What is Emptiness

Thich Nhat Hanh — Winter Retreat 2013–2014 [Stillwater Meditation Hall, Upper Hamlet], Plum Village · 16 January 2014 · talk 18 of 24

Illuminates: emptiness (śūnyatā) is not nothingness or non-being — “emptiness has no opposite” · right view transcends being and non-being (the Kaccānagotta Sutta; Descartes caught in “being”) · form is emptiness read as matter is energy (H₂O ↔ cloud/snow; conservation of energy → no birth, no death) · the seed is neither being nor non-being (seed = emptiness, formation = form) · vijñapti = only manifestation (not “consciousness-only”) · Manifestation-Only as phenomenology — consciousness is always consciousness of something; erase the subject/object boundary · the Four Noble Truths in the light of mutuality (the first truth carries the third) · store consciousness reaches reality-as-it-is (tathatā) by direct perception (pratyakṣa) and is indeterminate (the problem of evil; the two retributions, → Verse 9) · manas as “the lover” grasping a part of ālaya as a self (body-view; the five clinging-aggregates; the camera / occipital lobe) · the three objects of consciousness (things-in-themselves · representation · mere images).

---

[Opening chant — French invocation to breathe and chant as one body, freeing us from the three complexes; then the chant to Avalokiteśvara, present here and now.]

This morning we chanted the Heart Sutra, and its most important word is emptiness. Sometimes we mistake emptiness for nothingness — for non-existence, non-being. But that is wrong. Non-being is the opposite of being; but emptiness has no opposite.

Right view transcends being and non-being

In Buddhism there is the term right view — one of the eight elements of the path — and the highest definition of right view is to transcend the ideas of being and non-being. There is a short sutra, the [Kaccānagotta Sutta], in which the Buddha defines right view as a view that transcends being and non-being. Being is one extreme; non-being is the other; and both are mere notions that do not describe reality, because reality is neither being nor non-being. In Western metaphysics a great deal of time was spent proving that this exists or that does not exist — for over two thousand years people disputed whether God exists, never reaching a conclusion. But in Buddhism we say: if God is the ultimate, then God transcends both being and non-being — God is neither being nor non-being, because being and non-being are just two ideas. That is right view, and it is very quick — it saves us a great deal of energy and saliva spent disputing. Descartes too was caught in being and non-being: “I think, therefore I am” — if he is thinking, he must exist. In Buddhism, to be or not to be is not the question. As practitioners we practice, slowly, to transcend the ideas of being and non-being — for the ultimate reality transcends them, and that “neither being nor non-being” is what Buddhism calls emptiness.

Form is emptiness — matter is energy

In the Heart Sutra, form is emptiness; matter is empty. We have to transcend the notion of being and non-being and erase the boundary between them in order to see the true reality. In the Manifestation-Only teaching we have the term seeds: everything is manifested from seeds. While something is still a seed, we cannot get at it — there is no form; to say it is “being” or “non-being” is incorrect. So the nature of the seed is neither being nor non-being. Seeds manifest as clouds, sky, trees, moon, stars — and these manifestations, which we can see as form, sound, smell, taste, touch, are all the manifestation of seeds. Every formation has its seed within it: the effect is present with the cause, and if we take out the cause there is no effect.

It is like matter and energy. In our heads we say energy is one thing and matter another — but in truth there is no boundary between them: matter is energy and energy is matter. Science found the non-duality of matter and energy. So when we say form is emptiness, emptiness is form, it is just another way of saying matter is energy, energy is matter — “form is not different from emptiness, and emptiness is not different from form.” Matter can become another matter, as a cloud becomes snow; but in cloud or snow there is H₂O — the H₂O is the seed, the cloud and the snow are the formation. And matter can become energy: the sun is a chunk of matter, yet it gives off sunshine and heat, which is energy; each day the sun wears off a little, but the energy is not lost — it becomes other energy.

So science sees that matter becomes matter, matter becomes energy, energy becomes energy, energy becomes matter — “energy is matter very diluted,” as one scientist said. Science is knocking at the door of metaphysics: it wants to understand the nature of phenomena, and calls it subatomic particles, or fields of force, or the strings of string theory. These are the nature of all phenomena — equivalent to the seeds, from which everything is manifested. That is why we call this teaching only manifestation. And science found the law of conservation of energy (the first law of thermodynamics): matter and energy are neither born nor destroyed — nothing goes from being to non-being, nothing from non-being to being. In Buddhism, too, the seeds are no birth and no death. So when a scientist and a Buddhist practitioner sit in conversation, they can shine light on one another.

Vijñapti — only manifestation

Store consciousness is “all the seeds” — one of its names is all-seeds — and it is the energy that maintains and preserves all the seeds, so that nothing is lost; very like the law of conservation of energy. In the form of seeds, unmanifested, they are called seeds; manifested, where we can see them, they are called formations. The word [vijñapti], which we translate as manifestation, means only manifestation; the prefix vi- relates to consciousness, to being recognized. Vijñapti is to manifest so that it can be recognized — so everything in the cosmos has consciousness in it, for without consciousness how could anything be known or seen, even the sun and moon? This is why it is better to translate as “only manifestation” than “only consciousness.” And what manifests is neither being nor non-being, neither wholesome nor unwholesome — that is the nature of all phenomena.

So we learn to use the eyes of a scientist, because Manifestation-Only is a teaching on phenomenology — the study that learns to look at the manifestation, the formation, of all things. The phenomenologists found that consciousness always possesses an object and cannot be separated from it: we always speak of the object of consciousness. This is very like Buddhism — consciousness is always consciousness of something. On one hand science helps us understand that all phenomena, as matter and energy, are neither birth nor death — only change, only manifestation — and helps us erase the boundary between matter and energy; Manifestation-Only uses that same image to erase the boundary between seed and formation. You cannot take the fruit out of the seed, the effect out of the cause — as the H₂O is in the heart of the snow. This is a deeper understanding of cause and effect: like father and son, we think them two separate people, but there is no real boundary — the father is a continuation into the future as the son. This is the truth of interbeing.

Erase the boundary between subject and object

So learning Manifestation-Only, we erase the boundary between cause and effect — and, as phenomenology also sees, consciousness always has an object, so consciousness and its object cannot be separated, and we erase the boundary between the subject and object of consciousness. Even neuroscientists are still caught in the duality between consciousness and phenomena — thinking consciousness is something subjective “in here” that goes out to grasp an object “out there,” as if each could exist without the other. In Manifestation-Only we learn that there is no boundary: consciousness and its object rely on each other to manifest, as cloud and snow lean on each other — they co-arise, they inter-are, they “wait for each other to manifest.” As the Buddha put it in simple terms: this is, because that is; this exists because that exists. Like left and right — a pair of opposites; where there is a right there is always a left; there cannot be a left without a right; the same with up and down.

Do not wish for happiness without suffering

From this we conclude that we should not wish for happiness without suffering. This is one of the hardest things to accept in this winter retreat: we should not imagine a realm of happiness with no suffering, nor dream of lotuses without mud. This is not despair — suffering can be transformed; in Plum Village we learn the very simple, basic truth that if we know how to suffer, we suffer much less. This is the art of suffering — and more: if we know how to suffer, we can make use of the suffering to create happiness, using the mud to grow lotuses. Suffering has its good function: processed and understood, it generates understanding and compassion. Happiness cannot be without suffering — so a practitioner is not afraid of suffering: one who does not know how to suffer may suffer tenfold, while we, knowing how, suffer less. There is no realm of only-happiness, just as there is no health with no possibility of illness; where there is life, there is pain — and to have happiness, we must also have suffering. The word for this is reciprocity, mutuality: if this does not exist, that does not exist.

So we read the Four Noble Truths in this light. The first truth is suffering — and the moment we open our mouth to say “suffering,” we know its opposite is there too; the first truth always carries the third truth (well-being, happiness), because suffering cannot stand by itself. To call the first truth pessimistic is incorrect: if we acknowledge suffering, we acknowledge that something else — happiness — exists, as the right implies the left. By the law of symmetry, the first truth is also the third. There is a story: God said, “Light, manifest yourself,” and Light said, “I must wait for my brother Darkness to manifest with me, for I cannot manifest without him.” God said, “Darkness is already there”; and Light said, “Then I too am here — for if that exists, this exists.” So we see mutuality in every phenomenon, and avoid a naive, falsely non-dualistic view. Looking into suffering we find the second truth (its making — living unmindfully, without right view, right thinking, right livelihood); and the fourth truth is the Eightfold Path, whose right view “transcends being and non-being.”

Store consciousness — reality-as-it-is, by direct perception

When we study store consciousness, we know it preserves all the seeds and energies, which manifest as this wondrous universe — the Milky Way, the silver clouds, the yellow moon, miracles of life. And store consciousness can reach reality as it is [tathatā] — things in themselves — its object. This is a mode of perception, and the nature of phenomena; store consciousness is able to touch things in themselves, which are the manifestation of its seeds. In store consciousness there is the dharma body — for in the Mahayana the dharma body is the wonders of life (the weeping willow, the silver cloud, the yellow moon), and store consciousness holds them all. So, beyond contact, attention, feeling, perception, and volition, store consciousness also has insight — for without insight it could not reach the ultimate reality. Why did the ancestral teachers not mention this? Store consciousness holds the truth because it has access to things in themselves, to reality-in-itself, and its mode is direct perception — direct and correct, without error. And both store consciousness and its objects are neither being nor non-being, neither wholesome nor unwholesome, neither birth nor death.

The indeterminate ground — and the problem of evil

In Christianity people are used to the label “God,” the notion that God is being — God exists. But God is more than being: if God is only being, then who is non-being? We have to say God transcends both being and non-being — and there are Christian practitioners (some in the Sufi tradition) who can understand this. Store consciousness is like that. Second, Christianity says God is goodness — but then are the things that are not good not of God? The beautiful spring belongs to God — but the killing cold of winter, is that not God? If God is only goodness, why did he create the things we see that are not good? This morning, reading the Touching the Earth text, a brother said: we are lucky, dear Buddha, to see that animals eat one another — the snake eats the frog, the tiger the deer — while we eat vegetarian food; the bodhisattvas have not the heart to eat the flesh of other beings. When we see animals eating one another, we see it is not wholesome; and there are tsunamis, hurricanes — did God create all this? This is a great problem in Christianity: if God is goodness, why does he allow evil?

Meanwhile store consciousness is indeterminate — neither wholesome nor unwholesome, the base of everything. Good and evil, purity and impurity, are notions belonging to human beings — to mind consciousness, not store consciousness. Store consciousness is the foundation, the root consciousness (the neuroscientists’ background consciousness); and for physics it is much bigger — it is the whole universe, whose nature is neither good nor bad, neither pure nor impure, neither being nor non-being. The pairs of opposites — suffering/happiness, pure/impure, being/non-being — belong to mind consciousness, not store consciousness, because store consciousness is undetermined. So in the Thirty Verses, when a human being is born, its nature is undetermined — and we, born into the world, see all this suffering and build all these mental constructions. Some theologians, reflecting, come to understand God as closer to reality: God transcends man and woman — Christianity long saw God only as “he,” never “she,” but that is all in our head. God is neither male nor female. If we hold an image of God, then God would be very young — for the human species appeared late on this planet, and there are beings far older. So our idea of God prevents us from seeing God: to see God we must drop all these notions — being and non-being, wholesome and unwholesome, pure and impure. Manifestation-Only is very clear that store consciousness is neither wholesome nor unwholesome, neither pure nor impure, neither being nor non-being — which is exactly the Heart Sutra’s teaching: the nature of phenomena is no birth, no death, neither pure nor impure.

Manas — the lover that grasps a self

Without great wisdom, how could store consciousness touch reality as it is? It has direct and true perception. But manas cannot touch things in themselves; manas only grasps onto a part of store consciousness. (The Manifestation-Only teachers disagree about which part.) In the sutra it is clear that manas has the view of the body — it takes this body as itself; and within the body are feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness — the five aggregates, which are as wondrous as the silver cloud and the yellow moon. But in the eyes of manas they are the five aggregates of attachment (upādāna-skandha) — not the wondrous aggregates but the deluded, appropriated ones, a possession. So ālaya is called the beloved, and manas the lover: every day manas grasps and holds onto this body, takes a part of the ālaya and says, “this is me.” Manas cannot reach the ultimate reality, things in themselves; it holds onto reality-as-it-is and creates an image of it — a representation. Like a camera: the scene out there is reality-as-it-is, but the photo we shoot is not the reality — reality is four-dimensional (Einstein), but the photo is only two-dimensional, a distorted image. We have such a camera in the back of the brain — the occipital lobe — which receives the images coming through the eyes, a primary visual area used by a secondary visual area. In Manifestation-Only we say that mind consciousness and the five sense-consciousnesses may, for the first instant, reach reality as it is — but in the second instant they lose it and keep only a representation. We see someone and love them — but the person we love is not the person in herself, only our image of her, which at first we imagine more beautiful than she is; through mental construction, things are no longer as they are but only a representation. So the object of the lover, manas, is a representation — “this body, and it belongs to me; everything else is not me.”

But this “me” is made of non-me elements — and manas does not see that. Manas is covered, obstructed; store consciousness is not covered. Because manas is covered, it cannot reach reality as it is; it has only a representation. For example: from afar we see smoke rising and think it is cloud — but something is being burnt. That is a direct perception, but an erroneous one: direct, yet wrong. If a direct perception is true, it is right direct perception; if direct but wrong, it is erroneous perception. Manas has the wrong perception, “this body is me and everything else is not me; this body is me and the environment is not me.” But we have learned that retribution has both the body and the environment — this body is sustained by the environment, by moon and sun and wind and air; without the body there is no environment, and without the environment there is no body. Manas does not see this; it always takes the body as itself, protecting and pampering it, seeking pleasure and avoiding suffering — so there is much error in it. Manas represents the mud: where there is life, there is manas, there is mud.

The three objects of consciousness

According to Freud’s psychoanalysis the “id” is simple; but in Manifestation-Only it is much broader — there is object and subject, and this is the energy that comes from the seed of vitality in store consciousness, which wants to continue, to go forward. So store consciousness works not only with the five universals but with the five particulars — intention, determination, mindfulness, concentration, and insight — and with insight it touches things in themselves. Store consciousness is the subconscious; it works with the autonomic nervous system to harmonize the body’s functions — mind consciousness does not do this work — regulating and balancing the inner landscape: it has homeostasis. Store consciousness preserves all the seeds, like a hard drive that remembers everything; it has insight, concentration, mindfulness — for without concentration it could not do all this work — and it takes care of everything (digestion, heartbeat) even while we sleep.

We draw a circle for store consciousness; a small circle inside is the body, another small circle inside is the environment (mountains, rivers). Between body and environment the water, air, and heat pass in and out — input and output — and we see the mutuality of the two: without the body there is no environment; without the proper retribution there is no locality. In the body are the organs — say the eye: from a seed the eye is manifested (the sense organ), and from a seed an image is manifested (the sense object); and on the basis of organ and object there arise the subject and object of seeing. Without one there is no other — both wait for each other to manifest; the subject and object of consciousness rely on each other, on a common foundation (āśraya). The object is the condition for the subject, and the subject for the object: without the object there is no subject, and without the subject no object — they are interconnected, interbeing, symmetrical. Each consciousness is manifested from its seeds and has its base; as in a camera, without the film the image cannot enter — film and image go together.

And there is a third object of consciousness: mere images. In a dream we see mountains, rivers, friends, enemies — but they are just images, not reality; mere images. There is a misunderstanding, from the time of [an earlier teacher], that this object is manifested from the subject alone — that we imagine an object that does not really exist — and this violates the teaching. A verse was transmitted to describe the situation: the object of reality-as-it-is does not depend on the mind — it is as it is, unchanged by the mind; while the object of mere images is manifested from the subject of consciousness, not needing an object of perception, coming from within. This verse seems to violate the symmetrical mutuality of subject and object. We know [Vasubandhu] lived in the fourth or fifth century and composed the Thirty Verses, and his elder brother [Asaṅga] also taught on consciousness — that is the classical Manifestation-Only. But in the sixth or seventh century other teachers, specializing in phenomenology, introduced the three objects of consciousness and the modes of perception (we have so far studied only direct perception and erroneous perception). This verse was first transmitted by [Xuanzang (Huyền Trang)] to his disciple [Kuiji (Khuy Cơ)], and its first line means: the object of reality-as-it-is is not dependent on the mind, while the object of mere images is manifested from the subject and does not need the object of perception.

We have learned many times that subject and object manifest together, at the same time. But for mere images — the domain of dream and imagination — the object relies on the subject and needs no object of perception: we imagine a turtle with fur, a rabbit with horns; these are creations of the mind, not found in reality. Yet even here the truth is that there is some stimulation in the central nervous system — the image rising from our “hard drive” — for otherwise how could we remember or have these images? So a mere image manifests as subject, but still relies on the object in store consciousness. Otherwise the verse would violate the law that subject and object manifest together — the seed manifesting as both subject and object, which rely on each other to exist. To say this image is manifested from the subject alone, without the object, is not correct. If we don’t yet understand, we will understand later on.