The Connotation of the Emptiness of Emptiness

What is the meaning of "emptiness of emptiness" in the context of self-emptiness, dharmic emptiness, and the emptiness of emptiness? Emptiness carries three meanings: first, it signifies ungraspability or the inability to be attained; second, it denotes that phenomena appear to exist but lack inherent substance; third, it means non-existence or absence. Self-emptiness and dharmic emptiness represent the fundamental principle or truth of the dharmadhatu, akin to rules or laws. They are dharmas that are described and manifested, yet these very rules, laws, and principles are also empty. They are not inherently existent, unchanging dharmas like the Tathagatagarbha. For example, let "self" represent A; self-emptiness then represents B. Not only is A empty, but B is also empty; this is called the emptiness of emptiness. Similarly, let "dharma" represent C; dharmic emptiness then represents D. Not only is C empty, but D is also empty; this is called the emptiness of emptiness. For instance, if a dog kennel has no dog, the dog is empty. Furthermore, the fact that there is no dog in the kennel, this principle itself, is also empty. This is called the emptiness of emptiness.

Not only is the self empty, but even the principle of self-emptiness is empty, the phenomenon of self-emptiness is empty, and the very fact of self-emptiness is empty. When we place the self and self-emptiness side by side, self-emptiness is just as empty as the self. In the dog kennel, the dog is absent (empty), and the principle that there is no dog in the kennel is also empty, the phenomenon of no dog is empty, and the fact itself is empty. The principle of emptiness is itself empty; it is not inherently existent, not unborn and undying. If there were an existent dharma of emptiness, it would still not be 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 suspended within the mental faculty and investigate it for several years. Personal realization is the only valid criterion. Even if it takes ten or eight years of investigation, one must rely on one's own direct realization; further inquiry becomes useless. Even investigating for twenty years or a lifetime is worthwhile. For example, take the whiteness of white. No matter how much I explain it or what analogies I use, others cannot understand it—that is not my concern. These "others" essentially refer to blind people. To understand whiteness, what should one do? One must see white with one's own eyes. Understanding alone never resolves the issue; one must open one's eyes and see directly. Because the eye is blind and cannot perceive color, and 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 faculty to ponder—one can only open the eyes and see directly. Therefore, I often advise everyone: do not constantly express your own immature, unverified, merely conceptualized understanding of the Dharma, thinking it is ultimate truth, becoming self-righteous and unwilling to heed advice. Conceptual understanding, whether correct or not, is ultimately of little use; direct perception is the only truth.