Welcome to Gaia! ::

It may be difficult to write a decent response without knowing the context in which "nothingness" is being used. It is possible that that word was used in place of the modern use of "emptiness", in which case I know enough about it. From your second paragraph, I have a strong feeling this is the case.

Buddhism is certainly not nihilistic so, in English, it is not entirely accurate to describe everything as being "nothing." Everything certainly does exist, but we question how it exists.

The way our mind apprehends a table is that there is a real table there. We look at it, and it appears to our mind to be a table with a specific name and function.

The basis of designation for a table is four legs and a flat top. So based on that basis, we put the label "table." We have all agreed on the definition (or basis of designation) for "table." But to our mind, it appears as though there is something about the basis that is the table. As though the table had some essence of table-ness that makes it a table. It's certainly not a pineapple, after all.

We also look at the parts of the table. Well, they certainly can't be parts of a table if there isn't a table for them to be parts of, right? So the table must exist, right? That is a false apprehension. There is no table there. The table is what can be called a "negated object."

A negated object is what ignorance sees exists, really exists, and wisdom sees as not existing, not being there at all. The appearance of there being a real, fixed, solid table there is incorrect. There is a collection of things that we call a table, but there is no single thing there that is the table. So we say that the table is empty of inherent existence. It does not inherently exist as a table. If it did, then we should be able to dissect it and find table-ness inside of it, but we're most likely going to find wood or glass or some kind of metal.

Yet, we can say, "Put this book on the table" and we understand. So on a conventional or relative level of reality, there is a table upon which we can put things and have dinner at. We can use the basis of designation (four legs and a flat top) to put things on, and we can call it a table, even though there is nothing about it that is the table.

So on an ultimate, or final level of reality, wisdom sees that there is no table there. There simply appears to be a table to the mind that is gripped by ignorance, attachment and aversion, a mind in samsara.

If desirable objects were inherently desirable, then everyone would want them, but they're not, are they? Not everyone is interested in lipstick or sports magazines. They're empty of desirability. If stupid people were inherently stupid, then they could never learn or change and yet we know they can, and often do. Or we know that if they're not intelligent with one particular thing, they're often intelligent with something else.

When we see the ultimate nature of phenomena, this is sometimes called the "wisdom realizing emptiness". It's not seeing that things don't exist. We know full well from our experience that the meditation cushion exists, the computer exists, the body we use exists. Ignorance sees that these things exist with a real, solid essence.

"My body really exists! If you hit it, you're hitting me!" gonk

No. What is the body? Am I my body? Am I all this tissue and bone and poo and pee? Does everything that my body produce also constitute me? Do I flush myself down the toilet every day? No. I'm not my body. And, for that matter, where is this body? Is it in the head? The torso? Is the body the bones or the skin? No, "body" is just a label placed on a basis of designation. A general form and function.

In English we always say that we "have" a body, not we "are" a body. So we are empty of body-ness. There is something called a body here, but there is nothing about it that is a body. The same can be extended to the mind, as well. What is mind? Is it the memories, the thoughts, emotions, skills, dreams, personality? What is it? Where is it? We can see plainly that mind is there, so where is it?

Nirvahara makes good points; I'll just rephrase them in my words in case it helps.

There isn't much said of "Nothingness" in Buddhism, to my knowledge; the most similar concept in Mahayana Buddhism is Emptiness (shunyata). It relates to both Dependent Origination (i.e. interdependence) of all phenomena, the fact that all phenomena are aggregate entities, and the fact that when one "looks for the Mind" (for instance), then "nothing is found" because what one first thought of as being one Mind is in fact many interdependent parts that work together. The Mind is "empty" in being without an ultimately definable core; no part of the Mind can be defined as the Mind or representing the Mind as a whole.

Nihilism, the belief that "nothing exists," is generally considered to be an "extreme view," at least generally to Mahayana sects and specifically to those of the Middle Way School of philosophy...However, things do not exist as one conventionally thinks them to be.

Nagarjuna (a major systematizer of Mahayana thought) , in summarizing the nature of phenomena and Emptiness, stated the following:

"Whatever is dependently arisen is explained to be emptiness. Its existence is imputed in dependence upon something else, and this is the path of the Middle Way." (18th verse of The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way)

A more comprehensive statement of Nagarjuna's means of explaining/analyzing phenomena is (paraphrased) as follows:

"Things do not "exist," nor "not exist," nor both, nor neither." Holding any of these views is "extreme" and thus not true...I'm planning on starting a thread to discuss this "4-pointed" analysis of phenomena to see what y'all think...

LOL Once you start talking about the 'eternal' core of the mind, the "real fun" begins! mrgreen That will deserve a separate thread or two...The works of Asanga (ultimately attributed to Maitreya) seem to be the most pertinent in this area. One way to approach it is to discuss Buddha-Nature, proper, a la Distinguishing Phenomena and Pure Being and Buddha Nature. Another, more-intensive, way is to discuss the "eight consciousness" system of the Yogacarins a la Tsong kha pa's commentary, The Ocean of Eloquence. The "two additional" consciousnesses of the Yogacarins (i.e. the afflicting-consciousness and the storehouse-consciousness) are said to account for the transfer of "mental seeds" from one life to another in the absence of a soul (as well as allow for the continuity of consciousness after moments of unconsciousness).