Emptiness and Joyful Freedom

by Greg Goode

  1) Independent from causes and conditions – For example, think of the idea that there is a real you that does not age or change. You can tune into the sense of existence by looking into the mirror when you are very sick. At first you may not experience any parallel between what you see and what you feel is present. There can be a shock because it was surprising that you could actually change. You can also tune into this sense of existence when you see a friend or family member after a long time.

  2) Independent from pieces and parts – Think of how it seems that there is some kind of true or ideal car that remains intact even though the physical car loses a bumper or a windshield wiper. Think of the real you, which does not seem to be dependent upon the body or mind. You seem to be there somehow beyond the parts.

  3) Independent from cognition – Think of how it seems that galaxies and solar systems and mountain ranges and subatomic particles must be able to exist even though there may never have been any sentient beings or minds or awareness ever. This ties in with the familiar notion of objective existence or reality independent of our views.

  When we plan to do an emptiness meditation we should first identify as clearly as we can the sense that our object of meditation exists independently in these ways. The more clearly we can tune into this sense of independence and inherent existence, the easier we will find the emptiness meditations.

  Emptiness meditations amount to very close-focus ways to look for inherent existence. The meditations are set up so that you look for inherent existence everywhere it could possibly be. There are different ways of not finding inherent existence. In some meditations, you find the absence or lack of the inherent object you’re looking for. In other meditations, you are forced to see that the existence of the inherent object entails logical impossibilities or insuperable logical contradictions. In every case, you come to realize that the target of refutation, the inherently existent object, cannot exist.

  The Third Stage – Determining the Entailment

  To determine the entailment is to see how the logic of the emptiness meditation guarantees that you will find inherent existence if it exists. You will be intelligently guided by the force of logic to the only places inherent existence can be. And if you can’t find it, you can feel confident that you didn’t overlook it. It is nowhere to be found.

  So let’s say that you are trying to find the inherently existing “I” among the parts of the body and mind. The overall logic of the meditation is as follows:

  1) Either the inherently existent “I” exists or it doesn’t.

  2) If it exists, it should either be (a) somewhere among the parts of the body or mind, or (b) somewhere else.

  3) If I can’t find it somewhere among the parts of the body and mind, and can’t find it anywhere else, then it doesn’t exist.

  4) Alternatives (a) and (b) exhaust all the possibilities. I can be sure that I have left no stone unturned in my search.

  5) Therefore I don’t inherently exist.

  Determining the entailment is gaining understanding and confidence about how this meditation works. There are many kinds of emptiness meditation, but in this particular meditation you determine the entailment by coming to see that all the options are covered within (a) and (b). There are no further possibilities. If the inherently existent self cannot be found within (a) or (b), then you are confident that it doesn’t exist anywhere.

  Let’s walk through an example of a classic Buddhist emptiness meditation so that you can get an overall idea of how these meditations work. In these meditations, you usually look for some sort of inherent object. You look in all the logically possible places, and fail to find it. You are thereby forced to realize that the inherent object does not exist.

  Meditation – The Diamond Slivers

  The Diamond Slivers meditation looks for inherent causality. In Madhyamika, this meditation is considered basic and important. Causality was the first issue covered in Nagarjuna’s Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way. Although the Diamond Slivers are used to refute inherently existent causality, they do not try to refute conventionally existent causality. Conventionally existent causality is causality by observation or agreement. Basically, it boils down to observed regularities. It is not a source of suffering, but a useful tool for sentient beings to use to make their way through life. The classic Buddhist statement on conventional causality is very light and easygoing:

  From the arising of this comes the arising of that. When this isn’t, that isn’t.

  The magic is that this easygoing notion of causality is all the causality we need in order to live life. Even building bridges and doing medical research doesn’t require a stronger notion of causality than this.

  But we often feel that there is another causality lying behind this everyday surface regularity. We feel that this real or inherent causality must be what is responsible for the regularities we observe. This real causality seems to be stronger and more substantial than mere regularities. We often think that there is a guiding hand or causal power at work. We feel that the cause somehow transmits this power to the effect, and that this power exists in the cause itself. We feel that when the effect happens, it happens necessarily, or through the transmission of this force or essence. It is this seeming push or force of necessity that the Diamond Slivers argument seeks to refute.

  The Diamond Slivers work like this – if an entity truly arises from a cause, then it will logically have to arise in one of the following four scenarios. There are no further possibilities:

  an entity arises from itself – in other words, the cause is the same as the effect,

  an entity arises from something different from itself – in other words, the cause is different from the effect,

  an entity arises both from itself and from something different – in other words, the cause is the same as the effect and different too,

  an entity arises neither from itself nor from something different – in other words, the cause is neither the same as the effect, nor different.

  The logic of (1) through (4) covers all the bases. When you work with this Diamond Slivers meditation, you examine each option and refute it. When you have refuted all four options, you realize that causality doesn’t exist like you thought it did. There is no logical possibility for causality to exist. All options have been foreclosed. You are left with an illusionary set of regularities with nothing supporting them.

  For those who actually meditate on the Diamond Slivers, they must meditate deeply on each of the four alternatives.20 It is not enough to run through the alternatives in a rushed or formulaic way. When your realization of these options is deep and intuitive, it can be mind-blowing. You realize that something important that you thought existed does not exist.

  Gaining Familiarity With the Meditations

  At first the meditations might proceed as by rote, as though you are dragging yourself through them. But if you stick with them, you will soon feel the logical pull of the meditations. You will feel yourself transformed by the force of inference, as it propels you to the conclusion that inherent existence cannot be found. Even though this stage is conceptual and inferential, there are nevertheless immediate lightening and heart-opening effects. You feel freer and more open. This feeling becomes familiar, and life feels lighter.

  Because you have actually realized something and not just experienced a passing feeling, this realization is not reversible. There is no flip-flop. You never return to thinking that the target of refutation really is inherently existent after all. After you gain familiarity with the meditations, you gain a greater and greater realization that other things are empty as well. You can use the force of generalization to apply the results to a wider and wider scope of objects and phenomena. At first this generalization takes place through inference and analogy. But as you proceed with the meditations, they become characterized by greater and greater subtlety. Your realizations become less and less dependent upon a chain of reasoning, until at some point the realization of empt
iness becomes spontaneously global, with nothing left out; even emptiness itself is not left out. The Buddhist teachings state that it is at this point that you have become free of the six root afflictions21:

  Attachment

  Aversion

  Pride

  Ignorance

  Doubt

  Wrong view

  According to Buddhism, compassion has by now become one of your overall motivations. Because of this, you continue to meditate on emptiness. You will realize emptiness more and more deeply and from more angles of approach. Not only will your own realization and joy deepen, but you will also become more skillful and adept at helping other beings become free of suffering.

  Emptiness Teachings and the Dalai Lama

  The 14th and current Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, has been studying the emptiness teachings, in conjunction with Mahayana Buddhism, for decades. The following passage from his book How to See Yourself As You Really Are, beautifully portrays the power and vastnesss of the emptiness teachings.

  When I was about thirty-five years old, I was reflecting on the meaning of a passage by Tsongkhapa about how the “I” cannot be found either within or separate from the mind-body complex and how the “I” depends for its existence on conceptuality. Here is the passage:

  ‘A coiled rope’s speckled color and coiled form are similar to those of a snake, and when the rope is perceived in a dim area, the thought arises, “This is a snake.” As for the rope, at that time when it is seen to be a snake, the collection and parts of the rope are not even in the slightest way a snake. Therefore, that snake is merely set up by conceptuality. In the same way, when the thought “I” arises in dependence upon mind and body, nothing within mind and body – neither the collection that is a continuum of earlier and later moments, nor the collection of the parts at one time, nor the separate parts, nor the continuum of any of the separate parts – is in even the slightest way the “I.” Also there is not even the slightest something that is a different entity from mind and body that is apprehendable as the “I.” Consequently, the “I” is merely set up by conceptuality in dependence upon mind and body; it is not established by way of its own entity.’

  Suddenly, it was as if lightning moved through my chest. I was so awestruck that, over the next few weeks, whenever I saw people, they seemed like a magician’s illusions in that they appeared to inherently exist but I knew that they actually did not. This is when I began to understand that it is truly possible to stop the process of creating destructive emotions by no longer assenting to the way “I” and other phenomena appear to exist. Every morning I meditate on emptiness, and I recall that experience in order to bring it into the day’s activities. Just thinking or saying “I,” as in “I will do such-and-such,” will often trigger that feeling. But still I cannot claim full understanding of emptiness.

  Gyatso (2007)

  CHAPTER 3 – EMPTINESS IN WESTERN PHILOSOPHY

  For those who are already doing self-inquiry or emptiness meditation, Western resources can be a big help. One way to look at the process in Western terms is this. If you are doing self-inquiry or emptiness meditation, you are trying to address an essentialist, objectivist ailment. The ailment consists of thinking that there is a way that the self, mind or world really exists.

  The Ailment

  And just how are these things? In Western culture, this essentialist ailment shows up in specific ways. Certain fixed assumptions about the self, mind and world are conditioned by long periods of Western philosophies brought to us by Plato, Descartes, Darwin, Freud and others. The assumptions are reinforced through centuries of conditioning, as well as by the teachings of Western monotheistic religions. These philosophical, scientific and religious teachings claim that there’s a certain way that things are. These teachings encourage us to experience ourselves and the world as really and truly like that. We now think that these teachings have discovered reality. It is as though these teachings are neutral, impartial, objective, accurate lenses that allow us to see reality as it truly is.

  Examples of the claims include the following (which often conflict with other claims):

  What is real and true about an object like the table is the ideal Form of the table. The ideal Form is not located in or around the table but is nevertheless responsible for the essence of the table itself. This is why it’s a table and not a tree or a flower. Everything has an ideal form, which is what makes it necessarily what it is. (Claims like this are influenced by Plato.)

  What we really are is an inner observer, a thinking substance. As this observer in its inner theater, we look out through the senses trying to get in touch with the world outside in an accurate way. (Claims like this are influenced by Descartes.)

  What we really are is a clever animal, an example of a biological line that evolved to the point at which homo sapiens is the result. (Claims like this are influenced by Darwin.)

  The deepest and most real part of the mind is the unconscious, which is the source of our drives and desires, and the storehouse of our memories. (Claims like this are influenced by Freud.)

  Humanity didn’t evolve, but was created by God. Each person has a soul which began at a certain instant in time, but which will exist eternally. This soul is really what we are, the rest is merely garments. (Claims like this are influenced by Western monotheistic religions.)

  What is essentialist about these claims or views? What do they have to do with suffering? After all, some of them were actually put forth to help alleviate suffering!

  It is not the mere content of the claim that says that you are an inner observer that makes these views essentialist. What’s essentialist is that aspect of the claim that asserts that this is how things really are. It is this sense of really-ness that is the essentialist component. This is the Western analogue to what Buddhism calls the sense of inherent existence.

  For example, using a Freudian model of the conscious versus the unconscious mind might help get a therapeutic practice going, which can help alleviate suffering when the therapy is successful. This is the conventional existence of the mind and its conscious/unconscious division.

  But if one takes this model seriously as the true and objective nature of oneself, then one sets up a split identity that leads to a sense of being divided and separated within. There are parts of oneself that one thinks are truly beyond reach. This can lead to alienation from one’s own self. The Freudian view can be helpful; it’s not the mere view that promotes suffering, rather it’s the “really-ness” of the view. Is the view embraced lightly or heavily?

  When you take something as inherent, essential or “really like that,” it creates a rigid, fixed border between that thing and you. If the border is fixed, then it can’t be changed without changing the nature of the entities involved. But if the entities are also fixed, then everything is locked into place by these claims and views. This sets up a way of thinking and feeling that encourages you to feel separate, alone and cut off from everything else. From there, it’s a short step to fear, anger, defensiveness, pride, loneliness, depression and alienation. In short – to suffering!

  The Antidote

  For every one of these claims (and many others too), there is an antidote provided by someone who deconstructed it or otherwise took issue with it. The antidote doesn’t come from the main stream or systematic philosophical tradition that runs from Plato to Descartes to Kant, but from the philosophers in what Richard Rorty has called the “dialectical tradition.”

  Whereas the systematic philosophers consider mankind’s task to be obtaining accurate objective knowledge of the universe, the dialectical philosophers attempt to transform man’s experience. This is an approach very much in accord with the Buddhist emptiness teachings.

  Sometimes the dialectical tradition is called the “countertradition” because the dialectical thinkers often engage in active critique against the dualistic metaphysical views proposed by the systematic thinkers. Again, the dialectical tradition is not trying to land o
n the absolute truth, but rather to help free us from limiting and unhelpful metaphysical views.

  The dialectical tradition doesn’t use philosophy to build grand systems, but to edify. To do so, the dialectical thinkers often take issue in an active way with the dualistic notions proposed by the systematic philosophers. The dialectic tradition stretches from the ancient Greek sophists, skeptics and rhetorical teachers all the way through the Middle Ages to Friedrich Nietzsche, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Martin Heidegger, Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida, to the postmodernists, pragmatists and anti-essentialists who are writing today.

  This Western dialectical tradition uses familiar examples, vocabulary and cultural references. The targets of the dialectical tradition are these same claims that have been offered as fixed, independent truths. The tools of the dialectical tradition consist of highly refined, clever, subtle and mind-blowing insights into the emptiness of self and the world.

  In addition to focused use of Western antidotes to the essentialist malady, there is also a simple, wide-angle way to gain relief. The very fact of Western diversity can be an antidote to taking any of these individual claims or views “to the bank.” This goes for diversity in general, whether among Western or Eastern teachings. The fact that many views and claims are incompatible with each other already provides a bit of breathing space and freedom. It is as though you can sit back and ask youself, “If these views are so true, then why doesn’t everyone agree?” In fact, this very same wide-angled approach to peace of mind has been used by Sextus Empiricus, one of the earliest and wisest Western non-essentialists.

  Before we discuss how to use the insights from Western sources, let’s take a closer look at two particular Western traditions. One is partly responsible for the essentialist malady, and the other gives us antidotes.