‘Method’ to Emptyness.

‘There is no Method’ decries the Sutra, offering-up this pronouncement in the envelope of a Self-Eating Expression.
The Method to the awakening to Emptyness is the undermining of all ‘Method’. The stick used to light the funeral pyre must itself burn to ash. You consume yourself in the Self-Eating Expression.
‘Method’, wrote Immanuel Kant, is ‘procedure according to principle’. The word itself in its Latin and Greek roots denotes a ‘Way'[ Hodos, Tao, Marga] to a ‘Higher Knowing’ [Meta, a relational prefix].
The ‘Higher Knowing’ can range from how to fix a faulty faucet to the ‘Truth of the Highest Understanding’. And Method is uniformly improved, made teachable and testable, if it can be laid out as a list of principles.
This Page is a collection of relevant Posts from ‘Empty Talk’.

A Pious Insanity
Samsara: ‘A disoriented flailing around’. You want to go home because things no longer make any sense.
You have been around awhile. You have progressed from amused bemusement, past simple bewilderment, beyond all sophisticated skepticism to a point of creeping and unquiet desperation.
You are ready to admit, surreptitiously of-course, the view that the World as you have known it is in fact fundamentally absurd.
That most explanations are deflections and denials and copious rationalizations. That a pious insanity is afoot.
‘A child said, What is the grass? fetching it to me with full hands’ wrote Walt Whitman, ‘How could I answer the child?…I do not know what it is anymore than he.’
You feel Yeats’ fervor: ‘Turning and turning in the widening gyre, the falcon cannot hear the falconer’.
The Meditation Mat
The Path to Emptyness begins under your feet and goes straight down.
You dig right beneath where you stand [or sit] and keep going until you’ve dug yourself into a deep, dark hole.
You then try and climb back by lifting yourself up by your own bootstraps.
You don’t need a ticket to the Mountain-top. You could however use a good, durable Mediation Mat. And its a fraction of the cost.
The Old Race Horse at Ibycus
But the View does not come easy. And it does not come quick.
‘A sharpened edge of a razor, hard to traverse, a difficult path is this, poets declare’ says the Katha Upanishad.
When Socrates asks Parmenides to relate his own long journey, he goes silent. Then he says:‘I feel like the old race horse at Ibycus, who trembles at the start of the chariot race knowing from long experience what is in store for him.‘

Testing the First Assumption
So here we are with the question: ‘Is there an Independent and Separate Subject?’ Is there an Independent and Separate Me?
But how do we go about testing this? Perhaps we should reach for the ‘Scientific Method’ given its proven record of success?
Unfortunately, the first requirement for ‘Scientific-Method’ is the unstated conviction, assumed condition and accepted convention that the investigating subject is ‘Independent and Separate’ from the investigated object.
How are we to test our First Assumption using the ‘Scientific-Method’, if the ‘Scientific-Method’ already uses this First Assumption?
It’s time for the Forefinger-Scratch Rule.
The Forefinger-Scratch Rule
You can’t scratch your right forefinger with your right forefinger.
You can scratch your neck with your right forefinger. You can scratch your bottom with your right forefinger. You can scratch your toe with your right forefinger.
But you can’t scratch your right forefinger with your right forefinger.
If you think you are scratching your right forefinger with your right forefinger, either what is scratching is not your right forefinger, or else, what is being scratched is not your right forefinger. Take a look and convince yourself.
This, the elementary truth of the Forefinger-Scratch.
There is little of greater wisdom on the planet; and none more flippantly and frequently violated.
The Loop
You may not use something to understand the same something.
That’s the Forefinger-Scratch Rule.
Otherwise called, in Socrates’ memorable words: [the avoidance of] ‘The most vicious of circles’ [see the Post].
And what Yagnavalkya had repeatedly warned about in his dialogues [see the Page].
Rounding the Circle
So. Is there an ‘Independent and Separate ‘Me’?’
What can I do to find out? I can’t use the sanctioned contemporary method of Inquiry, the ‘Scientific Method’, for the reasons explained in the previous Post. Is there another way?
Yes, there is. And its been around for a long time [about 3,000 years] although rarely used with adequate accuracy or taken to necessary completion.
It say’s: ‘If I grant the truth of the Two-ness Template, if I truly believe that there is an ‘Independent and Separate Me’, then the following two short sentences must also be true':
I cannot see myself. Anything I see as ‘Me’, by that very fact, cannot be ‘Me’.
That’s it.
The Inviolable Twins
Let’s set this down with a little more decorous formality.
1. I must be different from what I see, in order for me to see it.
I can never see myself. I can see all things in the world but the one thing I cannot see is myself. 
Look in a mirror. You see your eye staring at you? Sure you do. You can see your eye. But what you don’t see is the source of your vision. In fact, what you see in the mirror cannot be the source of your vision. In fact, it can be anything but the source of your vision.
Your ‘source of vision’ can only see that which is different from itself. Subject must be different from Object in order for it to see Object as ‘Object’.
2. Anything I see as the source of my vision by that very fact, is confirmed as not being the source of my vision.
Anything I see as ‘me’, by the very fact that I see it, cannot be me.
There is no claim of error in which I can have greater conviction.
Homeward Bound
‘I cannot see what see’s. Anything I see, by that very fact, is not what see’s.’
That it’s it. Start to Finish. Soup to Nuts. Kit and Caboodle.
First, convince yourself that this is true.
If you are not convinced, go back to the bathroom and look in the mirror again. Clean the surface with a damp cloth. Turn on the lights.
Step out into the world. Apply the two rules without blinking or winking. No compromises allowed. No nooks left unlooked.
They will take you back home.
The Full Monty
In order to fully unwind the two expressions, in order to be convinced of their truth and implications, you will have to go all the way back. All the way back to True Nothing.
Standing and ‘Seeing’ from atop True Nothing, the Emperor’s clothes are in full and dramatic view. You get the Full Monty. The show is over and you are done.
But a lot of things can come between here and True Nothing. Lots and lots of things.
And there are specifically designed helpers that can teach you to walk backwards [like the Self-Eating Expression].
And lots of Posts follow about these things.
The Self-Loop
I cannot see what see’s. Anything I see, by that very fact, is not what see’s.
We need a shorter pocket-phrase that conveys what’s being said. A phrase that says: ‘Yo! What you’ve got in your hand is not subject but object disguised, confounded as subject. A model, not the real-thing. A made-up bunny. Look again!’
Let’s call it the Self-Loop. The Self-Loop is on when you look into a mirror and are absolutely sure that the eye you see is the source of your vision.
If you are alert to the Self-Loop you don’t do certain things. If you are not, you do some very silly things.
And dig yourself deeper and deeper into a hole. A hole of your own making [as promised in the Post ‘A Pious Insanity’].
Mentating about ‘Mind’
You are convinced you possess this wondrous thing called ‘Mind’.You model the world around you in great sweeps of analytic glee. Things clarify quickly and all is well. And then the contradictions and absurdities begin to sprout.
You then turn this formidable apparatus, this ‘Mind’, acquired over long year of practice, on ‘Mind’ itself. Perhaps it just needs a little fixing. A little grease, a spot of cleaning and things should come back to normal. It is what ‘Mind’ has taught you to do repeatedly in case of a breakdown of any sort. And it has worked most of the time.
Here is where you enter the salons of the Self-Loop.
The Descent into Absurdity
Mind may not mentate about Mind. Anything the Mind can mentate about as Mind, by that very fact, is not Mind. You can mentate about all things in this great and grand universe of ours. But you may not mentate about Mind.
Consciousness may not grasp at consciousness. Anything consciousness grasps at as consciousness, by that very fact, is not consciousness.
Thought may not seek its nature in another thought. Concept may not conceive itself in another concept. Word may not seek its meaning through other words.
Logical Symbol may not seek its root using other symbols of Logic. Mathematics may not seek proof of its consistency by reaching within the consistency rules of Mathematics. Language may not seek its origin using Language.
And ‘I’ may not inquire about ‘Myself’.
The Virgin-Twins must remain inviolate.
So what happens if you violate them? Some very strange things.
‘Giving Birth to Myself’
If you violate the Twin Virgins in any way, if you get any one of them pregnant, you will ‘Give Birth to Yourself’.
I can understand; but I may not try to understand ‘Understanding’. I can do a lot of things with ‘Understanding’. But I may not try to understand it.
When you define and hold forth on something using the same something, the something gives birth to itself. It has a baby, in other words. A cute but strange baby.
It appropriates the Divine Ability to recreate in its own Image, to see it’s own eye. It doubles while remaining single. It multiplies and divides, while all the time remaining itself.
By giving birth to itself it becomes Object to itself as Subject.
Herein the birth of Maya. The ‘Conventional Understanding’ of the World.
‘Not-Two’
The ‘Two-ness’ idea has lots of layers and you won’t really notice them until you slip on one. But the most relevant can be readily listed.
‘Not-Two’ is a specific and deliberately open-ended construction made up of three elements. The two basic beliefs that generate Model and a third, a pointer to the wide-open exit gate.
The first one is the assumption of the subject-object divide.
The second one, a further divide on the first divide, is in the nature of the doubled referential nature of expression itself. In particular, expression formulated as ‘Thought’ and expressed in ‘Language’ [see the Posts on ‘Sign’ et al].
And thirdly, the open-ended ‘Not’. You will not be able to get past the ‘Not’ until you have worked through the first two divides [see the Post ‘Not, Nothing and Nonsense’].
The terse, seemingly cryptic expression ‘Not-Two’, is something for you to carry around in your shirt-pocket. You can bounce it around; bully it; baby it. A long-tested tool, it has no fat on it.
‘This Mystery which I Understand the Least’
‘Thought’.
It’s origin is unknown [grab that next thought please, and ask it where it came from].
It’s stage can’t be located [inside my head? beneath the sink?].
It’s terminus is not found [where do all those thoughts go, like stairs in an escalator?].
I can’t see it. I can’t hear it. I can’t smell it. And any thinking about it, muddles it more.
I Think. I Think that I think. I Think that I think that I think…
No self-respecting scientist would take seriously, something to which he cannot give the simplest of coordinates.
No activity is less comprehensible than this happening in my head. Yet nothing is more real to me than this mystery which I understand the least.
‘Arouse the Mind with no Abiding Place!’
The smoke gets blacker, the mirrors more numerous and the mirages more real as you approach True Nothing. It’s a good idea to pay attention roundabouts here.
Śūnyathā [Emptyness] is not to be confounded with Śūnya, or its synonym Śūnyam [Empty, True Nothing]. And True Nothing is not to be confounded with the Concept of Nothing. And so on.
‘Arouse the Mind with no Abiding Place!’ A constant refrain of the Prajna Paramitha verses.
In the words of The Diamond Sutra: ‘A Bodhisattva should develop a mind which alights upon no thing whatsoever; and so should he establish it.’
Alight on True Nothing, and nowhere else.
‘The Subject is Quieted as the Object Ceases…’
Modeled Subject and Modeled Object arise and subside together. As long as you are convinced of the reality of ‘Object’, you are necessarily standing on a modeled, made-up ‘Subject’.
The truth of this will become evident as the Subject gradually corrodes, but the idea as important marker has been around, mostly unrecognized, for a long time.
Seng-tsan, the third Chinese patriarch of C’han Buddhism wrote about it circa 600 CE: ‘The Subject is quieted as the Object ceases; the Object ceases as the Subject is quieted…’
If you want to move forward from here you are first going to have to move back. Back, as in all the way back until everything is in view. All the way back until all formulations of imagined ‘Subject’ are in front of you.
All the way back to True Nothing.
Finding True Nothing
True Nothing is not a thought, a concept, an idea. It is not a thing. It is not a process. True Nothing is exactly what the name says: True Nothing. There is nothing there for you to hang your hat on.
‘Not This! Not This!’ [see the Post: ‘The Ever-Spinning Reel’].
When you are at True Nothing everything is ‘in front of you’. And the most important thing that is in front of you is your assumed Subject now revealed as confounded Modeled Object.
And there is nothing behind you except as an idea [and you are not at True Nothing until you are ‘behind’ that idea, and all notions of ‘behind’ and ‘in front’, ‘above’ and ‘below’].
How do you know you are at True Nothing? We’ll, there is no such thing as True Nothing. You’ll know it when you get there. Just move your feet around and see if it touches anything.
What’s so Special about ‘True Nothing’?
What’s so special about ‘True Nothing’? Only from the stance of True Nothing-and nowhere else-will you see with complete clarity and consequent conviction that there is not, never was, an Independent, Separate Observer.
This fantastic notion of an ‘Independent and Separate Self and Subject’.
Standing atop True Nothing, the presumption of the ‘Independent and Separate Observer and Self’ exits. And when that leaves, it takes with it the Two-ness Template, which includes itself.
In other words, when Subject truly goes, it takes with it the whole enchilada. The entirety of the ‘Subject; Object’ Divide.
‘This Unformulated Principle’
From The Diamond Sutra: ‘The truth is uncontainable and inexpressible…Thus it is that this unformulated Principle is the foundation of the different systems of all the sages.’
This ‘Unformulated Principle’ that is ‘uncontainable and inexpressible’ is ‘contained and expressed’ as Emptyness.
To properly cognize  Emptyness is to be convinced beyond a shadow of doubt, plain and undeniable as this line you are reading, of the presence of this: ‘Unformulated Principle that is the foundation of the different systems of all the sages’.
What is Emptyness?
And what is Emptyness?
Formally: ‘Emptyness is that which is Empty of itself’. In the Sanskrit: ŚūnyathāŚūnyathā.
It is the original Self-Eating Expression [SEE], the primal Synthetic, Self-Destroying Device, the first Koan and the ancestor of the fierce ‘Mu’ of Joshu.
The necessary and final re-formulation of Yagnavalkya’s radical claim in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.
‘Standing on Nothing, Nothing is Grasped’
So here you are finally atop True Nothing. Now what?
From the Sutra:
‘Who sees Me by form,
Who seeks Me in sound,
Perverted are his footsteps upon the Way,
He cannot perceive the Tathagata.’
Emptyness is not a new ‘Object’ seen while standing atop a new ‘Subject’ that is True Nothing.
If ‘Subject’ is properly seen-through atop the Perch of True Nothing, it would have taken with it the Subject-Object Divide. Subject and Object arise and subside together.
If you are truly atop True Nothing [‘Empty’], if you are properly done with the ‘Subject’, there is correspondingly no ‘Object’ as ‘Emptyness’ to be grasped.
When you have lost your perch as ‘Subject’ you are going to lose your view of ‘Object’. They come and go together. If you can still nail an ‘Object’, you haven’t yet given up your perch as ‘Subject’.
‘Standing’ on nothing, nothing is grasped.
‘Where is my Partner?’
Emptyness is the original ‘Nameless’ [see the Posts].
Say a word about Emptyness, point a finger, hold-forth on the ‘Nature’ of Emptyness  and you will be sent right back to the start of the line.
Such tags are sealing evidence that Subject is still very much alive and is grasping for a partner, an Object that would give it life.
You will not be able to tolerate, come to terms with Emptyness, its unbridled Freedom, its unrestricted domain, ‘un-containable and in-expressible’, as long as there remains an assumed ‘Independent and Separate Subject’ that has not been rinsed out.
The Natural Limit of Inquiry
The natural, necessary and inevitable limit of Inquiry is True Nothing.
You cannot ‘Inquire’ about ‘Emptyess’. To do so is to not have properly cognized Emptyness. If you can name it, you’ve missed it. Grand and difficult Lady, this.
The consequential miscues in the history of the Mother-Tradition began here.
‘Inquiry’ as you have known it in the lexicon of ‘Conventional Understanding’ will cease once the manufactured Subject is properly cognized for what it is.
The ‘Exhaustion of Philosophic Views’.
[Note that Inquiry is with a capital ‘I’. I’m still inquiring after all these years as to why my asparagus never cooks just right.]
Self-Scuttling Sight-Insight
Emptyness and True Nothing are synthetic creations, self-destroying constructions, purely pedagogic devices that fulfill their intended purpose only when they exit, taking with them all the heretofore sacred sutras.
If they are still hanging around that’s evidence that their job is not yet done. And your course is not yet completed.
Standing on Empty, you enter Emptyness [Tathagatha].
The Self-Scuttling Sight-Insight into the Nature of Sight-Insight [see the Page: ‘Sutra, An Introduction’].
Prajna Paramita. Go get it.END=NAM MO SAKYAMUNI BUDDHA.( 3 TIMES ).WORLD VIETNAMESE BUDDHIST ORDER=VIETNAMESE BUDDHIST NUN=GOLDEN LOTUS MONASTERY=THE EIGHTFOLD PATH.THICH CHAN TANH.THE MIND OF ENLIGHTMENT.AUSTRALIA,SYDNEY.20/3/2015.