My e-mail reply to JP on Nov. 11

I used “impermanence” to mean “not permanent” or “not

eternal.”  I used “phenomena” to mean “all things;”

in our case, including consciousness and dharmas (“fa”

in Chinese).



“All phenomena are impermanent.”  All things, including

persons, incidents, aggregates, consciousness, and

dharmas are not-permanent or not-eternal. They are

temporary because they arise (exist, become, born, etc.)

depending on causal conditions. Once the conditions

change or disappear, the things change or cease to exist.

In this sense, they are “empty” or devoid of an independent

existence; “independent” as in existing or operating

independent of causal conditions. In Chinese Buddhism,

especially in Vajrayana, there is a popular phrase

called “yuen chi shing kong” (“yuen chi” = dependent

origination; and “shing kong” = an entity’s nature is

empty).



Your question #1: “empty space”



I don’t exactly understand what you mean. Do you see

empty space as a phenomenon? Is empty space itself an

arising or existence? Well, I don’t really see the

relevance here. I assume we’re talking about the

impermanence and emptiness of something mainly because

a practitioner could be attached to it and hence start

a round of suffering, if he fails to perceive that

the something’s existence is impermanent or empty.

I fail to see a person attaching to empty space; however,

if a person is attached to the *idea* of “empty space,”

then it (the idea or mind consciousness) is a phenomenon.



Please refer to the Heart Sutra. It says that with

Perfection Wisdom, the practitioner sees “mind

consciousness” as impermanent, or as you’d put it

“empty.” (yad rupam sa-sunyata … Evam eva vedana,

samjna, sam-skara vijnanam) vijananam = sunyata.



Your question #2: “the buddha's mind is omniscient”



Are you asking if the Buddha’s mind is a phenomenon?

Uh, first of all, I don’t think I have enough competence

to comprehend the Buddha’s mind, so I cannot even begin

to talk about it, because if I could, I’d probably

be a Buddha. Second, in relation to my answer to

question #1, the issue is phenomena that cause attachment

when a practitioner fails to perceive the phenomena’s

existence as impermanent or empty. In this sense,

therefore, if the practitioner is attached to the *idea*

of “the Buddha’s mind is omniscient,” then it (the idea

or mind consciousness) is a phenomenon.



Your question #3: “perceiving emptiness directly is

a direct antidote to eliminating the first link of

dependent origination”



I’d prefer to put it this way: In knowing the law

(process) of dependent origination, a practitioner can be

able to stop the process at the first link, Ignorance,

when he has mindfulness (being aware of the “arising” at

the instant and the way to the cessation of suffering)

and - very important - chooses to stop it.



If the practitioner is attached to the *idea* that

“perceiving emptiness directly is a direct antidote to

eliminating the first link of dependent origination,”

then it (the idea or mind consciousness) is a phenomenon.