Emptiness

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.”

The different views among the Indian Buddhist tenet systems concerning the difference between arhats’ and Buddhas’ understanding of the lack of an impossible “soul” of persons and phenomena.

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.

Aryadeva’s treatise discusses how to build up the positive potential for understanding voidness and how to gain correct cognition of the deepest truth.

Disturbing emotions and disturbing attitudes arise from our unawareness of reality, which is fed by incorrect consideration. With incorrect consideration, the confused mind projects something that is not there.

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

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

Non-conceptual cognition of the total absence of anything corresponding to our misconceptions about how we exist is the true pathway of mind leading to the true cessation of the true causes of all our true sufferings.

The Indian Buddhist tenet systems differ in their views of the voidness or total absence of impossible ways that establish the existence of something and in their views of what establishes its conventional existence.

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.