It's Easter, so let's talk about...Buddhist emptiness, physics etc

Back in January, you may recall, a robot in a Buddhist temple in Kyoto got me into considering the Heart Sutra, which was the subject of a separate post (which had some interesting comments from my handful of regular readers.)

You might also recall that I had stumbled onto a translation of a book by DT Suzuki about the Swedish 18th century oddball Swedenborg. 

So, the connection:  the Heart Sutra in English translation has a lot of emphasis on "emptiness", with this key part -

Form is emptiness
and emptiness is form.
Form is not other than emptiness
and emptiness is not other than form.
So is the same for feeling,
perception, mental formation,
and consciousness.

In the afterword to the Suzuki book, by David Loy (who I see is a pretty widely know author on Buddhism), I thought this commentary on "emptiness" was interesting:

OK  That clears up everything.* 

I see that Wikipedia has a lengthy entry on Nagarjuna (the philosopher, not the Bollywood star), and it talks about how a lot of his philosophising was on "emptiness".  This, apparently, is a key saying:

All is possible when emptiness is possible.
Nothing is possible when emptiness is impossible.

Which does, a Loy indicates, sound like it is putting a more positive spin on "emptiness" than one's initial reaction.


In another interesting bit from Wikipedia, Nagarjuna is considered by some to be neo-Kantian:

Nāgārjuna was also instrumental in the development of the two truths doctrine, which claims that there are two levels of truth in Buddhist teaching, the ultimate truth (paramārtha satya) and the conventional or superficial truth (saṃvṛtisatya). The ultimate truth to Nāgārjuna is the truth that everything is empty of essence,^[43] this includes emptiness itself ('the emptiness of emptiness'). While some (Murti, 1955) have interpreted this by positing Nāgārjuna as a neo-Kantian and thus making ultimate truth a metaphysical noumenon or an "ineffable ultimate that transcends the capacities of discursive reason",^[44] others such as Mark Siderits and Jay L. Garfield have argued that Nāgārjuna's view is that "the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth" (Siderits) and that Nāgārjuna is a "semantic anti-dualist" who posits that there are only conventional truths.^[44]

As I am fond of Kant, I think it's pretty cool to find debate about whether a Buddhist philosopher from 150CE got to his ideas before Immanuel did.  (That's Kant, not Swedenborg).

The other thing that the Swedenborg book has got me thinking about is Buddhism and non-locality in modern quantum physics.   I keep getting the feeling that these might be pretty compatible.

First, a reminder about nonlocality can be found in this pretty good 12 minute explanation of quantum physics, which Youtube conveniently suggested I should watch:



So, how's this tie in with Buddhism?   I don't know yet, but there is a very lengthy discussion of it on this page (The Physics of Peace: Quantum Nonlocality and Emptiness) from what looks like a very lengthy website called the Chinese Encyclopaedia of Buddhism.  That website seems to be a project started by an Estonian Buddhist who has connections with Australia.  How odd.

Anyhow, I'll read it and report back.

Maybe I can factor the emptiness of the tomb and Easter eggs into the story, too.   I seem to be turning all EM Foster - "Only connect!" 

* Narrator voice:  no, it didn't.