[AUDIO AND TEXT]
We see in Zen Buddhist literature innumerable references to “emptiness.” In the Heart Sutra, we have, “Form is exactly emptiness. Emptiness is exactly form.” Ad infinitum (or for some of us, it’s ad nauseum). So, what exactly is it they’re talking about? What is Emptiness anyway? What does it mean when they say “It’s empty”? What a strange term to use to describe “what is.”
A few nights ago, I was reading a book called The Quantum and the Lotus, A Journey to the Frontiers Where Science and Buddhism Meet (© 2001, tr. Ian Monk. Three Rivers Press, New York). This book presents a series of conversations between a molecular-biologist-turned-Buddhist-monk and an astrophysicist raised in the Buddhist tradition. Their conversations explore the shared ground of Buddhist cosmology and contemporary astrophysics. It’s really interesting and worth the read for anyone who has the chops to pursue it.
Anyway, in a discussion of string theory and its capacity to show us the nature of the universe (as is understood so far), the physicist ventures the theory that every “thing” we know is, at bottom, simply the vibration of a kind of string that, in its lifetime, can manifest as one kind of particle or another. And that none of these manifestations is permanent. They all change: now you see it, now you don’t. Is it, or is it not? That is the question. What it is now may not be what it becomes. Impermanence.
So, what do this assertion and its attendant question have to do with the Buddhist notion of emptiness? Well, consider this statement from the monk in the Quantum / Lotus book, about the “strings” that make up matter (form) that we can perceive:
These strings are obviously not inherently protons, neutrons, or electrons. This confirms Buddhism’s analysis of matter: an object’s characteristics do not belong to it. What exists is a stream of constant transformations that appear in various forms. (p. 107)
A stream of constant transformations. Empty of inherent existence. Simply a flow of existential transformations that we perceive as matter, as form. Nothing that we perceive has an inherent existence. The astrophysicist responds, in agreement with the monk:
Particles lose their inherent existence, given that the same strings can appear in different guises when they vibrate at different frequencies. If one of them vibrates in a certain way, it appears as a photon. If it then changes its tune, it becomes a graviton.” (p. 107)
So, until the “things” we see are perceived in form, they are empty of inherent existence. Form is exactly emptiness, emptiness exactly form. Nothing exists until it is perceived. Everything is, until the point of perception, empty.
Now, I can’t assure you that this perception of the form / emptiness dichotomy is correct, that it’s really the way things are. But perhaps this presentation of the dichotomy may provide a way for us to embrace the whole notion of emptiness. And of liberation, of the freedom of “what is.”
I have always, since my induction into Zen Buddhist practice and parlance, had questions about the use of the term emptiness. “Because it’s empty,” they say. Well, what does that mean, anyway? Puh-leez!! Having been raised in Western notions of explainability and rationality, yet still having maintained a certain doubt and curiosity, the question has remained: What does “empty” mean? What are they saying when they say “emptiness”? I suspect many of us have the same question.
To this point in my experience, I’m willing to accept this characterization. Emptiness means that:
- Nothing has an inherent existence apart from its living vibrations in the moment. That is, every “thing” is empty of an inherent existence. Every “thing” depends upon every other “thing” that is, every “thing” that vibrates in the field of existence.
- Nothing is permanent. Everything can and will change based on the conditions existing at any given moment.
- Now you see it, now you don’t.
At bottom, that may be what “emptiness” means. Now you see it, now you don’t. The Buddhist monk concludes this part of his consideration of emptiness with the following paragraph (p. 112):
What are the consequences of this understanding for our lives? Buddhism and physics have different aims. Physics stops at the description of phenomena [forms]. Buddhism’s purpose is to lessen our attachment to the reality we see before us: beings, events, things, even ourselves. For, if we attach ourselves to things as if they were permanent and solid, we think that they inherently have the power to make us happy or miserable. So it is that we give objects characteristics – such as “mine” or “theirs,” “beautiful” or “ugly,” “pleasant” or “unpleasant” – which are simply conceptual labels.
He then cites a verse to explain this truth:
When “self” occurs, so too the thought of “other.”
From “self-and-other” both, attachment and aversion come.
These two combined
Are the source of every ill.
I can’t pretend to grasp, much less to understand, the intricacies of particle physics or cosmology or string theory. But at this point, I’m satisfied to accept this formulation of the Buddhist notion of “emptiness.” Now you see it, now you don’t. No magic. Just what is.
So, when the word “empty” comes up in a koan or some other Zen presentation, maybe it’s possible to see the word in this light. Try it out, and see what you get.
Thank you.
EMPTY CLOUD ZEN 