What is Buddhism? Applications 5-2 - About the Theory of Emptiness, (Sunya) 2

    So, let's take a closer look at what exactly "emptiness" means. The earlier example involved various elements like a chair or a human being, complexly intertwined. While it's understandable that these combinations form concepts, some might still think that the fundamental elements themselves exist.

Let's consider the example of "water." Those with a substantialist viewpoint believe that there's something with the nature or essence of water that exists. However, it's now common knowledge that "water" is composed of molecules made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, known as H2O. In other words, there isn't an unchanging entity called "water"; rather, it's just a manifestation based on the relationship between two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, dependent on environmental conditions such as temperature ranging from 1°C to 99°C. We humans label this manifestation as "water." Essentially, "water" is just one form manifested by a specific relationship between hydrogen and oxygen atoms (cause) under specific temperature conditions, and there's no existence of "water" beyond the forms manifested by these relationships.

As evidence, if the temperature drops below 0°C, it quickly turns into individual ice particles, and if it rises above 100°C, it turns into vapor, becoming invisible. Hence, the manifestation of "water" as a result of the specific relationship between hydrogen and oxygen atoms (cause) is limited to certain conditions ranging from 1°C to 99°C. If the conditions change, even with the same cause, the manifestation changes.

In this way, everything in this world manifests its form based on the relationship between cause and conditions, and without such fixed entities or essences, they are considered "empty."

Then, hydrogen and oxygen atoms seem to have an entity of their own, but they, too, are ultimately a combination of elementary particles such as protons, neutrons, and electrons. And furthermore, those elementary particles are also said to be combinations of quarks. Quarks are said to manifest their properties through the relationship between several vibrating bodies, and these vibrating bodies are no longer physical objects but are like aggregates of energy, and through the interrelationships between them (aggregates of energy) various properties emerge. It is through the interrelationships among them (aggregates of energy) that various properties are said to emerge. The fact that this "relationship determines the way of existence" shows that the most advanced findings of modern physics and the ancient Buddhist view of "emptiness" are in perfect agreement.

Since we've delved into abstract discussions for a while, let's now apply the abstract concept of "emptiness" to our daily lives.

Consider a person named A.

A is in a relationship with a woman named B, making “A”, “B's boyfriend" and “B”, “A's girlfriend."

However, as their relationship sours, B decides to break up with A. Despite B's decision, “A” persistently pursues B. Once a "beloved boyfriend" to B, "A" is now, in B's eyes, a terrifying "stalker" and almost a "criminal. At home, however, "A" is a devoted son who takes care of his elderly parents and is a "filial son. At work, “A” is considered by the president to be an "excellent employee" and an "obedient subordinate," by A's subordinates to be a "terrible boss," by his close colleagues to be a "buddy," and by his unfriendly rivals to be his "biggest enemy.

So, which one is the real A? In fact, all of them are. Depending on the relationship between “A” and others, the same person, “A”, can be perceived as a "criminal," "most filial son," "excellent employee," "compliant subordinate," "terrible supervisor," "colleague," or "biggest adversary."

“A” himself is inherently "empty," and his meaning changes depending on his relationships with others.

If you want to change the meaning, you can change the relationship. Alternatively, changing the relationship may alter the meaning.

If “A” were inherently a "villain," he would be a "villain" to everyone and should remain so forever. There wouldn't be anyone for whom he's the "most wonderful" person. However, in reality, he shows completely different aspects depending on the person, and the meaning also varies accordingly.

Thus, there are no fixed natures or essences in things or people; rather, everything is based solely on relationships and conditions, and it's entirely up to us to assign meaning to those relationships.

To make this perspective of "emptiness" more practical in our lives, we can apply it to our actual human relationships.

In our daily lives, we encounter various human relationships—some good, some bad, some adversarial, and some friendly. However, fundamentally, all people and events are just "empty" and don't inherently hold specific meanings. Whether someone is "good," "bad," an "enemy," an "ally," a "bad event," or a "good event" is just how it appears based on our relationship with them. Originally, we are free to assign any meaning we want to these relationships.

For example, if someone speaks ill of us or tries to hinder us, many would label them as an "enemy." Once we assign that label, everything they do seems like negative hostile actions. We start hating them, but no matter how much we hate them, it doesn't affect them. Hence, our hatred only amplifies. In this way, by arbitrarily labeling someone as an "enemy," we end up suffering greatly. It's like fighting a battle alone.

Instead of labeling them as an enemy, if we assign a positive meaning like, "Thanks to that person, I can recognize my shortcomings and be more careful in my actions. In a way, they're a benefactor," then whatever they do benefits us. If they criticize us, it helps us grow, and if they speak ill of us, it helps us understand how others perceive us, enabling us to grow even more.

Thus, depending on how we assign meaning to the actions of others, we can interpret them in any way we want. If there's something unpleasant, we can simply refrain from assigning such meaning in the first place.

However, this is purely a theoretical discussion. Humans aren't always rational beings. Viewing things through the lens of "emptiness" may suggest this, but in reality, it's often challenging to suddenly change our perspectives entirely.

Since human relationships are built on various causes and conditions, perhaps the first step is to understand why they've taken a negative turn. For this, effective communication with the other person is crucial. Then, gradually, as our perspectives on each other shift, the relationship may improve.

Regardless, humans inherently aren't entirely good or bad; they can be exemplary or flawed depending on various conditions and relationships. Everyone, at some point, may act kindly or maliciously, be respectable or contemptible.

Everything changes with each moment's choice and judgment. A person who was once admired by everyone might become a criminal one day, or vice versa. A notorious criminal might sacrifice their life to save a puppy, or a tyrant who once terrorized people like Ashoka might later contribute significantly to spreading Buddhism worldwide. Essentially, people and things are "impermanent," "egoless," and "empty," so no fixed beliefs or concepts apply.

So, terms like "this person is admirable" or "that person is worthless" only hold true for about a day; no one knows what will happen tomorrow.

Viewed negatively, this might seem unreliable, but positively, it implies that there's always potential for improvement in everyone.

In summary, after all the lengthy and convoluted discussion, it can be said that the perspective of "emptiness" is a way to liberate oneself from all fixed beliefs, assumptions, and attachments.

#Quarks