There's a common
misunderstanding of the concept of emptiness in Buddhism - namely that "Buddhists
believe that things don't (really) exist" or, "Buddhists believe that
Emptyness really means 'empty of inherent existence'.
In other words no phenomenon contains the reason for its existence within itself. All
phenomena arise from ever-changing relationships with other phenomena, including the minds
of the observers.
The teachings on
emptiness are concerned with HOW things exist, not IF and WHETHER things exist (UFO's
Unicorns and Yetis) or WHY things exist (because God, The Devil or the Spaghetti Monster
Language influences our thought. Let's consider how we use the words
'Exist(s), Existed and Existence'. Maybe 'Existence' itself is an arbitrary concept. Maybe
'Existence' is a convenient, conventional truth.
We don't normally say that an explosion exists or existed (though there's no logical
reason not to say so). And we don't normally say that the universe occurs. Yet an
explosion and the expanding universe are similar entities, just operating on different
From our point of view an explosion is a
transitory event, but the universe is 'permanent'. An explosion happens, the universe
We don't normally say that an eclipse exists, and we don't normally say that Stonehenge
happens. Yet both phenomena are the temporary coming together of masses in a geometrical
configuration. In one case sun, earth and moon in a straight line, in the other case,
stones arranged in a circular pattern.
Relative to our lifetime an eclipse is a temporary phenomenon, whereas Stonehenge is more
permanent (built to last 4000+ years).
But there is no absolute distinction between phenomena that exist and phenomena that occur
or happen. The distinction is arbitrary, based on the following considerations:
(1) The universe consists of myriads of particles in a constant state of movement.
(2) These particles form aggregates which hang together for a time and then disintegrate.
(3) Aggregates that hang together for more than a substantial fraction of a human lifetime
(eg a car) 'exist'. Aggregates that hang together for a tiny fraction of a human lifetime
(eg a flash of lightning) 'happen' or 'occur' .
Yet although I think my car exists, it is actually a series of events. The car I arrived
home in tonight is not the car I set out in this morning. It has rusted a bit. Its gears
are worn. Its spark plugs are increasingly burnt. Its tyres are slightly less legal. Its
windscreen-wipers are more knackered.
There's a Buddhist concept of 'subtle impermanence' which states that nothing whatsoever
remains identical from one moment to the next.
So to say that something exists is ultimately an arbitrary statement. All we are saying is
that its rate of disintegration is negligible on the timescale of our lifetime. In
reality, all phenomena are impermanent - it's just that some are more impermanent than
All 'things' are impermanent, and so all
things are in reality processes. Things do not stay the same from one millisecond to the
next. Anything composed of atoms is composed of parts in a constant state of flux.
Existence is merely impermanence viewed in slow-motion.
Boxiness and trayfulness
To find the true and unchanging essence of a box you would have to find
the unchanging essence of a process, which is a logical contradiction.
The nearest thing to finding a box-essence would be to say that these pieces of wood in
this configuration perform the functions of a box. But that recognition comes entirely
from your own mind (or from the collective minds of box-users).
It we were to cut the sides of a box down it would perform the functions of a tray.
If I say "I'll get a box to put this stuff in", then most people will understand
that I'm going to fetch a container which performs the conventional function of a box,
i.e. holds things. To do this it must have a bottom and at least three sides (like some
chocolate boxes), though usually four. A lid is optional.
The box exists from causes and conditions (the box-maker, the wood or wood-pulp from which
it is made, the trees, sunlight, acorn, soil, rain, lumberjacks etc.)
A box exists dependent on its parts (bottom and three or more sides).
The parts exist dependently on the box (otherwise they'd just be flat sheets of
The box also exists because I and others decide to call it a box, not because of some
inherent `boxiness' that all boxes have as a defining essence.
If it were a big cardboard box, and I cut a large L-shaped flap out of one side so it
hinged like a door, then I could turn it upside down and it would be a child's play-house.
If I cut the sides of a wooden box down a centimeter at a time, then the box would get
shallower and shallower. At some point the box would cease to exist and the tray would
begin to exist. Or maybe the essence of `boxiness' would miraculously disappear and
`trayfulness' would jump in.
Where does box end and tray start? I don't know. Maybe there's an EEC directive forbidding
the construction of boxes with insufficiently high sides, or perhaps there's a Tray
Descriptions Act. But whichever way, as well as existing in dependence on its parts, and
on its causes and conditions, the box exists in dependence upon our minds (or the
collective minds of the EEC Box-Standards Department) - imputing box over a certain
collection of parts.