The Emptiness of Emptiness

Emptiness of self, emptiness of phenomena, and emptiness of emptiness—what does emptiness of emptiness mean here? Emptiness, firstly, means ungraspable, unobtainable; secondly, it means phenomenally existent but substantially nonexistent; thirdly, it means absent, nonexistent. Emptiness of self and emptiness of phenomena are the principle or truth of the Dharma realm, similar to rules, laws, etc. They are phenomena described and revealed, yet these rules, laws, and principles are also empty; they are not inherently existent, unchanging phenomena like the Tathāgatagarbha. For example, "self" represents A; "emptiness of self" represents B. Not only is A empty, but B is also empty—this is called emptiness of emptiness. For instance, "phenomena" represents C; "emptiness of phenomena" represents D. Not only is C empty, but D is also empty—this is called emptiness of emptiness. For example, there is no dog in the kennel; the dog is empty. Moreover, the fact that there is no dog in the kennel, this principle, is also empty—this is called 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 empty, and the fact of the emptiness of self is empty. When self and emptiness of self are juxtaposed, emptiness of self is just as empty as the self itself. There is no dog in the kennel; the dog in the kennel is empty. Moreover, the principle that there is no dog in the kennel is also empty, this phenomenon is also empty, and this fact is also empty. The principle of emptiness itself is empty; it is not inherently existent, not unchanging. If there existed a phenomenon of emptiness, it would still not be truly empty. Only when the phenomenon of emptiness is also empty is it truly empty. Hence, it is called emptiness of emptiness.

Suspend this concept of emptiness in the mental faculty and contemplate it for several years. One must rely on personal realization as the standard. Even if it takes ten or eight years, one must personally witness it; asking others further is useless. Even contemplating for twenty years or a lifetime is worthwhile. For example, the color white—no matter how I explain it or what analogies I use, others cannot comprehend it. That is then beyond my responsibility. These "others" essentially refer to the blind. To understand white, what should be done? One must see white with one's own eyes. Understanding alone never resolves the matter; one must open one's eyes and see personally. Because the blind do not perceive forms, and one cannot use the ear faculty to see, the nose faculty to smell, the tongue faculty to taste, the body faculty to touch, or the mental faculty to ponder—one can only open the eyes and see personally. Therefore, I often advise everyone: do not constantly express immature, unverified, merely conceptualized Dharma, mistaking it for ultimate truth, thus becoming self-righteous and unwilling to heed advice. Conceptual understanding, whether correct or not, is of little use; personal realization is what is true.