in mathematics.
In mathematics the notion of emptiness finds expression in the
number zero, as well as in contemporary set theory. The concept of
zero was discovered in India prior to the sixth century A.D. The
"Arabic" number system we use today is neither Arabic nor Greek in
origin. In fact, the digits 0123456789 go back to India where they
were first created. The ancient Indian number system distinguished
itself from other positional systems by virtue of allowing the use
of zero as a legitimate number. Interestingly, the number zero did
not exist in Greek mathematics, because the Greeks were essentially
geometricians and had no use for the mathematical concept of a
non-entity, neither did it exist in Egyptian mathematics. The
Arabs, who encountered the Indian number system during their early
conquests in India, found it superior to their own traditional
system which used letters, and thus adapted it to develop Islamic
mathematics. The Arabic word for zero is "sifr", meaning "empty."
In the 12th century, the Italian mathematician Leonardo Pisano
Fibonacci studied Arabian algebra and introduced the Hindu-Arabic
numerals to Europe. The word "sifr" thus became "zephirum" in Latin
and "zero" in English.
In the ancient Indian context, the number zero did not originally
refer to nothingness or nullity. The Sanskrit word for zero is
shunya, which means "puffed up, hollow, empty." The zero stands for
emptiness suggestive of potentiality. The discovery of the
mathematical zero concurred with the emptiness of prajna-intuition
in India around 200 BC. Both signify polar opposition between being
and nonbeing. Zero is that which contains all possible polarized
pairs such as (+1, -1), (+2, -2), etc. It is the collection of all
mutually canceling pairs of forward and backward movements. Put it
another way, zero is fundamental to all existence. Because of it,
everything is possible. Zero is the additive identity, the focal
point of all numbers; without it, numbers cannot be created. India
alone, among the great civilizations of antiquity, was able to
fathom the depth of emptiness and willing to accept its
consequences in mathematics.
Following the introduction of the Hindu-Arabic numerals into
Western culture, zero became a number that was used in calculations
like any other number. Consequently, it lost some part of its
original meaning, namely the part that suggests potentiality.
Today, most mathematicians do not associate the notion of emptiness
with zero, but with the empty set, which is a construct of set
theory. A set is a collection of objects or numbers. For example,
the set { 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 } is a set of numbers containing five
elements; it is therefore said to have the "cardinality" of 5. The
empty set { } is a collection that contains nothing and has the
cardinality 0. The mathematician John von Neumann (1923) invented a
method, known as von Neumann hierarchy, which can be employed to
generate the natural numbers from the empty set as follows:
Step 0: { } (empty set)
Step 1: { { } } (set containing the empty set)
Step 2: { { }, { { } } } (set containing previous two sets)
Step 3: { { }, { { } } , { { }, { { } } } } (set containing
previous three sets)
Step 4: { { }, { { } } , { { }, { { } } }, { { }, { { } } , { { },
{ { } } } } } (etc.)
This sequence is obtained by iterating a functor that creates a new
set from the union of the preceding two sets, thus generating sets
with the cardinalities 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ad infinitum. In less
mathematical terms, the principle can be described as follows:
Beginning with emptiness (step 0), we observe emptiness. Through
the act of observing we create an entity containing emptiness (step
1). Now we perceive emptiness, as well as an entity. From the
combination of the former two we create another entity by
observation, which is different from the first entity (step 2).
This process is repeated again and again. Interestingly, if we
define suitable operations on the obtained sets based on union and
intersection, the cardinalities of the resulting sets behave just
like natural numbers being added and subtracted. The sequence is
therefore isomorphic to the natural numbers - a stunningly
beautiful example of something from nothing.
Emptiness of emptiness.
In The Art of Living (2001) the 14th Dalai Lama says, "As your
insight into the ultimate nature of reality is deepened and
enhanced, you will develop a perception of reality from which you
will perceive phenomena and events as sort of illusory,
illusion-like, and this mode of perceiving reality will permeate
all your interactions with reality. [
] Even emptiness itself,
which is seen as the ultimate nature of reality, is not absolute,
nor does it exist independently. We cannot conceive of emptiness as
independent of a basis of phenomena, because when we examine the
nature of reality, we find that it is empty of inherent existence.
Then if we are to take that emptiness itself is an object and look
for its essence, again we will find that it is empty of inherent
existence. Therefore the Buddha taught the emptiness of
emptiness."
