Like the concept of the middle way, the term “emptiness” has suffered in translation.  For example, it is equated with vacuity, void and nothingness, all of which distorted in some way to mean literally total eradication or nonexistence as such.  This

p.269

misinterpretation must be corrected.  Emptiness, in the true sense, refers to an existential nature derived from experiences that had undergone a “cleansing” process by way of meditative discipline.  It still has an experiential content, albeit a unique form that now sees everything indiscriminately fresh and whole.  Consequently, the three concepts of relational origination, middle way and emptiness are nothing but a focusing of the selfsame reality.  They refer to the subtle aspects of experience each is going through, albeit without actually cognizing the evolving process of any or all three of the aspects.  This is of course expected since they are unique concepts that can only be known or unraveled as an aspirant begins to develop the novel and inordinate nature of one’s perception through patient and steady practice of meditative discipline.  We must keep this in mind as we move on to the final section on the nature of Buddhist ethics.

Buddhist Ethics

　　We will now concentrate on the concept of emptiness and how it plays a central role in implementing a decidedly Buddhist form of ethics.  In doing so, we must not forget that the concept of emptiness involves vitally the other two concepts of relational origination and the middle way.

　　Buddhist texts constantly harp on the need to “seeing the Buddha-nature” or “seeing into one’s nature,” especially in Zen (Ch’an) texts, such as, The Platform Suutra of the Sixth Patriarch.[9]　The reference to “Buddha-nature,” or “one’s nature” is the state of pristine, clear and unblemished nature of experience successfully derived as a result of meditative discipline.  By contrast, we are blindsided by taking perceptual objects as real and attaching to

p.270

them, all of which become fodder for the conceptual mill.  As stated earlier, we become accustomed to the abstract nature of perceptual objects and have given them unwarranted experiential status.

　　Be that as it may, the next important step is to explore and seek an understanding of what we mean by seeing relative to the Buddha-nature and one’s nature.  “Seeing” undoubtedly is a perceptual function and thus the question arises, “How are we seeing (the Buddha-nature or one’s nature)?” But this is precisely the point where the concept of emptiness becomes prominent.  It was stated that perception is done under the aegis of emptiness which seems to be a rather innocuous statement but one greatly nuanced and not as easy to understand.

　　Perception under the aegis of emptiness is not the same as emptiness of perception.  The difference is that the latter is devoid of anything, a negated perception, whereby nothing really exists, literally.  It is simply a nullity or non-existential assertion.  We casually make these kinds of statements or assertions but the truth of the matter is that there is no such perception.  Simply put, a perception is either open or closed, or operative or inoperative.  If closed, then nothing happens; but if open, then there is some kind of perceptual content involved.  It is this very content that we are interested in pursuing.

　　As a meditative resultant, emptiness then plays the central role in delineating the perceptual content clearly and participating in its involvement in important ways.  It provides our perceptions to move freely, accommodating any and all objects in their purview and secures them firmly as if it were glue.  Furthermore, it is at the bottom of changes because it provides the characteristics of resiliency, receptivity, amorphous nature and succession of perceptions.  These characteristics are difficult to describe because we can only work with the results of our perceptions, however vague and unclear the actions might be.

　　In terms of our three concepts, emptiness is “full” because it

p.271

pierces the middle way and lies at the bottom of perception described as relational origination.  These three concepts are, as stated earlier, three aspects of the same perceptual process from the enlightened standpoint.  It is within such a context that perceptions of all kinds, whether blemished or unblemished, occur but, most importantly, emptiness refers to the plenum, the fullness of perceptions.  The lesson to be learned here is that we must emulate the perceptual process envisioned from the enlightened nature of things.

　　Human relations or relationships also occur in the fullness of perceptions.  It depicts an ontological solidity in the dynamic relationship created by the individuals concerned.  Such terms as inter-relations and mutuality are already inherent in any relationship but added to them is the most vital notion of dynamics.  Dynamics is more easily said than understood.  In brief, we usually gloss over this concept just as we gloss over such concepts as action, process, change, speed and motion.[10]　Nevertheless, we need to focus on these concepts, however elusive and irritating they may be, so that we could focus on and get a handle on the nature of ethics.