No, it cannot. This seems to relate to cause and effect. It asserts that first there is "nothing", and something arises or manifests from the nothing. However, "nothing" becomes something when it is asserted - it becomes a word, a thought, and then a concept. If nothing is defined as being neither here nor there, neither present nor non-present, then it is closer to the truth but still assailable and therefore erroneous. As for "something," it can only be held to be an appearance, or a mirage.
Yes it does. We can't leave it at that, however. We must qualify it by adding that there is only the appearance of something from nothing. This discussion is immediately relative to the company that is conducting it. It is more erroneous than the preceding, which makes it easier to grasp. It can be said to be true only if appearances and impermanent images are held to be true. Therefore it can be negated easily, but we should be careful not to get caught in the trap of negating everything, or "addicted to negativism" as Buddha was quoted.
No comments:
Post a Comment