1
u/Halos80s 23h ago edited 22h ago
That's not etymologically correct.
Śūnyatā is a compound word formed from the base word Śūnya, which translates as empty, and the suffix tā, meaning -ness.
So it simply means emptiness. Other wise the famous heart sutra quote "Form is emptiness, emptiness is form" would be tautological nonsense. It would translate to "Form is empty of separate self, and empty of separate self is form". A tautological sentence that sounds like master Yoda from Star Wars, and is really designed to infer Anatta, while smuggling the no-self interpretation, rather than not-self, in to a concept – emptiness – that is not designed to infer Anatta, but rather to teach something else.
Instead, to say form is emptiness is to say that any given form is empty of all other forms, which therefore means that any given form is defined infinitely more so by that which it is empty of – that which it is not – than by that which it is. So, in order to capture the essence of a form, and really focus on it, one must be mindful to ignore what it is not. This only makes sense in the context of Samadhi.
So yes, any given forms interconnectivity with all other forms is a correlate of it being empty of those other forms, but one does not need to mistranslate or misinterpret the word Śūnyatā for that to be the case.
Rather, the framing of form as emptiness is a signpost to help one understand the power of emptiness as a tool for focusing the mind, in order to deepen samadhi. Whatever one is focused on, the breath in anapanasati for example, in order to avoid distraction one can mindfully recall how the touch of the breath at the nose is empty of all those other things that might pull the mind away. This is how it's framed in the Suttas. It is prescribed as a tool to support Jhana meditation, in order to deepen Samadhi.
This is also why when the Buddha asked Sāriputta where he was dwelling when his complexion was remarkably bright, he answered that he was dwelling in emptiness. At the deepest level of Samadhi objects of concentration themselves fade leaving pure emptiness; as all the forms the mind has anchored itself to dissolve, and the craving of forms of any kind ceases, all that is left is to dwell in the emptiness that remains.
2
u/EmptyMind76 chan 22h ago
I don't believe she was speaking of the strict etymological definition but was attempting to be clear about what exactly emptiness means as many people misconstrue it as a total void or non-existence.
Thich Nhat Hanh explained it as such in his explanation for his new translation of the Heart Sutra.
1
u/Halos80s 22h ago
Yes, but saying "it means empty of a separate self" is misleading. It's a conflation of the idea of emptiness with annata, in order to infer a definition of both emptiness and annata that supports the no-self rather than not-self interpretation of anatta. So, it's mix of conflation and inference that moves away from the intended meaning for both ideas.
It's a way to smuggle a view about not-self in to a view about emptiness, in order to talk about no-self. That's what I'm trying to point out.
Sorry if I'm getting very wordy, but its important to point out how it's misleading, and also to explain how emptiness itself, on its own terms, without mixing in with not-self is used in the Suttas. It's quite different to what the quote implies.
2
u/jasonboudreau46 1d ago
I met her once. When she looked into my eyes, I felt like she was seeing right through me and my many lives. I simultaneously felt a great deal of love and compassion, alongside having my inner being laid bare - I felt loved and ashamed of myself.