A. Mendez:
Hello,
I hope someone can help me with this. One or 2 months ago I was meditating, felt very deep and quiet and it was noticed that there was only space that was beyond "me", meaning that space was me and the physical barriers were just gone and that lasted intensely for a day or two. In that period, it is very difficult to explain but it was felt or perceived that although everything is boundless "space", there were objects seen by my eyes and perceived, though just like a hologram: objects are there, but in some sense only "space" is perceived where objects are, as in some sense they are not existent, however I can still feel them and interact with them, as they exist but do not exist. The intensity of the episode has gone away but now with a little attention I can still perceive that "boundless space", and objects are "non existent" and just "space" if I'm not interacting with them. It is like more than objects, things are just an experience and not "inherently existent". Is this emptiness?
Hello, Senor Mendez, and welcome to DhO! You've picked a marvelous place to dive in, I must say, with this question. "Is this emptiness?" as question, koan, or mantra, will keep you interested for eons, in my experience.
Strikingly, in Daniel Ingram's Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha, the first edition's chapter 28 was entitled "Was That Emptiness?" In the second edition, that chapter ends up being chapter 32, now entitled "What was that?" Daniel explains: "I changed this chapter's title from 'Was That Emptiness?' since I have realized that 'emptiness' is a loaded term that is variously interpreted in different Buddhist philosophical systems. These interpretations are then refiltered, distorted, and misinterpreted by some of those who study and expound on these tenets. Adding to that, the generally negative connotations in English of the word 'emptiness' increases the confusion, which is why I have changed the chapter's name for this edition."
I would recommend reading that whole chapter in MCTB2, for starters. It will put your question in excellent context.
I would also take heart from this, from the same chapter: "The first and perhaps most important point is that from a certain perspective it is not an important question if you are practicing well and will continue to practice well, as good practice moves things along."
Speaking personally, and pragmatically, I would say that in a broad sense, "emptiness" is something we begin to get a sense of through the assiduous observation of the Three Characteristics of impermanence, suffering, and no-self, anicca, dukkha, and anatta, in everything that arises. It may be going too far to suggest that "emptiness" is what begins to make us truly and deeply miserable, terrified, etc., at the entry into the "Knowledges of Suffering," the dukkha nanas of the Dark Night. The entry nanas there, "Dissolution," sort of implies this: what we believed to be solid and reliable melts away, and it freaks the fuck out of us. In this same vein, from one angle Equanimity would be achieving some viable degree of acceptance of what has dissolved, an acceptance that deepens into peace with "emptiness." But that's just my two cents worth.
Again, welcome to the sangha here, and may your path through emptiness, by way of emptiness, to arrive in emptiness without ever having departed from it, be full and rich and fruitful.
love, tim