There are similarities and differeneces between Taoism's "Nothingness" (无) vs Buddhism's "Emptiness" (空).
Both "Nothingnesss" and "Emptiness" are not simply referring to the absence of phyical things. It is about the realization of the "being" of one self and the universe.
Taoism and Buddhism believe that the universe is created or origninated from "Nothingness" or "Emptiness". It is interesting that the modern science also proposed that there is "nothing" before the creation of universe. ie. Before time and space exist, there is "nothing".
Please share your thoughts of the two terms.
Pherecydes of Syros established his argument regarding the cosmos and being to which had a large influence on the Axial Age in philosophical thought. He denied the belief in an ex nihilo creation, he asserted the self-creation of the cosmos and being, and he expressed the eternal nature of first principles. Nothingness becomes the deciphering of natures secrets to the becoming of being.
Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep."
For physical object break down into the smallest part, we get atom. Atom is made up of neutron, proton and electron. All these can be further broken into sub-atomic particles. The sub particles could be in the form of wave.
The wave vanishes into nothing. So, can we say that from nothing, it becomes everything and we are trying to go back to nothing? With the profound knowledge of science, it is rather amazing for the ancient Taoism and Buddhism to deduce this.
It is a big mistake to take the Steven Hawking theory as correct. It is really more of a modern delusion. I say this because of its many internal inconsistencies. For example, Hawking asserts that the universe starts with nothing ... but also that it starts with an infinitesimal point that has the properties of a black hole. Well ... which is it, Dr. Hawking? Nothing ... or black hole with vast amounts of matter sufficient to bend light back into itself? This is not just academic, as Hawking asserts that inside of black holes, time ceases to exist. (i.e., any conceivable clock, if it could remain intact inside the BH, would measure no passage of time). He uses this for his theological opinion that there can be no God, because there was no time in which for God to operate and create anything. This is all just garbage, and physicists should be ashamed of themselves for promulgating it. I would point out there are many other deep flaws with Hawking's theory of creation. For example, he states that all that is required to create a universe is energy and space ... ignoring other conservation laws such as conservation of electric charge. His arm waving includes the assertion that particles pop into existence ... but fails to mention there is a high energy input for this to occur, such as energetic photons in the presence of a magnetic field, at the very least. Finally, he posits that space is filled with a mysterious "negative energy" that counterbalances the positive matter and energy we observe. I am not a theologian, nor am I arguing from any sort of religious perspective. This Hawking universe, however, is just complete B.S., and anyone who ascribes to it must relinquish any claim they may have had to intelligent, independent thought. ---------Regards, James
This is really interesting, Mr. James! Are you saying that we can't conceive any reasonable theory on the origin of the universe?
About the former concepts, I read a Wittgenstein quote that is really perspicacious:
"Death is not an event in life: we do not live to experience death. If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present."
We really can't state that time and space are independent of our cognition...
Bruno Nogueira , I suspect the origin of the universe is outside the reach of our understanding, but I am not asserting that. Just saying that Hawking (the current "Pope" of physics) is nowhere close to believable.
I like the Wittgenstein quote. In my view, the internal world of humans is indeed without the linear dimension of time. In psychological terms, this is the unconscious mind, which also lacks other aspects of what we consider cognitive thinking, such as linear spacial relationships and negation or contradiction. In other words, events and emotions that are objectively separated in space and time, and which might even contradict one another, co-exist in the unconscious. On the other hand, the unconscious is the great advantage that humans have over computers. The computer geeks would call this feature "massive parallel processing." The mode of thought of the unconscious or inner mind is more of a timeless mosaic than a sequential series of events. ---------Regards, James
Hi guys, thanks for the interesting comments. I guess the origin of universe has 4 possible explanations:
1. From "Nothing/Emptiness/Void" to Everything.
2. Everything has been in existence since the beginning.
3. The creation of God or supreme source.
4. The creation of some form of universal consciousness.
I think this is a question for philosophy and religion rather than science. It is beyond human being's understanding. So far, all the scientific explanations of creation of universe are just hypotheses, nothing can be proven. Newton has spent his remaining years try to get prove this but failed. Hawking has now came up with the "Grand Design" but drawn many criticisms.
Perhaps, the explanation is beyond words created by mankind.
Taoism: "The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao."
Buddhism: "Seeing the mind and seeing the nature is the animated activity of non-Buddhist. Staying in words and staying in phrases is not the speech of liberation. There is a state which has got free from states like these."
In Buddhism, the meaning of "emptiness" might be different. It is beyond existence and non-existence. They believe a moment of consciousness created the universe from "emptiness".
For Taoism, "Nothingness is used to denote the state that existed before the birth of heaven and earth."
Do we agree that "Nothingness" and "Emptiness" is the same? Alpha and Omega. It started with nothing, nothing becomes everything, and in the end, the world will go back to nothing.
No language could explain the complete "truth" but we need it to point to others to the "truth". For example, we could use our finger to point to the moon to show other where the moon is. However, our finger is not the moon. If we don't use our finger to point to the moon, other could not see the moon. Once they could see the moon through our direction of our finger, it is up to them to interpret their perceptions of the moon.
Anthony, it may be that in the sense of your last comment, time is the finger. We perceive the universe through the lens of time, but time is an invention of our human consciousness, of the need of our externally facing psyche (aka, the conscious or cognitive ego) to place events into a sequential order. The unconscious mind does not have this feature, nor do the psyches of animals, which I believe is an essential feature of their ESP, and of the ESP between two people in unconscious contact (aka: mutual trance). But time is in some sense an invention of humans. On the other hand, this line of reasoning suggests that humans could also lack some crucial element of consciousness for the understanding of the universe. -----Regards, James
PS: As an afterthought, Einstein's theories begin with an analysis of simultaneity, coming to the conclusion that not only simultaneity but the order of events is in the eye of the beholder. This is not an illusion, but in the philosophy of the Special Theory of Relativity, is reality. Hence, the concept of a time before the universe is also in the eye of the beholder. This is embodied in the hocus-pocus of the Big Bang theory. The embarrassment of the first discovery that galaxies were receding from Earth, and the farthest were moving at nearly light speed, led to the obvious, yet flawed, hypothesis that the Earth was once again to be considered the center of the universe. Only by application of the "subjective" nature of time as measured by velocity and distance was the Big Bang "rescued." (Disclosure: I don't ascribe to it, but consider the universe as timelessly emergent from all points. Out of yin and yang Qi, presumably) ------- JS
Bruce Lee: "When one has reached maturity in the (martial) art, one will have a formless form. It is like ice dissolving in water. When one has no form, one can be all forms; when one has no style, he can fit in with any style."
Juyan, as far as I know Buddhism is concerned a lot with practical wisdom. Regarding this I believe that "nothingness" is a key principle, once you know what it represents. The Middle Way is a kind of no-way, because you don't hypostasize any extremity of the line.
But then this is just a language game, and maybe we feel the same way but just adress differently to terms... - Buddhism and Taoism are all about this exercise of distinguishing the map from the territory.
I would like to share Joseph Goldstein’s understanding of the term emptiness in Buddhism as a profound insight into the lack of inherent, independent self or substance in all phenomena.
https://podcasts.apple.com/nl/podcast/insight-hour-with-joseph-goldstein/id1017103666?i=1000346627890
Both Taoism "Nothingness" and Buddhist "Emptiness," aim to lead people to a more peaceful and harmonious way of living, free from suffering and unhappiness, by understanding the deeper nature of things and origin. Different paths but same goal.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Political Science