Imho, this book offers very valuable insight into the Eastern side of the Perennial Philosophy, and this quote in particular offers a view why the "different and inconsistent interpretations." But of course, we may all choose a different simile, analogy, or interpretation.
"The well-known simile of water and waves may be used to show how the same experience can be subject to different and inconsistent interpretations. Which is real, the water or the waves? Water here represents the empty (nirguna) Absolute, and waves are its phenomenal manifestation "in" time and space. In these terms, the prajnaparamita claim that "form is no other than emptiness" means that the waves never lose their intrinsic nature as water, since they have no self-nature of their own, being simply a form or manifestation of the water. Yet it is also true that "emptiness is no other than form": to emphasize only the immutability of water is to miss the fact that water never exists in an undifferentiated state but appears only as waves, current, clouds, and so on. So what _really_ exists? Many answers are possible; the important point is that the difference between these answers is not a disagreement about what is perceived but about how one chooses to interpret it. One might say that there is only on thing, the water, and the waves do not really exist, since they are just the forms that water takes. Conversely, one might claim that there are only waves, since there is no such thing as undifferentiated, formless water. The answer one gives also determines whether or not there is permanence. If there is only the water, and the waves are dismissed as mere forms, then there is no change; water remains the same despite any oscillations that may occur. But if there are only waves and if the immutability of water is reject as a thought-construction, then there is only change and no permanence. "Of course, this analogy has its limitations. We can identify water because we can differentiate if from other things (earth, air), where as the sunyata of Buddhism and the Nirguna Brahman of Vedanta cannot be characterized in any way. The simile would work better if water were so all-pervasive that we were completely _in_ it and _of_ it, and thus unable to distinguish it as an _it_. And this suggests another analogy---which may or may no be something more than an analogy." (Loy, David, 'Nonduality: A Study in Comparative Philosophy', p.262) ___ 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/md/archives.html
