I think Buddha's a motherfucker.
See, I've always been confused by the Buddhist concept of nothingness. Of the concept of nothingness in general, though, really. It's just that I first encountered the concept through Buddhism. But it's nothingness itself that confuses me. I can understand the idea that nothing could theoretically exist, but I can't reconcile that idea with the conflicting idea that everything I perceive as "something" is an illusion. I can understand it in the sense that the interpretation of everything we see is an illusion. That I'm humble enough to acknowledge.
What I'm wondering is how an illusion could arise from nothingness without nothingness becoming "something" and, therefore ... no longer nothingness. Something and nothing cannot co-exist. They can alternate in being (inexplicably), but that would mean something would have every right to claim that nothingness is the illusion. From my perspective, that seems to be the case. But that also means time has to be factored into the equation. I can understand the idea that time itself is an illusion. As I mentioned earlier, I have no problem with the notion that all of our perceptions are illusory distortions of reality. But distortions of nothingness? How can nothingness be distorted? By what? My "point" of perceptual awareness? Is perception itself, regardless of interpretation, the illusion? If so, how? How can perception exist at all--awareness!--if there is nothing? It's nonsense.
But what of these ideas, if that's the case? The idea that being is absurd, that it's just a paradoxical charade filled with sorrow and laughter even though nothing actually exists ... except in the consciousness of a being that I experience as me even though I and nothing else exists. Fucking ridiculous. I don't know what type of fungi the Buddha was ingesting, but it clearly fucked with his brain. Maybe nothingness was an aspiration of his. Or maybe he was onto something with the idea that existence is both a happy accident and a cruel absurdity. It feels that way. But the idea of a nothingness with consciousness and ability to create the illusion of there being something for beings that don't exist ... all concoctions of the mind, the ultimate illusion. Mastery in terms of absolutely the opposite of every bit of sense I possess. Which is why the Buddha may be right. There's just no way of knowing and, given that, nothingness seems no less absurd than "somethingness."
By the way, I think Phil Hartman encapsulated Buddhism perfectly in this sketch (I could only find the transcript):
Phil Hartman
