Emptiness In Practice, Part 2
I’ll begin by sharing this story from the Blue Cliff Record, Case 2—a concise and forthright teaching on emptiness in practice.
Joshu teaching the assembly, said, “The Ultimate Path is without difficulty; just avoid picking and choosing. As soon as there are words spoken, ‘this is picking and choosing,’ ‘this is clarity.’ This old monk does not abide within clarity; do you still preserve anything or not?”
At that time a certain monk asked, “Since you do not abide within clarity, what do you preserve?”
Joshu replied, “I don’t know either.”
The monk said, “Since you don’t know, Teacher, why do you nevertheless say that you do not abide within clarity?”
Joshu said, “It is enough to ask about the matter; bow and withdraw.”
Last week we talked about practicing emptiness by opening the hand of thought, challenging our certainties (another way of saying not abiding in clarity), recognizing when we grasp opinions, judgments, and viewpoints so that we can step back from them and open and empty ourselves enough to experience and respond to the present moment just as it is. Practicing emptiness is remembering that nothing is fixed, permanent or independent, that everything always is in constant flux and arises from causes and conditions that themselves are constantly changing, without own being and connected to everything else. Practicing emptiness, we investigate and simultaneously avoid holding tightly to or reifying our ideas about things. We notice the mind that seeks to know and pin down a “truth,” and we drop our preconceptions (conceptions that exist prior to the moment we are living), pre-judgments (judgments and opinions that we hold inviolate regardless of the moment we are living) and to respond to the reality of the moment we are living.
I today’s talk I will share a way to practice emptiness by focusing on Nagarjuna’s Tetralemma. Nagarjuna was an Indian scholar-monk, philosopher, and teacher of Mahayana Buddhism who lived in the first century CE. In his major work, Mulamadhyamakakarika, translated as Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way, he developed the theory of Śūnyatā, or emptiness and dependent origination, as a way of approaching reality and existence. Nagarjuna is considered second only to Shakyamuni Buddha in his impact on Buddhist philosophy and practice.
We often talk about experiencing a dilemma. This word comes from Greek: di meaning double and lemma meaning premise, proposition or assumption. So a dilemma is a problem we wrestle with because in our minds there are two possibilities, neither of which seems unambiguously acceptable or preferable. When we encounter a dilemma, we are caught between two thoughts, beliefs, or points of view. This is our default mode of thinking, and our practice and Dogen’s teachings encourage us to recognize when this kind of dualistic thinking operates and to go beyond it.
One way to go beyond dualistic thinking is by practicing with Nagarjuna’s tetra lemma. The word tetra lemma also comes from Greek: tetra meaning "four" and lemma meaning premise, proposition or assumption.
The tetra lemma challenges our assumptions by take the di-lemma further; its challenges us with four possible points of view. With tetra lemma practice, we first move beyond a single point of view to experience its opposite. Then we embrace both views as co-existent, and finally, we let go of both.
EXISTENCE: The thing is real and present
NON-EXISTENCE: The thing is not real; it is absent
BOTH: The thing is both real and not real simultaneously
NEITHER: The thing is neither real nor not real
Another way to put this:
True
False
Both true and false
Neither true nor false
Tetra lemma practice allows us to dissect our grasping hard fixed views and fixations: we look carefully at how we use words so we can be aware of the contradictions that are always present in our ways of thinking. It encourages our understanding that ultimately reality cannot be talked about or pinned down using our habitual, dualistic language. We see that a particular thing we think we know or understand completely is actually empty in the sense that it lacks a permanent, inherent, fixed self; it cannot be pinned down by our thoughts, labels, knowing mind. Reject extremes of either or thinking
Let’s look at this thing we call a watch through the lens of the tetral emma. We can say this watch is real and present. I wear it on my wrist, and when I look at it it indicates the time. I can see the watch; I can touch it; I can hear it ticking. And because I perceive this object we call a watch, I am certain that it exists; that it is real.
And I can also say that this watch is not real. I can deconstruct it, separate it into its component elements. When I take off the back of the watch, I can see the gears, the batteries. Let’s imagine that I take the batteries out and put them on this table, then dismantle the gears. I can flip the watch over and loosen the face of the watch, and put that on the pile, then I can lift off the hands of the watch. I can take off the watchband and lay that on the table with all the other parts of the watch. At some point we can agree that there is no watch here anymore, just pieces of metal in a pile. We can also ask where did the metal come from, who mined it, what factory was the watch made in, whose hands worked on putting the component parts together, and on and on and on.
So this object we call a watch is both real and unreal. It does and does not have an watch essence, but like all things it arises dependently, shaped by causes and conditions. We can recognize that when the pieces are together, the watch is a watch; its gears tick and the hands tell us what time it is, and simultaneously the watch is not a watch in the sense that it has no inherent existence if we separate its parts. So it simultaneously is and is not a watch. This takes us to the fourth statement of the tetra lemma, the watch is neither real, nor not real. “Watch” is a linguistic convention we agree upon when we see this object in this particular coming together of all its parts. To test the four parts of the tetra lemma we might ask how a bear, or chipmunk, or frog, or hummingbird or any non-human animal would respond when it came upon a watch.
Just as we applied the tetra lemma to an object we can also practice with the tetra lemma to rationally test our opinions, beliefs, thought forms. How is this belief true? How is it untrue? Both true and not true simultaneously? Neither true nor untrue? We’ll come back to this in a moment.
Nagarjuna’s method is to analyze things so closely we are no longer stuck on any one thought, feeling, or belief; to investigate and drop all conceptions that exist prior to the moment we are living, to notice the mind that seeks to know and pin down a “truth,” and to respond to the dynamic, unfolding reality of the moment we are living. Practicing with the tetra lemma helps us to recognize rigid binary either/or thinking and to recognize that all things are empty of inherent, fixed, permanent and independent existence, that everything always is in constant flux and arises from causes and conditions that themselves are constantly changing, without own being and connected to everything else.
“Emptiness” is a practice, not a belief, since as Nagarjuna says, “To believe in emptiness is the biggest mistake of all.” The tetra lemma helps us go beyond our attachment to the words we use to express what we think is real and true, and this includes Zen beliefs and doctrines.
In the same way that we practice scales on a musical instrument, we can practice the tetra lemma to avoid abiding in clarity. I’d like us to try that now.
Settle into zazen posture—spine erect, chin tucked, ears in line with shoulders, hands in the cosmic mudra. Gently rock back and forth, side to side to find your center point.
After your next exhalation, take a deep breath in through the nose and down through the lungs, completely filling the abdomen, and then let the breath out slowly and quietly through the mouth. Then just let the breath be natural.
Now bring to mind an opinion, a perspective, an idea, thought form, a judgment you believe is true. This can be either a positive or negative thought about a person, an event, an object, something that happened in the past or is happening currently. Examples might be: I am the kind of person who…; So-and-so is difficult to work with; this particular political position is right or wrong, I should do x,y,z or she should do x, y, z. Or you might try practicing with a dharma teaching.
First thought, best thought.
Now, as you sit with this viewpoint, opinion, judgment, belief, investigate all the ways it is real and true.
Next investigate all the ways it is not real or true.
Next, investigate your response when you consider that this thought form both true and untrue, real and unreal?
And investigate your response when you consider the statement neither real or true nor not real or true?
Now take a moment to reflect on this experience of practicing with the tetra lemma. What happened? What did you notice?