Buddhism – Everything, nothing but emptiness?

Difference between emptiness and nothingness

Buddhist emptiness (śūnyatā): Things do not have an inherent, independent existence (svabhāva). They exist only relationally, dependently.. This corresponds to the ontological-methodological approach and differs from the assertion that „nothing exists“ (e.g. nihilism).

Philosophical nothingness (Western tradition) has several meanings:
The logical, grammatical „absence of things“, an existential „nothingness“ and metaphysical questions such as „Why is there something rather than nothing?“.

Detailed: Buddhist emptiness (śūnyatā)

In the Mahāyāna tradition, śūnyatā means that all phenomena are empty of svabhāva., They have no independent, unchanging nature of their own. This includes the self, things and characteristics. It is a negation, no „self-substrate“, without a fixed essence.
Key passage (Nāgārjuna, Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 24:18), „Whatever has arisen dependently is described as emptiness.“ This passage directly links emptiness with dependent arising (pratītyasamutpāda). There is no independent state; everything exists only in relation to each other. Many Buddhist authors emphasise that emptiness is „empty of its own being.“ Nevertheless, phenomena appear and continue to function conventionally. Emptiness is therefore an analysis of the nature of their existence.

Detailed: philosophical „nothingness“ (Western tradition)

The philosophical concept of „nothingness“ is ambiguous:
– Logical, quantificational: „There is no x of type F“ (analytical philosophy).
– Metaphysical (absolute non-existence): „No thing, no space, no time, no laws“.
– Existential, phenomenological: e.g. Heidegger: Nothingness is addressed as an experiential „basic mood“ (anxiety), provocatively formulated: „Nothingness itself does not nothing.“ This is a description of how nothingness appears in the experience of being.
– Ontologically critical, linguistic philosophy: Authors of the analytical tradition (e.g. Carnap, Russell) warn against treating „nothing“ as a noun, as this can lead to category errors (linguistic confusion).

The science of „nothingness“?

1. Physics: „Nothing“ does not exist
In physics, there is no such thing as absolute emptiness. Even a „vacuum“ is not nothing.
Quantum field theory (QFT): A vacuum is a field state with quantum fluctuations of virtual particles, energy, and spacetime structures.

2. Cosmology: „Nothing“ is a boundary concept
When cosmologists ask, „What came before the Big Bang?“ „Did the universe arise from nothing?“ then „nothing“ is not absolute nothingness, but rather a state without classical space-time, a quantum field theory ground state, a mathematical limit point.

3. Neuroscience: Nothing but a category of consciousness
In psychology or neuroscience, „nothing“ often refers to states of consciousness without content (e.g. deep meditation), sensory deprivation, transitional states (falling asleep, anaesthesia). Here, „nothing“ is not absence, but rather a lack of conscious content, reduced sensory processing, altered brain activity. Consciousness knows no absolute nothingness; even when nothing is being experienced, there is still brain activity.

4. Mathematics: Nothing but structure, not absence
In mathematics, „nothing“ is clearly defined as the empty set Ø., contains no elements, but is an object of mathematics, has properties, is the basis of many structures (set theory). Mathematics formalises nothing without understanding it metaphysically.

5. Philosophy of science: Nothing is a non-concept
From a philosophical perspective, „nothing“ is often not a positive term, but rather a negative boundary term, the limit of what can be thought or described.
Heidegger: Nothingness „does not negate“; it is therefore a phenomenon of experience, not a being.
Wittgenstein: Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
In analytical philosophy: „Nothing“ is treated as a linguistic operator („there is no X“), not as a „thing“.

6. Why science rejects absolute nothingness
1. Experiments require certain prerequisites: measuring instruments, space-time, energy, fields.
2. Mathematics only works with defined structures. An „absolute nothing“ would be indescribable.
3. Quantum physics shows that „emptiness“ has structure. The quantum physical vacuum is active.
4. Logical problem. An absolute nothingness could not produce natural laws.
Absolute, total nothingness remains a concept of metaphysics, mysticism or ontology, but not of natural science.

Everything has arisen dependently (pratītyasamutpāda)

Nothing exists on its own. Everything arises from conditions, causes, relationships and processes. Applied to matter, this means that matter is not a „thing in itself“. It is a bundle of processes consisting of its causes, energy, forces, conditions and forms. Atoms, quarks, fields and forces arise conditionally. Matter is not understood as a substance, but as a dynamic system. This view is remarkably close to the modern understanding in quantum field theory and process philosophy.

The Buddhist view of natural laws
Natural laws arise from their mutual interdependence. Nothing has „its own power“. All phenomena are interdependent patterns. Natural laws work because the conditions are stably structured and not because they are written down somewhere.
Early Buddhist texts introduce the concept of the five niyama, the five types of laws:

• utu-niyama – physical processes (climate, elements)
• bīja-niyama – biological laws (seeds, genetics)
• kamma-niyama – psychological/ethical causalities
• citta-niyama – mental laws
• dhamma-niyama – universal structural laws
• An organising principle that makes the world work, as everything can be traced back to consistent conditions.

The term „matter“ (rūpa)
In Buddhism, existence consists of five groups (skandhas): form (rūpa), feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness. In Theravāda, rūpa is divided into smallest „elements“, e.g.: solidity, fluidity, warmth, movement, sensory abilities, dependencies. Matter is not a stable thing, but an interplay of forces, properties and conditions. Conceptually, this is closer to the „process thinking“ of modern physics than to the old substance thinking of Western philosophy.

Why matter is „empty“ (śūnyatā)
The Buddhist analysis comes to the point:
Matter exists, but not as „particles with independent essence“.
She is empty of being anything from within herself.
It is merely the result of interactions and relationships.
Modern physics says something similar:
Particles are excitations of fields
Mass arises relationally (Higgs field)
Matter is not substantial, but structure-dependent.

Buddhist philosophy would therefore say: Matter is real, but not absolutely real. It is „relatively existent“, dependent, contingent.

Buddhism rejects a „basic substance“ model

Buddhism does not assume that there is a primary substance from which everything originates.
No primordial substance, no Atman, no fundamental matter, no metaphysical foundation.
Instead: Everything is process. Everything is empty. Everything is dependent. No entity has true independent existence. This fits remarkably well with process ontology (Whitehead), relational quantum mechanics (Rovelli) and field/network approaches in the universe.

Matter in Tibetan Buddhism (Vajrayāna / „Fine Physics“)

Tibetan Buddhism adopts the basic structure of Indian Buddhism, but expands it with a tantric microphysics that considers matter, energy, consciousness and the body together. This is not a scientific model, but a phenomenological system that explains how experience is structured, not where atoms are located.
In addition to the four classical elements (earth, water, fire, air), there is a fifth: space. Earth stands for stability and structure, water for coherence and continuous connections. Fire stands for energy and transformation, air for movement and dynamism, and space for openness, possibility and freedom from obstacles. In Vajrayāna, these elements are not physical substances, but subtle functional principles. They describe how physicality appears, how energy flows, and how consciousness and experiences are structured. The tantric tradition thus explains the material world as a condensed form of these processes.

The subtle system (nāḍī / prāṇa / bindu) is the heart of tantric „fine physics“.
nāḍī channels are energy and information pathways, comparable to concepts in traditional medical systems. Not in an anatomical sense, but in a phenomenal sense.
prāṇa winds, Vital energies are movements, dynamics. Drives. They „protect“ or „contaminate“ perception.
Bindu drops are units of information or carriers of karmic patterns, memory structures, tendencies, and qualities of perception.
The system is an information and dynamics theory. Matter is understood here as a coarse manifestation that arises from more subtle energies/attitudes, similar to an emergence theory.
Some Vajrayāna schools put it this way: the gross physical body represents the manifestation of gross winds. The subtle body represents the manifestation of subtle winds.
The very subtle body is the carrier of the consciousness continuum itself. This means that consciousness, energy and physicality are different modes of the same process and that there is no substantial separation between them, only a functional differentiation. This corresponds to a non-dualistic process.

Matter in Dzogchen (Mahāmudrā)

Matter is the „dense manifestation“ of rigpa (pure awareness). It exists, but only as an expression of the nature of mind. The world is neither mind nor matter; both are merely manifestations. Matter has no independent reality (śūnyatā). However, it is not illusory either; it has an effect. This is ontologically more subtle than idealism and materialism.

Buddhism accepts empirical evidence: „Do not accept anything simply because it is written in the scriptures.“ Buddha (Kālama Sutta)
This makes Buddhism methodologically open to science. Modern physics is not seen as competition, neurobiological models fit in with Buddhist psychology, and cosmologies are often interpreted metaphorically in Tibetan.

The crucial differences remain

Natural science attempts to describe how phenomena work: using „objective“ and quantitative methods, depending on the current state of knowledge.
Buddhism describes how phenomena are experienced: subjectively, phenomenologically, psychologically, depending on personal experience and knowledge.

How does the Buddhist doctrine of emptiness fit in with the doctrine of reincarnation?

In Buddhism, there is no fixed self that is reborn. There are continuous processes, patterns and causal streams that continue. It is not a soul that migrates, but rather the process consisting of habits, impressions, tendencies and karma.
Emptiness means that nothing has an unchanging essence. Everything exists only in a dependent, relational, processual way. Reincarnation means that this process continues as long as conditions exist. The Buddha explicitly rejected an eternal self (ātman). Nevertheless, he explains rebirth as „a continuum of conditioned arising“. There is no identical something that migrates and no completely new something that arises from nothing. If nothing has a fixed self (emptiness), then no „soul“ can move.
What could continue?

• Karma (conditioned patterns)
• Habits (tendencies towards attachment)
• Stream of consciousness (non-identical, but causally connected)
• intentional patterns
• „Bindu“ (imprint pattern) in Vajrayāna

Buddhism uses the term pudgala (person) without an essence. This means that there is personhood, but no person-substance.
The causal model: Dependent arising beyond death means that nothing exists on its own; everything arises from conditions, and processes continue as long as the conditions exist. Thus, reincarnation is a causal process, not a metaphysical one.
Buddhism sees personality as a stream of information, as patterns of tendencies and conditioned processes, relationships between moments with non-substantial continuity. This is compatible with modern process ontologies (Whitehead) and with cognitive science (Evan Thompson, Francisco Varela).

The perspectives of the different schools

All Buddhist traditions fundamentally share two teachings:
1) Anatta/Anatman. There is no fixed, permanent self and no unchanging „I“ that wanders from life to life like a soul.
2) Rebirth consists of a causal process. What „continues“ is karma, or a stream of causes and effects, not a personal self.
For this reason, Buddhism tends to refer to rebirth rather than reincarnation.

Tibetan Buddhism (general)
Tibetan Buddhism (Gelug, Kagyu, Sakya, Nyingma) has a special concept of rebirth. Consciousness continues after death in an intermediate state (bardo). The process of rebirth is attributed to advanced practitioners (bodhisattvas) as consciously controlled. Some masters can also consciously choose their rebirth (e.g. Dalai Lama, Karmapa). There is no fixed self, but a continuous stream of consciousness, which continues to flow, carried by karma. Rebirth is inevitable as long as one has not attained enlightenment (bodhi).
Characteristic: Particularly elaborate metaphysical models, Bardo teachings, conscious rebirth (Tulku), rebirth also possible as an institutional function.

Dzogchen (Nyingma tradition)
Dzogchen is a special case within Tibet and has a different perspective. Everything is already luminous, non-dual awareness (rigpa) in its nature. Rebirth arises only because one does not recognise or has not yet recognised this nature. Rebirth is illusory, merely an appearance within non-dual consciousness. If rigpa is recognised at the moment of death, rebirth ceases immediately. A Dzogchen master can consciously „project“ rebirth, not because a self migrates, but because rigpa spontaneously gives rise to form.
Characteristic: Rebirth is seen as an illusion; there is no linear continuity, but rather spontaneous manifestation. The tulku system is interpreted differently in Dzogchen (as a „playful manifestation“ in the dharmakaya).

Zen (Chan/Zen in Japan, Korea, China)
Zen has a minimalist perspective. Rebirth plays hardly any role in daily practice. It is not negated, but regarded as unimportant for awakening. What is reborn is not the self, but karma or „the conditions“ that continue. Many modern Zen masters formulate rebirth symbolically, not metaphysically. „Rebirth happens every moment.“ „When you perform an action, it continues; that is your rebirth.“ „Physical rebirth is less important than the reappearance of habitual patterns.“
Characteristic: Rebirth is often interpreted psychologically rather than cosmologically. Focus on the here and now rather than metaphysical cycles. Zen emphasises emptiness and non-duality, thereby relativising rebirth.

Theravāda (Sri Lanka, Thailand, Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia)
Theravāda has the most classical and oldest view of rebirth. There is no self, but a continuous stream of Dhamma processes (events) that continues beyond death. Rebirth occurs immediately, without an intermediate bardo state. Rebirth is the result of karma, which triggers a new existence like an impulse. The goal is to end this cycle in Nibbāna. There is no conscious choice of rebirth (as in the Tibetan tulku system), and Buddhas and arahants are not reborn according to a ritual lineage. Rebirth is a purely causal process, not an intentional one.

Term: Gandhabba
A „stream of essence“ that connects with a new body, but without an individual self.
Characteristic: no Bardo teachings, no Tulku system, rebirth as a mechanical law, not as a consciously directed process.

Western secular Buddhism
Western secular Buddhism has its own, distinctly different position on rebirth, influenced more by science, psychology and modern society than by tradition. Rebirth is not necessary for Buddhist practice. The majority of representatives see classical rebirth teachings as cultural concepts of ancient India, but not as an essential part of the Dharma. Buddhism functions perfectly well without a literal understanding of rebirth. Most secular Buddhists reject a cosmological chain of rebirth.
Instead, rebirth is seen as a psychological model of continuity: patterns, habits, traumas, tendencies to act „continue“ across generations. As ethical, social continuity: your actions and words „live on“ in their effects on others. As momentary rebirth (processual): every moment is a „new birth“ because the self is processual.

Two camps within secular Buddhism
A) Moderate secularists: (e.g. Stephen Batchelor) The doctrine of rebirth is historical, not central. At his core, Buddha was more of an ethicist than a metaphysician. Rebirth can be understood metaphorically, but does not have to be.
The most important representative is Stephen Batchelor – Buddhism Without Beliefs, After Buddhism.„
Rejects literal rebirth, emphasises ethics + mindfulness + responsibility.
B) Strict naturalists: completely reject rebirth. Buddhism is a philosophy of the mind, not a religion. Karma is interpreted purely psychologically, as habitual patterns with consequences.

How secular Buddhists explain karma
Not as cosmic moral physics, but as a psychological law of cause and effect. „You become what you repeatedly do.“ Recognising and transforming conditioning. Karma stands for habitual energy and rebirth for the reappearance of these patterns.

Main arguments against traditional rebirth teachings
1. Scientificity. There is no empirical evidence for rebirth understood in a literal sense.
2. Anthropological context. The doctrine originated in India, where rebirth was already a cultural prerequisite.
3. Practical relevance. Enlightenment, mindfulness and compassion also work without metaphysical elements.
4. Risk of abuse. Secular Buddhists criticise the tulku system. Ongoing religious authority structures and hierarchies are legitimised by ideas of rebirth, similar to Foucault's concept: power + discourse = authority.

What secular Buddhists emphasise instead
Mindfulness and meditation as psychological techniques (partially legitimised by neuropsychology).
Ethics as human practice in the here and now, not as a „merit account“.
Enlightenment values, autonomy, rationality, democratic structures, criticism of authoritarianism. Immanence instead of transcendence, Buddhism as an art of living rather than a religion.

Common metaphors of the secular view
„Rebirth is the reappearance of old patterns, not the wandering of a spirit.“
„Karma is what my actions make of me.“
„I die and am reborn every moment.“
„There is no soul that wanders.“

Modern model: Buddhism and continuity of consciousness in cognitive science

How cognitive science and modern consciousness research can reconstruct the Buddhist idea of a „continuum of consciousness“ without assuming a soul or a metaphysical self. Cognitive science basis: Consciousness is also understood as a processual continuum. Today's consciousness research does not work with substances, but with processes, pattern formation and information continuity.

Three core ideas:

1. There is no stable self, only models of the self.
   (Metzinger: „No self, only a self-model.“)
2. Consciousness is a dynamic, recursive, self-sustaining system.
   (Varela/Thompson: enactive and autopoietic systems)
3. Continuity is not created by a single thing, but by continuous pattern and process organisation.
   (Predictive Processing / Friston: „the organism as a sustaining model“)

Thus, consciousness is not an object, but a flow of self-actualising patterns.
This would mean that death is the cessation of the neural substrate, but not necessarily of the pattern and process organisation. In biology, many processes exist independently of their original carrier: fire travels independently of molecules, genetic information jumps from body to body, cultural information jumps from brain to brain, processes can „migrate“ from substrate to substrate. This could be an interface to reincarnation. It is not a self that passes on, but an information process.
Modern models assume that:
Consciousness is not a product of the brain, but rather a process field that co-emerges with the brain. (Emergence: the formation of new properties through the interaction of several subsystems and their interconnection within the system)
– Upon death, the brain as the carrier breaks down. The process could continue under other physical or informational conditions.

This fits with the Buddhist idea of bardo (Tibetan Buddhism). A pattern without a self, but with a karmic structure.
Or, from a scientific point of view: a pattern of consciousness is not transferred, it reconstructs itself because its tendencies continue to exist.

In short: from a Buddhist perspective, there is no self. From a cognitive science perspective, there is no stable, permanent self. However, there is a continuous, self-organising pattern that is neither material nor substantial, yet can still have a continuous effect. This process continuum can re-emerge when the right conditions are present.

Note on the Tibetan tulku system

Historical background of the tulku system
The tulku system originated in Tibet in the 12th–13th centuries, particularly within the Karma Kagyu school. It was intended to provide institutional stability by ensuring that a spiritual teacher would return as a „reincarnation“ (Tib. sprul sku) and continue his religious lineage.
The central functions of the system were to ensure monastic continuity, legitimise spiritual and political authority, establish long-term student-teacher relationships, and preserve economic resources (land, donations, followers).
Critical voices emphasise that these functions reflect not only religious interests, but also clearly political and socio-economic interests.

The religious teaching: Reincarnation of a Rinpoche
The idea that highly realised masters are consciously reborn is based on Mahayana and Vajrayana ideas: bodhisattvas return out of compassion to teach.

• The religious justification is rarely questioned, as it is deeply rooted in Tibetan culture.
• There is no possibility of objective verification.
• The „recognition“ of a tulku traditionally takes place through oracles, visions, tests or prophecies. These are procedures that cannot be verified by outsiders.

Many researchers therefore view the tulku system as „charismatic legitimisation through sacralisation“. A process in which spiritual authority is imbued with religious significance and thereby protected.

Political exploitation:
The tulku system served and continues to serve as an instrument of power. Monasteries were centres of political power. A tulku guaranteed control over property, influence over regional politics and the loyalty of large lay communities.

Socio-economic aspect:
The status of a tulku brings material prosperity, privileged education, high social status and an international following. Wealthy sponsors promote certain lineages. In Western contexts, „reincarnated masters“ are profitably marketed as spiritual brands. A cult culture with an unchallenged leader serves as a secure source of income.

Educational and psychological problem areas
Since children are identified as tulkus at a very early age, challenges arise (e.g. trauma) due to the loss of a normal childhood, strong social pressure from the expectation of spiritual perfection, and the risk of manipulation by teachers or institutions.

Intra-Buddhist criticism
Some scholars argue that the tulku system is not originally Buddhist, but rather a Tibetan innovation. In original Buddhism, reincarnation is not understood as personal continuity (anatta/anatman – no fixed, permanent self) and therefore cannot continue from person to person. The fixation on bloodlines or institutions contradicts the ideal of non-attachment. Some schools (e.g. parts of the Sakya tradition) prefer familial transmission combined with a line of reincarnation. Other modern teachers reject the system entirely and call for a reappraisal and reformation.

A brief practice on emptiness

Arrival (30–60 seconds)

• Sit comfortably, chair, bedside, cushion.
• Back straight, relaxed.
• Hands on thighs or folded.
• Eyes closed or half open.
• „At this moment, I don't have to do anything.”
• Take a deep breath and exhale slowly.

Conscious breathing (3–5 minutes)

• Breath as an anchor
• Feel the air flowing in (through your nose or into your belly).
• Feel the air flowing out.
• Do not try to change your breathing.
• Just observe.
• When thoughts arise (and they will):
• Notice: „Ah, a thought.“
• Accept and release.
• Don't chase after them.
• Calmly return to breathing.

Kindness for yourself (1 minute)

• Place your hand or hands on your heart or stomach.
• „May I be kind to myself.“
• „May I act with patience today.“
• „May I find peace within myself.“

Morning Impulse (30 seconds)

• Formulate a simple orientation:
  „Today I am attempting to,
  to breathe consciously in a moment,
  before I react.”

Evening reflection (2–3 minutes)

• Sit down for a moment and ask yourself:
• What was nice today?
• What annoyed me?
• Where was I mindful?
• Could I forgive myself?
• What am I grateful for?

With kind regards Stefan