According to Thich Nhat Hanh, emptiness means that
everything has a cause. Nothing spontaneously comes into
existence on it's own. 'Something' caused the moon, the sun,
the stars.... to be created. They didn't just 'pop' into existence.
This is basically an application of the law of cause and effect.
This is referred to as 'dependent origination'.
The assertion is that nothing has 'independent origination'.
The example he gives with regard to people, is that we were
'caused' by our parents. If my father had not existed, then
he could not have conceived me with my mother.
This is a very old philosophical paradox.
The assertion is: Everything has a cause.
Question 1: What was the first cause ?
The answer, in Christian contexts, might be: 'god'.
Question 1: What caused god ?
errr....
(logically, If everything has a cause,
then god must have a cause).
similarly, for a buddhist context, we might ask,
what caused the circle of samsara ?
errr....
Labeling the doctrine of 'dependent origination' as
"emptiness" ... that's misleading language.
It reminds me of the misinformation, or misleading
information, that we commonly see in advertising.
A liter of juice with the label: "Contains 100% pure orange juice".
No, it contains 30% juice concentrate, water, sugar,
preservatives and salt.
The advertisers might argue that the concentrate was made from pure
orange juice and therefore the label is accurate.
But obviously, the label is just deliberately misleading.
We all know that the marketting managers have sales objectives,
their bonuses depend on making so much revenue.
And so the labelling on the packet becomes a vehicle for servicing
these revenue aims.
What was the initial aim, in labelling 'dependent origination'
as 'emptiness' ? Perhaps the use of this word was meant
to be rhetorical or poetic, perhaps it's trying to say that
physical things are of 'no value' or 'no importance'.
And dependent origination is used to justify this assertion
of 'no importance'
However, If a woman has a baby, would that baby be of
no value, or of no significance, because it's clearly been
caused by the woman ? Is the Buddha unimportant
because he was created by his parents ?
Significance/importance isn't 'out there'... in the world.
Significance/importance is in our heads.
So it seems to me that this 'emptiness' concept, is a
misleading name for a simple concept.... cause and effect.
I think people are wrongly assuming that 'emptiness' is a
deep buddhist truth, that must be grappled with.
I suggest, it's not a 'truth', it's a 'value'. It's meant to
prompt us into ascribing no significance to the things that
normally cause suffering: concerns about our possessions,
money, what others think of us, our health etc.. etc..
(Consistent with a reduction of suffering project)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-PWjt04g3Mbe happy
