The value of philosophy is that no one needs it. 

-- Alexander Piatigorsky^[1]

I'll start with a disclaimer. I'm neither a Buddhist nor a philosopher nor an awakened person. But I tend to philosophize on topics that are interesting to me. And when I see that someone contemplated on these topics I tend to resonate with them even if I do not agree with all what the thinker is saying. It is especially interesting when those thinkers went much deeper than I've ever dreamt of going or discovered a different perspective to look at things. 

Another point that I'd like to mention is that I always tend to resonate with a particular thinker or a particular philosopher, not with a tradition at large. The thinker may belong to some tradition, that is not a problem to me. The only condition for me is that the aforementioned thinker is interesting. Having said that, I tend to have preferences to some traditions (granted non-sectarian approach to any, nor do I belong to any). But that's only because those traditions contained many interesting for me thinkers. 

The third point I'd like to make is that although no thinking may be called independent, it is imperative for me that the way I see things and the way I myself think about them depends on what I myself have reflected^[2] and assimilated not just parroting of other thinkers' words (even if they are interesting). That means if I cite some words or texts, in one way or another I've stumbled upon those thoughts and understanding myself through reflection and insight. In that sense, I can say that my thinking heavily resonates with many Buddhist and Vedanta thinkers and philosophers (who often contradict each other but who are grounded into deep insights concerning the way things are) and in no small way was also formed by them. 

Why is this so? First of all, I see life in a similar way. Secondly, contemplating these matters helps me to ground my thinking in some relative peace and unravel non-trivial order in my chaotic life. Thirdly, I want either to liberate myself from excessive thinking (something from which I personally suffer) or to come to a state with no thoughts (which is what liberation is all about^[3]) and so value soteriological and practical aspects of those philosophies. Not that a particular philosophy has to have soteriological or practical aspects to be interesting. Not at all. Just a preference.  

I start with the question I asked myself before I started writing this text. To make it a sort of exploration. What is emptiness? The Oxford dictionary declares: "the state of containing nothing". The etymological dictionary gives the following definition: 

c. 1200, from Old English æmettig, of persons, "at leisure, not occupied; unmarried" (senses now obsolete), also, of receptacles, "containing nothing," of places, "unoccupied," from æmetta "leisure."^[4]

So emptiness in the ordinary sense means "containing nothing". Empty of what? Empty of things. "Containing nothing" means the absence of things. It's not in this sense that I would like to use the word emptiness. And I would say that the absence of things is a stronger statement than simply being empty, it is the statement of absence. In that stronger sense "emptiness" is identical to "absence". 

But I would like to use the word emptiness in the sense in which presumably Buddha and certainly Nāgārjuna used it, in the sense of "empty of intrinsic nature" (or "empty of self"). A good example to illustrate this is a mirage. A mirage appears as a phenomenon of the refraction of light rays and contains an illusion of water, but on examination one cannot drink that water. Does it exist? It appears to. Can one drink that water? No. Illusion is something that exists in one way and appears in a different way (as was nicely put by Jay Garfield). So water from the mirage is empty of intrinsic nature. One cannot say it doesn't exist or is absent. Instead one says it is empty of intrinsic nature. 

So far so good. But what about real water itself? It certainly exists, it's fluid and liquid and I can drink it. But does it have intrinsic nature? Let's examine what would this intrinsic nature be. 

Something that exists at one time and doesn't exist at another time cannot be a candidate for intrinsic nature. As that nature would pop in and out of existence. In this way it will be unreliable. So it must exist permanently. Something that changes cannot be a candidate for intrinsic nature too. As it would have one set of attributes at one time and another set of attributes at another. So it must be immutable. Something that is dependent on another for its nature, cannot be intrinsic nature too. As that would either lead to an infinite regress (if intrinsic nature comes from another, where does that another get that nature) or make another irrelevant (if it already exists in the first one). And it cannot exist in the combination either due to the mentioned above reasons. In such a way we may define intrinsic nature as something that exists on its own (independently) permanently and is immutable. 

Let's see if water is such a thing. Water changes its properties based on temperature, pressure, etc. It consists of molecules with specific properties which consist of atoms and those consist of elementary particles which are (to the best of our knowledge) interdependent representations of constantly oscillating field of potentialities described by the wave function. Attributes of water depend on temperature, pressure, etc. So it's neither independent of the environment nor immutable. A dependent and changing thing cannot be said to have intrinsic nature. So water is indeed empty of intrinsic nature. 

Empty in that case doesn't mean it "doesn't exist" or "is absent". But only stresses the fact of its interdependence on the environment, its conditions and the fact that it consists of elementary particles which are "empty of intrinsic water-ness". One might say that water supervenes on elementary particles. Water is a concept we as observers use to simplify our interaction in the world. So the observer's physiology and thinking are some of the conditions for water to be seen and drunk (not some of the causes!). In that sense if there were no evolved organisms in the need of water there would be no use of it and no such concept, no one would perceive that some patterns of elementary particles constitute what is called water. So water is neither identical to elementary particles that constitute it (as it also requires living beings who could use it, as well as a larger ecosystem, etc.), nor is it different (as it consists of them). Therefore, it's interdependent on many conditions and has no intrinsic nature. 

Further, one may say, "But most phenomena are like that - interdependent and compound. Are they all empty?" On that one can only add that we cannot detect phenomena with intrinsic nature, as contact implies change in some way. If the thing with intrinsic nature were to be changed on contact, it would contradict its immutability. If it would not change upon contact but other things would change, it would mean it's not independent of those other things for its establishment. In this way we can only detect things that are interdependent. All things are like that. Hence, all are empty of intrinsic nature. One important consequence: since independent intrinsic existence of phenomena is not established in the first place, of what could there be intrinsic non-existence? So intrinsic non-existence is also untenable. 

Here the intent is to negate existence,
Not to prove nonexistence.

-- Nāgārjuna, The Ornament of Reason^[5]

Does it imply that the observer itself is interdependent and therefore empty of intrinsic nature? It naturally follows from the above that the observer itself depends on causes and conditions. If there were no senses and no contact of senses with stimuli at all there would be no conscious experience, no thinking and no memory, no one appropriating this experience, and one would be in a state close to coma (Pavlov's experiments on dogs proved that^[6]). In addition, if there were no greater context of social interaction, culture and no sharing of knowledge, there would not be a particular thinking that could marvel at all these topics (think about feral children). Therefore, the observer is interdependent with the observed and empty of intrinsic nature (or the self). 

One may retort, "But what about my sense of existence, the feeling that I am? All objective and subjective phenomena may be like a virtual reality but the feeling that I am is certainly real direct experience and therefore possesses intrinsic nature." Let's examine that claim. First, we are only being conscious with regard to senses and their contact with stimuli and memory, otherwise we either start hallucinating (like in sensory deprivation tanks which are analogous to dreaming) or fall into a state close to coma (as in some trances where one becomes unconscious or in extreme cases when the brain regions corresponding to the sense organs and memory are mutilated). So there seems to be no independent feeling of being conscious without any phenomena. However, the feeling of "I am" may go deeper than simply being conscious, as Ramana Maharshi points out: 

D.: Is there thought in Samadhi? Or is there not?
M.: There will only be the feeling ‘I am’ and no other thoughts.

-- Ramana Maharshi, Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi^[7], #226

So if one gets into a deep meditative absorption things change. But does this mean that the feeling "I am" has intrinsic nature? I don't know. But even the deep meditative absorption depends on the properly functioning body-mind to support that state, so it seems to be dependent. 

"What about deep meditative experiences where nothing but awareness remains?" Even in those experiences there is a subtle awareness of some dark luminous dynamic field or rather the feeling of being that field without subject-object duality. But subtle stimuli are present there and senses are operating albeit subtly. In addition, those states do not last indefinitely but come to a close. So even they seem to be empty of intrinsic nature. Having said that, I do not deny the possibility to merge subjective consciousness into that field of pure awareness (which is different from the ordinary subjective awareness) permanently (i.e. as long as body-mind lasts) notwithstanding operation of the senses and other faculties. That can only be clarified on liberation. But does it exist intrinsically? Here I confess that that's an open and burning question for me... Only people established in deep mediative absorptions can answer that question properly. I can only speculate with regard to that field (that it itself is interdependent to the matrix of phenomena in some way) but here I differ from Buddha and Nāgārjuna and keep that question open. I don't know. In that regard Nāgārjuna says: 

There is not the slightest difference
Between cyclic existence and nirvana.
There is not the slightest difference
Between nirvana and cyclic existence.

-- Nāgārjuna, The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way^[8], XXV.19

"What about the deep dreamless sleep, where one is not aware of anything, but afterwards one somehow knows that one was not aware of anything. How does one know it if there were no objects and no subject? Isn't it a proof that there can be an independent state of being conscious without any content?" First of all, one is likely being conscious of intermediary phases of sleep (in transition between the dream and the dreamless state, where there are some subtle stimuli) and not of the deep sleep itself. As one is not aware of being aware of nothing after anesthesia, it is just a blank state. Secondly, one is not aware of being unaware during the deep sleep before waking up. Therefore, awareness of being unconscious is in itself a dependent factor with respect to awareness of being conscious. In other words, ignorance of being conscious and being conscious are both interdependent, and hence, are both empty of intrinsic nature. In addition, the state of being conscious is changing all the time with respect to senses, stimuli, contact, thinking and memory. So the state of being conscious has no intrinsic nature as everything else (keeping in mind the reservations provided above, as there may be pure being or pure awareness without anything to be conscious of, they are beyond being conscious and being unconscious, and are experienced in deep meditative absorptions). 

Does this mean that nothing matters as everything is empty of intrinsic nature? On the contrary, everything can only be recovered and made sense of in emptiness. Think about it. Nothing would matter if there were immutable things. Things that don't exist would keep non-existing. Things that exist would exist permanently and without change, without the possibility of contact. Actions would not depend on their causes and the effects would be unproduced. Intention would be uncaused and could not be changed. Meaning would be either absolute or non-existent, in both cases it could not be changed, so thinking would be rigid and static. Illusions would persist. Not understanding could not be overcome as it would exist by intrinsic nature. Many other contradictions would follow. 

By emptiness views of eternalism and nihilism are negated. One cannot deny the existence of things with unestablished existence in the first place. Something that exists by intrinsic nature cannot stop existing. As eternalism assumes. The absence (or irrelevance) of existence would imply the prior intrinsic existence (with intrinsic meaning). As assumed by nihilism. But both were negated by emptiness. They are untenable. 

However, emptiness in itself is not a view. One cannot say that emptiness is itself intrinsic nature of phenomena. As it is empty with respect to itself! Emptiness is empty of intrinsic nature. Hence, it is only a tool to deconstruct essentialist views and leave it at that. No new view is established. Think about a customer who comes to a shop and sees a sign, "Nothing for sale", and asks, "Please, give me that nothing!" That would be a person who establishes new view with regard to emptiness.

Things are as they are exactly because of interdependence and emptiness of intrinsic nature. That is what Buddha and Nāgārjuna called the Middle Way. The way beyond both essentialist views - eternalism and nihilism. That is also what science through experiment unrelentingly shows us^[9] - interdependence of all phenomena and emptiness of all kind of "thing-ness". That is what constitutes the conventional reality.

That which originates in dependence
Is taught to be emptiness.
This itself is dependent imputation
And so the path of the Middle Way. 

Apart from what originates dependently,
There are no phenomena at all.
Therefore, apart from emptiness,
There are no phenomena at all.

-- Nāgārjuna, The Ornament of Reason^[5], XXIV.18-19

So does it answer the question, "What is emptiness?" Insight into emptiness opens us up to the potential for deep reflection on our nature and the interconnectedness of all things, which may even lead us to awakening. Emptiness is full and fullness is empty. All the vivid tapestry of life and all its joy and wonder as well as all its suffering and sorrow appear before the one who sees it as a kaleidoscope of colors and forms, which are empty in essence, including the seer itself. Is it derogatory in any way? On the contrary, seeing the interconnectedness and vulnerability of all life makes it all more profound and prepares one for the final question which reverberates in all of us knowingly or not and takes different forms until it is condensed into its final form - "Who am I?.."^[10] 

See that the identity of the inner is empty.
See that the external is empty as well.
The one that meditates on emptiness —
No such thing exists either.

-- Sūtra on the King of Meditative Absorptions^[5]

1. ^{^}

   Alexander Piatigorsky

2. ^{^}

   Reflection may be defined as thinking about thinking

3. ^{^}

   Gary Weber, Myths about Nonduality and Science.

4. ^{^}

   Etymology of empty

5. ^{^}

   Mabja Jangchub Tsondru, Ornament of Reason: The Great Commentary to Nagarjuna's Root of the Middle Way

6. ^{^}

   I.P. Pavlov, Lectures on Conditioned Reflexes. (Twenty-Five Years of Objective Study of the Higher Nervous Activity (Behaviour) of Animals)

7. ^{^}

   Ramana Maharshi, Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi.

8. ^{^}

   Jay Garfield, The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way: Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā

9. ^{^}

   Richard Feynman, What is science?

10. ^{^}

    Ramana Maharshi, Who am I?