Differences between Daoist and Buddhist understanding of emptiness

[Bindi]

"Engaging some comments made by Francois Jullien in A Treatise on Efficacy serves well to begin articulating a Daoist sense of emptiness. According to Jullien:

 

There are two ways to understand emptiness. One is an emptiness of inexistence, seen from the metaphysical point of view of being or nonbeing: this is the emptiness of Buddhism (sunya in Sanskrit; cf. kong [空] in Chinese). The other is the functional emptiness of  Laozi (the notion of  xu [虚])… The two are radically different, although some people have been tempted to confuse them, and, as a result, they have become contaminated. (It is well known that, in part at least, it was on the basis of that misunderstanding that Buddhism… penetrated China. That is, after all, perfectly understandable, since the only way to assimilate thought from outside is by misunderstanding it)."

 

What follows in the spoiler is an in depth examination of Jullien's statement by Ryan Shriver, especially focusing on the meaning of 'kong' and 'xu' from section II in Shriver's paper here.

Spoiler

 

Just how “radically” different are kong and xu? Jullien is right insofar as kong is used for the Sanskrit sunyata by Chinese Buddhism and xu is used frequently in the Daodejing . But characterizing kong as simply pointing to the non-being side of a being or nonbeing metaphysics is selling kong a bit short. For the Chinese tradition of Hua-yen Buddhism kong does indeed infer a kind of non- being. This non-being is not simply the other side of a metaphysically ultimate Being and thus some kind of absolute Void or Nothingness.Kong instead points to the non-existence or lack of a self-sufficient essence of all things. This, in turn is the keystone for the central idea of dharma-dhātu pratītya-samutpādaor “the interdependent arising which is the universe”. This is the idea that everything in the world at the same time causes and is identical with everything else. In addition each thing retains its uniqueness in relation to the total continuity. Things and emptiness are unremittingly interdependent. “[E]mptiness cannot exist apart from entities, since emptiness is a relationship between entities: they create each other, are thoroughly interfused, and in fact are one and the same thing.”

 

 This causal scheme of things is a synchronic rather than a diachronic account. Instead of looking for a temporally linear chain of events that explains the history of how an object came to be, the question of causality in the synchronic sense pays attention to this very moment and looks for the various web of factors that sustain this object as what it is without reference to its history. A classic example of this intercausality is that of the relation between a rafter and a barn.The barn cannot be a barn without the rafter supporting it. It would cease to function as a barn as it could no longer have a roof and thus shelter livestock and equipment. In addition a rafter without the rest of the barn is just a piece of wood. In this synchronic sense the rafter and the barn cause the existence of each other. For Hua-yen this relation extends between everything that makes up the universe. It is precisely these relations that are the unfolding universe. Furthermore all things are identical in that each one is the total cause of the rest of the universe. Thus everything becomes laden with value. Remove one precious thing and the world ceases to be that world. The dynamic process of the world is sustained by the intercausality (interdependence) and identity of all things. In turn what are commonly considered “things” are actually better characterized as events. They are a coagulation and a coming together of the multiple relations of influence exerted by the rest of the events in the web of becoming. By a synchronic account the intercausality and identity characteristic of each part that constitutes the totality of the world are just two facets of emptiness (kong ). So it may be conceded that emptiness as kong is a kind of non-existence or non-being but it is important to note that “the Sino-Japanese Buddhist tradition uses the term ‘non-existence’ to stand for a state of optimum fullness. It is a state of overbrimming potential for creativity”(Cook, 97). It is only with this emptiness that the fullness of life may be experienced. It is in this sense that it seems reasonable to see kong as “the latent background to all things—in the sense that one speaks of the background to a painting or a background of silence: that background constitutes a stock from which sound is produced and that makes that sound resonate, the stock from which a brush stroke emerges and thanks to which it can vibrate”(Jullien, 110). This is the co-dependant arising of all things by virtue of which each thing expresses itself individually in its relation to all the rest, considered in their own uniqueness and totality. However, for Jullien those words are meant to portray an emptiness that is radically different from kong . One is thus lead to question just how potent the radicality of the difference between kong and xu really is.

 

Though perhaps Jullien does have a point regarding what he refers to as their “confusion”. It is fairly non-controversial to claim a link between Hua-yen Buddhism and Daoism. It is clear they both share the ideas of the ceaseless self-transformation of the world and a penetrating interdependence of things as events. Hua-yen is often seen as a very “Chinese” Buddhism and there is little doubt that its premier architect, Fa-tsang, was well versed in the Daoist literature. Jullien seems to be on to something in the sense that Hua-yen may have imputed some of the Daoist connotations of emptiness into the interpretation of sunyata. The use of Daoist terms and concepts in the translations of newly imported Buddhist texts seems to have been a fairly common practice. It is not too far afield to insinuate that Hua-yen tends to highlight a world pulsing with emptiness in part due to influence from Daoism. The contemporary Hua-yen scholar Francis H. Cook acknowledges “that the use of Taoist terms as substitutes for the Sanskrit sometimes gave shades of meaning to the Indian concept which were foreign to it” (Cook, 125). By this then it seems as though it would not be kong that is radically different from Daoist emptiness, representing the integration of that very sense of emptiness into sunyata as it does. Rather, if anything, the radical difference is with those older depictions of  sunyata in Sanskrit and xu.

 

But to see this Daoist influence on Buddhism as by necessity a “contamination”and a “misunderstanding” seems to overstate the stasis of the terms rather than to see the value of the evolution and processual development of one of the world’s great traditions. Jullien portrays xu

as the sense of functional emptiness in the Daodejing . It should be noted though, and Jullien would surely agreed, that for the Daoist there is a cluster of characters that are used to portray this functional sense of emptiness; xu and kong hardly exhaust the possibilities of expounding Daoist emptiness. The point of the above discussion is to illustrate that kong should not be divorced as irrelevant from this cluster. Its field of meaning and affiliations are quite relevant and informing for a discussion of emptiness and Daoism. The discourse can now progress to regard generally the field of functionality and dimensions of emptiness in Daoism and focus specifically on the dynamics of kong and xu.As for the sense of emptiness that Jullien wants to cultivate, by use of  xu, functionality and concrete efficacy are of central importance. A good case in point is Daodejing chapter 11(which actually makes extensive use of wu). The functionality and usefulness of a hub, a pot and a room each arise from emptiness, that of the hub which allows the axle to rotate, the emptiness of the pot which allows it to become full and the emptiness of the room which allows one to dwell with the empty holes in the walls that provide the light and the possibility of entrance and exit. Quite concretely, this emptiness is efficacious. This emptiness never stands alone. It is by virtue of this emptiness that fullness may become. There is a dynamicity between and an interplay of opposites that produces an effect. With the Daodejing chapter 5 it can be seen how this concrete efficacious emptiness of  xu may be applied to more general contexts. With the image of a bellows, a common enough thing in the world, and its ability to produce effects (fuel fires that warm bodies and forge metals) by virtue of the emptiness within the pump one comes to see all that happens between the heavens (tian,天) and earth (di,地). The possibilities for the fluctuation, application and permeation of emptiness are vast and wide. The bellows, as one presence, of two handles,efficacious by virtue of emptiness, is imagery with significant connotations that correspond to the previously discussed question regarding facilitation of the interplay of dao (nameless) and de (named) in their emergence. It is emptiness that facilitates emergence of dao and de as two handles of a bellows. Though it is not as though they come from or out of some absolute void; the three are interdependent and co-arising as one may see with Daodejing chapter 42:

 

Way-making gives rise to continuity,

Continuity gives rise to difference,

Difference gives rise to plurality,

And plurality gives rise to the manifold of everything that is happening (wanwu).

 

All is continuous with dao. With continuity there arises uniqueness and particularity dao and de are co-dependent and mutually entailing. There is thus difference. The difference itself between dao and de is precisely efficacious emptiness and hence with all three the plurality of the processual happenings emerges. As one may see from the end of Daodejing chapter 25 non-exclusive levels of emulation permeate the grand process. Human beings emulate the earth, The earth emulates the heavens, The heavens emulate way-making, And way-making emulates what is spontaneously so ( ziran[自然]).There are varying pathways and processes nested by degrees that rely on one another. Without diminishing its continuity between, emptiness too unfolds uniquely at differing levels. Both a general, continuous, field of kong-emptiness and a specific, particular, focusing xu-emptiness may be seen at play. Emptiness is emptiness but a divergent referent takes up different emphasis. Emptiness is openness and inexhaustibility.

 Xucan be a particularization of kong . Xu is everyday practical emptiness at work and kong is that unifying and continuous emptiness of depth. Xu is the stuff of nonaction (無爲) and kong is the inessentiality of things which reveals them as events, convergences and coagulations. Xu is efficacious because kong is the case. Together they exemplify process not essence. To point to kong is to point to interconnection and dynamicity (process) and xu is the emptiness between opposites that pulsate, due to their not being fixed (kong ). Kong opens the gate for the efficacy of xu. Though neither sense of emptiness is absolutized and thus requires its complimentary aspect.

 Kong entails entities and uniqueness and from xu follows fullness and use.Though emptiness is emptiness just the same, it becomes nested at different levels.Whatever the level, the permeation of emptiness spells out constant change and fluidity through an ineluctable interdependence of magnetized polarities wherein any attempt to stymie this fluctuation with an unwavering stance will inevitably be confronted by its opposite and be compelled to reevaluate the supposed worth of remaining fixed. It is on this point that the Daoist recommends cultivating emptiness as receptivity and openness in ones disposition hence the import of the emulating unworked wood.

 

 

http://www.academia.edu/226456/Considering_Emptiness_for_a_Dao_of_Language_and_Health

 

 

Edited October 18, 2018 by Bindi

[Marblehead]

Buddhist emptiness is absolute.

 

Taoist emptiness alternates between emptiness and fullness.

 

The Taoist "Empty your cup" is an example of this.

 

[Boundlesscostfairy]

Is emptiness as a concept..equal to nothingness?

[Marblehead]

12 minutes ago, Boundlesscostfairy said:

Is emptiness as a concept..equal to nothingness?

In my opinion, emptiness and nothingness are different concepts.

 

Emptiness isn't really empty - it is full of potential.

 

Nothingness is empty of potential.  (That exists only beyond the confines of the universe.  Yes, the universe is expanding into nothingness.)

 

 

 

 

[Apech]

3 hours ago, Boundlesscostfairy said:

Is emptiness as a concept..equal to nothingness?

 

No, that would be nihilism which is expressly refuted in Buddhism.  Emptiness in Buddhism is used in two compatible ways.  One is to show that 'things' do not exist independently - which is the result of analysis of the nature of phenomena.  On the other hand - when somebody realises emptiness (of thoughts and things) what is revealed is the formless nature of Mind, full of potential (whether expressed or not) and this also is called sunyata.  In fact it is the very same distinction made in the papers quoted in the OP as far as I can tell on quick scan reading.  But I would have to take more time to be sure.

 

Its a fact that when Buddhist sutras etc. were translated into Chinese the Buddhists 'employed' a Chinese classicist (who was probably a Daoist or Neo-Daoist or perhaps Confucian) to convert the text into good Chinese.  Many terms were borrowed from Daoism - but this was possible because some ideas were compatible - such as the non-being of the Xuanxue and so on.  By the time you get to a later period some of these ideas had been shared so much between Daoist and Buddhist masters that the borrowing was complete.  This is the so-called 'contamination' quoted above - which as a matter of interest the commentary in the spoiler box offers a critique of.

 

 

[dwai]

6 hours ago, Marblehead said:

In my opinion, emptiness and nothingness are different concepts.

 

Emptiness isn't really empty - it is full of potential.

 

Nothingness is empty of potential.  (That exists only beyond the confines of the universe.  Yes, the universe is expanding into nothingness.)

 

 

 

 

I'd just like to rephrase things this way --

 

Emptiness is full of potential but empty of "things".  Nothingness is not a nihilistic void but "no-thing-ness". Emptiness and No-thingness are not different. 

 

What Sunya means in buddhism is "Svabhava shunya" or "empty of self-nature". That mean that any "thing" is inherently empty of self-existence. In other words "things" exist only so long as there is a subject to experience them. 

 

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Sunyata

Edited October 18, 2018 by dwai

[Cheshire Cat]

There are many different understandings of emptiness in Buddhism. 

[Marblehead]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

I'd just like to rephrase things this way --

Sure, no problem.  But I'm remembering that you are a Hindu so there will be some variances.

 

[dwai]

36 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

Sure, no problem.  But I'm remembering that you are a Hindu so there will be some variances.

 

I'm a Hindu with Daoist training and Buddhistic understanding...so maybe variances are not that much  

[Bindi]

Emptiness in the early 'Philosophical' Daoist writing as well as the early inward training manual the Neiye seems to mean the value of emptying oneself, leaving one free to be filled with the Dao, and therefore led by it, to become One with the Dao. Emptiness in Buddhist terms is more complicated, but it seems to be the end result of practices. Emptiness full of potential sounds like a more Buddhist take to me. 

 

Quote

 

Daoism and Buddhism seem to have opposite but perhaps complementary motivations: Buddhism is primarily interested in liberation from suffering, and uses the metaphysics of emptiness for that purpose. Daoism, on the other hand, seems primarily interested in grasping the Oneness of the Dao, and the emptiness of the self is primarily a means for achieving that end. 

 

Emptiness: A Comparative Review of Classical Daoist & Buddhist Thought

By Eran Dror

 

 

So the next question might be what does being at One with the Dao entail? 

[Bindi]

An official answer from the academic Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is: 

 

Quote

Those who experience oneness with dao, known as “obtaining dao,” will be enabled to wu-wei .  Wu-wei is a difficult notion to translate. Yet, it is generally agreed that the traditional rendering of it as “nonaction” or “no action” is incorrect. Those who wu wei do act. Daoism is not a philosophy of “doing nothing.” Wu-wei means something like “act naturally,” “effortless action,” or “nonwillful action.” ...So, it is best to practice wu-wei in all endeavors, to act naturally and not willfully try to oppose or tamper with how reality is moving or try to control it by human discriminations.

 

This suggests that emptying ourselves of all conditioned discriminations is required by the natural flow of reality. I think Buddhism might concur with this. Perhaps the point at which they diverge is the result of releasing our conditioned discriminations. For the Buddhist the result is the realisation of emptiness, for the early Daoists I believe the result was "to be born anew" or become immortal.

 

The "Yuan You" (遠遊 "Far-off Journey")

 

My spirit darted forth and did not return to me,
And my body, left tenantless, grew withered and lifeless.
Then I looked into myself to strengthen my resolution,
And sought to learn from where the primal spirit issues.
In emptiness and silence I found serenity;
In tranquil inaction I gained true satisfaction.
I heard how once Red Pine had washed the world's dust off:
I would model myself on the pattern he had left me.
I honoured the wondrous powers of the [真人] Pure Ones,
And those of past ages who had become [仙] Immortals.
They departed in the flux of change and vanished from men's sight,
Leaving a famous name that endures after them.

 

 

 From the Chuci (楚辭 "Lyrics of Chu") 3rd-2nd century BCE

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 19, 2018 by Bindi

[Geof Nanto]

_ _ _

 

 

Edited October 19, 2018 by Yueya

[Marblehead]

7 hours ago, Yueya said:

_ _ _

 

 

Yeah, sometimes I run out of words too.

 

[Apech]

1 hour ago, Marblehead said:

Yeah, sometimes I run out of words too.

 

 

We are all waiting for that to happen.  Fingers crossed

[exorcist_1699]

Both Buddhist and Taoist emptiness are the same and they refer to something  absolute ,  ubiquitous  , not just physical but also spiritual  ( also notice that emptiness is not only an idea of space , but also an idea of time )   , yet there are differences between them : 

 

1) Talking about how to   grasp emptiness  and nourish something energetic and intelligence out of  it ,  Buddhism thinks that only by shaking off those formless shackles ( pseudo-minds  ) on us ,   especially in an one-stroke , abrupt way ( ie Zen's) , a  real mindless Mind  (Buddha Mind) will appear . However in the case of Taoism , it knows that such a process and the  Buddhist offer is  something  difficult and unlikely ,  so it  offers a  jing-> qi -> Shen path  to make it easier , in which  Shen is , in fact, that   immense , everywhere mindless Mind .

 

2) Taoism insists  that after having attained  that mindless Mind,  which is just other face of emptiness with same corresponding content and structure ( ie  no content and no structure)  ,  there is  still a  last , hidden step to complete , and  repeatedly  asks : " What was the last step  ( ' 末後一着 ' )  told by the Fifth Patriarch  (of Zen)  when  he asked Hui Neng  ( then the later  famous Sixth Patriarch ) to come to meet him at 3 a.m.  in that deep night  on a high mountain nearly 1,400 years ago  ?" ;   and that  " last step " is said to be  Ming  related...

 

*  Notice that you can't explore that  emptiness through physical means or  through philosophical reasoning  for any  such an application of an  idea , any  such an intention,  makes  your mind not empty   , so the only  possible way is  an emptied,mindless Mind with  the same  character  and structure ..

 

 

Edited March 3, 2020 by exorcist_1699

[Marblehead]

3 hours ago, exorcist_1699 said:

*  Notice that you can't explore that  emptiness through physical means or  through philosophical reasoning (  for any idea, even  arisen in the arena of spirit , makes it not  empty ) ,so the only , possible way is  an emptied,mindless Mind with same  character  and structure ..

I think you did very well with that.

 

Empty-Mindedness.

 

(That's singularity, not dualism.)

 

 

[Taoist Texts]

3 hours ago, exorcist_1699 said:

What was the last step  ( ' 末後一着 ' )  told by the Fifth Patriarch  (of Zen)  when  he asked Hui Neng  ( then the later  famous Sixth Patriarch ) to come to meet him at 3 a.m.  in that deep night nearly 1,400 years ago  ?" ;   and that  " last step " is said to be  Ming  related...

Who exactly says that? I would be interested to know the source of this legend.

[Bindi]

There seem to be these two different ideas about the goal of Daoism. One is emptiness, one is immortality. To say that emptiness (even if qualified in some way) is the goal seems to be missing some major portion of Daoist thought. 

 

Livia Kohn, Ph. D., Professor of Religion and East Asian Studies whose specialty was the study of  Daoist religion and Chinese long life practices and who has written 12 books on Daoism writes:

 

Spiritual immortality, the goal of Daoism, raises the practices to a yet higher level. To attain it, people have to transform all their qi into primordial qi and proceed to refine it to subtler levels. This finer qi will eventually turn into pure spirit, with which practitioners increasingly identify to become transcendent spirit-people. The path that leads there involves intensive meditation and trance training as well as more radical forms of diet and other longevity practices. Immortality implies the overcoming of the natural tendencies of the body and its transformation into a different kind of qi-constellation. The result is a bypassing of death, so that the end of the body has no impact on the continuation of the spirit-person. In addition, practitioners attain supersensory powers and eventually gain residence in wondrous otherworldly paradises.

Livia Kohn, Health and Long Life: The Chinese Way

 

 

This is a Daoist site, why is this not being recognised as Daoism? 

 

 

 

Edited October 22, 2018 by Bindi

[Marblehead]

4 hours ago, Bindi said:

This is a Daoist site, why is this not being recognised as Daoism? 

For me, it's because it looks too much like voodoo.

 

[exorcist_1699]

On 2018/10/21 at 8:31 PM, Marblehead said:

I think you did very well with that.

 

Empty-Mindedness.

 

(That's singularity, not dualism.)

 

 

:-)  you know my answer.

[exorcist_1699]

On 2018/10/21 at 8:36 PM, Taoist Texts said:

Who exactly says that? I would be interested to know the source of this legend.

 

Hardly anything my creation, will tell you later.

[Taoist Texts]

Thanks. i vaguely remember something like this in WLP writings, wanted to make sure.

[Taoist Texts]

6 hours ago, Marblehead said:

For me, it's because it looks too much like voodoo.

 

  its the voodoo that we doodoo

[KuroShiro]

12 hours ago, Marblehead said:

For me, it's because it looks too much like voodoo.

 

 

Acupuncture can be used on a human dummy to heal a patient that's far away.

[Marblehead]

12 hours ago, KuroShiro said:

 

Acupuncture can be used on a human dummy to heal a patient that's far away.

I'm not going to say anything negative about acupuncture.  And I likely won't say anything negative about "healing at a distance".