Emptiness

The various Tibetan Buddhist traditions differ as to the voidness non-conceptually cognized by each of the three types of practitioners – shravaka, pratyekabuddha and bodhisattva – when becoming an arya.

An overview of the ninth chapter of “Engaging in Bodhisattva Behavior” concerning the Prasangika Madhyamaka view of voidness.

When we correctly understand emptiness (voidness), we correctly understand dependent arising; and when we correctly understand dependent arising, we correctly understand emptiness.

When voidness is cognized conceptually, its superficial truth appears; this is known as denumerable voidness. When voidness is cognized non-conceptually, an absolute absence of truly established existence appears; this is known as non-denumerable voidness.

The difference between the Gelug presentation of voidness and that shared in common by Kagyu, Nyingma and Sakya concern the type of voidness that is cognized non-conceptually and how to attain non-conceptual cognition of it.

This profound text discusses how to overcome incorrect consideration of conventional truth and of deepest truth in terms of a vast array of topics.

Yongdzin Ling Rinpoche explains the Gelug Prasangika presentation of appearances being the play of the mind.

We need to know the basis, the conventional “me,” that does exist – then the false “me” that we are projecting on it, and then the negation and total absence of that impossible “me.”

With a correct understanding of voidness and dependent arising, we will avoid the two extremes of absolutism and nihilism, and then be best able to deal with the complexities of life.

The non-conceptual understanding of voidness will stop the tainted aggregates from uncontrollably recurring.