4. Emptiness of Inherent Existence
There is no such thing as a closed system. Although the Sanskrit word shunyata is accurately translated into English as emptiness, it is sometimes more poetically translated as spaciousness or openness, meaning that everything is an open system, neither isolated nor self-contained. The reality of interdependence demonstrates that, rather than things being cutoff from each other, everything is ‘wide open,’ interconnected, and interrelated.
| Non-existence | The Middle Way | Existence |
|---|---|---|
| Utter Non-existence | Ultimate Non-existence   Conventional Existence |
Inherent Existence |
Like anatman, the term shunyata is more faithfully translated as a phrase, always keeping in mind that emptiness is short for “emptiness of inherent existence.” What does this mean? Anytime we search for an independent, self-defining phenomenon, we come up empty-handed. However, this does not mean that emptiness negates conventional existence, only inherent existence (Skt. svabhava). As we shall see, a phenomenon’s existence does not indwell or inhere in itself but is merely a projection of mind, which is why we say that that object lacks ‘inherent existence.’ What is the best way to introduce this? In The Three Principal Aspects of the Path, Je Tsongkhapa says:
But, even though you may be acquainted with renunciation and bodhichitta,
If you do not possess the wisdom realizing the way things are,
You will not be able to cut the root of samsara;
Therefore, strive in the means for realizing dependent relationship.
The easiest way to understand emptiness, then, is to begin by meditating on dependent relationship. This has two aspects—the conventional and the ultimate—which are really getting at the same thing, albeit with different words: compare “every phenomenon exists dependently” with “no phenomenon exists independently.” The two aspects of dependent relationship dovetail perfectly. The first affirms dependent existence while the latter negates independent existence, making one just the flip side of the other.
There are three levels of dependent relationship: gross, subtle, and very subtle. First, gross dependent relationship tells us that any impermanent phenomenon is dependent upon its causes for it to come into existence. No produced phenomenon exists independently of its causes. By removing just one cause or condition, the object would not have come into existence at all.
We can take the example of a sprout of wheat growing in a field. This sprout could not be produced unless its causes, such as wheat seed, soil, and moisture, were assembled. Even after a new phenomenon, such as a sprout of wheat, has been produced, it continues to undergo change. The sprout of wheat gradually grows and eventually produces its crop of grain. We can see these changes taking place over a period of time, but we also know that on the atomic level countless subtle changes take place in the sprout every moment. All these changes, both gross and subtle, take place in dependence upon causes and conditions. (Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, Heart of Wisdom: an Explanation of the Heart Sutra, pp. 85-86, © 2005)
Second, subtle dependent relationship shows us that a phenomenon is dependent upon its parts. No composite phenomenon exists independently of its parts. For example, is a flower wholly different from its parts? No, the flower must be related to its parts, because if we take away all the parts, then there is nothing left to call a flower. Is the flower any of its individual parts? No, the flower is more than just one or two of its parts. A petal or stem alone is not the flower, and in fact none of the individual parts by itself could be called the flower. Is the flower then just the collection of all its parts together? (This is the hard one!) No, a collection of flower parts cannot be the flower because a collection of parts is just parts, but not the thing itself. Taking our body as an example, “the collection of all the parts of our body remains simply parts of our body—it does not magically transform into the part-possessor, our body” (Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, Eight Steps to Happiness: the Buddhist Way of Loving Kindness, pp. 195-196, © 2000).
We have already established that each individual part of our body is not our body. The collection of the parts of our body is therefore a collection of objects that are not a body. We can say it is a collection of ‘non-bodies’. It is impossible for the mere collection of non-bodies to be a body, just as it is impossible for a collection of non-sheep, for example goats, to be sheep. Since a collection of sheep is sheep and a collection of books is books, it follows that a collection of non-bodies is non-bodies and cannot possibly be a body. We can conclude that the collection of parts of our body is parts of our body, but it is not our body itself. (Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, Heart of Wisdom: an Explanation of the Heart Sutra, pp. 40-41, © 2005)
Third, very subtle dependent relationship reveals that a phenomenon exists in dependence upon naming or imputation by mind (with the ‘basis of imputation’ being the arbitrary collection of parts). No conceived phenomenon exists independently of imputation by mind. No object is more than the sum of its parts; the gestalt is merely what our minds are adding to the picture. That is to say, an object’s self-identity is nothing more than a mental construct, created from our side and not appearing from the side of the object; it is empty of an inherent self.
Emptiness is not nothingness but is the real nature of phenomena; it is the way things really are. Emptiness is the way things exist as opposed to the way they appear. We naturally believe that the things we see around us, such as tables, chairs, and houses, are truly existent, because we believe that they exist in exactly the way that they appear. However, the way things appear to our senses is deceptive and completely contradictory to the way in which they actually exist. Things appear to exist from their own side, without depending on our mind. We feel that this book that appears to our mind, for example, can exist without our mind; we do not feel that our mind is in any way involved in bringing the book into existence. This way of existing independently of our mind is variously called “true existence,” “inherent existence,” and “existence from its own side.” (Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, The New Meditation Handbook: Meditations to Make Our Life Happy and Meaningful, p. 107, © 2003)
Indeed, for a Buddhist it’s not a stretch to say that existence is in the eye of the beholder. What we see is merely an appearance to our mind from our mind. Everything is 100% subjective, yet we still think we are seeing things objectively! This distorted view of reality is what Buddhists refer to as the ‘sleep of ignorance.’ A Buddha is someone who has, quite simply, ‘woken up’ and enjoys the lucid freedom of his or her own mind.
Read next For Everyone Who Dreams of Freedom.