Interaction

Figure 1Qualification

Agent

MahayanaMahayana Buddhism, of which 2 Buddhism, of which 2ndnd century Indian philosopher century Indian philosopher Nagarjuna is a chief actor, Nagarjuna is a chief actor, offered a offered a broader definition of soullessnessbroader definition of soullessness and declared that, not only are and declared that, not only are persons devoid of ‘a self’, but that persons devoid of ‘a self’, but that all of the elements comprising all of the elements comprising existence are also without essence. existence are also without essence. They are ‘empty’, sunya, of the very They are ‘empty’, sunya, of the very notion of ‘self-nature’. notion of ‘self-nature’.

Interpretant

Figure 2

SemioticObject

Sign

'Won the race'Verb

Interpretant

Figure 3

'Male, Young,Athetic'

AdjectiveObject

'John'NounSign

An analogy from the history of Western physics An analogy from the history of Western physics (Western) might help clarify the aparent conflict (Western) might help clarify the aparent conflict between the ‘emptiness’ and ‘something’. Classical between the ‘emptiness’ and ‘something’. Classical Newtonian physics saw everything as comprised of Newtonian physics saw everything as comprised of irreducible atoms with a determinable location and irreducible atoms with a determinable location and momentum. Belief in the determinism made possible momentum. Belief in the determinism made possible by such a reified existence led French mathematician by such a reified existence led French mathematician Pierre de Laplace to declare that, could he Pierre de Laplace to declare that, could he theoretically know the location and momentum of theoretically know the location and momentum of every monad in the universe, he could predict the every monad in the universe, he could predict the exact future history of the entire cosmos. Quantum exact future history of the entire cosmos. Quantum physics revolutionized this view by describing the physics revolutionized this view by describing the qualities of the monadic elements of existence as qualities of the monadic elements of existence as being inherently unknowable (‘emptiness’, or mere being inherently unknowable (‘emptiness’, or mere possible possibility as devoid of the very idea of ‘self-possible possibility as devoid of the very idea of ‘self-nature’).nature’).

Further, the utter smallness of the Further, the utter smallness of the particles and the sheer distances particles and the sheer distances between them shows matter to be between them shows matter to be little more than empty space and little more than empty space and existence ultimately nothing more existence ultimately nothing more than interactions of abstract energy than interactions of abstract energy fields. That the truest cosmological fields. That the truest cosmological quality of things is emptiness, quality of things is emptiness, sunyatasunyata, came to be regarded as the , came to be regarded as the central notion of Buddhism. central notion of Buddhism.

'Burns'

Figure 4

'Hot'

'Fire'

Not only are things Not only are things ‘empty’, the ‘empty’, the MahayanaMahayana school declared, but the school declared, but the very notion of very notion of ‘emptiness’ is itself ‘emptiness’ is itself ‘empty’ (sunyata). ‘empty’ (sunyata).

Atonic

Figure 5

Chromatic(Range of

Qualifications)

Diatonic

On the one hand, early Buddhism saw On the one hand, early Buddhism saw ‘emptiness’ as a lack of being but, on the ‘emptiness’ as a lack of being but, on the other, something remains which cannot be other, something remains which cannot be negated.negated. These statements will not make These statements will not make sense in Buddhist terms unless reconciled sense in Buddhist terms unless reconciled with the Buddha's absolute rejection of an with the Buddha's absolute rejection of an ultimate ground of reality. The meaning of ultimate ground of reality. The meaning of the paradox, according to the Perfection of the paradox, according to the Perfection of Wisdom writings, is that ‘emptiness’ is Wisdom writings, is that ‘emptiness’ is both and neither being and non-being, both and neither being and non-being, both and neither negation and affirmation . both and neither negation and affirmation . ‘Emptiness’ is not really a thing any more ‘Emptiness’ is not really a thing any more than a thing is really ‘empty’, for reality than a thing is really ‘empty’, for reality cannot be pinned down in concepts. cannot be pinned down in concepts.

UniversalBecoming;Universal

Non-Becoming

Figure 6

All PossibleQualifieres;No PossibleQualifiers

'God''Shakespeare'

Universal Existent;Universal Non-Existent

This paradoxical, non-conceptual use of the This paradoxical, non-conceptual use of the notion of ‘emptiness’ is reflected in the fact notion of ‘emptiness’ is reflected in the fact that certain of the Perfection of Wisdom that certain of the Perfection of Wisdom writings used the notion without ever writings used the notion without ever mentioning the term. The Diamond Sutra, mentioning the term. The Diamond Sutra, for example, taught that the notion of for example, taught that the notion of ‘emptiness’ was to be used like a hard ‘emptiness’ was to be used like a hard diamond to ‘cut away all unnecessary diamond to ‘cut away all unnecessary conceptualization’, including the idea of conceptualization’, including the idea of ‘emptines’s itself. The discourse ‘emptines’s itself. The discourse accomplished this by presenting a series of accomplished this by presenting a series of paradoxes that demonstrated ‘emptiness’ paradoxes that demonstrated ‘emptiness’ without using the word.without using the word.

For example, the Buddha is made to For example, the Buddha is made to say: say:

"As many beings as there are in the "As many beings as there are in the universe of beings, ...all these I must universe of beings, ...all these I must lead to nirvana, into that realm of lead to nirvana, into that realm of nirvana which leaves nothing behind. nirvana which leaves nothing behind. And yet, although innumerable beings And yet, although innumerable beings have thus been led to nirvana, no have thus been led to nirvana, no being at all has been led to nirvana." being at all has been led to nirvana."

BecomingNon-Existent;

Non-Permanence

Figure 7

UniversalQualifier

'It'Universal Noun

The actual use of the term ‘emptiness’ (The actual use of the term ‘emptiness’ (sunyatasunyata) was ) was likely avoided in the Diamond Sutra because, even likely avoided in the Diamond Sutra because, even though the paradoxes were half affirmative and half though the paradoxes were half affirmative and half negatory,negatory, • the potential for misunderstanding and seeing only the potential for misunderstanding and seeing only

the negative side of the equation was great. the negative side of the equation was great. • Equally dangerous was the possibility of clinging to Equally dangerous was the possibility of clinging to

the notion of ‘emptiness’ as yet another, albeit the notion of ‘emptiness’ as yet another, albeit apophatic, theory. apophatic, theory.

• These were dangers the Buddha was quite aware of. These were dangers the Buddha was quite aware of. He said that, following his death, ‘the monks will no He said that, following his death, ‘the monks will no longer wish to hear and learn [my teachings], deep, longer wish to hear and learn [my teachings], deep, deep in meaning, ...dealing with the void (deep in meaning, ...dealing with the void (sunyatasunyata), ), but will only lend their ear to profane [teachings], but will only lend their ear to profane [teachings], made by poets, poetical, adorned with beautiful made by poets, poetical, adorned with beautiful words and syllables’.words and syllables’.

Nagarjuna’s ‘Tetralemma’, the standard for Nagarjuna’s ‘Tetralemma’, the standard for Mahayana Buddhism, is comprised of four Mahayana Buddhism, is comprised of four propositional formulations expressed propositional formulations expressed positively or negatively. Where x is any positively or negatively. Where x is any proposition and –x is its negation, a positive proposition and –x is its negation, a positive tetralemma takes the form of:tetralemma takes the form of:

X!X! -X!-X! Both X and –X!Both X and –X! Neither X nor –X!Neither X nor –X!

The self is real (conventionally true, i.e., it exists in a dependent reality along with everything else we derive from experience)

The self is not real (ultimately true, i.e., it has no essence)

The self is both real and not real (conventionally real but ultimately unreal)

The self is neither real nor not

Conventionally ‘real’ (= word, concept, Conventionally ‘real’ (= word, concept, perspective perspective interpretation). interpretation).

Nonconventionally ‘real’ (= neither a word Nonconventionally ‘real’ (= neither a word nor a concept nor a perspective nor an nor a concept nor a perspective nor an interpretation).interpretation).

Conventionally ‘real’ (= either what Conventionally ‘real’ (= either what is is or or what what is notis not, in whichever case: a sense of , in whichever case: a sense of permanence).permanence).

Nonconventionally ‘real’ (= both what Nonconventionally ‘real’ (= both what isis and what and what is notis not and neither what and neither what is is nor nor what what is notis not, in whichever case: , in whichever case: impermanence).impermanence).

0O

+

-

Figure 8

( 0 ‘contemplation’, ‘musement’, ‘openness’)

0O

+

-

Figure 9

Or…

GameGame (either winners or losers). (either winners or losers).• Winner (+), loser (-).Winner (+), loser (-).

PlayPlay (neither winners nor losers). (neither winners nor losers).• ++• ––• Both + and –Both + and –• Neither + nor –Neither + nor –

It is like the differencebetween ‘Game’ and ‘Play’

‘‘IT’IT’• Is ‘this’ (+)Is ‘this’ (+)• Is ‘that’ (not-’this’) (Is ‘that’ (not-’this’) (–)–)• Is possibly both ‘this’ and ‘that’ (both + Is possibly both ‘this’ and ‘that’ (both +

and and –)–)• Is neither ‘this’ nor ‘that’ but something Is neither ‘this’ nor ‘that’ but something

elseelse (neither + nor –, but: )(neither + nor –, but: )

( 0 )

But: ‘There is no inconsistency, But: ‘There is no inconsistency, no cause for disagreement and no cause for disagreement and nothing to discuss’ (Nagarjuna)nothing to discuss’ (Nagarjuna)

And: ‘Openness wrongly And: ‘Openness wrongly conceived destroys the dimly-conceived destroys the dimly-witted. It is like a snake grasped witted. It is like a snake grasped by the head or a garbled by the head or a garbled incantation’ (Nagarjuna)incantation’ (Nagarjuna)

Hence it is possibly an Hence it is possibly an impossible task to impossible task to describe a changing describe a changing reality in words because reality in words because they inevitably make it they inevitably make it appear fixed and appear fixed and unchanging.unchanging.

To ask ‘What is it?’ or ‘How does To ask ‘What is it?’ or ‘How does it change?’ To describe the it change?’ To describe the domain of becoming in domain of becoming in essentialist language leads to essentialist language leads to contradiction and contradiction and incommensurability. To describe incommensurability. To describe becoming in nonessentialist becoming in nonessentialist language leads to paradox.language leads to paradox.

Any description of Any description of becoming taken literally is becoming taken literally is incoherent, but can be incoherent, but can be loosely described as an loosely described as an open-ended process.open-ended process.

The open-ended process is Nagarjuna’s The open-ended process is Nagarjuna’s

‘middle way’, or in a manner of speaking, ‘middle way’, or in a manner of speaking,

it is the ‘mediating third’ way in Peirce’s it is the ‘mediating third’ way in Peirce’s

triadicity, that is, if we take the ‘0’ intriadicity, that is, if we take the ‘0’ in into consideration.into consideration.

0O

+

-