The Connotation of the Emptiness of Emptiness

Self-emptiness (the emptiness of self), dharma-emptiness, and the emptiness of emptiness—what does "emptiness of emptiness" mean here? Emptiness has several meanings: first, it means unobtainable, that which cannot be gotten; 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 dharma realm, or principles, similar to rules and laws—these are dharmas that are described and manifested. These rules, laws, and principle-substances are also empty; they are not originally existing dharmas like the tathāgatagarbha, which neither arise nor cease. For example, if "self" represents one and "self-emptiness" represents two, not only is one empty, but two is also empty—this is called the emptiness of emptiness. For example, if "dharma" represents A and "dharma-emptiness" represents B, 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: the dog is empty, and 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 self-emptiness is empty; the phenomenon of self-emptiness is also empty, and the matter of self-emptiness is also empty. If we place the self and self-emptiness side by side, self-emptiness is just as empty as the self. 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 matter is also empty. The principle-substance of emptiness is itself empty; it is not originally existing, not unborn and unceasing. If there were a dharma of emptiness existing, that would still not be empty; only when the dharma of emptiness is itself empty is it truly empty. Hence it is called the emptiness of emptiness.

Take the concept of emptiness and suspend it 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 others 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" is in fact a blind person. If one wants to understand white, what should be done? 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, and they cannot see with the ear faculty, smell with the nose faculty, taste with the tongue faculty, touch with the body faculty, or figure it out with the mind consciousness, they can only open their eyes and see it for themselves. That is why I often urge everyone: do not keep publishing your 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.