About Nothing

About Nothing

I suppose you could say, Tenzin, the Heart Sutra is to the Diamond Sutra, as ajata is to advaita. While both speak of emptiness, the context of the Diamond Sutra uses various “things”—world, self, thoughts, etc.— to elaborate on their emptiness, their lack of “intrinsic existence” from the standpoint of ultimate reality. The Heart Sutra more clearly points out that the essence of emptiness, as ultimate reality, is that there’s nothing to talk about—world, self, thought, etc.—where there is neither “existence” nor “nonexistence” from the very start. But both of these pillars of Buddhism are hardly understood, even by those who chant sutras daily. To clarify the above, I’ll excerpt from two monographs of mine.

The Diamond Sutra first, in which Buddha converses with disciple Subhuti. One translator suggests that the Buddha spoke on this sutra’s subject matter circa 400 B.C., and emphasized “emptiness is the true nature of reality.” Buddha states that those who “gain perfect clarity of mind” (enlightenment), “do not create the perception of a self. Nor do they create the perception of a being, a life….” But this self-identity is normally a continuous one in our thoughts. In the enlightened sage’s thoughts, from moment to moment, he (or she) does not “create”—or re-create— this erroneous perception. In other words, he is “empty”

of such—and similar—false perceptions, and this results in “perfect clarity of mind.” In fact, all “things,” every thing, is similarly and equally empty of reality, because dharma is transcendent of “thingness”; by its nature, it is undifferentiated. So, that which dharma transcends – all things – are “unreal”; only the transcendent dharma has (is) reality. Therefore, even Buddha is unreal, to the extent that he is viewed as some thing; or, in particular, as a “self.” Likewise he would not, either, be a “being,” as an entity; consequently it could not be said that he had a “life.” The emptiness of things applies to conceived things, as well as substantial or material things. The (insubstantial) “self” is merely the prime example. To even say that there is such a thing as “existence,” on the one hand, or “nonexistence,” is to make a differentiation which has no reality from the standpoint of dharma. Thus, Buddha says, in this sutra, “In the dharma (reality) realized and taught and reflected on” by him (the Tathagata), “there is nothing true and nothing false.” He cannot claim any such thing. “The Buddha said…neither can someone who creates the perception of a life [his or others’], or even the perception of a soul [or afterlife], be called a bodhisattva.” He emphasizes, “No beginning [and thus no finite ending], Subhuti, is the highest truth.” Where there is no such thing as a self, there is no self which perceives a “world.” Where there is no self, there is no thinker who creates differentiated perceptions, or thoughts. “Subhuti, a past

thought cannot be found. A future thought cannot be found. Nor can a present thought be found.” “Subhuti,” said Buddha, “undifferentiated is this dharma, in which nothing (no thing) is differentiated.” And he said, as “an illusion…a bubble, a dream….view all ‘created’ things like this.” Subhuti comprehended: “Bhagavan, if a universe existed, attachment to an entity would exist.” “The Buddha said….foolish people, though, are attached.” He advised that each discover “the self-less, birthless nature” of reality; renounce “self existence every day”; “and master this entire teaching, and explain it in detail to others. For in that place, Subhuti, dwells a teacher or one who represents the guru of wisdom.” And Subhuti states: “Sages arise from what is uncreated.”

“Subhuti, those who are called ‘tathagatas’ do not go anywhere, nor do they come from anywhere. Thus they are called ‘tathagata, fully-enlightened ones.’”

Let’s look at the Heart Sutra.

Any phenomena which is considered to exist—material, such as objects/forms, or immaterial, such as conceptions or events—are characterized as “things,”through a multiplicity of “differences.” Without defining “characteristics” there could not be said to be any particular “thing.” Therefore, all phenomena are devoid of (or empty of) defining characteristics “naturally”: differences are not intrinsic to any elements which share existence, but are imposed

upon them by the human mind. Undefined existence has no independent “characteristics.” It is merely a universal Presence, or Totality. It is simply “empty” of definite qualities. Absent of any named appearances, is a Void. However, due to our relativistic tendency, our normal inclination is to visualize the Unnamed and Unnameable as contra-distinctive from those elements we have named or that are nameable. In so doing, we counterpose that which has no independent existence to all those things to which we have given relative reality, or existence—thus we ineluctably transmute “emptiness” into just another relative thing. In other words, forms and formlessness are inseparable in either their purported existence or their nonexistence. There is a qualification, however. We bring the forms into existence. Emptiness cannot even have the defining characteristic of existence. All conceived forms have a beginning and an ending, as contrasted with emptiness. The setting of the Heart Sutra’s account is a visit by the Buddha to a community of adherents at a place called Vulture Peak. His disciple Avalokiteshvara is saying to disciple Shariputra, with Buddha’s agreement, “Form is emptiness, emptiness is form…Therefore, Shariputra, in emptiness there is no form…Likewise, there is no origin, cessation, or path…” In a commentary on the Heart Sutra, the Dalai Lama has said:

“Emptiness constitutes the highest and most subtle understanding of the Buddha’s teaching on no-self… and this is a crucial point: even emptiness itself is devoid of intrinsic existence….

“Thus, meditative practice is negated. Next, the fruition of this practice is negated—‘there is no wisdom, no attainment’—by affirming the emptiness of the subjective experience…All the qualities of the mind of one who has reached nirvana…these are empty, and are negated here…Thus the emptiness of the mind is said to be the basis of nirvana, it’s natural nirvana….Emptiness is therefore both the means of eliminating the mental afflictions [confusion] and the resultant state that one arrives at after having done so.”

So, this is important for you to recognize, as a “Buddhist”; The empty mind does not make a distinction between relative awareness (“defiled”) and enlightened awareness (“undefiled”): both are without existence independent of the mind, or thought. The realized views both the relative and that which is not relative as the same in all that is witnessed. In emptiness, there is not anything to be “left out” or excluded. Awareness of the relative does not obscure awareness of the non-relative, and vice versa. You can see here, then, that the central emphasis of both these foundational sutras is emptiness or nothingness, or ultimate non-existence. This also relates to the teachings of no-self (nor other-than-self: “not two”) of advaita, and the even more pronounced teaching—sometimes referred to as ajata (definition: no creation)—that there has not been any thing “from the start.” [The Diamond Sutra commentary is found in Always Only One; the Heart Sutra commentary is from the ebook The Heart of Living. Dalai Lama’s book is Essence of the Heart Sutra.]

No Complaints?

Your advisory sentence, “Never let negative thinking gain the upper hand,” deserves further contemplation. In its own way, it’s negative thinking. This is followed by another advisory sentence: “Change your thinking, change your life.” And following this, you give the Shakespeare quote: “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” It is thinking that our thoughts are either good or bad, positive or negative, that creates much of our mental anguish; that is, unnecessary suffering. Why categorize your thoughts as “this” or “that”? Why not merely observe what is present—the actual fact of what appears on the screen of consciousness—without judgment; with “choiceless awareness”?

Why attempt to change your thinking at all? Why not be present with whatever is present, without wishing or hoping that it will be other than what it is?

In the anecdote which precedes your sentences, the person’s “prayer” is: “Thanks for everything. I have no complaints whatsoever.”

If, indeed, he now has “no complaints whatsoever,” it’s because he stopped making judgments about what is “positive” or “negative,” and adopted (whether or not he called it this) choiceless awareness. When we truly and sincerely say, “Thanks for everything,” we mean everything—not merely the positive side of the ledger. If we view either side of the ledger as needing to be changed, we’re letting “negative thinking gain the upper hand.”