The concept of emptiness in the Prajnaparamite tradition

Yangutov Leonid Doctor of Philosophy Head of the department of Philosophy, Culturology, and Religious Studies, Institute for Mongolian, Buddhist and Tibetan Studies of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences 670047, Russia, the Republic of Buryatia, Ulan-Ude, Sakhyanovoi Street 6 yanguta@mail.ru Other publications by this author

The concept of emptiness – (Skt.-shunya; kit.- ? (kun) – is the central concept of Prajnaparamita – the quintessence of all Buddhist philosophy. The whole system of argumentation and explication of Mahayana philosophy and soteriology is closely tied to this concept. It is the most characteristic and essential reflection of the basic principles of the doctrine of Prajna.

Due to its semantic peculiarity, which does not adequately reflect the content of its philosophical and ideological meaning, this concept has already given rise to many different interpretations from the very beginning of the creation of Prajnaparamita texts, around which various disputes have flared up. The idea of emptiness, the emptiness of being became a stumbling block for the contemporaries of the creators of the Prajnaparamita texts, including for the Chinese, who were actively engaged in translating these texts.

The difficulty of understanding emptiness as negation and non-negation was that the concept of emptiness was a new direction of Buddhist thought and came into conflict with its ordinary understanding, which required a thorough theoretical justification of it as a characteristic of being. Nagarjuna had to build a whole system of evidence denying the external characteristics of being, considered in the Prajnaparamita sutras as the emptiness of the external world. This system of argumentation of Nagarjuna, set forth in the Mula-madhyamika-karika, became known as "negative dialectic". In it, emptiness was viewed as a denial of the real characteristics of empirical existence. Their emptiness was proved by revealing the internal inconsistency of the content of the categories through which this being was described. Thus, for example, revealing the contradictory nature of the fundamental characteristic of empirical being – movement, Nagarjuna writes:

The one who has already passed is not walking.

In the same way, one who has not yet come out is not walking.

If we exclude the one who has already passed, and the one who has not yet come out,

the one who is moving now is not walking either ^{[1, p. 237]}

Now he is where he passed, he is not going,

And also, where he has not passed, he is not walking.

In addition to where [he] passed and where he did not pass,

It is impossible to know where the movement is ^{[2, p.172]}.

In Chinese, "Mula-madhyamika-kariki" was translated by Kumarajiva under the title "Zhong lun" (?,, the Shastra of the Middle). It says:

( (Chapter 2. )

In the already departed there is no outgoing

In the not yet gone, there is also no outgoing,

If you look away from the already gone and not yet gone,

It turns out that there is no departure (movement) in the one going at the moment ^[3].

Nagarjuna considered the concept of emptiness in the context of the concept of "middle ground". Mediocrity is the negation of extremes. You can't say what exists, you can't say what doesn't exist. This is the meaning of the middle. He demonstrates this judgment by the example of the denial of eight statements about birth and annihilation (death), identity and difference, coming and going, constancy and discontinuity.

The text of Mula-madhyamika-kariki begins with these negations. It says: "There is neither cessation nor emergence,

No annihilation, no eternity,

Neither uniqueness nor plurality,

No arrival, no departure.

There is only an interdependent origin —

Conducive to [the Path] and pacifying the vanity of thoughts.

This is proclaimed (established) Enlightened (Buddha).

I praise him — the best of the teachers who spoke ^{[1, p. 220]}.

I prostrate before the young Manjushri.

I prostrate before the perfect Buddha,

A teacher exalted among philosophers,

Before the one who taught the doctrine of peace,

Pacifying all fabrications:

What arises dependently,

Has no termination, has no birth,

Has no restraint, has no constancy,

Has no parish, has no care,

Is not a differentiated object and is not an identity ^{[2, p.65.]}.

Not born, also not destroyed,

Not constantly, also not interrupted (terminated),

Not identical, also not different,

Does not come, also does not go.

We can say that this is causality.

This is the ability to stop incorrect judgments.

I make a bow to the Buddha.

In this succinct expression, an idea of the median is given, which is demonstrated in the context of causality. Causality is concretized by the concept of emptiness. Emptiness is not in the sense of absolute negation, but the negation of the extreme. Visible births and deaths are relative. Relative are arrival and departure, constancy and discontinuity, identity and difference. Things have a relative being. This relativity is due to the law of causal occurrence. A thing arises depending on the cause, and since it depends on the cause, it is not self-existent, i.e., it does not have its own nature of existence. It depends on the previous reason. And since it does not have an independent existence, its existence is relative. It is empty. At the same time, emptiness is not an absolute negation. Nagarjuna pays special attention to this aspect of the concept of emptiness.

Comprehension of this illusory is impossible at the level of rational cognition. It is possible through the realization of Prajna as a vision of emptiness. The vision of emptiness has the meaning of wisdom, which leads to the comprehension of the highest truth, adequate to the achievement of Nirvana. The achievement of nirvana is a state of consciousness before which the world opens in its original suchness – tatha. This is a consciousness that sees the surrounding world as it really is – truly existing – truly existing. The ontological expression of the vision of things in their suchness is the concept of emptiness, which can be comprehended only in the context of the doctrine of Prajnaparamita. The term "shunya" in its literal meaning "emptiness", "nothing", "absolute absence of anything" did not correspond to the content that the creators of the Prajnaparamita texts filled it with. This term, the semantic basis of which is negation and absence, has become a convenient term for denoting that which is devoid of rational characteristics.

The indescribability in a rational form of a state of consciousness that has comprehended the Supreme Truth is the most important aspect of the teaching of Prajnaparamita. The consciousness that has comprehended the Highest Truth is identified with suchness (kit. - ?, zhu). It is a consciousness that sees the surrounding world as it really is - truly existing – truly existing. The concepts of emptiness and suchness are two identical terms that characterize the truly existing being. At the same time, emptiness expresses the true characteristics of being through the denial of its illusory manifestations, suchness – through the postulation of its original, rationally indescribable state. In the writings of Nagarjuna, the main attention is paid to the understanding of emptiness, which is considered in the context of the concepts of "median", "causality", as well as the theory of two truths – conditional and absolute.

Having declared emptiness an ontological characteristic of the rationally indescribable true being, the Buddhists faced the problem of characterizing emptiness itself.

B. Dandaron suggests not to translate the concept of emptiness, but to call it simply "shunya", since the interpretation by European scientists, "based on the literal meaning of this word, as "emptiness" and from logical reasoning derived from the concept of "relativity" (F.I. Shcherbatsky)," does not cover its true meanings ^{[4, p. 31]}.

E. Konze refers to the root of this word, believing that "with its help, the word void can become synonymous with the concept of the absence of one's own self." He's writing: "What we call emptiness is conveyed by the Sanskrit word shunyata. The Sanskrit word shunya comes from the root shvi: to inflate, to swell. Shunya literally means referring to something swollen. In the distant past, our ancestors, having a subtle perception of the dialectical nature of reality, often used the same verb root to denote two opposite aspects of the same event. They understood well both the unity and the separateness of opposites. So the verb root shvi, or the Greek word ku, is apparently something that looks "swollen" from the outside, but is "hollow" inside. Thus, our own personality is swollen because it is composed of five skandhas, but it is also empty from the inside because it is devoid of the central "I" of the self. In addition, the word "swollen" can mean "filled with something alien" ^{[5, pp. 174-175]}. In his understanding, "the terms empty and emptiness in the Buddhist tradition express the complete denial of this world by the effort of wisdom. The main idea consists in the denial of the surrounding world and renunciation of it, in the final departure and liberation from it in all its manifestations and in all its extent" ^{[5, p.176]}.

S. Radhakrishnan, in his fundamental study of Indian philosophy, says that "the term 'shunya' is understood in different ways. For some it means nothing, for others it means a permanent beginning, transcendent and indefinable, immanent to all things. The former is true for the world of experience, the latter for metaphysical reality" ^{[6, p. 568]}.

He asserts that: "It cannot be called emptiness or non-emptiness, neither by both together, nor by each separately, but in order to designate it, it is called emptiness" ^{[6, p. 568]}.

R. Robinson suggests considering the term shunya in the context of a certain system of description, as a symbol of this system, without excessive hypostasis of this symbol ^{[7, p.49]}.

From the above definitions of emptiness, it becomes obvious that it is impossible to give an unambiguous definition of the concept of "emptiness". Indeed, it should be considered in the context of a "certain description system". And, if we ignore the attempts to give an accurate definition of the concept of "emptiness" and look at it from the point of view of its content, then we can distinguish two main aspects in it. The first aspect is the content of emptiness in relation to the phenomenal world, the second – in relation to the true reality – the truly existing. In the first case, emptiness means that the objects of the external world that we perceive are unreal, that the external world is illusory. In fact, there is nothing that we accept as existing. But its absence does not mean the absolute absence of anything. In this sense, emptiness is not an absolute negation. She denies and does not deny. In the second case, emptiness means that what truly exists is devoid of any properties, signs and qualities amenable to rational description. In the words of Buddhists, it cannot be represented in thoughts, and also expressed in verbal characteristics. At the same time, emptiness does not deny the true being itself and is regarded as identical to this being. Here emptiness both denies and does not deny. According to S. Radhakrishnan, "Every denial depends on a hidden statement. Absolute denial is impossible" ^{[6, p.568]}.

The Chinese also encountered great difficulties in understanding the essence of the doctrine of emptiness. The concept of emptiness was transmitted by them by the hieroglyph ?(kun), which has the meanings: "empty"; "empty"; "hollow"; "idle"; "empty"; "without a trace". During the period of intensive translation of the Prajnaparamite texts, the understanding of the concept of emptiness was accompanied by fierce disputes. At the same time, the problem of understanding the essence of emptiness was solved from the standpoint of the Chinese mentality, their worldview. Her understanding has become a stumbling block for understanding Prajnaparamita. Various versions of her explanation were put forward. Gradually, separate groups began to form around one or another version of the interpretation of emptiness, as it was said, from which currents were gradually formed, which became known as the six schools and seven directions (Liu jia qi zong, ). The formation of the concepts of emptiness of the six schools and seven directions was greatly influenced by the teaching of Xuanxue () about the presence () and absence (?, y).

The first direction, headed by Tao An, is the direction of Ben Wu Zong (the absence of the root);

The second direction, headed by Zhufashen (), is the direction of Ben Wu and Zong (the distinction of the absence of the root)^[1];

The third direction, led by Zhi Daolin, is Ji Xi Zong (focusing on external phenomena);

The fourth, led by Yufakai, is Shi Han Zong (the contents of consciousness);

The fifth – led by Tao Yi – is Huan Hua Zong (of illusory transformations);

The sixth – led by Zhimindu – is Xin Wu Zong (the absence of consciousness);

 The seventh – led by Yudasu () – is Yuan Hui zong ( of occurrence through causality). Initially there were six of them, but the first one was divided into two: "root absence" and "root absence distinction"^[2].

Six schools and seven directions presented seven versions of the understanding of emptiness.

The first version of the concept of emptiness considered it as the absence of a root (, ben y) – the absence of its own nature – root (?, ben). In other words, emptiness as the "absence of the root" is considered as the absence of the original nature of all dharmas. The emptiness of the primordial nature of all dharmas is like the emptiness of the dharmas themselves (external phenomena). Tao An's interpretation of emptiness as the absence of a root came from the context of Xuanxue philosophy. Wang Bi believed that the root (), which is the beginning of "presence", is formed from "absence". Tao An focuses here not on the relationship of "absence" and "presence", as it was presented in the teachings of Wang Bi, but on the essence of "absence", which he considered in the Prajnaparamite context. According to his logic, if the "root" is formed from "absence" ( and wu wei ben), and absence precedes the manifested set of all presence, then the original nature of all dharmas should be empty ^{[8, p.224]}.

The second version, presented by the leader of the direction Ben Wu and Zong (the distinction of the absence of the root) by Zhufashen (), focused its attention on the fact that "presence" is born in "absence", and therefore allowed the possibility that many differences can be born in the void. The founder of the Sanlun school Ji Zang (549-632), comparing these two directions, wrote: "Tao An saw the meaning of the root of absence in the fact that absence precedes a multitude of manifestations, emptiness is the beginning of external forms, and the dharma teacher Shen (Zhu Fashen – L.Ya.), explaining the absence of the root, argued that there are no dharma forms (phenomena), "presence" was previously in "absence" therefore from "absence causes "presence" ^{[8, p.223]}.

The third version, ji si (focusing on forms (external phenomena), presented by Zhi Daolin, in contrast to the concept of "absence of consciousness", directed its denial to external phenomena - the emptiness of external phenomena. They believed that forms/phenomena (?, se) are not identical to their own nature. Forms/phenomena have no self, do not possess the nature of their own existence, and although they have an appearance, they are nevertheless empty. Through the emptiness of the form/phenomenon, the true nature is comprehended ^{[8, pp.242-243]}.

The fourth version of the understanding of emptiness, presented by the head of the Shi han zong school (the contents of consciousness), Yufakai, denied the phenomena of the external world perceived by consciousness, i.e. denied the content of what consciousness perceived.

The fifth version, put forward by the direction of the head of the direction Huan Hua (? ?, illusory transformations) Tao Yi believed that all dharmas are like illusory transformations (? ?, huan hua). And since they are like illusory transformations, they constitute a conditional truth. The soul has a true existence, is not an emptiness. This is the absolute truth. According to Tao Yi, if the soul is identical to emptiness, then how can the teaching be carried out? Who will perfect the Tao? Everyone can become a saint (attain Buddhahood), so we know that the soul (spiritual substance) is not emptiness" ^{[8, p.238]}.

The sixth version of the understanding of emptiness, presented by Zhimindu, considered it as the absence of consciousness - xin wu. Consciousness was interpreted here as unreal, having no permanent basis. The spiritual manifestations that make up the content of consciousness were declared unreal.

And, finally, the seventh version, put forward by the direction of "yuan hui" (the origin through causality), which Yudasu represented, justified the idea of emptiness through the Buddhist concept of causality. An Cheng (?)) in the essay "" ("Zhong lun shu ji", "Records of the Madhyamika Shastra" writes the following about this: "The seventh Yudasu composed a treatise " ?" ("Yuan hui er di lun", "On the two truths of emergence through causality". It says: since it arose through causality, in so far as it exists, it is a conditional truth. Since [the cause] is destroyed, insofar as there is no (ó), this is the absolute truth. This is similar to the fact that by combining stones and wood, we build a house. But the house has no original essence. Therefore, existence is only a name, and absence is reality" ^{[8, p.238]}.

The Kumarajiva school made a great contribution to the formation of ideas about the true meaning of emptiness. Kumarajiva himself translated the Prajnaparamita sutra, known as the Hridaya Sutra, in which the concept of emptiness was explained in a concise form. In the translation of Kumarajiva, as already mentioned, the sutra was called "Mohe bozhebolomi da mingzhou jing" (" ? ? ? ? ? "", "The Great prajnaparamita sutra of the mantra of great understanding". It says: "During his immersion (comprehension) of Prajnaparamita, the Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara saw the emptiness of the five skandhas, yin, and threw away sorrows and sorrows.

Shariputra! Since the form/rupa (se) is emptiness (?, kun), its manifestation/form (?, xiang) is missing. Since vedana (?, show) is emptiness, there is no manifestation/form of it (?, xiang). Since sanjna (?, xiang) is emptiness, there is no manifestation/form of it (?, xiang) Since sanskara (?, sin) is emptiness, there is no manifestation/form of it (?, xiang). Since vijnana (?, shi) is emptiness, there is no manifestation/form of it (?, xiang). For this reason, Sariputra, it is not true that emptiness is different from form! It is not true that form is different from emptiness. Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. Vedana, sanjna, sanskara vijnana are the same^[3].

Shariputra! The manifestation/appearance of all dharmas is emptiness. They are not born and are not destroyed, are not polluted, are not clean, do not increase, do not decrease. Therefore they are the dharmas of emptiness. They have no past, no future, no present. Therefore, they are the dharmas of the middle. There is no seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, there is no ayatana of manas; there is no dharma of form, sound, aroma, taste, touch. There is no sphere of visual perception, [there are no other spheres] up to the sphere of consciousness. There is no ignorance and there is no cessation of ignorance [there are no other spheres] and so on until the absence of old age and death and the absence of the cessation of old age and death.

There is no suffering, its cause, its end, and the way to it. There is no wisdom, there is no attainment. Since there is no attainment, the bodhisattva soul, because it relies on Prajnaparamita, is calm, does not know worries. Because she knows no worries and is calm, [she] knows no fear of fear. Having left all these illusions and sufferings, eventually falls into nirvana. All the Buddhas of the three times through Prajnaparamita achieved the highest enlightenment – annutara-samyak-sambodhi. Therefore, we know that Prajnaparamita is a great mantra! There is no mantra above it. Because it can eradicate suffering, it is true and not empty, therefore Prajnaparamita is a mantra. The mantra reads: GATE, GATE PARAGATE PARASAMGATE BODHI MATCHMAKER!" ^[9].

Kumarajiva's disciple Seng Zhao paid great attention to the concept of emptiness in his works. In the essay "Wu bu qian lun" (, On the immutability of Things), as was also said, Seng Zhao explains the essence of emptiness through the proof of the illusory nature of the external world, which he builds on the model of Nagarjuna's writings "Prajnaparamita-shusta" ("Da ji du lun", ) and "Madhyamaka-kariki" ("Zhong lun", ?)) through the opening of the internally contradictory nature of the categories by which it was described. Thus, Seng Zhao, following Nagarjuna, builds proofs of the absence of motion and time. At the same time, the very logic of Nagarjuna's judgments is aimed not so much at denying movement as at justifying emptiness as a real being. The main thing we should pay attention to is the initial premises of Nagarjuna's argument. According to Nagarjuna, everything that is real is consistent, and what is contradictory is unreal. This position has become one of the strong arguments of Chinese Buddhists in their judgments.

^[1] Both of these directions represent two varieties of the Ben Wu school.

^[2] For the six schools and seven directions, see: Yangutov L.E. Traditions of Prajnaparamita in China. Ulan-Ude. 2006.

^[3] It means that Vedana, sanjna, sanskara vijnana is emptiness, emptiness is Vedana, sanjna, sanskara vijnana.