Quote
Wangdrag
2. In mahayana buddhist teaching, one of the central points is the teaching on emptyness. This means that thins are empty of their independent existence, in other words all is contidioned and interconnected. (this is rather symplified explanation, there is plenty of material online on this topic).
Ole prefers to use term "space" instead of emptyness, but this term already exists in buddhist philosophy and it is considered on of the five elements, which is also seen as empty. So he mergestwo different things into one.
This is rather technical but since Rick has allowed Wangdrag’s claim as relevant then perhaps my comments will also get a tick.
Ole uses the term ‘space’ in reference to the nature of mind, in preference to ‘emptiness’. ‘Emptiness’ is the traditional English translation of the Sanskrit term sunyata while ‘space’ typically refers to one of the rupas (elements) as in earth, wind etc. One description of the rupa translated into English as ‘space’ is: “... space-element has the characteristic of delimiting material objects, the function of showing their boundaries, the manifestation of showing their limits …”. The term ‘space’ used in this meaning refers to a container WHERE stuff manifests. Fair enough.
Sunyata is an entirely different thing. According to traditional texts it has the quality of unobstructedness and emergence, being the root of both the consciousness and all appearances. In a sense sunyata is HOW things happen. It is completely void but can effortlessly manifest everything while being unaffected by the show. Hearing this the first translators thought: well, it is empty so let’s call it ‘emptiness’. The term ‘emptiness’ does not ‘mean’ sunyata – it merely hints at one of sunyata’s characteristics. It was probably the most suitable term available in the late 19th century English which is why ‘emptiness’ was universally accepted as a translation of sunyata. Fair enough.
In 20th century the advances of quantum phisics have completely changed our understanding of space. Far from being a passive background, container WHERE things happen space is now viewed as the creator of the show. The space is teeming with particles which constantly pop in and out of existence, borrowing energy from space and returning it before the Planck time is up (Wiki: vacuum energy). In one formulation the Universe started as a spontaneous quantum fluctuation of vacuum – a kind of burp of the space itself. It is hard not to notice that this meaning of ‘space’ is much closer to how sunyata is presented in Buddhist texts than ‘emptiness’. In a modern meaning ‘space’ is HOW things happen, not just WHERE they manifest. It is unlimited, dynamic, unobstructed and constantly churns out stuff and swallows it back.
It is in this sense that Ole uses the term ‘space’ in reference to sunyata. Languages evolve and words change their meaning – why should we be stuck with the 19th century terminology which is no longer a best fit for the purpose? The word ‘tobacco’ used to evoke images of style and sophistication but, as a result of progress of science, no longer does. These days it is viewed as an addictive poison.
It looks like other Kagyu teachers have also used the term ‘space’ in a similar context.
Chogyam Trungpa “Cutting through spiritual materialism”:
“Fundamentally there is just open space, the basic ground that we really are. (…) The beginning point is that there is open space, belonging to no one. (…) We are this space, we are one with it.”
Kalu Rinpoche’s teachings in Marcola, Oregon, 1982:
“Beyond this essential emptiness, we can make the statement that mind is like space. Just as space is all-pervasive, so is consciousness. (…) We need to remember that when we are using these terms, we are attempting to describe something that is indescribable. (…) The nature of mind is like empty space”
I honestly thing that the issue with Ole’s use of the term ‘space’ is a red herring.
Cheers,