The Zennist

The emptiness of the unconditioned

The notion of emptiness is certainly misused when the adept is taught that emptiness only consists in the abstract removal of conditioned things such as concepts.  The problem with understanding emptiness in this specific way is that it all but ignores unconditioned reality from which conditioned things arise so as to appear real.

Using emptiness this way eventually leads to the belief that nothing is real or the same, emptiness is the negation of all (sarvâbhâvat); even nirvana is included.  This becomes nihilism.

This procedure completely ignores the need of an introspective penetration into the very unconditioned substance of conditioned phenomena. In truth, the notion of emptiness should lead us to the unconditioned, for example, the Buddha-nature which is not empty of the unconditioned.  

Turning to the Five Aggregates (pañca-skandha), emptiness also informs us of what the aggregates lack.  They are the very emptiness of the unconditioned which is also to say, they are the privation (shunya) of true nature (sabhâva/sasvabhâva).  By directly realizing the unconditioned it is neither absurd nor confusing for us to say the Five Aggregates are emptiness, that is, the emptiness of the unconditioned.  Confusion arises for those who harbor a wrong view of emptiness; who don’t understand how it is to be properly used; who in particular, lack gnosis of the unconditioned.

 

Studying the sutras

It almost goes without saying, but Western Buddhists are not, by and large, students of the Sutras (P., Suttas) hence all the freaking arguments that tend to erupt.  I suspect that most pop Buddhist writers haven’t studied but a handful of Sutras.  It is when debates arise over certain key doctrines such as Atman vs. no-self that Sutras become important. But they are also important for understanding meditation and the Five Aggregates (pañca-skandha) and their relationship to our self and why we are not these conditioned aggregates. 

By not being a student of the Sutras, the problem facing the majority of Buddhists is what do the specific terms mean as to their notion.  What is the specific notion of anâtman (lit., not the self) or pratityasamutpada (dependent origination), or dhyâna (meditation), or vijñâna (consciousness)?  What does nirvana mean?  Incidentally, even the best scholars have to make educated guesses when it comes to nirvana—not all agree with each other.  We see this in the book, The Buddhist Nirvana and Its Western Interpreters by Guy Richard Welbon.

Speaking from the vantage point of the Pali Nikayas, it is only when we have entered the stream or current (S., srotas), a kind of super spiritual  baptism, that the study of the Sutras comes into play in a profound way—provided we have studied them!

Better than absolute sovereignty on the earth, better than going to heaven, better than lordship over all the worlds is the reward (phalam) of entering the stream (sotapatti)” (Dhammapada 178).

During this initial baptism, we get our first glimpse of nirvana.  In addition we begin to distinguish our psychophysical body from our true self. We also put away our doubts about the veracity of the Buddha's teachings because we now can see what he is aiming at. As a result, we no longer cling to ritualistic and moralistic practices which really amount to dead ends. 

Short of this, our understanding of Buddhism is inadequate.  Using a simile from the Buddhist canon, it is like a blind man who is trying to imagine colors.