The Connotation of Emptiness of Emptiness

The emptiness of self (pudgala-śūnyatā), the emptiness of dharmas (dharma-śūnyatā), and the emptiness of emptiness (śūnyatā-śūnyatā) — what does the "emptiness of emptiness" here mean? Emptiness has three meanings: first, it means unattainable, cannot be obtained; second, it means the phenomenon exists but the substance does not; third, it means nonexistent, not existing. The emptiness of self and the emptiness of dharmas are the principle-substance of the dharmadhātu, or the principle, similar to rules, laws, and so forth — they are dharmas that are described and manifested. These rules, laws, and principle-substances are also empty; they are not originally existent dharmas that are unborn and undying, like the tathāgatagarbha. For example, if "self" represents one, and "emptiness of self" represents two, then not only is one empty, but two is also empty — this is called the emptiness of emptiness. For example, if "dharma" represents A, and "emptiness of dharma" represents B, then not only is A empty, but B is also empty — this is called the emptiness of emptiness. For example, there is no dog in the kennel, so the dog is empty; but the fact that there is no dog in the kennel, this principle, is also empty — this is called the emptiness of emptiness.

Not only is the self empty, but even the principle of the emptiness of self is empty; the phenomenon of the emptiness of self is also empty; the fact of the emptiness of self is also empty. If we place the self and the emptiness of self side by side, the emptiness of self is just as empty as the self itself. There is no dog in the doghouse — the dog in the doghouse is empty — and the principle that there is no dog in the doghouse is also empty; this phenomenon is also empty, and this fact is also empty. The principle-substance of emptiness is itself empty; it is not originally existent, not unborn and undying. If there were a dharma of emptiness existing, it would still not be empty; only when the dharma of emptiness is also empty is it truly empty — hence it is called the emptiness of emptiness.

Suspend this concept of emptiness in the mind of the manas and investigate it for several years, taking your own personal witnessing as the standard. Even if it takes ten or eight years of investigation, you must rely on your own personal realization and seeing; asking again is of no use. Even if the investigation takes twenty years or a whole lifetime, it is worth it. For example, the whiteness of white — no matter how I explain it or what analogies I use, others cannot understand it, and then it is no longer my affair. This "other person" actually refers to a blind person. If one wants to understand white, what should one do? One should see white with one's own eyes. Understanding never solves the problem; one must open one's eyes and see it personally. Because the blind cannot see forms with their eyes, and cannot see with the ear faculty, smell with the nose faculty, taste with the tongue faculty, touch with the body faculty, or ponder with the mind consciousness, they can only open their eyes and see it personally. That is why I often urge everyone not to keep publishing their own immature, unverified, merely understood dharma and then take it as ultimate, thereby becoming self-righteous and refusing to heed advice. Whether one's understanding is correct or not, it is of no use; only personal seeing is real.