Question: I got introduced to this "Female Buddha" when I was looking name for my friend's daughter.

So what does female Buddha mean?

**Wikipedia :**

> 
> [Tara (Buddhism)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tara_(Buddhism))  
> 
> Tara (Sanskrit: तारा, tārā; Tib. སྒྲོལ་མ, Dölma), Ārya Tārā, or Shayama Tara, also known as Jetsun Dölma (Tibetan language: rje btsun sgrol ma) in Tibetan Buddhism, is an important figure in Buddhism. She appears as a female bodhisattva in Mahayana Buddhism, and as a female Buddha in Vajrayana Buddhism. She is known as the "mother of liberation", and represents the virtues of success in work and achievements. She is known as Tara Bosatsu (多羅菩薩) in Japan, and occasionally as Duōluó Púsà (多羅菩薩) in Chinese Buddhism.
> 
> 
> 

My question is what does this concept mean **is she a person who appeared in past who's name is Tara**?

Or **is it philosophical concept that meditators seen she's appearing?**

Also why this is not exist in **Thervada Buddhism** when statue is in **Bihar** state of **India?**  

[![Tara image from Bihar, 10th century ](https://i.stack.imgur.com/waPVn.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/waPVn.jpg)

Answer: 
The Void is sometimes implied differently than other times
in English. Existential descriptioning isn't English's long suit.

Maybe Zen/ Chan discussions of the concept are generally more prominent
overall.

Confusion etc isn't The Void.

In The True Void 'is' Reality. There isn't confusion.
There isn't dukkha. There isn't cloudiness.
There isn't any illusion. There isn't delusion.
In The Void there is nonmisinterpretation.

Attempts to define The Void tend to be circular or inaccurate.
The description of going into it or something isn't vague enough.
The question does a quite good job of nonpigeonholing of it.
Maybe lost something in translation: maybe more at
based on reasonableness, logic is very limited by concrete
things available for its processes & sometimes either cannot conclude
because of insufficient information etc, or comes up with
rather nonsensible conclusions because of the data available.
Buddhism provides guidelines for addressing things which
haven't necessarily become data yet, and how previously
unencountered data can be reasonably addressed. Reasonable
consideration may be more effective than logic only.

The Void mightn't be so like a temporary journey to
someplace or other, real or existential, etc, as cited in the
question. Maybe very nice spots, but they aren't descriptions of
The True Void. Those sound more like heavens or something.
And may be Impermanent.

Consciousnesses arent really so much part of The Void,
consciousnesses are more at heavens etc.
Logical typical word description doesnt do so well with
trying to describe The Void. Despite many people writing books
about it, giving things names etc, The Void is different from
names or groups of words and most reference points. So
fundamental description of The Void which uses words would tend
to be circular/ misleading.

Some things can 'be' without being grounded in ordinary descriptioning.

That's sort of the answer to the question, in language. Which is a very

Good & nicely asked question.
In Buddhism, there is a state called "Nirodha Samapatthi" or Cessation of Perception and feeling. It is said that in this state you are not conscious but the body has not died. The maximum duration of this state is seven days and you emerge from it and understand it as empty.