The Connotation of the Emptiness of Emptiness

The Emptiness of Self, the Emptiness of Phenomena, and the Emptiness of Emptiness. What does "the Emptiness of Emptiness" mean here? "Emptiness" means: 1) unobtainable, cannot be attained; 2) phenomena appear to exist but are without substance; 3) non-existent, not present. The Emptiness of Self and the Emptiness of Phenomena are the principle-essence (理体) of the dharmadhatu (法界), or the principle, similar to rules, laws, etc. They are the dharmas (phenomena/teachings) that are described and manifested. These rules, laws, and principle-essence are also empty; they are not inherently existent, unchanging dharmas like the Tathagatagarbha (如来藏). For example, "self" represents A, "Emptiness of Self" represents B. Not only is A empty, but B is also empty. This is called the Emptiness of Emptiness. For example, "phenomena" represents C, "Emptiness of Phenomena" represents D. Not only is C empty, but D 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 the Emptiness of Self is empty, the phenomenon of the Emptiness of Self is empty, the fact of the Emptiness of Self is empty. Considering the self and the Emptiness of Self side by side, the Emptiness of Self 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, this fact is also empty. The principle-essence of emptiness is itself empty; it is not inherently existent, not unchanging. If there exists a dharma of emptiness, it is still not truly empty. Only when the dharma of emptiness is also empty is it truly empty. Hence, it is called the Emptiness of Emptiness.

Hold the concept of emptiness in the mental faculty (意根) and investigate it for several years. One must rely on one's own direct realization as the standard. Even if it takes ten or eight years of investigation, one must depend on personally witnessing it oneself; asking further is useless. Even investigating for twenty years, or a whole lifetime, is worthwhile. For example, the color white. No matter how I explain it, what analogies I use, others cannot understand it. That is then not my concern. These "others" actually refer to blind people. To understand the color white, what should one do? One must open their eyes and see white directly. Understanding alone never resolves the matter; one must open their eyes and see for themselves. Because the eyes are blind and cannot see color, 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 consciousness to ponder. One can only open their eyes and see for themselves. Therefore, I often advise everyone: do not constantly express your own immature, unverified, merely conceptualized dharmas, and then consider them ultimate, becoming self-righteous, unwilling to heed advice. Conceptual understanding, whether correct or not, is ultimately of little use. Direct perception is what is true.