April 25, 2009
out of our depths/essence
then if i’m interpreting you correctly, you seem to side with buddhist ideology. which is to say, in your view, all phenomenon are empty of essence.
—
i don’t know. i’ve always struggled with that type of language and phrasing. in a philosophical sense, if all phenomenon were empty of essence, then all we’d have is nothing.
some phenomena are empty of essence, sure. maybe even most. i think i understand the implication of illusion that goes with the term, but the buddha’s manifestation for instance, even if he was an illusion, there was an essence to that illusion that has pervaded and influenced thought. a molecule, the life contained in a cell, there is an essence there. so i just don’t know.
the discussion of emptiness is something i’ve never sorted out (in buddhist lines) cause there’s so many conflicting aspects to it. but yes, i think a phenomena can be an illusion and be empty of essence, but still be essential.
—
:-)
Comments
No Comments