18 Emptiness (1)
【 This chapter has been deleted 】
18 Emptiness (1)
(Digression) Color immediately empty
《 (Digression) Color immediately empty 》
1) The interpretation of the phrase "color immediately empty"
2) Evaluation of the meaning of words
3) Evaluation of the interpretation of the phrase "color immediately empty" by Buddhism
4) According to the interpretation by Buddhism, an ordinary thing is expressed in the phrase "color immediately empty"
5) The reason why an ordinary thing is expressed in the phrase "color immediately empty"
6) Can the change of things be the basis for not being attached strongly to things?
7) Not being attached strongly is decent
8) The reason why words have a meaning peculiar to Buddhism
9) It seems that several things which cannot be dealt with at the same time are dealt with at a time, and confusion occurs
10) Yet another interpretation
................
1) The interpretation of the phrase "color immediately empty"
In buddhism, there is the word (phrase) "color immediately empty".
They say that "color" represents all things and phenomena in this world (that are the source or cause of the sensation --for example, colors-- perceived by consciousness) and "empty" represents the fact that everything is empty (without steadfast entity).
And, there seems to be several interpretations of this phrase, and it's roughly interpreted as follows.
a) All things and phenomena in this world are empty without steadfast entity.
b) All things and phenomena in this world have no steadfast entity and (just) exist through causalities. They will disappear immediately the moment the cause is lost.
c) Those visible and formed do not exist as entities and change every moment. There is no invariable entity.
All interpretations are favorable and words have been added to them.
2) Evaluation of the meaning of words
In the interpretation of the phrase "color immediately empty" by Buddhism, it is said that "color" expresses all things and phenomena in this world (that are the source or cause of the sense --for example, colors-- perceived by consciousness).
However, to begin with, "color" doesn't have such a meaning. (If that means them, then this phrase can be "things immediately empty" or "substances immediately empty". Religious teachings should be plain. We don't have to bother to make the teaching esoteric by using characters with different meanings).
So this meaning is straightforwardly an error. This meaning is a source of great misunderstanding and confuses people. The real main point of this phrase becomes unable to be read correctly.
And, it is said that "empty" expresses that everything is empty (without a steadfast entity).
This meaning expresses the fact that everything is not a steadfast entity and changes as "empty". However, the word "empty" doesn't have such a complex meaning. (The original meaning of "empty", rather, is "nothing" or "nothingness"). For this reason, this meaning is extremely misleading, a source of great misunderstanding, and confuses people.
(However, it's not adverted whether a changing entity is materially empty or not).
And so, it seems that the interpretation of this phrase which has the meaning of words peculiar to Buddhism will be unreasonable already at the stage of the meaning of words.
3) Evaluation of the interpretation of the phrase "color immediately empty" by Buddhism
a) All things and phenomena in this world are empty without steadfast entity.
(If we accept the meaning of words by Buddhism), this interpretation basically expresses that everything in this world is not a steadfast entity but changes.
This is the case and true.
And, this is concisely and clearly expressed by the phrase "everything is impermanent" that is other phrase of Buddhism and one of principal foundations of teachings.
However, on the other hand, the fact that all things are not steadfast entities and chenge is expressed as "empty". However, the word "empty" doesn't have such a complex meaning. Thereby, the expression that all things are empty because of changing is vague and hard to understand clearly.
For this reason, this interpretation, though it's true partially, confuses people as a whole.
b) All things and phenomena in this world have no steadfast entity and (just) exist through causalities. They will disappear immediately the moment the cause is lost.
This interpretation is almost the same as the true part of the interpretation of a). And, causalities are added about the (change), appearance(, and disappearance). However, on the contrary, there is not an expression that the change is empty.
So this interpretation is true as a whole.
By the way, it is said that causalities about the occurrence (change) of things is a cardinal teaching of Buddhism.
c) Those visible and formed do not exist as entities and change every moment. There are no steadfast entities.
This interpretation is vague. The meaning of the word "entity" is not clear. And, physically, it's false.
4) According to the interpretation by Buddhism, an ordinary thing is expressed in the phrase "color immediately empty"
According to Buddhism, the phrase "color immediately empty" basically expresses that everything in this world is not a steadfast entity but changes.
(It's not adverted whether a changing entity is materially empty or not).
This is, so to speak, ordinary and expressed concisely and clearly by other phrase of Buddhism "everything is impermanent".
However, in the interpretation by Buddhism, a word "empty" is given a meaning peculiar to Buddhism, and the ordinary things are expressed to be "empty" too. This is misleading and confuses people.
5) The reason why an ordinary thing is expressed in the phrase "color immediately empty"
However, why does this ordinary thing is expressed expressly after giving words meanings peculiar to Buddhism?
It seems that it is to use that as the basis of another teaching. It seems to be the teaching, "don't be attached strongly". The real main point of the interpretation by Buddhism seems to be this. A so esoteric and confusing phrase, "color immediately empty", is used deliberately to express a concise teaching, "don't be attached strongly".
The details are as follows.
Since everything is empty --is not steadfast (as material (physical) being), changes(, and disappears)-- if it is looked at in the passage of time, to be strongly attached is not desirable.
In short, all things will change, (disappear after all, and become nonexistence) because of causalities, but that is the basis for not being attached strongly to things.
However, can that be the basis really? We need to consider.
6) Can the change of things be the basis for not being attached strongly to things?
Unfortunately, the fact that everything changes (and disappears after all) doesn't seem to be the basis for not being attached strongly.
The fundamental basis of the teaching, "don't be attached strongly", based on the phrase "color immediately empty" is the fact that "what changes cannot be the object of deep attachment".
However, this proposition is not true straightforwardly. There is not such a logical necessity. This is because, no matter how things change, they can be the object of deep attachment while they can be the object of deep attachment in the passage of time.
However, so many men, so many minds. And a deep attachment is so emotional and subjective. For this reason, the judgement whether something can be the object of deep attachment or not varies greatly from person to person.
However, for example, here, let's paraphrase a subjective state of mind of "being attached strongly" to an objective event of "judging to be useful".
Then this proposition becomes as follows.
"What chnges is not judged to be useful".
This is not true straightforwardly. This is because, even if something changes, that can be judged to be useful while that is useful in the passage of time.
However, this proposition is reasonable partially. Is is that, if a thing will be judged to be useful also after that changed and became unable to be judged to be useful already, it's unreasonable.
In short, changing things alone cannot be the basis in an objective judgement of a judgement of usefulness. The case needs to be divided.
As a matter of course, about right or wrong of an emotional and subjective state of mind of deep attachement, changing things all the more cannot be the basis.
(It seems that if the logic of the interpretation of the phrase "color immediately empty" by Buddhism was imposed on mind here, the mind will only be puzzled over the unfinishedness and confused).
So, also as for a deep attachment, the case needs to be divided. A case that "if we are attched strongly to things also after they changed and cannot be the object of deep attachment, it's unreasonable" needs to be added.
However, still, there is no such a rule as emotions must obey the rationality or logic. Essentially, emotions are irrational and extremely strong. No matter what the rationality or logic is, emotions arise when they arise. At any rate, emotions are not bound to the rationality or logic.
Moreover, theories are limited in general. Cases in which a theory is applicable to actual events are limited in general. On the contrary, reality is complicated and mysterious. The reality is by no means a simple one that can be alternatively determined as "this is right" or "this is wrong". In spite of that, if it is supposed that a certain theory can be applicable to various actual events unconditionary, that's too forcible. That's a jump of logic.
Furthermore, emotions are formed from the patterns of bodily sensing action and the patterns of thinking action of consciousness, but the neural networks in the brain that are the material foundation of those patterns do not change so easily. And, even though they change, how they change is never predictable. (There is no free will, and the change of the neural networks is completely entrusted to the neural networks themselves (that seek to continue to form and maintain their own physical order)).
The material reality is very tough. No matter what the logically half-finished interpretation of the phrase "color immediately empty" advocates, substances, being exposed to every contingency, change following the logic which occurs in the substances themselves.
For this reason, even if a deep attachment becomes objectively irrational, it can last. Furthermore, a deep attachment can arise even before the object of a deep attachent is realized.
Depending on this, it seems that the phrase "color immediately empty" (= things changing and disappearing after all) cannot be the basis of not being attached strongly.
Supposing that there are such methods, if we want to drop deep attachments, more practical methods are desirable.
It is said that Buddhism is logical. That's very good. However, only in the interpretation of the phrase, "color immediately empty", it's not logical. Rather, the logic is jumping halfway. (Such jumping of logic is not moderate and may also be out of step with the "middle way" which is one of chief teachings of Buddism). Therefore, this interpretation alone is a logical error.
Moreover, this interpretation may be favorable to derive a teaching that "do not be attached strongly", but also be a forcible sophistry to derive the teaching.
................
Or, it's also thinkable that, in the interpretation of this phrase by Buddhism, the fact that everything changes and disappears after all is tacitly felt as unreliable, untrustworthy, vain (useless / futile), etc. And, because of that --because everything disappears and is vain after all--, everything is not enough to be an object of a deep attachment. This is a logic, but not true objectively, and is nihilism.
The fact that a certain thing changes into other thing through causalities is a "change" if it was evaluated objectively.
And, it's possible to evaluate changing of some thing into other thing and disappearing after all as vain, etc. (This is because it disappears at any rate). However, that is just an emotional evaluation.
What exists now will surely disappear in the future because of causality. However, even though things will disappear in the future, to evaluate existing things as vain, etc. is not an ordinary judgement.
(Rather, it's ordinary that everything will disappear in the future. That's what the being of things is. There is no (absolute) purpose fundamentally in the being of things, and the being of things is not what is evaluated from a human and narow view of vainness (uselessness / futileness), etc.
The being of substances fundamentally bases on actions inherent in matter that seek to form and maintain its own physical order. And, the activity of living things --advanced and dynamic physical order-- is also driven by the action at the root. There is no purpose here fundamentally. There is only the work of actions.
For example, it is said that unicellular organisms are developed first on Earth about 3.5 billion years ago, and, since the development, only infinite unicellular organisms had endlessly repeated their emergence and disappearance day after day, fretting and fussing, during about 2.5 billion years, until multicellular organisms develop about a billion years ago. 2.5 billion years. 25 million centuries. It's a daunting amount of time. And, during that period, the Earth was inhabited only by infinite unicellular organisms. (Such state of unicellular organisms is still going on). There is no purpose other than a practical intention that simply seek to sustain its own activity --dynamic and advanced physical order--, (driven at the root by the action inherent in matter).
(By the way, this universe doesn't at all need anything. This universe doesn't require anything from living things. Whatever the outcome, this universe will only be left as it is. By the way, it is said that this current universe is 50th universe in Superstring theory. It seems that the life of the universe will become longer and longer as the reproduction is repeated. The current universe is about 13.7 billion years old).
The purpose, like value, is not absolute, but individual. The purpose is only set up individually according to the circumstances and conditions of the individual, the group of human beings, and the society, and according to the convenience.
And, it seems that there is not much difference in the situation in which humans are placed. Fundamentally, in the beings of humans and living things, there is no purpose other than a practical intention originating in the matter action that seeks to form and sustain its own physical order. Needless to say, it's possible to have an independent purpose or a high purpose based on some (human) thoughts, in the framework of being a human.
And, all things will eventually disappear. That's what it is. Human emotions arise, but we should not be strongly influenced by them).
Food disappears if we will eat it. However, existing food is never useless (futile). It's good enough for us.
Existing things, if they are useful, are useful at the realtime present time. It's not proper to evaluate them (emotionally) by the state after change which will appear in the future. (It's unreasonable logically too). From a way of thinking or stand of living this moment now and here, things must be evaluated in the present situation and must never be evaluated based on the futuristic state.
Moreover, for things to change, things as changing subjects must necessarily exist as entities (which is embodied with energy). In spite of this, to regard existing things that are the subjects of change as empty is perfectly wrong. It's contradictory.
At any rate, things are never empty nor vain (useless / futile). Changes must be evaluated as changes rightly, objectively, and frankly.
................
The interpretation of "color immediately empty" by Buddhism may have confused many people in the past. It seems that this interpretation should be revoked. (The teaching that "do not be attached strongly" can easily be convinced of if we base on quite general rationality. However, it seems very difficult to be derived theoretically). However, the phrase itself doesn't need to be revoked. It's because its true main point may be different.
7) Not being attached strongly is decent
However, not being attached strongly seems to be considerably decent. This is because an attachment for things is one of great causes that brings us distress. To drop a deep attachment seems to be important to evade distress. (However, to drop a deep attachment doesn't seem to be easy. The practical method is more important).
Seemingly, Buddhism seems to express an honest and so simple teaching by an abstruse phrase of which main point cannot be read from the words.
8) The reason why words have a meaning peculiar to Buddhism
In the interpretation of the phrase "color immediately empty" by Buddhism, words have a meaning peculiar to Buddhism as follows.
First, the word "color" represents all things and phenomena in this world. If "color" is used to mean "sense", it's intuitively natural. However, beyond that, it is used deliberately to mean "thing" which is not of original meaning.
However, this is presumed to be intentional to bring "thing" to the interpretation of the phrase. This is because, compared with ideological (and non-physical / immaterial) "sense", "thing" is concrete and easy to image.
Second, "empty" represents the fact that everything is empty (without steadfast entity). However this "empty" is still vague. In detail, the change and disappearance of things are considered to be the meaning of "empty". However, "empty" doesn't have a meaning of "change" and "disappearance".
It seems that "empty" is used to mean "change" and "disappearance" of things which are not original meanings because these events are concrete and easy to image.
9) It seems that several things which cannot be dealt with at the same time are dealt with at a time, and confusion occurs
As to the deep attachment, if it was said to be not desirable because it's a source of suffering in a general sense, that's fine. There is no need to bother to stretch the meaning and make a logically halfway interpretation.
Apparently, it seems that, in the interpretain of the phrase "color immediately empty" by Buddhism, several things which cannot be dealt with at the same time are dealt with at a time, and confusion occurs. For that reason, "color immediately empty" must be abstruse.
They are roughly the following three.
A) A quite religious teaching that "don't be attached strongly"
B) Emptiness of things that arises from causalities (Arising, existing, changing, disappearing, and coming into nonexistent)
C) Fundamental questions about the self, ego, senses, consciousness, and the being of the self (which may be immaterial and empty physically)
And, the original meaning of this phrase might be of C). This is because a question about the self, etc. is not necessarily religious, but can be of a religious interest.
10) Yet another interpretation
If "color" straightforwardly expresses senses and qualia --texture accompanying senses-- that are what are perceived by consciousness, the interpretation of this phrase becomes a concise one that "the sense is empty". And that's true. This is because senses and qualia are things like a shadow or trace of the work (movement) of the action of consciousness, not embodied with energy, and not entities embodied with energy. Because they are materially empty. (Sensations are, also intuitively, felt to be immaterial and empty materially).
The original main point of this phrase may had been this. (This is likely). If so, it follows that this phrase has not expressed a religious teaching but, rather, has been one about consciousness, the self, or ego. And this is also important in a sense.
However, in that case, assuming that a sense doesn't have a physical entity but is materially empty, it will be questioned how it's important, whether it has some religious meaning.
It's because, it is said that "emptiness" is one of principal foundations of Buddhism teachings --however, the reason why that is so is not very clear--, but, in that case, "emptiness" is required to have some meaning.
Moreover, this is not limited to Buddhism only. It seems that the fact that the sense and consciousness may be empty is also assumed outside of Buddhism and is of general interest to religions. Furthermore, there may be many ordinary people who are interested in their being, the self, ego, etc.
Will some thought, self-awareness, cognition, teaching, etc. be developed further from the fact that bodily sensation and senses of thought are (materially) empty? Have such questions been answered already? (However, though "do not be attached strongly" seems to be the official interpretation or teaching of Buddhism about this phrase).
By the way, even though (the quality of) an (ideological) sense is (materially and physically) empty, the cause that brings the sense is present inside and outside the physical consciousness, as a thing (entity). (It's only that what is materially and physically empty is the sense side. However, this is the essence of the sensing action that fulfills measurement action --information gathering action--).
If the cause is regarded as not to exist in this situation, it becomes self-deception that doesn't see reality unvarnishedly. If we go on to live, it seems rather to be desirable that we recognize real things properly and cope with them if necessary.
However, there is no rule on how to deal with it. Buddhism (religion) may be involved in this area.
