The Connotation of Emptiness of Emptiness

Emptiness of self, emptiness of dharmas, and emptiness of emptiness — what does "emptiness of emptiness" mean here? Emptiness means, first, unattainable, cannot be obtained; second, phenomena exist but in essence there is nothing; third, nothing, non-existence. The emptiness of self and the emptiness of dharmas are the principle-substance of the dharma realm, or principles, similar to rules and laws; they are dharmas that are described and manifested. These rules, laws, and principle-substances are also empty; they are not originally existent dharmas like the tathāgatagarbha, which is unborn and unceasing. For example, if "self" represents one, and "emptiness of self" represents two, then not only is one empty, but two is also empty — this is called the emptiness of emptiness. For example, if "dharma" represents A, and "emptiness of dharmas" represents B, then 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 dog kennel, so the dog is empty; but 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 also empty; the fact of the emptiness of self is also empty. If we place 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 dog kennel, so the dog in the kennel is empty, and the principle that there is no dog in the kennel is also empty; the phenomenon is also empty, and the fact is also empty. The principle-substance of emptiness is empty; it is not originally existent, not unborn and unceasing. If there is a dharma of emptiness existing, it is still not empty; only when the dharma of emptiness is also empty is it truly empty — hence it is called the emptiness of emptiness.

Suspend this concept of emptiness 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 further 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" actually refers to a blind person. If one wants to understand the color white, what should be done? One should see the color 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 with their eyes, and cannot see with the ear faculty, smell with the nose faculty, taste with the tongue faculty, touch with the body faculty, or ponder with the mind consciousness, they can only open their eyes and see it personally. That is why I often urge everyone not to keep publishing their own immature, unverified, merely understood dharma and then take it as ultimate, thereby becoming self-righteous and refusing to heed advice. Whether the understanding is correct or not, it is of no use; only personal seeing is real.