Emptiness & A=A

[San Bao]

Something that has struck me from perusing the forums here is an (apparent?) contradiction between the Buddhist sunyata and the Aristotelian proposition A = A, both of which are affirmed despite this (perhaps merely apparent) contradiction.

As most of you probably know, A = A is commonly defined as the "Law of Identity" or "Law of Self Identity", and in many ways it forms the cornerstone of Western philosophical discourse.

Sunyata, also known as kung in Chinese, signifies (amongst other things) the inherent emptiness of self-identity. Emptiness implies a radical unity, interconnectedness, or interdependence (Fazang's "Jewled Net of Indra" analogy). This obviously ties into issues of causality. Because every "thing" is radically dependant on a network of causes (Pratityasamutpada or "Dependant Origination"), it is "empty" of its own inherent existence.

In other words, for all "thing-events", A does not equal A because "A" is void.

Now if by "A = A" we are simply saying something along the lines of "There is no reality but the Reality" or "All is as it is", as they say in Zen Buddhism, than any apparent contradiction vanishes. However, this "All is as it is" is something rather different than the Aristotelian formulation of "A = A", and it seems rather confusing to adopt this syllogism and turn it from its conventionally accepted meaning.

In any case I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

[Nick]

Now if by "A = A" we are simply saying something along the lines of "There is no reality but the Reality" or "All is as it is", as they say in Zen Buddhism, than any apparent contradiction vanishes.

That's what most people on this forum, and myself, are implying when using A=A. I can't speak for everyone though.

However, this "All is as it is" is something rather different than the Aristotelian formulation of "A = A", and it seems rather confusing to adopt this syllogism and turn it from its conventionally accepted meaning.

I'm not familiar with any Aristotelian formulation, but for the most part when A=A is used here, amongst other things, it is being used in the most Absolute sense.

[Matt Gregory]

Something that has struck me from perusing the forums here is an (apparent?) contradiction between the Buddhist sunyata and the Aristotelian proposition A = A, both of which are affirmed despite this (perhaps merely apparent) contradiction.

As most of you probably know, A = A is commonly defined as the "Law of Identity" or "Law of Self Identity", and in many ways it forms the cornerstone of Western philosophical discourse.

It's not Aristotelian, it's just logic. All logic ultimately rests on A=A, not just Western philosophical thought.

Sunyata, also known as kung in Chinese, signifies (amongst other things) the inherent emptiness of self-identity. Emptiness implies a radical unity, interconnectedness, or interdependence (Fazang's "Jewled Net of Indra" analogy). This obviously ties into issues of causality. Because every "thing" is radically dependant on a network of causes (Pratityasamutpada or "Dependant Origination"), it is "empty" of its own inherent existence.

Sunyata doesn't refute existence itself, only inherent existence. Likewise, A=A deals only with existence and provides the means for refuting inherent existence (see below).

In other words, for all "thing-events", A does not equal A because "A" is void.

But the only way this can be realized is by using the principle of A=A. If "A" represents a "thing-event" and that thing-event changes into something else and we acknowledge that, then that new thing-event is longer the same as the original thing-event, therefore we are affirming that A is not equal to A, which implies that we're affirming A=A, since the original thing-event = the original thing-event and the new thing-event = the new thing-event.

Now if by "A = A" we are simply saying something along the lines of "There is no reality but the Reality" or "All is as it is", as they say in Zen Buddhism, than any apparent contradiction vanishes. However, this "All is as it is" is something rather different than the Aristotelian formulation of "A = A", and it seems rather confusing to adopt this syllogism and turn it from its conventionally accepted meaning.

A=A means "a thing is what it is" and it necessarily applies to all things, so it means "all is as it is" in that sense.

[average]

A=A is simply a syntactical logical expression of equivalence.

While the concept of Emptiness in Buddhism is an existential statement about the condition of reality and all things within it, how they all depend and are made of what they are not, of other things.

To literally interpret emptiness, syntactically, logically, it would be something like A = not-A
because A depends on everything that is not-A in order to manifest itself in the world and to our perception.
Or even more strictly, A = []
where [] is the empty set.

And then we would simply say, There is no A.
There is no spoon.

[Matt Gregory]

A=A is simply a syntactical logical expression of equivalence.

If you restrict your understanding of it to the smallest possible compartment of your mind, then I suppose that's true. :)

While the concept of Emptiness in Buddhism is an existential statement about the condition of reality and all things within it, how they all depend and are made of what they are not, of other things.

Agreed. The "A" in "A=A" represents a thing.

To literally interpret emptiness, syntactically, logically, it would be something like A = not-A
because A depends on everything that is not-A in order to manifest itself in the world and to our perception.

A=A implies that any thing is dependent on what it is not, but that doesn't make them the same. The difference between them is essential to establish the dependency.

Or even more strictly, A = []
where [] is the empty set.

And then we would simply say, There is no A.
There is no spoon.

Eh? If not-A exists, then so does A. They both come into existence at the same time. The existence of not-A doesn't negate the existence of A, it creates it.

[average]

If you restrict your understanding of it to the smallest possible compartment of your mind, then I suppose that's true. :)

Thats what A=A is, in its purest form. Meaning and semantics are added by the individual and it is up to them to interpret what this very simple symbolic expression means. You can take it as high as you please, you can worship it, or just use it as a tool...

A=A is called the law of identity, but identity is void in buddhism, null, empty.
Instead buddhists would say: There is no A.
or, A = [ emptiness ]
But in no case does A = A (itself) because there is no self for A to be. There is no thing for A to identify with as being it.


To me, A=A is a trivial statement, its true in a sense, like 2+2 = 4 is true.
Although 2+2 = 4 is more interesting, in essence it is the same sort of expression, an equivalence between two expressions. meh. its a truth, but has nothing to do with Truth.

[Sapius]

Average;

There is no aspect of A that makes it equivalent to itself, there can be no equivalence in buddhism, there is only emptiness which is a lack of identity.

A = [ emptiness ]

On a side note - logic isn't really relevant to buddhism, even the buddha said so. Do not accept things, simply because logic dictates it.

Well, then what dictates A = [ emptiness ] ?

[Sapius]

San Bao; (and welcome)

Sunyata, also known as kung in Chinese, signifies (amongst other things) the inherent emptiness of self-identity. Emptiness implies a radical unity, interconnectedness, or interdependence (Fazang's "Jewled Net of Indra" analogy). This obviously ties into issues of causality. Because every "thing" is radically dependant on a network of causes (Pratityasamutpada or "Dependant Origination"), it is "empty" of its own inherent existence.

In other words, for all "thing-events", A does not equal A because "A" is void.

Matt: Sunyata doesn't refute existence itself, only inherent existence. Likewise, A=A deals only with existence and provides the means for refuting inherent existence.

With all due respects to all ideas in and of existence, but as usual, I see things a bit differently.

I agree with Matt, but I cannot help but see that we are so very deeply attached to a wishful thinking that assumes an unshakable premises that there MUST be at least something inherent; be it even an “aspect”, or a logically or otherwise reached certainty, that too described as an ultimately indescribable “Tao”; or merely as not a “thing”, but however NOT nothing whatsoever.

I don’t understand why totality, existence, or change itself cannot be considered inherent if that is what one considers must necessarily be? Why do we have to assume that there HAS to be “something” else (like Void or Emptiness, or Tao, which some individuals also call “God”) more to what IS? In my opinion, we are chasing a self-created wishful thinking beyond existence, whereas it is absolutely impossible for even an idea, of whatever nature, to exist beyond that. I am talking of coming a full circle of understanding rather than a superficial belief in things having inherent existence, which in no way points to (at least not to me) that there HAS to necessarily be “something” inherent for non-inherency, or change, or dependency to work. The “forces” of change lie within each and ever non-inherent “thing” so to speak, and does not require any “external” force, since an EXTERNAL to existence is an impossibility.

However, I find no inherent reason to disrespect any or all ideas that humanity has produced thus far, but I don’t believe that I have to necessarily agree.

BTW, A=A cannot be without at lease B being around, so it cannot lead to a self-identity through some “internal” self-referential confirmation; self-identity necessarily involves something other than self being around, hence A=A is necessarily - recognition THROUGH differentiation, and without recognizable differentiation being around, awareness cannot be, and I find that there could have been no time in and of existence that either were not, or will ever not be.

As earlier mentioned by Nick; I don’t speak for everyone though, on what the expression A=A means to them according to their accepted understanding.

I’m yet again getting myself into deep trouble I think… :D

[average]

Average;

There is no aspect of A that makes it equivalent to itself, there can be no equivalence in buddhism, there is only emptiness which is a lack of identity.

A = [ emptiness ]

On a side note - logic isn't really relevant to buddhism, even the buddha said so. Do not accept things, simply because logic dictates it.

Well, then what dictates A = [ emptiness ] ?

A point of view, of the buddhist variety.

[Sapius]

Average;

There is no aspect of A that makes it equivalent to itself, there can be no equivalence in buddhism, there is only emptiness which is a lack of identity.

A = [ emptiness ]

On a side note - logic isn't really relevant to buddhism, even the buddha said so. Do not accept things, simply because logic dictates it.

Well, then what dictates A = [ emptiness ] ?

A point of view, of the buddhist variety.

:D:D:D

Seems quite a blunt point to me though.

[Matt Gregory]

A=A is called the law of identity, but identity is void in buddhism, null, empty.
Instead buddhists would say: There is no A.

What you're describing is nihilism, not Buddhism.

or, A = [ emptiness ]
But in no case does A = A (itself) because there is no self for A to be. There is no thing for A to identify with as being it.

There's the self that we define "A" to be.

To me, A=A is a trivial statement, its true in a sense, like 2+2 = 4 is true.
Although 2+2 = 4 is more interesting, in essence it is the same sort of expression, an equivalence between two expressions. meh. its a truth, but has nothing to do with Truth.

Well, any statement is trivial if you don't care about it.

[average]

A=A is called the law of identity, but identity is void in buddhism, null, empty.
Instead buddhists would say: There is no A.

What you're describing is nihilism, not Buddhism.

Nah, its called anata. No-Self, or Not-Self.
They would say Self = No-Self.
Everything and everyone is empty of themselves.

Plus - whether its nihilistic or not is a matter of interpretation, two people looking at the same painting, one says its nihilistic, the other says its full of meaning and purpose. Etc.

To me, A=A is a trivial statement, its true in a sense, like 2+2 = 4 is true.
Although 2+2 = 4 is more interesting, in essence it is the same sort of expression, an equivalence between two expressions. meh. its a truth, but has nothing to do with Truth.

Well, any statement is trivial if you don't care about it.

No, its trivially true in that its blatant and uninspiring. Its a tautology of sorts. Its a repetition, its not a new conclusion.

Its about as philosophically interesting as saying " a red brick is a red brick is a red brick is a red brick...."

WOW! Thanks Aristotle! Can you be anymore boring and blatantly obvious and trivial?

Plus you can't derive anything remotely interesting from just A=A.
You need premises, which will be assumptions, you also need operators which will be fabrications.
YAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWN!

[Matt Gregory]

Sapius,

San Bao; (and welcome)

Sunyata, also known as kung in Chinese, signifies (amongst other things) the inherent emptiness of self-identity. Emptiness implies a radical unity, interconnectedness, or interdependence (Fazang's "Jewled Net of Indra" analogy). This obviously ties into issues of causality. Because every "thing" is radically dependant on a network of causes (Pratityasamutpada or "Dependant Origination"), it is "empty" of its own inherent existence.

In other words, for all "thing-events", A does not equal A because "A" is void.

Matt: Sunyata doesn't refute existence itself, only inherent existence. Likewise, A=A deals only with existence and provides the means for refuting inherent existence.

With all due respects to all ideas in and of existence, but as usual, I see things a bit differently.

I agree with Matt, but I cannot help but see that we are so very deeply attached to a wishful thinking that assumes an unshakable premises that there MUST be at least something inherent; be it even an “aspect”, or a logically or otherwise reached certainty, that too described as an ultimately indescribable “Tao”; or merely as not a “thing”, but however NOT nothing whatsoever.

I don’t understand why totality, existence, or change itself cannot be considered inherent if that is what one considers must necessarily be? Why do we have to assume that there HAS to be “something” else (like Void or Emptiness, or Tao, which some individuals also call “God”) more to what IS? In my opinion, we are chasing a self-created wishful thinking beyond existence, whereas it is absolutely impossible for even an idea, of whatever nature, to exist beyond that. I am talking of coming a full circle of understanding rather than a superficial belief in things having inherent existence, which in no way points to (at least not to me) that there HAS to necessarily be “something” inherent for non-inherency, or change, or dependency to work. The “forces” of change lie within each and ever non-inherent “thing” so to speak, and does not require any “external” force, since an EXTERNAL to existence is an impossibility.

However, I find no inherent reason to disrespect any or all ideas that humanity has produced thus far, but I don’t believe that I have to necessarily agree.

BTW, A=A cannot be without at lease B being around, so it cannot lead to a self-identity through some “internal” self-referential confirmation; self-identity necessarily involves something other than self being around, hence A=A is necessarily - recognition THROUGH differentiation, and without recognizable differentiation being around, awareness cannot be, and I find that there could have been no time in and of existence that either were not, or will ever not be.

As earlier mentioned by Nick; I don’t speak for everyone though, on what the expression A=A means to them according to their accepted understanding.

I’m yet again getting myself into deep trouble I think… :D

I don't really know where you're coming from, but my best guess is that I think you're confused. Inherent existence is the default understanding of reality that we are all born and raised with. It's the idea that physical objects are real. We want to overcome this concept because it's false. Cause and effect shows that. But existence itself is fine as long as you understand what it is. So, what are you objecting to?

[bert]

Something that has struck me from perusing the forums here is an (apparent?) contradiction between the Buddhist sunyata and the Aristotelian proposition A = A, both of which are affirmed despite this (perhaps merely apparent) contradiction.

hi and hello,

what is unmanifest is absolute, what is manifest is reality, as all differentiations.(speaking for myself).
therefore all true analysis must be by co-ordination of contradictories.Reality is explicable in terms of one principle(duality) in any single thing,ultimately in all things - abstract or concrete.


some bathetic literati with superficial apparent validity assert the acceptance of reality as fulness and finality, and the 'surrealists' just as with superficial apparent validity assert the opposite.but we are a kind of mental and actual symbiosis.how much of reality should we accept and of what kind - for to accept the whole is impossible? there is a constant shuffling of the extrovertive and introvertive as reality or non-reality, and all values and levels are rejection of much more.
I ask, which are the essential realities amongst those for which we strive?

[Matt Gregory]

Avg: A=A is called the law of identity, but identity is void in buddhism, null, empty.
Instead buddhists would say: There is no A.

MG: What you're describing is nihilism, not Buddhism.

Avg: Nah, its called anata. No-Self, or Not-Self.
They would say Self = No-Self.
Everything and everyone is empty of themselves.

Meaning what?

Avg: Plus - whether its nihilistic or not is a matter of interpretation, two people looking at the same painting, one says its nihilistic, the other says its full of meaning and purpose. Etc.

I was talking about the denial of existence. Sunyata is not the denial of existence, it's supposed to clarify the nature of existence.

Avg: To me, A=A is a trivial statement, its true in a sense, like 2+2 = 4 is true.
Although 2+2 = 4 is more interesting, in essence it is the same sort of expression, an equivalence between two expressions. meh. its a truth, but has nothing to do with Truth.

MG: Well, any statement is trivial if you don't care about it.

Avg: No, its trivially true in that its blatant and uninspiring. Its a tautology of sorts. Its a repetition, its not a new conclusion.

Its about as philosophically interesting as saying " a red brick is a red brick is a red brick is a red brick...."

WOW! Thanks Aristotle! Can you be anymore boring and blatantly obvious and trivial?

Plus you can't derive anything remotely interesting from just A=A.
You need premises, which will be assumptions, you also need operators which will be fabrications.
YAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWN!

You seem bored. I rest my case.

[Sapius]

Matt;

I don't really know where you're coming from, but my best guess is that I think you're confused. Inherent existence is the default understanding of reality that we are all born and raised with. It's the idea that physical objects are real. We want to overcome this concept because it's false. Cause and effect shows that. But existence itself is fine as long as you understand what it is. So, what are you objecting to?

Well, my best educated guess is; firstly, understanding is not required for existence to be what it is. And secondly, I have no objection or complain really; I simply express what I think. Other than my agreement of what you said, the rest is merely a general point of my view towards “emptiness” “void” and the likes, which I believe arise out of wishful thinking.

[Dave Toast]

San Bao: Something that has struck me from perusing the forums here is an (apparent?) contradiction between the Buddhist sunyata and the Aristotelian proposition A = A, both of which are affirmed despite this (perhaps merely apparent) contradiction.

There is no contradiction, if fact A=A and inherent emptiness are intimately related.

As most of you probably know, A = A is commonly defined as the "Law of Identity" or "Law of Self Identity", and in many ways it forms the cornerstone of Western philosophical discourse.

A=A is so much more than that. It is actually a description of the very beginning of awareness - distinction. It is not only the cornerstone of Western Philosophical discourse, it is the cornerstone of Eastern philosophical discourse, any philosophical discourse and every thought that's ever been thought.

Sunyata, also known as kung in Chinese, signifies (amongst other things) the inherent emptiness of self-identity. Emptiness implies a radical unity, interconnectedness, or interdependence (Fazang's "Jewled Net of Indra" analogy). This obviously ties into issues of causality. Because every "thing" is radically dependant on a network of causes (Pratityasamutpada or "Dependant Origination"), it is "empty" of its own inherent existence.

The realisation of Co-dependent Origination is necessarily based on the realisation of A=A. Once you understand A=A, you can infer its simplest corollary, A = -(-A). In doing so, you understand the inherent emptiness of A.

In other words, for all "thing-events", A does not equal A because "A" is void.

A in not 'void' per se, it is void of inherent existence.

This seeming contradiction you've spotted is initially confusing and necessitates a broadening of our understanding of the nature of consciousness and reality in order to resolve it. And so we realise the tetralemma, that is that the existence of A is true, not true, both true and not true, and neither true nor not true. This understanding itself is, again, a simple corollary of understanding that A=A and that A = -(-A), in trying to reconcile the implications of each.

A exists is true in a conventional sense because, clearly, things appear to consciousness and are therefore not nothing whatsoever.
A exists is not true in an ultimate sense because A = -(-A) and therefore A is completely dependent on what it is not in order to appear to consciousness.
A both exists and does not exist is true because its existence is confirmed conventionally and yet its non-existence is confirmed ultimately.
A neither exists nor does not exist is true because its non-existence is confirmed ultimately and yet its existence is confirmed conventionally.

Therefore, The existence of A is neither real nor not real because it is not ultimately real nor is it conventionally non-existent.

So we're not really dealing with a contradiction here. Rather we are dealing with the truth of two different ways of understanding the same thing, which compliment each other to complete our understanding of the nature of existence.

[bert]

the really real has no structure that we know.

[average]

The reason A=A fails in the buddhist perspective is that its is the representation of the thing-in-itself. The thing with its own identity, the thing that is itself.

Because of concepts like sunyata and anata, things are not themselves, never were and never will be, thus A will never equal itself, on the contrary, A will always be equal 100% to what it is not. A = not-A.
Which in western thought is a contradiction.

That is why anata is hard to understand, it is based on alogical notions. The idea of being without a self points to the fact that nothing has its own identity, nothing can be individualized, everything is infinite, essentially nothing has a beginning or an end, and ultimately we can never say a Tree=Tree or A=A because there is no A and there are no Trees, there is no Ultimate reality either, all there is, is a lack. a void, an emptiness in phenomena and perception.

A=A presents a universe of discourse where there is only 1 thing. That thing is independent and a thing in itself.
Such a statement is incompatible with buddhist thought, since there can be no individual existence, individual identity, or self equal to itself. Things exist via dependencies, individual identity is an illusion (At best we would say A=A is a grand illusion), and all selves lack selves, all things are inherently empty of identity.

[Dave Toast]

By and large this world is supported by a polarity, that of existence and non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

Gautama Buddha

X
not X
Both X and not X
Neither X nor not X

Nagarjuna

[Matt Gregory]

Hey Dave Toast. Howya been?

[Dan Rowden]

The reason A=A fails in the buddhist perspective is that its is the representation of the thing-in-itself. The thing with its own identity, the thing that is itself.

No, the problem is your misunderstanding of both Emptiness and A=A. Whether Aristotle's original application of it carried certain false ontological imputations is irrelevant to A=A's ultimate application, which spans all possible ontological frameworks.

Emptiness is not Nothingness. Emptiness cannot mean anything at all without A=A.

Hey Dave Toast. Howya been?

Ditto

[Matt Gregory]

The reason A=A fails in the buddhist perspective is that its is the representation of the thing-in-itself. The thing with its own identity, the thing that is itself.

A=A has nothing to do with a "thing-in-itself". It simply means that a thing is what it is. You're trying to interpret it in a physical way, but it goes deeper than that.

Because of concepts like sunyata and anata, things are not themselves, never were and never will be, thus A will never equal itself, on the contrary, A will always be equal 100% to what it is not. A = not-A.
Which in western thought is a contradiction.

It's a contradiction in any type of thought. Your understanding of sunyata and anata is materialistic and is therefore critically flawed.

That is why anata is hard to understand, it is based on alogical notions.

Wrong. It's based on wholly logical notions. If it were truly alogical, then it could mean whatever anyone wants, but it has one particular meaning that must be arrived at through the only means possible for arriving at a particular meaning: via logic.

The idea of being without a self points to the fact that nothing has its own identity, nothing can be individualized, everything is infinite, essentially nothing has a beginning or an end, and ultimately we can never say a Tree=Tree or A=A because there is no A and there are no Trees, there is no Ultimate reality either, all there is, is a lack. a void, an emptiness in phenomena and perception.

There is no consciousness either, so this emptiness is the reason that we can say a tree is a tree and A=A and so forth. You need to take this to the next step.

A=A presents a universe of discourse where there is only 1 thing. That thing is independent and a thing in itself.

You're making this stuff up!

there can be no individual existence, individual identity, or self equal to itself. Things exist via dependencies, individual identity is an illusion (At best we would say A=A is a grand illusion), and all selves lack selves, all things are inherently empty of identity.

If things were merely physical then this would all be true.

[Matt Gregory]

Sapius,

Well, my best educated guess is; firstly, understanding is not required for existence to be what it is.

But wouldn't you agree that as someone's understanding of something grows, then it changes their experience of that thing? And wouldn't you also agree that our only knowledge of what a thing is comes to us by way of our experience of it?

And secondly, I have no objection or complain really; I simply express what I think.

I wish you would explicitly raise objections and complaints because I think that would make your posts more succinct and easier to understand, but maybe that's just me.

Other than my agreement of what you said, the rest is merely a general point of my view towards “emptiness” “void” and the likes, which I believe arise out of wishful thinking.

Well, I think looking at emptiness as an external object is wishful thinking. It's more of an endpoint in one's understanding.

[Sapius]

Matt;

S: Well, my best educated guess is; firstly, understanding is not required for existence to be what it is.

M: But wouldn't you agree that as someone's understanding of something grows, then it changes their experience of that thing? And wouldn't you also agree that our only knowledge of what a thing is comes to us by way of our experience of it?

Of course! But that is a realization (understanding) OF the nature of existence, and realizations pertain to me and me alone, and bare no meaningful difference to existence (totality) itself ultimately.

I wish you would explicitly raise objections and complaints because I think that would make your posts more succinct and easier to understand, but maybe that's just me.

Well, I try to do my best, and generally at this forum, either a person is ignored being eventually considered as deluded, or on the other hand, those that may understand and even agree, may find it an insult to their individuality and false ego, to express such agreements. So I really don’t know. Your point is well taken and it may help me express things more assertively, but then again, ultimately, each will find his own way, so it doesn’t really bother me that much, although I would like the world to rely more on logical reasoning.

Well, I think looking at emptiness as an external object is wishful thinking. It's more of an endpoint in one's understanding.

I agree, but I think you should agree here when I say, it is much easier said than done. The real problem is, words itself mean nothing at all, and what they point to is almost impossible to grasp, because of the inherent (lure of definitional) meaning in and of words involved, which we cannot generally help but fall back to subconsciously. I don’t know if this is clear or succinct enough either.

The illusionary nature of existence is NOT ultimately illusionary because existence encompasses absolutely all, with absolutely nothing that lies beyond it, for there isn’t any beyond at all. Hence no “emptiness” lies beneath any thing at all, nor a thing has anything to do with "it"; things are exactly as, and what, and when they are.