[MD] emptiness

[Ham Priday]

Hi Mark --


> Hi Ham,
> While I am working on my ontology presentation for you, I found it
> necessary to step in here, and perhaps correct your understanding of
> Buddhism by correcting some erroneous points you made.
>
> I am not sure what guidelines you are using to state that Buddhist
> doctrines are not a source of wisdom or knowledge about reality.  I
> will pass this off as your unfamiliarity with Buddhism.

Admittedly, my understanding of Buddhism doesn't extend much beyond A.J. 
Bahm's 'Philosophy of the Buddha', Philip Kapleau's 'The Three Pillars of 
Zen', and Beatrice Suzuki's 'Mahayana Buddhism', softback copies of which 
rest on my library shelf.  However, I'm not so much concerned with the Ways 
of Enlightenment and the koans that are alleged to help get us there as I am 
with the claim that ultimate truth is knowable and exists in two forms.

> Ham, keep in mind that the use of two truths is for presentation
> purposes.  Once one is enlightened, these two truths disappear.  This
> would be similar to learning how to ride a bicycle.  Such student
> receives instructions on how to ride.  However, once he/she becomes
> "enlightened" on bike riding, the new bike rider will never have to
> resort to those instructions again, because he/she "Knows" how to ride
> a bike.  Of course, he does not know this intellectually, for why
> should he, it is simply riding a bike.
>
> In the same way, both duality and non-duality are human concepts
> which can be disregarded once they are realized.  For example how
> often during the day do you say "gee, I am living in a world of duality"?
> The same is true for non-duality.  Most of what we experience is of
> the non-dual variety, for to actively separate oneself from all the
> stimulus that one receives is impossible.  We create a dual world when
> we think about it, for the mind is one of reflection.  As an analogy,
> non-duality can be considered as an event in which there is no
> distinction between oneself and what one is experiencing.  Oneself and
> one's experience are one and the same.  This is not a mystical or
> magical process by any means, since we do this all the time.  When you
> walk, are you paying attention to how you are walking and that your
> feet are far away from your head?  Do you intellectually participate
> with each step you take and create a subject object understanding?  Do
> you plan ahead before you start walking and in between each step?
> Well I hope not.  You and the act of walking are the same thing.

The Mahayanans don't speak of their two truths in terms of duality and 
non-duality, but as "conventional" (Marsha's favorite term ) and "ultimate". 
And because the "wisdom" of the ultimate is alleged to be revealed only in 
the meditative state, nowhere do they describe what it is.  Here, for 
example, is what D.T. Suzuki (Beatrice's husband) says about "emptiness":

"When the Battisattava Avalokitesvara was engaged in the practice of the 
deep Prajnaparamita he perceived: there are five Skandhas; and these he saw 
in their self-nature to be empty.

"O Saraputra, form is here emptiness, emptiness is form; form is no other 
than emptiness, emptiness is no other than form; what is form that is 
emptiness, what is emptiness that is form. The same can be said of 
sensation, thought, confection, and consciousness.

"O Saraputra, all things are here characterised with emptiness: they are not 
born, they are not annihilated, they are not stained, they are not 
immaculate; they do not increase, they do not decrease.  ...In the mind of 
the Badhisativa, who dwells depending on the Prajnaparamita, there are no 
obstacles; and, going beyond the perverted views, he reaches final Nirvana."

Perfectly clear, right?  Is this intended to be a description of ultimate 
reality?  How can anyone know for sure?  That emptiness (or what I would 
call "nothingness") defines form is understandable enough, and that the 
Absolute is formless seems reasonable to me.  But 'formlessness' does not 
mean "emptiness", and that, I suggest, is Marsha's problem.  As I asked her, 
what supports Nagarjuna's conclusion that "emptiness is not an essence"?

> Again, as I stated above, Emptiness is a condition.  We do not
> experience "emptiness".  If we label our reaction to the concept of
> emptiness, "emptiness" then I suppose we do, but this just complicates
> the discussion.  Emptiness is a method of viewing the world in order
> to move beyond that method.

Existence is a "conditional" system in that everything is subject to change. 
Although we do not experience emptiness (i.e., nothingness) directly; we 
experience differentiation which is the effect of nothingness on value 
sensibility.  But existence is only the phenomenal mode of reality -- the 
SOM aspect.  What light does this theory of emptiness shed on Ultimate 
Reality?

> From a personal point of view, "Emptiness" is experienced as both
> relief and freedom.  Such experience can be arrived at through the
> contemplation of causal form.  However, once the experience is
> reached, the concept of emptiness is not needed.  It is just a method,
> not the real thing.  Perhaps if I used the term "synchronicity in
> harmony" you would better understand.  It means to experience the
> world not as a confining place, but as a place being created at that
> very moment, and moment to moment.  For indeed, if we are constantly
> the result of a variety of causes (in real time), there is nothing
> which we can grasp.  We become free-floating like an astronaut, and it
> is really a remarkable feeling.  Remember, that the words used to
> describe the philosophy are words.  These words are used for a
> purpose, it is that purpose that we are after.

Yes, and it is precisely that purpose which Buddhist philosophy is lacking. 
When an intelligent person like Marsha is persuaded by Nagarjuna that 
reality is ultimately empty, Buddhism is doing us all a disservice in my 
opinion.

> Yes, you are correct here, nothingness is not the best ground of
> existence, in my opinion.  However, according to some modern physics,
> all "that is" can be explained by string theory.  These strings can be
> said to only be made up of oscillations, and not mass since they are
> one dimensional (infinitely thin strings).  Therefore, according to
> this theory the ground of existence is Nothingness.  By the way,
> modern physics is coming around to the same concepts that existed
> 2,500 years ago.  It just took us barbarians a while to catch on.
>
> With this in mind, I will categorically state that in physics it is
> possible to determine something coming from nothing (or nothingness
> if you prefer).  To keep this simple, during high energy particle
> collision experiments, the phenomenon of the sudden appearance of a
> particle and its anti-particle is seen.  For example, an electron, and
> its opposite a positron will appear out of nowhere.  There is
> conservation of mass, because one is matter, and the other is
> anti-matter.

Look, Mark, I understand that energy (or anti-matter) can be transformed to 
substantive matter.  But that isn't "starting from nothingess", is it?  Even 
physicists realize that in order to have a coherent universe, energy must be 
created so as to conform to the system design.  The Big Bang may have been 
an event of great significance in the history of our universe, but it was 
not the Creator nor the primary source of experiential beingness.

> My suggestion is that you read a few comprehensive books on Buddhism
> before you begin to try to analyze it.  I am sure that Marsha has some
> good web sites for people such as Wallace.  He is trying to create a
> Western Buddhism that we can perhaps understand.  However, those
> interested are going to have to unlearn an awful lot.  All the schooling
> we have been indoctrinated with from a very young age does leave its mark.

I'd be willing to read more on Buddhism if I thought it would enhance my 
understanding of cosmology.  As for recreating Buddhism for the Western 
mind, I see no point to such efforts.  What mankind needs is a belief system 
whereby he can realize the full potential of his value sensibility, 
understand his individuality as a rational agent, and exercise his authentic 
role as the choice-maker of his universe.

But thanks for the suggestion, Mark.  I'll be anxious to explore your 
ontology presentation.

Happy holidays and a fulfilling new year to you and yours,.
Ham