Maybe at the most basic level, the universe is made from two types of things: atoms or emptiness. Between these two exists everything we know from science to exist. So if consciousness is not made out of atoms (or is just a by product of atoms), does that make it (consciousness) once barren of content, synonymous with emptiness?
That would be a logical conclusion to draw from the hypothesis that you have given. Abstract concepts never agree with the natural sciences. Love, hate, anger, frustration, fear, despair – you cannot quantify these qualities in terms of atoms and molecules. But that does not mean they are non-existent – or, in your words “empty”. If you think about it, everything that we know – everything – is a product of consciousness and comprehension; by following you train of thought, if consciousness is synonymous with emptiness, every form of knowledge including the physical and the metaphysical is simply emptiness.
And that is why we have philosophy to mediate wherever sciene and reason don’t work in harmony.
My problem with that is what you mean by ’emptiness’. Emptiness as far as I can see is simply nothing. Nothing does not exist (except as an idea) but consciousness is anything BUT nothing. I don’t know what it really is, but it CAN’T be nothing. If it were you could never be conscious. Your mind is the ONE & ONLY thing that you can be 100% sure DOES exist! You cannot say that about anything else at all therefore consciousness cannot be emptiness i.e. nothing.
Hello Â«Zen ZorbaÂ»,
I agree with the answer of user Â«Logic / Reason / EvidenceÂ» and I repeat his same question: what do you mean by Â«emptinessÂ»? Maybe Â«nothingÂ»?, maybe non-existence of matter, of atomsÂ», but existence of space and time? For whatever reason, you should be mean Â«emptinessÂ».
Now, I want correct you two things: first, not all things is made from atoms. There are things is not atoms. (A atom is Â«a basic unit of matter that consists of a dense central nucleus surrounded by a cloud of negatively charged electronsÂ»Â¹). For example, the light. Light is not Â«madeÂ» from atoms but from photons (photons are not a dense central nucleus surrounded by a cloud…). However, the light is in the conjunt of Â«everything that existsÂ». Second, if you think hypothetically that emptiness (as Â«nothingÂ») is synonimous with consciousness (or vice-versa), then consciousness would be nothing and this is absurd! I think consciousness evidentally is not atoms or photons, but is other form (very complex) from matter. It is matter in action! The consciousness is a process from our own brain, in our own nervous system.
The experiential of consciousness is other debate…
For the moment, I would conclude that there are not relationship between consciousness and emptiness.
Emptiness in Zen philosophy : .
when we empty ourselves of concepts, thoughts, sense of Iness, when the mind stops it’s modifications, we realize the unchanging reality : pure consciousness. In Christianity mystics use the term poverty in that sense of being nothing so to let God to take to whole space. Just different words for the same thing.
The relation between the two. Consciousness to be seen without distortion needs a calm mind. Just like consciousness looking itself in a lake with no ripples. In that sense emptiness is the space for consciousness, it’ s mirror.
Waves on the ocean are not separate from the ocean. The problem is if a wave thinks. I exist as separate from the ocean. In that sense emptiness and consciousness and their modifications are still one.
It’s the same as what conscious does light have with darkness?
The earliest English language uses of “conscious” and “consciousness” date back, however, to the 1500s. The English word “conscious” originally derived from the Latin conscius (con- “together” + scire “to know”), but the Latin word did not have the same meaning as our word–it meant knowing with, in other words having joint or common knowledge with another. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness