there is no emptiness

I bet this is glaringly obvious to most of you:
nothing is "empty" -- everything is perfectly full or perfectly just how they are in their completely impermenant and unsatisfactoryness
but, they might just look empty upon first good look if we are expecting them to be full of a specific thing such as a self or something like it

Right? emptiness is just a concept to point out the fact that things don't have a self, that they end, and that they have no lasting effect

please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, I am new to all this

Hi, Mike. Tell us more! I struggle with this, too. You are certainly not alone.

Meantime, here's how I currently view it:

Saying a thing is "empty" is just a way to say that thing is void of any permanent essence. When I look at things, objects, my mind typically turns them into separate and distinct things. This is a habit. It's what we all do, how we all deal with everyday life and the objects we see, feel, touch, taste, sense, and think. My mind does this with virtually everything I encounter, including you and me. Even our langauge is built around the apparent separateness of things. Common sense is built around it. We all sort of agree to it. It's a convention we buy into. It's HARD to see the emptimess, the impermanence, the unsatisfactoriness. That's why I have to practice to be able to see it. But upon reflection and investigation, through practice, it becomes clear to me that the objects that appear at first glance to be so solid and so separate really just *can't* be that way. The illusory view is thus revealed to be the typical, common sense, conventional view. Nothing could actually exist without everything else. You can't remove anything from the universe without interrupting a massively complex web of causality and interdependence that affects everything.

Edit: spelling, typing.

Well, even though at this point I have no real confidence in my insights, at the moment it seems obvious to me that emptiness is only true in relative terms, i.e., because we think things should a certain way, when they are not we call them "empty." But, the things themselves aren't actually anything that could be called "empty" -- they are just what they are -- completely, perfectly, exactly.

(quick practice highlight: I'm noting more and more of sensations even when off the cushion. yesterday, for various reasons, I felt horrible near the end of the work day -- raw, sensitive, negative, a little sad -- so I remembered that all that was just "content" and I began to note the bad feelings just as valueless sensations that were happening RIGHT NOW. And, guess what? -- they didn't last. New ones came, of course, new ones of every variety came and went. Constantly.)

Okay. Let me ask you a few questions: Is it the meaning or the use of the word "empty" that's the issue? Also, what do you mean by "relative terms?" Are you saying that things appear empty because someone tells us they are or because we expect them to be "empty?"

I, too, struggled with the word "empty" for some time. I wish there were better English words for some of these Buddhist concepts. As I sort of said before, I'd substitute "void of any completely separate, permanent existence" for the word "empty" as I think that's more on target meaning-wise.

Edit: you edited after I posted but in your edit you described how your feelings are "empty" in a way I can relate to and agree with.

relative terms - by that I mean the word is only used in the context of looking at things and expecting certain qualities. if we look at them just as they are with no preconceived notions -- why would we call them "empty?" They wouldn't look empty, they'd just look the way they look. Things are only empty "of something," something specific. But this "something specific" they never had to begin with, right?

In our culture we always talked about the East and the West. But from where I am (California) when I look West I'm looking right at what was always called the "East." -- Japan, China, etc.
We say a teacup is empty -- when? -- when there is no tea inside.

I'm still not sure we're using the word "emopty" to mean the same thing.

"
I'm still not sure we're using the word "emopty" to mean the same thing.

"

well, that is very possible, and , if so, I'd like to figure it out. I could be off on some tangent that really doesn't mean anything.
but, isn't the buddhist concept of emptiness just the idea that things have no permenent identity?
that is what I am talking about. So, if you are looking for things to have an ID, then they will be empty of an ID. but they aren't actually "empty." all by themselves. Right?

"...when I look West I'm looking right at what was always called the "East." -- Japan, China, etc."

Okay. That's using the same word "East" or "West" in two different ways. How does that relate to using the word "empty" to describe an object? If we use your teacup example I can see two ways in which I can descnbe it as being empty:

1. It has no tea in it

2. It has no permanent, separate essence and does not ultimately exist as a separate, stand alone thing apart from everything else

In Buddhism we use the number 2 meaning of the word "empty" (just trying to make sure I'm not getting confused.....)

"... if you are looking for things to have an ID, then they will be empty of an ID. but they aren't actually "empty" all by themselves. Right?"

By "ID" do you mean name? What do you mean whern you say "all by themselves?"

Let's stick with the teacup example for a minute. I think we might have more success if we change as few variables as possible. I call it a "teacup." That's what I would call its "ID." That name, however, has nothing to do with the fact that it's "empty" in the Buddhism sense. It's "empty" in the Buddhist sense, which is not the same as the fact that it has no tea in it. Agreed? It looks at first glance to be a fully a separate, stand alone object with no connection to anything else. It looks like it could have just appeared magically, all by itself, just as it appears now. When I talk about it that's sort of how it seems. It has its own name (its own ID) and, seemingly, its own separate existence. But if we reflect on that, it just can't be the ultimate truth. The teacup had to be made by someone, made of things that were not previously called "teacup" because they were called "clay" or maybe "molten glass" or even "sand." So this thing we now call teacup is the product of an endless chain of events and causes, all bound together and inseparable from each other. The people, the processes and the materials it's made of are all part of that chain of causation that created that seemingly separate teacup. Everything we can see, touch, hear, taste, smell is like the teacup.

Can we agree on that?

No on the teacup example, though it may not be a great analogy:
we say it is "empty" when it has no tea because we are looking for it to have tea, but in and of itself it is only empty when you have the concept that it should have tea, though of course is also doesn't exist separate and alone.
The East and West thing is my way of explaining the term "relative" -- if you are in Europe and you are the dominant culture, then what you call East is what is East of you, and you call yourself the West because you are West of what you call the East. It's from where and how you are looking at things. Just like when I look at an opject and and am looking for a permenant self or indentity and I don't see one then I will say that is is "empty." but that is only because I am looking for something specific.

But do things really appear "empty" when you look at them as they are with no preconceived notions? I don't think so but it would be interesting if I am wrong about this.

Mike, I'm pretty sure we still don't quite agree on the the terms we're using, which means we'll just keep going around and around with little to show for it. I'm going to stop now and hope someone else will come along and do a much better job than I have of answering your question. Sorry.

"... when I look at an opject and and am looking for a permenant self or indentity and I don't see one then I will say that is is "empty." but that is only because I am looking for something specific."

I agree with the first part of your coment but and I still don't understand the second part.

Hi Mike,

"Right? emptiness is just a concept to point out the fact that things don't have a self, that they end, and that they have no lasting effect"

All is of mind, without mind nothing exists. The mind creates everything. There is nothing outside of the mind. This is how things are empty, in that they have no existence in an of themselves; they are a creation of mind. Everything is an appearence like a movie on a projector screen, the "things" on the screen are empty of existence. Things only have the appearence of being real. Everything that appears to the mind is of the same essence. Look in front of you now, you see objects. All these objects appear on the same "screen" of your mind, with no difference between them. Now ask what are they really "outside" of or apart from my mind?

This may not be making sense; so rather than confuse I will wait for a response from what I've said.
Thanks
Gary

Thanks Gary.
When you say "mind," do you mean something that is the product of our organic brains? Or, do you mean something much much larger?
Though you do say they are on the "screen" of my mind, which would imply that your are talking about my brain as well (the organic grey stuff in my skull).
I'll admit that right now I think there actually are molecules and atoms (made up of ever changing parts) and these molecles and atoms will be around when I am dead. And when all humans and animals with brains are dead there will be some molecules and atoms that exist, somewhere in some form. Things happen, things exist, it's just that when you look at them very closely they stop appearing solid and separate. But, they ARE there.
You seem to be saying something fundamentally different, right?

The Buddha's insight is that all things are impermanent (aniccam), unsatisfactory (dukkham) and void of a permanent self (anatta). They are therefore empty (sunnata); yet they appear in their suchness (tathata) as they are interrelated by the law of causality (idappaccayata).

Emptiness is not a negative of nihilist concept. It just means that everything is in a dynamic and interrelated state of flow.

Hi Mike,
When I use the word mind I am referring to your experience, not an idea or concept such as brain.

Lets work with sight. There is before you an appearence, and objects within that appearence. These objects are empty.
More questions please.

Regards
Gary

Gary, Alex:
Yes, things are empty, as in sunnata. But doesn't my initial point make sense? That sunnata is a concept to describe the fact that things DON'T have certain qualities. But, in themselves, with no pre-conceived notions, there is no such thing as "sunnata," it is just a concept to describe a lack of something, it isn't actually a something.

Hi Mike,

"there is no such thing as "sunnata," it is just a concept to describe a lack of something, it isn't actually a something"

Yes I agree, and now understand your point. Something and Nothing are dualist terms and therefore relative. It is not "nothing" either, because nothing implies something!
To arrive at this from where you did is great. You might also look at how the idea of "no pre-concieved notions" is also dualistic, there are no notions preconcieved or otherwise.

Thanks
Gary

Great, I thought I was really off base.
what exists, even if it of course has sunnata, is something you could put in a bag a walk around (even if it is a huge bag).
So, you can't put sunnata in a bag, you can't put "notions" in a bag, and you can't put "zen" or "buddhism" in a bag.
But you could put a leave of grass in a bag, you could put oxygen in a bag, water, etc., you could even put my brain in a bag (but not my "mind" separate from my brain?)

"nothing is "empty" -- everything is perfectly full or perfectly just how they are in their completely impermenant and unsatisfactoryness
but, they might just look empty upon first good look if we are expecting them to be full of a specific thing such as a self or something like it

Right? emptiness is just a concept to point out the fact that things don't have a self, that they end, and that they have no lasting effect"

That would seem to be a yes.

I think the key word from the paragraphs you wrote is 'expecting'. You wrote 'if we are expecting them to....'

I think that those expectations are, in large measure, the point.

Some of them are conscious and some of them are unconscious. Some you discover by thinking and contemplating. Others you find out by interacting with different situations and circumstances. One can realize that 'Hey, I was expecting something and I didn't even know it!'

Some expectations are difficult to extinguish even when we know they are mistaken.

ps. now might be a good time for you to reflect on the Heart Sutra. You might be in a mental space where you can appreciate it.

First quatrain:

Form is emptiness
Emptiness is form
Form is not other than emptiness
Emptiness is not other than form



And then it goes on from there. Check it out. Maybe you will like it.

"Gary, Alex:
Yes, things are empty, as in sunnata. But doesn't my initial point make sense? That sunnata is a concept to describe the fact that things DON'T have certain qualities. But, in themselves, with no pre-conceived notions, there is no such thing as "sunnata," it is just a concept to describe a lack of something, it isn't actually a something. "

Hi Mike,

I see. Yes, emptiness is a concept, a thought.
Emptiness is therefore empty.

"Those who see that emptiness is empty see reality" (Nagarjuna)

Reading the thread, I can't tell if you all got to this point or not, so I'll chime in with my 2 cents.

Initially I was very much on board with Mike's statement - I was thinking about things like "everything has a Sambokakaya aspect", noting that in terms of everything having a Dharmakaya aspect that you couldn't even talk about individual objects so it didn't even make sense to talk about their "emptiness," etc. This is what I finally came up with:

When you think about what it means that "the self is empty" what it really means is that one's conceptions regarding identity are ultimately false - one is not the clothes one wears, the roles one plays, the name one has, etc.

In the same way, when you see a teacup for what it is, in it's suchness - you realize that it is not a "teacup", a vessel for serving tea, or an item of cookware. It is what it is, simply, without the name or function we give it, with it's unique individuality in that moment.

Thus, seeing something in it's suchness is the same as seeing it's emptiness.

Does that make sense?

Yes.

"Thus, seeing something in it's suchness is the same as seeing it's emptiness."

Yep, two sides of the same coin.