Even though the definitions for both words will cause some people trouble (and emptiness is probably the most easily misunderstood term from Buddhism), "emptiness" and "suchness" are very closely related, and are not as different as some might think. You can only find yourself in your suchness if you are first "emptied" of everything and all of your conditioning. Everything in nature is in its suchness; it is the way that it is, and in this suchness its emptiness, and the way that it connects with all other things, can be found in the same way as it can be found in human beings. In the beginning of The Heart of Understanding, Thich Nhat Hanh gives us the definition for a word, a word not yet in the dictionary. This word is "interbeing . In his explanation of this word he describes how everything that we see here depends on something else to be what it is. To use his example: without the logger, the sunshine, or clouds, the paper upon which we read would not be able to exist. At the end of this description of the word "interbeing , Thich Nhat Hanh states that "The Heart Sutra seems to say the opposite. Avalokiteshvara tells us that things are empty.  (p. 4) Thich Nhat Hanh continues to speaks of the piece of paper, and how if we only look at it from the outside, we are separate from it and we will not fully comprehend how everything is interconnected: "If we only look at the sheet of paper as an observer, standing outside, we cannot understand it completely . (p. 9) The idea that speaks to me from this is that if we are transcendent to this idea of interbeing then we will not truly understand emptiness or suchness, and along with this we will not truly understand Buddhism or any of its concepts. We need to be immersed in this idea; we must "be a cloud, be the sunshine and be the logger . (p. 9) Suchness is a word that speaks about the interconnectedness amongst all beings and things through circumstances and interdependence. This is a tricky idea, though, and one that I've struggled with from the beginning. It's easy for one to say that we're all interconnected and that we must "be the sunshine , but how does one become the sunshine? I can feel the sunshine, and I can see how, without the sunshine, I would not exist. But how does that mean that without me the sunshine would not exist? Everything that is, has to be, otherwise the current moment would not be possible. I am a part of this current moment, so it would follow that I must exist in order for everything else to be possible; but without me, why can there not be a different "current moment  that exists? Why can there not be a "right now  where the sunshine exists without me? The idea that something cannot exist without the sunshine, or the clouds, or the air is an easy one to understand. Clearly, all of those things make such a substantial effect on everything. But me, what do I really add to the current moment of life? Without me, people could stil