Help
Sign In
buddhism
May 2009 
Empty thoughts on emptiness
Posted on Jun 7th, 2008
by 
dharma_800
dharma_800
This article is a game of the mind:
Next to compassion, emptiness is a 2nd keyword of Buddhism.
Emptiness cannot be understood from the point of view of physics as we know it today in 2008. Atoms are indeed empty, but not completely, and it appears that we can subdivide its core in neutrons and protons and these can be subdivided further into quarks. Even if this were a world of endless subdivision this would not be an indication of emptiness. Moreover, there is something like the planck length beyond which we cannot go. In theory (like M-theory) we could go much deeper, but we would not be able to experiment beyond this scale. Besides, the empty space in the atom is full of energy levels. Is it really empty then? We have learned that matter is a special state of energy and is convertible to energy, while energy is convertible into matter. In that case, space is definitely not empty.
Is it possible to start from a logical object oriented approach and reach some knowledge?
Every phenomenon or object has characteristics/properties and methods. A method is an operation that can act upon the object or phenomenon (causes and effects). An object/phenomenon is an individual belonging to a class of objects with the same properties and on which the same methods can be applied. A class is an object in itself belonging to a class of classes, where from the class of classes itself is a member of its own class.
Methods also belong to classes of methods.
As a first maths example: in the class of squares, we can attribute the properties: side_size, and color and the method enlarge_by factor. One individual square could have color purple and side_size 2 (its surface would then be 4) besides other properties that make it different form all other squares. If we enlarge it by factor 3 then we would multiply its size by 3 and inflate that square to a side_size 6 and its surface would then be 36.
As another real world example we could have a look at the tree of earth life with 8 sub levels:
Life -> Domain -> Kingdom -> Phylum -> Class -> Order -> Family -> Genus -> Species
But the "Class of Species" is not alive. Only its members are alive.
We belong to the domain of the eukaryota, kingdom of animalia, phylum Chordata, Class mamalia, Order Primates, Family Hominidae, Genus Homo, Species: Homo Sapiens. We belong to that class, but we are not that class. We share some characteristics (that could possibly further subdivide us into subclasses) but all our differences make us individuals. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rank_%28zoology%29#Ranks_in_zoology)
We could say that this classification system is in fact a theoretical map or web of the mind without intrinsic existence. However the individual members exist as separate entities.
Mathematics is a science of non tangible nature. Numbers, (or perfect squares) do not exists as objects in nature, however the number three is an individual object and a member of the class of natural numbers. Does the number three really exist? Is this the Buddhist emptiness?
Is three an entity?
Is three a concept?
According to Kamalashila we have to go beyond concepts (classes of objects) to reach non-conceptual meditation: "It has been explained very clearly that through mere elimination of mental activity, without examining the identity of things with wisdom, it is not possible to engage in non-conceptual meditation." And he also cites out of the Cloud of Jewels: "One [person] skilled in discerning the faults engages in the yoga of meditation on emptiness in order to get rid of all conceptual elaborations".
As in the world of object oriented programming, mind creates concepts to enhance its grip on or understanding of the universe and its components, and works with these concepts as long as it is active. Doing so, it has also created concepts about itself.
In a real world without concepts, this mind is alien. Mind is the mapmaker and map holder without ever really seeing reality as it is. Mind is constantly interacting with the real world, first by processing the information from the 5 senses into maps of reality conform to the concepts in its memory. (Neither is the eye capable of grasping reality, having only limited resolution, (resolution itself however fine is always a limiting factor) and frequency respons (we don't see radio waves, or microwaves or infrared or UV or X-rays) and knowing nothing about the everything concealed to it.)
Since the mind created its own concepts of its own existence and its own self, the least we can say about these concepts is that they cannot be correct. If mind is nothing but a concept to itself, then mind does not exist. If however mind has a real nature, like the objects it conceptualizes, then it also exists. HH the Dalai Lama says: "The mind that is absorbed in selflessness discards the basis of all misconceptions."
Are concepts the basis of misconceptions?
All concepts are in the end only a map of reality lacking any depth.
Prejudices and preoccupations will cease to exist when concepts are put to a halt.
Since the mind is conceptual, we can by reasoning only admit that the mind can never grasp reality itself. And it can never grasp its own self. It can only make maps of itself.
Moreover, reasoning itself is based on concepts like "the implication, and, or, reductio ad absurdum (proof by contradiction), etc ... '
If reasoning is based on concepts, and those concepts have in that case nothing to do with reality, then this implies that we cannot say anything at all about the mind, period.
However thoughts are to the mind what simple movements are to the body.
Reasoning is to the mind like swimming or coordinated movement is to the body. We can conceptualize reasoning (and swimming), and so reasoning can never entirely grasp itself - it can make maps of itself.
My concepts about reasoning thus are empty, but what about the real nature of reasoning itself?
We have of course Nagarjuna. He is credited with developing the philosophy of the Prajnaparamita sutras.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagarjuna).The sunyatasaptati (Seventy Verses on Emptiness) are the most interesting part of this in the view of my research. However, even reading him in my own language is not enough to understand the concept. We need to see with our own mind, senses or awareness what it is all about. If not, Nagarjuna's words remain empty.
Ken Wilber pretends that emptiness is the paper on which we draw our maps.
In the west we have Immanuel Kant who wrote 'Critique of Pure Reason - Kritik der Reinen Vernuenft'
There is a whole branch of philosophy related to these problems:
- Phenomenology (exploration of phenomena as observed and part of consciousness):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology
- Epistemology (theory of knowledge): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
- Ontology (theory of what exists, being, existence): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology
In fact philosophy cannot exist without answering the questions of ontology.
Updated June 7th, 2008
Posted first on Apr 29th, 2008
Next to compassion, emptiness is a 2nd keyword of Buddhism.
Emptiness cannot be understood from the point of view of physics as we know it today in 2008. Atoms are indeed empty, but not completely, and it appears that we can subdivide its core in neutrons and protons and these can be subdivided further into quarks. Even if this were a world of endless subdivision this would not be an indication of emptiness. Moreover, there is something like the planck length beyond which we cannot go. In theory (like M-theory) we could go much deeper, but we would not be able to experiment beyond this scale. Besides, the empty space in the atom is full of energy levels. Is it really empty then? We have learned that matter is a special state of energy and is convertible to energy, while energy is convertible into matter. In that case, space is definitely not empty.
Is it possible to start from a logical object oriented approach and reach some knowledge?
Every phenomenon or object has characteristics/properties and methods. A method is an operation that can act upon the object or phenomenon (causes and effects). An object/phenomenon is an individual belonging to a class of objects with the same properties and on which the same methods can be applied. A class is an object in itself belonging to a class of classes, where from the class of classes itself is a member of its own class.
Methods also belong to classes of methods.
As a first maths example: in the class of squares, we can attribute the properties: side_size, and color and the method enlarge_by factor. One individual square could have color purple and side_size 2 (its surface would then be 4) besides other properties that make it different form all other squares. If we enlarge it by factor 3 then we would multiply its size by 3 and inflate that square to a side_size 6 and its surface would then be 36.
As another real world example we could have a look at the tree of earth life with 8 sub levels:
Life -> Domain -> Kingdom -> Phylum -> Class -> Order -> Family -> Genus -> Species
But the "Class of Species" is not alive. Only its members are alive.
We belong to the domain of the eukaryota, kingdom of animalia, phylum Chordata, Class mamalia, Order Primates, Family Hominidae, Genus Homo, Species: Homo Sapiens. We belong to that class, but we are not that class. We share some characteristics (that could possibly further subdivide us into subclasses) but all our differences make us individuals. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rank_%28zoology%29#Ranks_in_zoology)
We could say that this classification system is in fact a theoretical map or web of the mind without intrinsic existence. However the individual members exist as separate entities.
Mathematics is a science of non tangible nature. Numbers, (or perfect squares) do not exists as objects in nature, however the number three is an individual object and a member of the class of natural numbers. Does the number three really exist? Is this the Buddhist emptiness?
Is three an entity?
Is three a concept?
According to Kamalashila we have to go beyond concepts (classes of objects) to reach non-conceptual meditation: "It has been explained very clearly that through mere elimination of mental activity, without examining the identity of things with wisdom, it is not possible to engage in non-conceptual meditation." And he also cites out of the Cloud of Jewels: "One [person] skilled in discerning the faults engages in the yoga of meditation on emptiness in order to get rid of all conceptual elaborations".
As in the world of object oriented programming, mind creates concepts to enhance its grip on or understanding of the universe and its components, and works with these concepts as long as it is active. Doing so, it has also created concepts about itself.
In a real world without concepts, this mind is alien. Mind is the mapmaker and map holder without ever really seeing reality as it is. Mind is constantly interacting with the real world, first by processing the information from the 5 senses into maps of reality conform to the concepts in its memory. (Neither is the eye capable of grasping reality, having only limited resolution, (resolution itself however fine is always a limiting factor) and frequency respons (we don't see radio waves, or microwaves or infrared or UV or X-rays) and knowing nothing about the everything concealed to it.)
Since the mind created its own concepts of its own existence and its own self, the least we can say about these concepts is that they cannot be correct. If mind is nothing but a concept to itself, then mind does not exist. If however mind has a real nature, like the objects it conceptualizes, then it also exists. HH the Dalai Lama says: "The mind that is absorbed in selflessness discards the basis of all misconceptions."
Are concepts the basis of misconceptions?
All concepts are in the end only a map of reality lacking any depth.
Prejudices and preoccupations will cease to exist when concepts are put to a halt.
Since the mind is conceptual, we can by reasoning only admit that the mind can never grasp reality itself. And it can never grasp its own self. It can only make maps of itself.
Moreover, reasoning itself is based on concepts like "the implication, and, or, reductio ad absurdum (proof by contradiction), etc ... '
If reasoning is based on concepts, and those concepts have in that case nothing to do with reality, then this implies that we cannot say anything at all about the mind, period.
However thoughts are to the mind what simple movements are to the body.
Reasoning is to the mind like swimming or coordinated movement is to the body. We can conceptualize reasoning (and swimming), and so reasoning can never entirely grasp itself - it can make maps of itself.
My concepts about reasoning thus are empty, but what about the real nature of reasoning itself?
We have of course Nagarjuna. He is credited with developing the philosophy of the Prajnaparamita sutras.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagarjuna).The sunyatasaptati (Seventy Verses on Emptiness) are the most interesting part of this in the view of my research. However, even reading him in my own language is not enough to understand the concept. We need to see with our own mind, senses or awareness what it is all about. If not, Nagarjuna's words remain empty.
Ken Wilber pretends that emptiness is the paper on which we draw our maps.
In the west we have Immanuel Kant who wrote 'Critique of Pure Reason - Kritik der Reinen Vernuenft'
There is a whole branch of philosophy related to these problems:
- Phenomenology (exploration of phenomena as observed and part of consciousness):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology
- Epistemology (theory of knowledge): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
- Ontology (theory of what exists, being, existence): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology
In fact philosophy cannot exist without answering the questions of ontology.
Updated June 7th, 2008
Posted first on Apr 29th, 2008
Access: PublicTagged with: buddhism, emptiness, Kamalashila, Dalai Lama, Object Oriented, class, concept, entities, mind, existence, ontology, phenomenology, epistemology, Nagarjuna, Kant
