emptyuniverse

Emptiness (Sunnata)

As we've already discussed, emptiness is a synonym for not-self (anatta). It refers to phenomena being empty of a self or anything that could pertain to a self (sunnam attena va attaniyena va). This is what the Buddha means by 'empty world' (sunna-loka). In the Sunna Sutta (SN 35.85) he says:

Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty. And what is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self? The eye is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Forms... Eye-consciousness... Eye-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self.

The ear is empty...

The nose is empty...

The tongue is empty...

The body is empty...

The intellect is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Ideas... Intellect-consciousness... Intellect-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Thus it is said that the world is empty.

Here we see the Buddha describing the dependently originated eighteen elements that we've already discussed. These eighteen elements are all experienced dependent upon contact (phassa), and therefore, there is no self controlling this process. Even volition (cetana sankhara), which most people subconsciously take to be their 'self,' is dependent upon contact between the mind base, mental object (volition), and mental consciousness, and is impulsively originated, caused by previous thoughts (sankhara: fabrications), feelings (vedana), tactile sensations, visible forms, sounds, odors, flavors (all these being rupa: form) etc., etc.. If one searches amongst these various phenomena looking for their 'self,' they will only find a stream (continuum) of ever changing, dependently originated sensory phenomena arising, abiding and changing, and eventually ceasing, with no agent or self controlling the show.

Thus, what we habitually and unconsciously identify with as a unitary and homogeneous self can be seen, through empirical observation (vipassana), to be nothing more than a collection of streaming, ever changing phenomena. There is no self to be located anywhere amongst these phenomena. These phenomena are empty of self. And because they are all dependently originated through contact and caused by previous phenomena, they don't 'belong' to a self. They are empty of anything which could pertain to a self.

This negates the ignorant reification of the 'subject' aspect of deluded experience, but dependent origination has more to reveal. In order to cease ignorant craving for, grasping at, and identifying with any and all conditioned phenomena, we can use dependent origination to also negate the reification of the 'object' aspect of deluded experience. This is indicated in AN 4.24: Kalaka Sutta, where the Buddha says:

Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer.

When hearing....

When sensing....

When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer.

So let's take a closer look at dependent origination and see if we can uncover what it has to teach us about the apparent objects of our experience.

Discerning Emptiness by way of Dependent Origination and This/That Conditionality

The correct discernment of the emptiness of any abiding essence or independent existence with regard to all conditioned phenomena is essential if we are to avoid the wrong view of atomistic pluralism (ultimately existing momentary phenomena); the wrong view of nihilism (utter non-existence); and the wrong view of monism (Self). We began our analysis or clear seeing (vipassana) by deconstructing the ignorant reification of conditioned phenomena as representing a 'self' by seeing that the conditioned body and mind are simply a collection of various impermanent phenomena (analytical method outlined above), and then seeing the this/that conditionality of the relationships amongst these various phenomena (synthetic method outlined above). Now we can explore these methods further to more clearly discern the emptiness of these phenomena. Through this analysis we can come to see for ourselves that these various phenomena are empty of any independent or enduring essence.

The following thorough discernment of relations will allow us to abandon the ignorant reification that phenomena are inherently existing 'things' (momentary of otherwise), without falling into the trap of assuming that there are no dependently originated phenomena whatsoever (non-existence, nihilism), or falling into the trap of fabricating a metaphysical theory that there is a permanent Self (existence, eternalism, monism). This clear seeing of relations focuses on dependent origination — the profound insight that the Buddha discovered on the night of his enlightenment. In the Paccaya Sutta (SN 12.20) the Buddha states that whether or not a Tathagata appears in the world, dependent origination still applies because it is the way nature is. Therefore it isn't just some speculative theory that he made up:

Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this regularity of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma, this this/that conditionality. The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, makes it plain, & says, 'Look.' From birth as a requisite condition comes aging & death.

Then after outlining the twelvefold factors of dependent origination, he goes on to say that right discernment of dependent origination will clear up all perplexity and existential angst:

When a disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right discernment this dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen phenomena as they are actually present, it is not possible that he would run after the past, thinking, 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past?' or that he would run after the future, thinking, 'Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' or that he would be inwardly perplexed about the immediate present, thinking, 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?' Such a thing is not possible. Why is that? Because the disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right discernment this dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen phenomena as they are actually present.

So lets take a closer look at how dependent origination sheds light on the relationships between phenomena, as this analysis clearly exposes the errors of imputing any essence or abiding substance onto what are actually dependently originated phenomena. First off, we can examine the eighteen elements, specifically the relationship between so-called 'subjective' consciousness and sensory 'objects.'

Because these conditioned phenomena of the eighteen elements are dependently arisen they are empty of self (an inherently existing subjective sensory consciousness) and empty of anything which could belong to a self (an inherently existing sensory object). This means that there is no intrinsically identifiable subjective self independent of its sensory object. Take the example of seeing for instance. There is a 'seer' (visual consciousness) who sees the 'seen' (visible form). This seer is entirely dependent upon the seen. There can be no seer independent of the seen — there is no such thing as an inherently existent or intrinsic 'seer.' The 'subject' (seer: visual consciousness) is empty of any essence or independent existence. This is true of all six possible sensory consciousnesses: visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, and mental consciousness. There is no separate, independent subject or 'self.'

This is also true of the so-called 'object.' Experientially speaking, the 'seen' (sensory object: visible form) is entirely dependent upon the seer. There can be no 'seen' independent of the seer — there is no such thing as an inherently existent or intrinsic 'seen.' The 'object' (seen: visible form) is empty of any essence or independent existence. This is true of all possible sensory objects. There is no separate, independent object.

And so visual consciousness (or any of the other five sensory consciousnesses) can never arise independent of visible form (or any of the other five sensory objects). There simply can't be one without the other. Whenever and wherever there is visual consciousness there will be visible form, and whenever or wherever there is visible form there will be visual consciousness. You can't 'peel away' visual consciousness and just have visible form, there is no separation. Therefore, what we mentally label 'visual consciousness' and 'visible form' or 'that which knows' and 'the known' (or however you wish to phrase it), are only relative conventional mental labels representing the same experience. All mental labels such as 'seer' and 'seen' or 'knowing' and 'known' are merely relative and ultimately arbitrary distinctions (conceptualizations) referring to the same experiential event.

Now it's important to make this insight as experiential as possible. Let's take the straightforward empirical experience of you looking at this screen right now as an example. Conventionally speaking you could describe the experience as "I see the computer screen." Another way of describing this is that there's a 'seer' who 'sees' the 'seen.' But look at the screen: are there really three independent and separate parts to your experience, or are 'seer,' 'sees,' and 'seen,' just three conceptual labels applied to this experience in which the three 'parts' are entirely interdependent? These aspects are ultimately empty because there could be no 'seer' without that which is 'seen.'

So where exactly is this so-called 'subjective' consciousness? Is it in your head? The material processes of the eye organ: the eye, nerve fibers, electrical impulses, synapses, brain, etc., are in your head, that's true. But where is this mysterious formless phenomenon that we call 'consciousness'? Moreover, isn't 'consciousness' just a mental label that we apply to this formless phenomena? And isn't 'phenomena' just a mental label as well? Furthermore, if the 'subjective' consciousness can't be irrefutably located, is it accurate to say that there is a visual 'object'? Doesn't an 'object' by definition need a 'subject'? Can we accurately say that the eye organ is an 'object'? Or 'subject'? Do you consider your eye organ to be your 'self'?... We could go on with this line of questioning, but the point here is to recognize and clearly see for oneself that none of these phenomena have any separate, independent essence which could be isolated from the rest as an ultimately existing 'thing.'

The 'subjective' consciousness can't be isolated as separate and independent. Nor can any of these other interdependent phenomena. Even the mental labels that we apply to these various phenomena are dependently originated. They are empty of self or anything pertaining to a self. But this doesn't mean that we should now interpret our experience as being some sort of cosmic 'oneness' or 'unity consciousness' or whatever you want to call it, because that's just another empty, dependent label isn't it? The whole point of this analysis is to see the emptiness of all concepts, and thereby stop trying to define ourselves by constructing 'castles in the air' (i.e. futile attempts to create conceptually 'safe' refuges from conditioned phenomena, right within conditioned phenomena). If we can cease the ignorant habit of trying to define ourself, which is actually an attempt to defend our poor insecure fabricated notions of 'me' and 'mine,' we can gain release from all anxiety and existential angst. We can gain release from all ignorant attempts at seeking, craving, grasping, and becoming.... Such release leads directly to what we mentally label 'Nibbana,' because such release eventually leads us to nontemporal discernment wherein all temporal existential angst is radically resolved. In this regard it's worth taking another look at just what the Buddha says in the Paccaya Sutta about one who has gained insight into dependent origination:

[I]t is not possible that he would run after the past, thinking, 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past?' or that he would run after the future, thinking, 'Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' or that he would be inwardly perplexed about the immediate present, thinking, 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

And this discernment of emptiness doesn't just apply to phenomena as we experience them. All phenomena (dhammas) are dependently arisen, and are therefore empty. They possess no intrinsic substance or essence or power by which they could exist in their own right. If the causes for the arising of any conditioned phenomena whatsoever are removed, then that phenomena would never have arisen at all. This is affirmed by the Buddha in the Kaccayanagotta Sutta (SN 12.15):

[W]hen one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

That is, all phenomena comprising the conditioned world are dependently originated. And by virtue of this dependent origination, phenomena are empty of any abiding essence. And because they have no inherent essence they are not inherently existent. And because they arise according to this/that conditionality they are also not completely non-existent.

Let's take a look at a conditioned fabrication (sankhara) to clarify this point. We can use the example of what we would conventionally label a 'tomato plant' growing in one's garden. This tomato plant has arisen dependent upon a seed, soil (both are solid form: earth), water (liquid form: water), atmosphere (gaseous form: air), and sunlight (temperature: fire). Remove any one of these necessary causes or conditions and the tomato plant could never have arisen at all. The tomato plant is empty of any separate essence independent of these causes and conditions. And what is true for a tomato plant is equally true of all conditioned fabrications, since all are dependent upon causes and conditions.

Even so-called irreducible phenomena such as the four elements of solid form (earth), liquid form (water), gaseous form (air), and temperature (fire), which are compounded to give rise to fabricated forms (such as what we conventionally label 'tomato plant') are conditioned, and are therefore dependently originated. Ultimately there aren't any non-dependent phenomena. From this we can inferentially discern that even these so-called irreducible material elements are empty of essence. But of course, such inference, although valid, takes us away from where the main focus of our analysis should be — on phenomena as we experience them — because it's only within the world of conscious experience that suffering can arise. What's more, it's only the universe as it is experienced that we can ever directly know anything about. Even the hard sciences such as physics can only access the world of experience. What a physicist knows about quarks and the like, s/he knows through the medium of consciousness. Whatever 'stuff' is 'out there' beyond the sphere of our experience is necessarily only known by way of inference. This doesn't mean that such inference is necessarily faulty. It just means that such analysis doesn't relate directly to our world of happiness and sorrow. And for this reason, when the Buddha talked about the 'world' (loka) he was almost always referring to the world of conscious experience, because that's where suffering arises, and that's the only place where we can bring it to an end.

So returning to the world of our experience, we can take a look at some other apparently irreducible empirical phenomena. Let's examine a tomato growing on our plant to see the dependent nature of each singular phenomenon (dhamma). This tomato is 'red.' This 'redness' is a straightforward empirical experience of an irreducible visible form. But this 'redness' has no separate essence independent of what we conventionally label 'tomato.' This redness is dependent upon the tomato, which is dependent upon the plant, which is dependent upon a seed, soil, sunlight, and nutrients, etc.. The so-called irreducible singular phenomenon is entirely dependent, and therefore, empty of an abiding essence.

Likewise, the 'hardness' of the tomato is a straightforward empirical experience of an irreducible tactile form. But this 'hardness' has no separate essence independent of the tomato. Stated another way, the hardness ultimately has no separate essence independent of the redness, and the redness ultimately has no separate essence independent of the hardness. They simply can't be separated. Cut the tomato open and its aroma is experienced (an irreducible odor). Again, this aroma has no separate essence independent of the tomato's redness and hardness. Taste the tomato and the same thing — its flavor has no separate essence independent of the tomato's redness, hardness, and aroma. And what is true for any one phenomenon is equally true for all phenomena, since all are dependent.

Also, the experience of 'redness' is dependent upon the eye and visual consciousness for its very appearance. What's more, the mental label 'red' that we ascribe to this bare visual form is dependent upon the mind and mental consciousness. And the comprehension of the term 'red' is dependent upon our intellectual understanding of what is 'not red.' Furthermore, the 'origination' and 'duration' of this experience of seeing red are dependent upon contact between the visual form, the eye, and visual consciousness. And the 'cessation' of this experience is dependent upon the breaking of this contact. So origination, duration, and cessation are all ultimately empty as well. The entire process is dependently arisen, and therefore no 'individual' part of the experience has an inherently existing essence. The very definition of dhamma (phenomena) as 'that which can be known' betrays any notion that it could have any ultimate, independent self-nature.

But there's still one more important step to take regarding our insight into emptiness. This is quite a subtle point of analysis which is easy to overlook, but it's essential for correctly discerning emptiness. This analysis involves clearly seeing that if any given phenomenon is ultimately empty of self-nature (sabhava), then it necessarily is also empty of other-nature (para-bhava) as well. Why? Because if the causal phenomena (of any given resultant phenomenon) are empty of self-nature, which they are, then the resultant product can't possess any other-nature (of the causes), simply because the causes have no self-nature which the resultant product could possess.

What's more, there is nothing of the resultant product abiding in the conditioning causes, and nothing of the conditioning causes abiding in the resultant product. Take the sound produced from clapping your hands together for example. There is nothing of what we mentally label 'clapping sound' in either hand, nor in the volitional intention to bring the hands together, nor in the actual movement of bringing them together. Likewise, there's nothing of what we mentally label 'hand,' or 'volitional intention,' or 'movement,' in the resulting sound. All phenomena are empty of self-nature and empty of other-nature. Thus, our world is truly an 'empty world' (sunna-loka). Again, in the Kalaka Sutta (AN 4.24) the Buddha says:

Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer.

When hearing....

When sensing....

When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer.

Discerning Emptiness by way of Impermanence and Momentary Change

Correct discernment of dependent origination clearly exposes the cognitive error of essentialism. But we can also discern the emptiness of any possible abiding essence from the vantage point of the impermanency of the arising, momentary change, and cessation of conditioned phenomena using the same analysis that we used to correctly discern that phenomena are not-self. Here we start by acknowledging that if any phenomenon, no matter how short the duration of our experience of it, were to have an inherent abiding essence, then that essence would by definition be stable and unchanging. But as we've already discussed, all phenomena undergo continual change, and therefore we can conclude that all conditioned phenomena are entirely empty of any metaphysical essence or substance. Furthermore, the very fact that phenomena are subject to cessation betrays any notion of an ultimate essence, which again, by definition would not be subject to cessation.

And so with this insight into the ultimate emptiness of all things we can begin to more fully appreciate the Phena Sutta (SN 22.95), where the Buddha tells us that conditioned phenomena are:

... empty (rittaka), void (tucchaka), without substance (asaraka)....

Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage;
fabrications, a [hollow] banana tree; consciousness, an illusion.

The Emptiness of All Discursive Fabrications (Vitakka-sankhara)

In the Sutta Pitaka the Buddha maintained noble silence regarding many speculative and metaphysical questions put to him by various interlocutors. He said that such speculation should be regarded as 'mental proliferation' (papanca; papanca-sanna-sankha) and that the monks and nuns shouldn't attempt to answer such queries because they are all based on self-view (atta-ditthi). They should remain undeclared (avyakata). Some of these questions are:

• Is the universe eternal?
• Is the universe not eternal?
• Is the universe infinite?
• Is the universe finite?
• Are the soul and the body the same?
• Is the soul one thing and the body another?
• After death does a Tathagata exist?
• After death does a Tathagata not exist?
• After death does a Tathagata both exist and not exist?
• After death does a Tathagata neither exist nor not exist?
• After death where does an arahant reappear?
• Does an arahant not reappear? Both? Neither?
• Is there a self?
• Is there no self?

And the most fundamental question of all, that of existence and nonexistence. In the Kaccayana Sutta the Buddha declares his middle way (mahjjima-patipada), which avoids all extreme views:

'Everything exists:' That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist:' That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle.

It's also important to realize that the middle way is not entirely silent in regard to phenomena. In the same sutta the Buddha explains his contemplative method of discernment:

But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment (panna), 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

And this is elaborated on in the following conversation from the Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta (MN 72):

"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is perception... such are mental fabrications... such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' Because of this, I say, a Tathagata — with the ending, fading out, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsession with conceit — is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released."

And so the Buddha's middle way is to clearly discern dependent origination with regard to all conditioned phenomena: "Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance...."

The Buddha's middle way is, by and large, a unique method of phenomenalism (analysis and synthesis as explained above), based on the use of mental factors such as mindfulness (sati), clear comprehension (sampajanna), and clear seeing (vipassana), resulting in discernment (panna) and release (vimutti) from all conditioned restraints of the mind. And even though discernment can employ logic (inference as explained above) to reach conclusions, these conclusions are based on, and firmly rooted in concentrated attention to, and empirical comprehension of, one's own experience, as just mentioned.

Also, the logic employed to reach discernment has the effect, once gnosis has been ascertained, of consuming one's belief in and reliance upon all discursive fabrications, because one understands that all such fabrications are empty, and are therefore merely relative designations (more on this in a moment). Discernment of the Buddha's middle way, therefore, avoids philosophical speculation, metaphysical conjecture, and unskillful conceptually fabricated interpretation of one's raw experience. The Buddha was uncompromising in this regard, seeing all such overactive discursive fabrication as a hindrance to discernment-release.

And it's worth noting that the Buddha says something further about this/that conditionality:

By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence.

This statement indicates that the very notion of 'the world,' the very world of suffering and dissatisfaction, is supported by, and based on, the polarity of dualistic thought. Again we can look at the previously quoted statement about the middle way, and see how dualistic mental labels (i.e. memory recognition) and discursive fabrications based on them, are all dependent upon ignorance:

'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications.... Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications.

In this statement the Buddha is specifically addressing the twelve factors of dependent origination, but the this/that conditionality of dependent origination extends to language and concepts as well. The very notion of 'existence' depends on the notion of 'nonexistence.' And from the cessation of ignorance, that is, the cessation of the self-view, comes the cessation of belief in, and reliance upon, polarizing, dualistic fabrications. In the Lokayatika Sutta (SN 12.48) the Buddha addresses the futility of all metaphysical speculation:

"Now, then, Master Gotama, does everything exist?"

"'Everything exists' is the senior form of cosmology, brahman."

"Then, Master Gotama, does everything not exist?"

"'Everything does not exist' is the second form of cosmology, brahman."

"Then is everything a Oneness?"

"'Everything is a Oneness' is the third form of cosmology, brahman."

"Then is everything a Manyness?"

"'Everything is a Manyness' is the fourth form of cosmology, brahman. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications...."

This statement, just like the previous one, works on at least two levels. The most obvious level is that of explaining how, based upon dependent origination, one can't ultimately say 'everything exists' or 'everything doesn't exist,' because everything is dependently arisen. But on another level we can begin to understand that the very ignorance which conditions discursive fabrications is ignorance of the middle way which avoids all extremes. And it's just this ignorance which gives rise to blind acceptance of language and dogmas as being 'ultimate truths.' But by understanding the inherent duality and semantic relativity of language one can avoid all metaphysical speculation of not only the polarity of 'existence' and 'nonexistence,' but all such dualities, such as 'oneness' and 'manyness,' etc., etc.. This interpretation of right view as the middle way which avoids speculation based merely on empty concepts illuminates the Buddha's statement in the Kalaka Sutta that:

Whatever is seen or heard or sensed
and fastened onto as true by others,
One who is Such—among the self-fettered—
wouldn't further claim to be true or even false.

Having seen well in advance that arrow
where generations are fastened & hung
—I know, I see, that's just how it is!'—
there's nothing of the Tathagata fastened.

And clearly discerning that whatever is dependently originated is empty of any independent existence (as explained previously), leads to the discernment of this/that conditionality regarding language. What this/that conditionality means on this level is that all thoughts, all concepts, all language is entirely context dependent. Take the word 'existence' for example. Existence has no intrinsic meaning independent of its opposite — nonexistence. Existence is defined as being the opposite of nonexistence. In and of itself it has no independent, intrinsic meaning. The same holds true for its opposite — nonexistence. And the same holds true for all words. The notion of 'self' is dependent upon the notion of 'not-self.' The notion of 'unconditioned' is dependent upon the notion of 'conditioned' etc.. All words and concepts are dependent upon other words and concepts.

What's more, because words, mental labels, and concepts are entirely dependent upon other words, mental labels, and concepts, they don't ultimately represent any 'objective' reality outside or independent of language itself. They are merely relative, subjective conventions. And based on these relative conventions, sentient beings with similar conventions, co-create a relative 'consensual reality,' which they then ignorantly and unquestioningly assume to be real, permanent and inherently existent. But this ignorant assumption and the reification that results from this assumption isn't accurate, and therefore, can only ever result in suffering. This can be diagramed as follows:

But if we begin to discern the empty nature of words and concepts in this way, their relative nature, we can start to let go of our ignorant reliance upon mental labels and discursive fabrications. And when mental labels and discursive fabrications are clearly seen to be empty and merely relative, then the notion that there is a real, independent self experiencing a real, independent world is recognized to not ultimately be true. With this recognition ignorant reification is abandoned, and when ignorant reification is abandoned then reliance upon any and all conceptual fabrication is abandoned. In this way both ignorance and fabrications are seen through, and the first two links in the chain of dependent origination are broken. With this insight the 'world' is clearly seen to be an empty world — empty of any inherent conceptual elaboration.

The images that the Buddha uses to describe the empty nature of the fabricated memory-recognition and mental labeling of the perception aggregate, and the conceptual discursive fabrications of the fabrications aggregate illuminate just how empty these aggregates, which make up two-fifths of 'the world,' really are. In the Phena Sutta (SN 22.95) he says:

Now suppose that in the last month of the hot season a mirage were shimmering, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a mirage? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any perception that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in perception?

Now suppose that a man desiring heartwood, in quest of heartwood, seeking heartwood, were to go into a forest carrying a sharp ax. There he would see a large banana tree: straight, young, of enormous height. He would cut it at the root and, having cut it at the root, would chop off the top. Having chopped off the top, he would peel away the outer skin. Peeling away the outer skin, he wouldn't even find sapwood, to say nothing of heartwood. Then a man with good eyesight would see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a banana tree? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any fabrications that are past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing them, observing them, & appropriately examining them — they would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in fabrications?

These images perfectly illustrate just how potentially deceptive and empty language is. When we see visual form 'from a distance,' that is, without examining our perceptions (i.e. memory recognition/mental labelling), it appears inherently existent and independent. But when we appropriately examine the mental labels we superimpose upon so-called 'objects,' these mental labels are seen to have nothing to do with the bare vision of what is actually there. They are like a mirage hovering over our naked vision. And when we examine the discursive fabrications that we formulate based on these mental labels, that is, when we 'peel away' the mental labels and fabrications (both are included in the fabrications aggregate) we don't 'even find sapwood, to say nothing of heartwood.' The concepts and mental labels are found to be empty, there's nothing ultimately established there.

This doesn't mean that concepts have no relative value, but that their value is only that — relative. Language is a useful tool, but it's limited. At some point we have to transcend language altogether in order to experience 'release' (vimutti). Thoughts and concepts are inherently dualistic and therefore forever banished to the realm of the merely conventional, the merely relative. They can never transcend their trivial slicing up of the world. They can never be formulated as a satisfactory description of ultimate truth (paramattha-sacca). And in order to transcend all conventional identity we have to come to the realization that our straightforward experience as 'such' utterly transcends all verbal and conceptual designation. And because of this the Buddha advises us not to cling to any conceptual views. As he says in the Paramatthaka Sutta (Sn 4.5):

A person who associates himself with certain views, considering them as best and making them supreme in the world, he says, because of that, that all other views are inferior; therefore he is not free from contention (with others). In what is seen, heard, cognized and in ritual observances performed, he sees a profit for himself. Just by laying hold of that view he regards every other view as worthless. Those skilled (in judgment) say that (a view becomes) a bond if, relying on it, one regards everything else as inferior. Therefore a bhikkhu should not depend on what is seen, heard or cognized, nor upon ritual observances. He should not present himself as equal to, nor imagine himself to be inferior, nor better than, another. Abandoning (the views) he had (previously) held and not taking up (another), he does not seek a support even in knowledge. Among those who dispute he is certainly not one to take sides. He does not [have] recourse to a view at all. In whom there is no inclination to either extreme, for becoming or non-becoming, here or in another existence, for him there does not exist a fixed viewpoint on investigating the doctrines assumed (by others). Concerning the seen, the heard and the cognized he does not form the least notion. That brahmana who does not grasp at a view, with what could he be identified in the world? They do not speculate nor pursue (any notion); doctrines are not accepted by them. A (true) brahmana is beyond, does not fall back on views.

When describing how he, the Tathagata, the 'One who is such' relates to views and opinions, he states:

Thus, monks, the Tathagata -- being the same with regard to all phenomena that can be seen, heard, sensed, & cognized -- is 'Such.' And I tell you: There's no other 'Such' higher or more sublime.

Whatever is seen or heard or sensed
and fastened onto as true by others,
One who is such—among the self-fettered—
wouldn't further claim to be true or even false.

Having seen well in advance that arrow
where generations are fastened & hung
—I know, I see, that's just how it is!' —
there's nothing of the Tathagata fastened. (AN 4.24: Kalaka Sutta)

Truly, all is just 'such,' and 'there's no other 'such' higher or more sublime.'

(back to contents)     (next)