SHUNYATA
Sunnata. (Skt. Shunyata) "Emptiness" (sunnata) in Pali contexts is
not the metaphysical Zero (Nonbeing as the principle of Being, Infinite Possibility
as distinguished from Indefinite Actuality), but a characteristic of this world,
as in S IV.295 96, where it has been explained that when the Almsman returns
from a deathlike Contemplation in which consciousness and feeling have been
arrested, "three touches touch him," "emptiness (sunnato),"
"formlessness (animito)" and "making no plans (appanihito phasso),"
and he discriminates (viveka) accordingly; and the meaning of "emptiness"
'is explained at M 1.29, "emancipation of the mind by Emptiness (sunnata
ceto vimutti) being consequent upon the realization that `this world is empty
of spirit or anything spiritual' (sunnam idam attena va attaniyena) ";
sunnata is synonymous with anatta; of which it really only paraphrases and isolates
the privative AN. It is no doubt in the same sense that in A 1.72, "the
texts are coupled with `emptiness' (suttanta . . . sunnata patisannuta) ";
there is, in fact, nothing more characteristic of Buddhist teaching that its
constant resort to negatives (above all in the sense of the word anatta), which
even some contemporary hearers found perplexing. The denial of spirituality
to contingent things in particular is a denial of any real essence to these
things in themselves, and thus forms the basis of the more sweeping sunyavada
doctrine which in the Mahayana denies not any "value" but any essence
to even the Buddha's appearance and to the promulgation of the Dhamma itself.
If such a doctrine disturbs us, it may be found more palatably expressed in
the Vajracchedika Sutra thus, "Those who see me in the body (rupena) and
think of me in sounds (ghosaih), their way of thinking is false, they do not
see me at all . . . . The Buddha cannot be rightly understood (rjuboddhum) by
any means (upayena). Not that "means" are not dispositive to a right
understanding, but that if regarded as ends, even the most adequate means are
a hindrance. In such a radical iconoclasm as this all traditional teachings
are finally agreed. What is true of ethics is also true of the supports of contemplation:
as in the well known Parable of the Raft, the means are of no more use when
the goal has been reached.
Westerners have most heinously misapprehended common Upanishadic/Vedantic as
well as Buddhistic neti-neti (not this not that), and come, erroneously, to
a fallacious conclusion that Buddhism in any way whatsoever negated the Absolute,
or foundation of absolute being which lies before becoming and antecedent to
paticcasamuppada (contingent manifestation), for as Gotama advocated "(Udana
1.81) There is, an unborn, an unoriginated, an unmade, and an unformed. If there
were not monks, this unborn, unoriginated, unmade and unformed, there would
be no way out for the born, the originated, the made and the formed." Tibetan
stupidity and namely Madhyamika doctrine is notorious for misapprehension of
highly esoteric Indian via-negativa philosophical dialectic.
Uparipanna'sa-Att. 4.151 "Having become the very Soul, this is deemed non-emptiness
(asuñña)"
MN 1.297 What friend is emancipation of the mind by means of devoidness (sunnata)?
Herein a follower has gone to a clearing in the forest and the root of a tree
and investigates thusly: 'This is devoid (sunnamidam) of the Soul and what the
Soul subsists upon." This is called emancipation of the mind by means of
devoidness (sunnata cetovimmuti).
MN 1.298 The fixed unshakable emancipation of the mind is devoid of (suñña)
lusts, devoid of (suñña) hate, and devoid of (suñña)
delusions.