When Buddhists speak of a thing or person being 'empty' they really mean 'empty of inherent existence'.
So what is this`'inherent existence' that it is so important to refute?
I've been trying to get my empty head around what an inherently existing object would be like. Here's a few ideas:
(1) An inherently existing entity exists in splendid isolation without the need to reference any other entity. It is completely defined by its own nature.
(2) An inherently existing entity is uncaused.
(3) It is indestructible.
(4) It is eternal.
(5) It is unchanging when viewed externally.
(6) It cannot undergo any internal changes of state.
(7) It either has no constituent parts, or if it has parts those parts are inseparable.
(8) Consequently, nothing can be ejected or removed from it.
(9) Nothing can be added to it (this would change its definition).
(10) No change in external conditions (up to and including the destruction of the entire universe) can affect it.
The fact that an inherently existent object would be indestructible rules out anything composed of physical particles, because every subatomic particle is destructible when it meets its nemesis, in the form of its corresponding antiparticle.
Inherent existence of mathematics
I used to think that mathematics might be inherently existent, but from my limited knowledge of Goedel's theorem, I understand that no system of mathematics can be completely self-defined, and must always reference something external to itself.
Inherent existence of God
God might be another candidate for an inherently existing entity, but if he were truly inherently-existent he could never undergo a change of state in response to external conditions (eg become angry at sinners/infidels and send plagues, pestilences etc to destroy them). Neither would it matter to him whether he was worshipped or not, for no external factor could in the slightest degree affect him.
Also, if God is omnipotent, he has the power to destroy everything, including himself. So even God must be empty of inherent existence because his continued existence is contingent on his not committing suicide.
Invisibility of an inherently existent object
Returning to point (5), a physical, inherently existing object probably couldn't be viewed because the physics of viewing requires the electrons in the object to interact with the photons of light, which would require a rearrangement of the 'parts' of the object. Hence the object would be altered by external conditions.
Also, all physical objects are composed of particles of various sorts, and all particles are changed by being known (Heisenberg, dual wave/particle nature, entanglement etc). So no physical object could ever be inherently existent, as it is composed entirely of parts which are dependently-related to the knower ( and some very weird things happen when you try to find the 'true nature' of fundamental particles.)
Possibly a more abstract object could be known without viewing, in the same way that a mathematical entity such as 'Pi' can be known without being physically viewed.
Not that Pi or any other mathematical function is inherently existent. Pi depends upon the circumference and diameter of a circle. All mathematical entities are imperfect, incomplete and make Goedelian 'external references'.
For a more detailed explanation of this subject see BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY
- Sean Robsville
RELATED ARTICLES:
Sunyata - the emptiness of all things
Existence, Impermanence and Emptiness in Buddhism
Essentialism in Physics, Chemistry and Biology
Rational Buddhism
The Four Seals of Dharma
Quantum Buddhism - Buddhist Particle Physics
------
------
11 comments:
when we try to meditate on emptiness are we therefore trying to imagine oneself as a iherent exsiting object?...dawn
We are trying to find the inherently existing self and eventually, after exhausting all possibilities, we come to the conclusion that the inherently-existing 'self', 'ego' or 'I' does not truly exist.
Like all apparently 'inherently-existing' objects, it dissappears upon analysis.
"Inherent Existence" as a concept does not inherently exist. So when you try to pin down the definition of the *concept* of inherent existence, you can't come up with a "clean, clear" definition.
Garfield's translation of Nagarjuna's Mulamadyhamakakarika (Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way) posits the equivalence of "empty of inherent existence", "dependently originated" and "conceptually designated".
I like the shorthand of "no essence" for "empty of inherent existence". That helps me understand, when I perceive at any phenomenon, hing, that there is in no way any particle, energy, quality or category that exists as an essence, a standalone existent in that phenomenon. That then leads to "dependently originated", meaning that the phenomenon appears before my perceptions due to an endlessly divisible network of elements and causes. And that principle among those elements and causes is my being here to cast a(perhaps sub or unconscious) conceptual designation onto that "thing", delineating it in space and time as "separate and distinct" in the network. This puts me on the doorstep of "what is producing the conceptual designation", which points to the concept of a self. That becomes the next target of analysis, as in "no essence to this self", "this self is dependently originated", "this self is conceptually designated", which points to the "conceptual designator" in the self, the "model of self" in the self and the "observing awareness" in the self. These become the next targets of the three-part "emptiness analysis" described above. This can be repeated again, and again, and again, until the neuro-pschological nexus of model of self conceptualizing engine, and observing awareness is sufficiently weakened that there's a break in the conceptualizing, and a glimpse of non-conceptual awareness. I find that this gets more effective the more it is practiced.
Let's try it again without so many typos....
"Inherent Existence" as a concept does not inherently exist. So when you try to pin down the definition of the *concept* of inherent existence, you can't come up with a "clean, clear" definition.
Garfield's translation of Nagarjuna's Mulamadyhamakakarika (Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way) posits the equivalence of "empty of inherent existence", "dependently originated" and "conceptually designated".
I like the shorthand of "no essence" for "empty of inherent existence". That helps me understand, when I perceive at any phenomenon that there is in no way any particle, energy, quality or category exists as an essence, a standalone existent in that phenomenon. That then leads to "dependently originated", meaning that the phenomenon appears before my perceptions due to an endlessly divisible network of elements and causes. Then "conceptually designated" tells me that principle among those elements and causes is my being here to cast a (perhaps sub or unconscious) conceptual designation onto that "thing", delineating it in space and time as "separate and distinct" in the network. This puts me on the doorstep of "what is producing the conceptual designation", which points to the concept of a self. That becomes the next target of analysis, as in "no essence to this self", "this self is dependently originated", "this self is conceptually designated". These taken together point to to the "conceptual designator" in the self, the "model of self" in the self and the "observing awareness" in the self. These become the next targets of the three-part "emptiness analysis" described above. This can be repeated again, and again, and again, until the neuro-pschological nexus of model of self, conceptualizing engine, and observing awareness is sufficiently weakened that there's a break in the conceptualizing, and a glimpse of non-conceptual awareness. I find that this gets more effective the more it is practiced.
Now, I don't know whether or not this concept is even coherent or relevant. Classical Theist philosophers speak of God being "Pure Actuality", and that concept shares a lot with this purported "inherent existence", but the similarities shouldn't be overstated. Furthermore, if this thing is indeed, supposedly, "defined by a complete lack of relations to other things", then the Forms of things (whether envisioned in a Platonic or Aristotelian way) would seem to be candidates for such.
What about the claim of Buddha in the Pali-cannon that Nirvana is unconditioned? In the Pali-cannon Buddha is recorded as saying (Saṃyutta-nikāya I),
"O bhikkhus, what is the Absolute (Asaṃkhata, Unconditioned)? It is, O bhikkhus, the extinction of desire (rāgakkhayo) the extinction of hatred (dosakkhayo), the extinction of illusion (mohakkhayo). This, O bhikkhus, is called the Absolute."
Thus is it understood in Southern Buddhism that nirvana is an uncompounded or unconditioned state of being which is "transmundane". The Mahayana also have candidates for inherent existence such as the tathagatagarbha (如来藏), buddhadhatu, buddha-nature (佛性), Mind (vijñapti-mātra), and so on.
It has caused endless debate how things can have no-self, be empty, and have no inherent existence when the tathagatagarbha is said to have an element that is "essential, immutable, changeless and still". The tathagatagarbha is apparently equated with the "original edge of reality" (bhutakoti) that is “beyond all distinctions, the equivalent of original enlightenment, or the essence” (Vajrasamadhi Sutra).
In modern times we still have disagreement about this issue and we find scholar-monks such as Thanissaro Bhikkhu [6] saying:
“The idea of emptiness as lack of inherent existence has very little to do with what the Buddha himself said about emptiness. His teachings on emptiness — as reported in the earliest Buddhist texts, the Pali Canon — deal directly with actions and their results, with issues of pleasure and pain. To understand and experience emptiness in line with these teachings requires not philosophical sophistication, but a personal integrity willing to admit the actual motivations behind your actions and the actual benefits and harm they cause.”
In this respect in the past decades in Japan there has been on ongoing debate on whether Zen and the Mahayana should qualify as Buddhist at all [1][2][3][4][5] and their basic argument is around Buddha nature, inherent existence and related issues are a deviation from the real Buddhist teachings anyway.
REFERENCES
[1] Swanson, Paul L. (1997), "Zen is not Buddhism, Recent Japanese Critiques of Buddha-Nature", Numen, Brill Academic, 40 (2),
[2] http://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/…/2012/12/zen-is-not-BUDDHISM.pdf
[3] http://tiny.cc/ZenandBuddhaNature
[4] https://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/nfile/2673
[5] https://www.routledge.com/Critical-Buddhism…/…/9781409417989
[6] The Integrity of Emptiness" Access to Insight, 10 January 2017, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/…/…/integrityofemptiness.html
Could non manifestation be understood without getting into the stream meaning without getting
into the process Eventual emancipation is process driven hence cannot be comprehended without going through the process In a layman's language could you ever know the feel of water without
getting into water? Then would realise that both water and you are not the same the next moment?
Could non manifestation be understood without getting into the stream meaning without getting
into the process Eventual emancipation is process driven hence cannot be comprehended without going through the process In a layman's language could you ever know the feel of water without
getting into water? Then would realise that both water and you are not the same the next moment?
Could non manifestation be understood without getting into the stream meaning without getting
into the process Eventual emancipation is process driven hence cannot be comprehended without going through the process In a layman's language could you ever know the feel of water without
getting into water? Then would realise that both water and you are not the same the next moment?
Could non manifestation be understood without getting into the stream meaning without getting
into the process Eventual emancipation is process driven hence cannot be comprehended without going through the process In a layman's language could you ever know the feel of water without
getting into water? Then would realise that both water and you are not the same the next moment?
Just as we can potentially participate in the life of others without experiencing suffering, God can participate in the lives of all beings without it being a cusse for suffering. I do not agree with the premise in the statement that God can not independently exist becaaause if god an not interact with external phenomena without becoming disturbed. Why not? Is that not our goal in seeking full enlightenment.
Post a Comment