1

The term "non-emptiness" appears in the literature. For example from Chi-tsang (madhyamaka):

When the sutras speak of "the emptiness of visible form" this refers to its emptiness and lack of a true substantive nature; therefore it is called empty. It does not mean that conventional visible reality is empty (nothingness?). Since the substantive nature is an empty nothingness, therefore it is called empty. This is the real truth. The non-emptiness of conventional reality is called the worldly truth.

I just mean the opposite of emptiness.

Is non-emptiness empty, and in what way?

  • The substance is in the experience of seeing. The substance is in the experience of hearing. – Lowbrow Jun 10 '16 at 2:10
1

If non-emptiness means what it sounds like then it is indeed empty. All is empty within the reality of our inndividual experience. Everything that can be experienced is empty of self, complexity, and substance.

1

Since Mahayana Agama contains parallels in the Pali Cannon I am answering using the Suttas in the Pali Canon which I am more familiar with.

Abiding or contemplating the 3 characteristics [impermanence (anicca), suffering (dukkha) and not-self (anatta)] is called abiding in emptiness. [Cula Sunnata Sutta, Maha Sunnata Sutta] The opposite of the 3 characteristics is perversions (vipallasa) [what is impermanent is taken to be permanent; what is painful is taken to be pleasurable; what is not self is taken to be a (or the) self; and what is impure is taken to be pure]. [Vipallasa Sutta] Hence non empty might mean something is deluded, i.e., conceptual constructions are empty since they breakdown under further scrutiny. Attachment to concepts, review and throughts or being subjected to the perversion is non empty.

Also:

Verse 11:

They take untruth for truth; they take truth for untruth; such persons can never arrive at the truth, for they hold wrong views.

Verse 12:

They take truth for truth; they take untruth for untruth; such persons arrive at the truth, for they hold right views. At the end of the discourse, many people came to be established in Sotapatti Fruition.

Source: Dhammapada Verses 11 and 12 Sariputtatthera Vatthu

Contrary to the usage on perversion described above someone taking untrue and truth, wrong view as right view, something of low value as valuable can be considered empty in this context and some one taking truth as the truth, ... can be considered non empty in this context.

1

From a Madhyamika viewpoint, while emptiness [of true existence] is an existent, non-emptiness [of true existence] is a non-existent.

  1. There is no fault in predicating a negation to a non-existent subject. For instance, you can say "Taking the subject 'a unicorn', it follows it is not white." Or "the horns of a rabbit lack this or that."
  2. There is a fault in predicating a positive phenomena to a non-existent subject. This is because a valid knower can not realize a non-existent reason. For instance, you can not say "unicorns are white; rabbit's horns are made of ivory; non-emptiness is realized by way of this or that".

All in all, you can assert that non-emptiness is empty, because it amounts to associate a non-existent (i.e. non-emptiness) with a negative predicate (the lack of something).

-1

It depends on context, what is meant by the terms.

Chi-Tsang's (chinese Madhyamaka) says that:

When the sutras speak of "the emptiness of visible form" this refers to its emptiness and lack of a true substantive nature; therefore it is called empty. It does not mean that conventional visible reality is empty (nothingness?). Since the substantive nature is an empty nothingness, therefore it is called empty. This is the real truth. The non-emptiness of conventional reality is called the worldly truth.

Tientai also claims that "illusory existence is empty and non-empty" for some strands of Buddhism, while characterising the "mundane truth" of Madhyamaka (which Chi-Tsang called non-emptiness), as just "illusory existence".

In this sense it seems "non-emptiness" is empty and non-empty.

I can't tell whether for Tientai "identifying illusory existence as empty of substantial Being" should ever be completely denied, the denial being one sense of "non-emptiness".

If it should (or can) be completely denied, this non-emptiness would not be empty, because then nothing is empty.

  • i don't think this answer ought to have been downvoted, which gives the erroneous impression that it contains some factual errors – user3293056 Mar 30 '16 at 23:51

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.