The Nature of Emptiness

　　Let us now return to the third and fourth aspects of the Fourfold Noble Truth that state that there is cessation of suffering and the way to the cessation of suffering.  Cessation means that suffering states can be alleviated and eventually terminated.  More

p.266

specifically, it points to the eradication of the desire or thirst (t.r.s.naa) and the consequent attachment (upaadaana) to the object(s) of thirst.  In more technical terms, it refers to the repetitive nature of life process due to one’s own making or the continuation of the nature of re-existence and re-becoming.[5]

　　The thirst of or lust for life is present always, to be sure, but to either overdo or underdo things by manipulation of the thirst of life is, of course, wrong.  Indeed, manipulation requires things that are set up as steady and enduring prior to any action.  The natural dynamic states must however be preserved or maintained at all times.  Thus the way to the cessation of suffering begins by developing and sustaining very normal but disciplined behavior: right view, right thought, right speech, right action and right livelihood.  They seem to be quite ordinary and easy to implement, but it can be quite difficult to maintain and sustain for a long period of time.[6]　Yet, it should be noted that they are a very important and necessary prelude to the way to end all suffering.

　　The ultimate test of the disciplined life comes next: right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.  They refer to the deeper nature of the meditative discipline that would finally carry the proponent to the last stage, i.e., to arrive at the stage of rare perception or insight into the nature of things as they really are.  Here then we see the fruition of the so-called middle way or the middle doctrine where the nature of things is seen in its fullness and dynamic relationship in a continual, uninterrupted sense.  The

p.267

concept of middle is not a figurative middle but one that transcends designation or symbolism of all kinds.  It is ironically a middleless middle!  More on this puzzling concept later.

　　Here it would be well to recall Naagaarjuna’s (c.150~250 A.D.) famous verse[7]　where he equated the middle way (madhyamaa-pratipad) with relational origination (pratiitya-samutpaada) and emptiness (`suunyataa).  By bringing together these three doctrines, in one grand swoop, he expressed the Buddha Dharma (the truth of existence) to cover the whole of existence and in turn to lay open the possibility of human endeavor to capture it.

　　Relational origination refers to the basic but subtle dynamics at play in all experiences.  It explains the nature of the rise of experiential events in terms of mutually relational nature.[8]　In this process, as stated earlier, the dichotomy between perceiver and perceived cannot be sharply distinguished, nor can the objects thus perceived endure in any permanent sense.  The evolving of experiences is constant, thus giving rise and substance to the assertion of a nonself doctrine.  Moreover, it should be noted that relational origination is normally referred to as the incessant process carried out by unenlightened beings, technically known as the perpetuation of the realm of samsara, the figurative spinning of the mundane wheel of life.  This spinning is based on the earlier mentioned thirst and attachment to the objects of thirst.  The wheel is popularly described by the 12-linked cycle that starts with ignorance (avidyaa) and goes through the empirical or sensual processes, and finally ending in old-age and death (jaraa-mara.na).

p.268

But the cycle is never-ending so long as one is mired in desires and attachments.  The whole cyclic process is at times referred to simply as the life-death cycle (sa.msaara).

　　The middle way is sometimes said to exist between the nature of existence and nonexistence.  But this is not only misleading but also inaccurate.  How in the world can there be a middle straddling between the two extremes?  Ontologically, this is an impossibility.  We have already made reference to the middle way concept.  It is a middle without a middle, figuratively or otherwise.  It is aloof to symbolism and points directly at the nature of reality beyond all human machinations.  In essence, it refers to the full existential nature that is beyond polarization into the extremes of existence and nonexistence.  In this sense, then, it can be said that the middle way is an ontological principle that focuses on the nature of realizing a full being.  It is, in brief, reference to the nature of ontological clarity and perfection.

　　We now go to the third concept of emptiness as equating to relational origination and the middle way.  These concepts refer to the selfsame nature, but the concept of emptiness is most difficult because it is gained or realized only by the successful incorporation of meditative discipline.   Texts, at times, describe two kinds of emptiness, i.e., (1) emptiness of the self and (2) emptiness of things or dharmas (elements of existence).  This division, I believe, is arbitrary. The reason for this is that the second kind of emptiness owes its nature to the first because, once the emptiness of the self is realized (i.e., attainment of nonself), the perception of the emptiness of things or dharmas is a necessary consequence.  The self and everything else are totally eclipsed in emptiness.  There is no exception and the empty condition prevails.