Emptiness of natural things.
Maybe we can rescue Plato's ideas of the inherent existence of
perfect forms if we assume there is a strict demarcation between
man-made and natural objects, with the former existing in dependence
upon the 'judgement' of the observer, but the latter existing 'from
their own side'. For having come to accept that man-made things such
as chariots and cars owe some of their existence to dependence on our
mind, we may suspect that this is somehow because they are originally
products of the human mind - as first conceived by the designer.
We find it more difficult to accept the natural things in the world,
such as flowers and trees are dependent upon our minds. A rose would
smell as sweet by any other name. A rose bush is a rose bush is a
rose bush, and is different in its inherent nature from a plum or a
cherry tree. There is no continuum between these three species and
thus no necessity for our mind to make a judgment of the borderline.
But is this really the case?
Leaving aside nightmare genetic engineering scenarios of octophants,
elepuses and all stages in between, we may consider that there is (or
was) a continuum of form between all living things. If we were to
examine the fossil records of the ancestors of cherry trees and plum
trees we would find that they diverged from one common ancestor.
Looking back through the fossils we would seen a continuous gradation
of characteristics from the ancestors of the cherry to to the
ancestors of the plum, leading back to a time when they were
indistinguishable. But the decision as to where ancestor ended and
plum or cherry began would be totally arbitrary. And if we were to
trace the common ancestor of the cherry and plum we would find
convergence with the ancestors of the rose, strawberry, raspberry
etc. What Darwin did for creationism he also did for biological
Platonism - the biological species concept does not encapsulate any
underlying truth [BROOKES 1999], and each individual species is unfindable
The ultimate unfindability of the real nature of all phenomena -
their lack inherent existence, is usually referred to by
English-speaking Buddhists as 'emptiness', which is a translation of
the Sanskrit word Sunyata (sometimes spelled Shunyata). According to
David Loy the English word emptiness has a more nihilistic
connotation than the original Sanskrit. The Sanskrit root su also
conveys the concept of being swollen with possibility [LOY 1996]. It
is therefore most important not to confuse emptiness with total
nothingness. Emptiness implies the potential for existence and
change. The mathematical analogy of emptiness is not zero, but the empty set.
The conclusion that all things are empty of inherent existence and
appear only in dependence on our minds is not an obvious truth. So
deeply ingrained is the idea of inherent existence and authority in
Western culture that even when we have analysed all things as
dependent on causes, and dependent on parts, we still hold back from
the most subtle truth of dependence on mind. We think there ought to
be 'something out there', or someone 'authoritative' who prevents the
real world from being so much dependent upon our judgement. On first
meeting teachings on emptiness the western mind often suspects it is
the victim logical trickery or mere playing with words. Fortunately
it is possible to demonstrate the true and all-pervasive nature of
emptiness by examining the mode of existence of fundamental
particles, the building blocks of all things in the material universe.
http://kwelos.tripod.com/sunyata.htm
.
_____________
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
