Talk:Śūnyatā

message: Does anyone know the Chinese character for Śūnyatā?
--71.238.27.47 (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Chinese for śūnyatā?

message: * "Concept" may be an inaccurate term to describe sunnata. I think concepts themselves might be empty according to doctrine. But I think it is safe to say sunnata is an aspect of Buddhist doctrine, philosophy, and practice.
* Article formerly said something like "most often associated with Nagarjuna" or words to that effect. Not that I have anything against Nagarjuna, but personally, I have encountered sunnata for years and have yet to read or comprehend Nagarjuna. At the end of the day, nobody's counting the frequency of associations. (Don't know what Google says, and don't care either; Probably, most Buddhists in the world don't have Internet access.)
* I imagine the controversial thing I did, was to take away the hedging about origins. If it proves that I've contradicted Mahayana doctrine (I don't know that I have), then we could add a sentence to the effect that "According to Mahayana doctrine, the theme of shunyata first emerged in the XXX sutra".
--Munge 09:17, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My changes 

message: * Capitalize Śūnyatā in section titles, rather than use template
* Did Nagarjuna originate Śūnyatā as a "consequence of dependent origination"? I doubt that; clue on . I'm OK with "identifies the two", as that does sound like an innovation.
* 1st sentence of "Sunyata in the "Tathagatagarbha" Sutras" section is awkward at best. Did the author of the Mahaparinirvana really intend to say that Buddha and nirvana are "empty of...the selfless"? (If so this seems to contravene the Dhammapada 279 "all dhammas are anatta", and if so this should be noted at Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra.
* Next to last sentence should either either eliminate references to Buddha Nature, Buddha Principle, and "Bhuddic Essence" (which would be my preference) or (get ready to hit the books) clarify their relationship to tathagatagarbha (I do not seem them as identical to tathagatagarbha).
* My preference would be to provisionally define tathagatagarbha in this article as "embryo of the thus-come one". (And then we should fix Tathagatagarbha to clarify that it could be womb or embryo, thus-come or thus-gone, such that thusness refers to both that-which-is and the ability to apprehend that-which-is.)
--Munge 10:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the MPNS at all except 2nd hand and as you see, from sources some of which are highly questionable (which was why I questioned it!) However it would not surprise me if the MPNS does not draw such a fine distinction as the later BNT, which I have been studying. In part, I understand the BNT came about because controversial issues emerged, including as a result of perceived unresolved questions raised by the MPNS (though maybe the Ratnagotra started to address them). E.g. somebody (Paramartha?) wanted to reconcile what were seen as unexplained points--how to parse atman when used in a Buddhist context governed by anatman, without devolving into drivel, nor identifying with monism, nor playing one-upsmanship with the upaya card. A ripping yarn that I won't go into here but must be told on the Buddha Nature and anatta pages at some point. BNT also responds to an issue that I think was raised by readers of the MPNS and the critics of Tao Sheng, namely why practice if nirvana is samsara and the incorrigible are already enlightened? (An issue near and dear to Dogen, who is the central topic of Grosnick's dissertation.) The reason being, according to BNT, is not because practice is prior to transformation but because practice is transformation. (Which actually leads to more unresolved issues; did Dogen later change his mind about just that identity? Perhaps there will be a Critical Buddhism page in my lifetime.) What does that have to do with the issue you mention? In the BNT, tathagatagarbha is identified with alayavijnana, and these comprise one of several aspects of Buddha nature, (just as one might say that ability to apprehend thusness is an attribute of the awakened person). Just to put it in context, another aspect of Buddha Nature in the BNT is the asrayaparavrrtti (loosely, personal transformation), which the BNT identifies as practice (yoga). Well, I've drifted, and sorry if some of the above is naive misunderstanding of the MPNS. Will be preoccupied for the next week or so, so once again, this has been very stimulating, and let's do it again soon. And thanks for the confirmation on no "festering tongues"; hard to prove a negative but I figure if any English-speaker on earth could give it the fine tooth comb, that'd be you. --Munge 04:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To do 

message: What is the difference between the "void" in Buddhism and the "Dao" described by Lao Zi? Le Anh-Huy 09:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very, very different. No use trying to compare the two. rudy 22:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Void Versus Dao?

message: Re the statement that "in the Cittamatra school it is said that the mind itself ultimately exists", would it be more accurate to say that "...consciousness ultimately exists"? It seems a matter of experience that consciousness (awareness of awareness, as distinct from awareness itself or other objects of consciousness) is ultimately real and empty; but I'm not sure if this is what the Cittamatra school teaches.  DavidCooke 02:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mind or consciousness 

message: Is this fantasy only or are those imaginations rooted in buddhist scriptures or oral believes?
*THIRTY TWO MARKS OF A GREAT MAN
:Austerlitz -- 88.72.20.158 (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Embodiment 

message: Hello,
Regarding this statement: "...the teaching on the emptiness of persons and phenomena is unique to Buddhism, constituting an important metaphysical critique of theism with profound implications for epistemology and phenomenology." 
That this idea of flux, interdependence and emptiness would be unique to Buddhishm is not accurate. Similar ideas are part of a long-standing tradition in western thought ever since Heraclitus 535 BC. The concept of nothingness has played an equally important role as Being in western thought, which would not the least explain the ready acceptance of Buddhist thought in the west. 
I recommend that the claim of it being "unique" be substantiated with some references of comparison, if it plays an essential role in the article.
Respectfully, 
A no one  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.31.26 (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flux is not unique 

message: It is true that "śūnya" can mean "zero". That is in arithmetical contexts. This is a religious context. I've changed the wording under "Nomenclature and etymology" to show this. The primary meanings in the citation I've provided are "empty" and "void". Before reverting, please discuss, explaining how an arithmetic allusion helps here. Moonsell (talk) 09:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Emptiness", not "zero-ness"

message: Can I suggest śūnyatā not be capitalised unless at the *beginning* of a sentence or heading. It is a common noun, not a proper one. Moonsell (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalisation of ''śūnyatā''

message: Under "Exegisis" we have: "Śūnyatā signifies that everything one encounters in life is empty of absolute identity, permanence, or an in-dwelling 'self'. This is because everything is inter-related and mutually dependent - never wholly self-sufficient or independent." Does anyone have a source for everything being inter-related and mutually dependent? In the article the phrase, "inter-related and mutually dependent" is linked to pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination) and looks like a misunderstanding of that concept. I recall reading the "Avataṃsaka Sūtra" has some idea like this that spawned a whole school of Buddhism in China, but otherwise the vast majority of Buddhists would agree that not everything depends on everything else. My face, for example, does not depend on a rock or vice versa. Moonsell (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Everything is inter-related and mutually dependent"

message: This section, although curious and even sourced, would seem to have little more than trivia value in an article on Buddhist emptiness. I urge that we delete it as too tangential. Moonsell (talk) 08:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That section was pure nonsense in grammatically incorrect, incoherent language. I deleted it entirely.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Emptiness in other systems

message: The final section of the article is called "The Buddhist Concept of Emptiness". It contains excellent material that is, however, wholly Mādhyamaka and could well be moved to another section. If it is appropriate to leave it where it is as the last word on the subject, at least it might be renamed to something less generic. Moonsell (talk) 08:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The Buddhist Concept of Emptiness

message: Discusses etymology, context, semantical class &c. but no word on what it actually is.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.213.97.66 (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worst lead ever 

message: I have restored the section on the Buddha-nature sutras and emptiness. This had been unjustly removed by another editor. It is undesirable practice on Wikipedia to remove a large section of content without discussion first, especially when that section contains referenced quotes from scholars: this is not only potentially an act of censorship but also an act of discourtesy towards other editors, who may have spent precious time on collating materials and references for the section that has been removed. In the present case, the redirect to 'tathagatagarbha sutras' fails to do justice to the material found in the deleted section - since that deleted material is largely absent from the 'tathagatagarbha sutras' article, and thus important information is denied the Wikipedia reader. Please do not in future remove referenced material without discussion and editorial consent first. Thank you. Suddha (talk) 05:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddha nature sutras and emptiness 

message: You are right that page 125 does not mention all extant schools. But the rest of the book does. Moreover I can provide a million sources that substantiate that, since this basic Buddhism 101. Even other places in Wikipedia say that same thing. Its obvious we have some Judeo-Christians here that don't understand the simplest aspects of Buddhism. BuddhasBiographer (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not convinced that being Judao-Christian disqualifies one from being able to make sensible comments about Buddhism. Indeed, in the UK such sentiment is illegal within a professional sphere. As it happens, I am a third generation practicing Buddhist, with more than 30 years of study and meditation experience, while Dr. Paul Williams is well-known for being a Roman Catholic, yet that has not been cause of criticism on my behalf. Such base attacks are very unlikely to be welcome here. Back to the topic, you only need to find one reliable source that unambiguously makes the statement you wish to substantiate. 20040302 (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Many years ago I had the good fortune to listen to Alan Watts give a talk about Buddhism. His way of talking was very simple and direct—readily understandable, but not simplistic—rather like a good Wikipedia article :) He spoke about the self as a "case of mistaken identity" and described Buddhist identity. At the end of the talk, he asked if anyone had questions. A man said something along the lines of: "Mistaken identity, eh, what if I were to come up there, point a gun at you and demand your wallet, and identity cards." Watts was silent for a long moment, then replied: "Now you are really getting at the root of this question." Many who study and practice Buddhism, like Watts, come from a Judeo-Christian heritage. It is the water we swim in in the West. In no way does it disqualify us from writing about Buddhism here, as long as we follow WP policies, paying particular respect to neutrality and verifiability in our editing; commenting on content, not the contributor, maintaining civility and respecting consensus on talk pages. Sunray (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Thigle, without the 'all of extant Buddhism' claim, the text refers merely to ~4thC Nikaya schools,  and is not relevant to the article. 20040302 (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead para.... Continued 

message: 'In Buddhism, emptiness is a characteristic of phenomena, arising from the Buddha's observation that nothing possesses an essential, enduring identity (see anattā), by virtue of dependent origination. Thus to say an object is "empty" is synonymous with saying that thing is dependently originated. Śūnyatā generally holds that all things, including oneself, appear as thoughtforms (conceptual constructs). This view is roughly shared by the historically related Perfection of Wisdom Sutras, Mādhyamaka and Yogācāra
I seem to recall that :the PoW. sutras (2nd turning) are definitive only for the Madhyamika (I think!), and that the Yogacarya views are not similar - don't they consider the third turning/tathagathagharba sutras to be definitive?. I am yet to be convinced that the identity of emptiness (of inherent existence) with dependant origination is not unique to the Madhyamaka of Nagarjuna, I'm not sure that the identity is made in the PoW sutras.. 
Secondly, Candrakirti states,
When knowing selflessness, some eliminate a permanent self, but we do not consider this to be the basis of the conception of "I" It is therefore astonishing that knowing this selflessness expunges and uproots the view of self.
—Madhyamakāvatāra 6.140[29]
so we must be clear that 'enduring' is not cognate with 'permanent' - a subtlety that I believe would be missed by most readers. Moreover, there is a strong distinction between dependant designation and dependant origination:- the former depends upon mind ('conceptual constructs') and the latter depends upon Karma.  (I will find a quote, - of course such terminology is only relevant to the Madhyamikas).
Therefore, 'in Buddhism' is too large a scope, and likewise the ramaining text appears confused.
Thigle(2) appears to consider that there are some Buddhist scholars who deny that emptiness is an emptiness of inherent existence- however, we appear to be waiting for a relevant unambiguous cite for that.  
My understanding is that in general, the Theravada limit themselves to the emptiness of an inherent self (anatta) as one of the three marks, as they are not concerned with other phenomena; and (if I recall correctly) questioning the nature of the world is a distraction from the practise of the three higher trainings, whereas for the Mahayana schools that depend upon the three higher trainings, perceiving phenomena (other than self) as inherent may be an obstacle to omniscience. Hm, but I believe that there may be some different views on the underlying logic for this even between the colleges of a single monastery of the Gelug!  Certainly this sort of discussion is not relevant to a general introduction to Sunyata
I would like to say that it is common in Buddhism for ignorance to be held as the root of Samsara, but there are likely to be differing views, maybe in some of the pure land schools, or certain tantra traditions (not that I am denigrating them for this!) Certainly the question of just what the ignorance is of (and it's nature)  does appear to differ (at least subtly) between schools.  20040302 (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comments, 20040302. I agree with you that we are waiting for an unambiguous citation that affirms that some Buddhist scholars deny that emptiness is an emptiness of inherent existence. I do not understand why Thigle2 is making a significant change to the lead without first securing consensus here. I will revert his addition until we have consensus on a citation to support the statement. Sunray (talk) 00:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Suddha, yes I agree that the Jonangpa have a distinguished view here - in fact my basic premise is that for nearly any statement about Buddhism, there is a Buddhist school, tradition, or opinion which differs from that! Far earlier were the Pudgalavada who appeared to subscribe to a substantial 'self'.  I subscribe to Thigle's project of attempting to determine commonalities, but I also do not believe that an article reads well when every assertion is then supplied with a list of contra-positions, if you get me.  I am currently reading the Williams text (and associated papers) in order to see if I can find anything of particular use from Thigle's submissions. (20040302 (talk) 09:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your kind words, Suddha!  20040302 (talk) 13:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Para 2 is still not right. Para 3 is bad. 

message: Trans. Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Suñña Sutta (SN 35.85)
Then Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One, "It is said that the world is empty, the world is empty, lord. In what respect is it said that the world is empty?"
"Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty. And what is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self? The eye is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Forms... Eye-consciousness... Eye-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self.
"The ear is empty...
"The nose is empty...
"The tongue is empty...
"The body is empty...
"The intellect is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Ideas... Intellect-consciousness... Intellect-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Thus it is said that the world is empty."
This is a very early reference to Sunyata, as found in the Pali canon, and it clearly correlates Sunyata with Anatta: "it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Therefore, we can pretty safely state that Sunyata is the emptiness of self or anything pertaining to a self.  
However, and although I agree with it, the direct correlation of Sunyata with Pratītyasamutpāda belongs only to some schools, such as the Madhyamaka. (20040302 (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suñña Sutta (SN 35.85) 

message: As is understandable due to the large amount of scholarship following the Mahayana schools, the article tends to slip ideas pertaining to the Mahayana into the introductory text. The correlation of Sunyata with Pratītyasamutpāda being one of them.  This restructuring is a start at rebalancing and organising the article to maintain NPOV.
I encourage editors to consider whether or not the scope of their source irrefutably and explicitly covers the entirety of Buddhism and all the various Buddhist schools of thought. If not, then it is probably best to find a section for which it belongs.  (20040302 (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substantial restructuring. 

message: Seems to me that Goologs removals are okay! Let's keep it. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Gooolog (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Ping-pong 29-02-2012 

message: Gooloog, I would appreciate it if you could explain what's better "this way"? You may disapprove with themove of Tibetan standpoints to separate sections, but I also put in extra info on the prajnaparamitra, short intro's to the Tibetan schools, added subheaders, and shortened the long quotes. It seems to me that you just copied back your last version, without considering the exact changes, and the value of those changes. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I put some of your content back in. Gooolog (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

text: I've put back some of my contributions myself. Before you remove them en block again, I would appreciate it if you first discuss it. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the direct quote of "conceptual existents, empty of own-existence" anywhere in the cited sources. I replaced that part. In Prasangika, the first paragraphs are not the defining features of Prasangika. So I eliminated that. So I made quite minor changes. Gooolog (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Comment: The editor Gooolog has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Thigle.  Problem solved. - SudoGhost 15:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed. I'm not surprised. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "Better this way"?

message: Regarding the subsection on Prasangika, I'll put back the line "The Prasangika is a sub-school of the Madhyamaka", just as an intro for the "average" Wikipdeia-user (I picture a 17-year old Highschool-student, who's got to write a paper, and needs an orientation on the subject). Joshua Jonathan (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro to Prasangika

message: I moved the Dolpopa-quote to the Jonang-section, to keep the Buddha-nature intro as short as possible. Of course it's arbitrary where to put it; it could also be at the Buddha-natyre section. But I reasoned that "average" readers will drown when too much info is presented, and that the plurality of views is better understandable when they can be linked to specific schools and traditions, which further specify topics already being introduced in previous sections. I hope this explains what my considerations are to move the quote. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Jonang

message: I doubt whether the following is from a reliable source WP:RS; I also have a problem understanding what's it about. See also Talk:Madhyamaka#Leonardo Vittorio Arena. Any other opinions?
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leonardo Vittorio 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Śūnyatā. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://cw.routledge.com/ref/chinesephil/Buddhism.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Śūnyatā. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20041214171512/http://accesstoinsight.org:80/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn121.html to http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn121.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121811583700/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc1/../../../../tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.095.than.html to http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.095.than.html
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://webzoom.freewebs.com/nirvana-sutra/convenient/Mahaparinirvana_Sutra_Yamamoto_Page_2007.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Śūnyatā. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121811583700/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc1/../../../../tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.095.than.html to http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.095.than.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: ~ diff:
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 02:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose adding it, after some checks. Our guidelines require that we wait till these views get cited in other peer-reviewed publications, become mainstream. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joseph Walser 

message: Not sure why the recent edits by User:Ms Sarah Welch removed a large amount of informative material I added. Please discuss why this was done and how we can reach a consensus, don't just delete and say "this is better". User:Joshua Jonathan can you weigh in? Javierfv1212 16:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: @Javierfv1212: You removed sources such as Hamilton, changed longstanding content, and then added in part what feels like quote farm and undue. I also found the overuse of the Shi Huifeng's interesting paper, such as "a drunkard who sleeps with his mother, a madman wandering naked, etc" content you added as inappropriate and unnecessary. Per WP:BRD, please discuss what you removed and why, also what you wish to add and whether the content you added is mainstream in peer-reviewed scholarship. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ehm... WP:BRD also says: try to improve, instead of simply revert. Quotes can be paraphrased, when necessary. Asking to discuss anything someone wants to add is not how Wikipedia works; you can object specific edits, but not demand wholesale a priori discussion of additions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: JJ: Agreed. We already mention Shi Huifeng's work with five cites. Sunyata is a well-discussed subject with zillion papers/books written by so many scholars, as you know. This is not a subject where scholarly publications are in a dearth. Dedicating 25 to 35% on such an important topic to one paper/view with "a drunkard who sleeps with his mother, a madman wandering naked, etc" like content, in one go, is just too much. I would welcome a more balanced update. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: I'm responsible for the bold clarification with no clue. 
Śūnyatā (Sanskrit: शून्यता, romanized: śūnyatā; Pali: suññatā) pronounced in English as /ʃuːnˈjɑː.tɑː/ (shoon-ya-ta), translated most often as emptiness, vacuity, and sometimes voidness, is a concept found in diverse religions which has multiple meanings depending on its doctrinal context, with parallel terminology in the liturgical traditions of more than one classical Indian language.
The structural problem here is that parenthetic material should not be mandatory reading on first pass, but without my addition, the language hopping that follows along in the next two paragraphs is inexplicable if you haven't dumpster-dived the hair-splitting parenthetical on first encounter. — MaxEnt 14:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold clarification with no clue 

message: Except for a stab at an English "pronunciation" of the Sanskrit word, the article gives no other IPA pronunciation. The given English pronunciation of śūnyatā is just wrong, whether in English or another language. The Sanskrit word शून्यता, which is correctly transliterated in the article as "śūnyatā", is pronounced, using IPA symbols somewhat roughly, something like /'ʂuːn jɐ taː/, although that needs refinement. For English-only speakers, it will sound something like "SHOON-yuh-tah". The Sanskrit vowels, in their order in the word, are long-u (/u:/), short-a (/ɐ/), long-a (/a:/). Thes long vowels here approximate the English pronunciations "oo" and "ah", and are long in duration of pronunciation. The short-a middle vowel (/ɐ/) is short in length of pronunciation, and not stressed, and has an almost neutral quality to it, and might be heard as not terribly far from a schwa /ə/, albeit with an "ah" quality. The initial consonant (/ʂ/) is a retroflex "s" (heard in English as "sh"). The other consonants are not very disimilar to the English ones, although the combination "न्य", transcribed as "ny" with a short-a vowel sound, is pronounced more as a unit than as separate sounds. The  word stress is heard on the first syllable. I hope that this may be useful. Thank you. mkriegel (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation of "śūnyatā"