Dear Wayfarer
Thank you very much indeed for your link to the introductory essay on the topic of the Buddhist notion of "emptiness" which I have now read. Unfortunately, I am afraid I have to tell you that it does very little to change my opinion that Buddhism is a fundamentally nihilistic system of thought. Here is a brief explanation of why I think this is so...
I am not a professional expert on Buddhism, though I believe my understanding that the "Four Noble Truths" of the Buddha serve to shape the fundamental thinking of almost all of the different Buddhist schools, sects, traditions is pretty much correct, at least for most reasonable intents and purposes ? (Please let me know if I am mistaken in making this general assumption).
I interpret the "Four Noble Truths" to mean the following:
(1) Suffering exists.
(2) Suffering is caused by desire.
(3) It is possible to eliminate desire and consequently suffering.
(4) The cessation of desire ( and thus suffering) is achieved via the eight-fold path which terminates in nirvana.
To begin with , let's look at the second noble truth, the claim that suffering is caused by desire.
It is true that unsatisfied desires, whether positive or negative, are the source of suffering. In the negative case, if I desire not to be hungry, to feel pain, or to be cold, one could say that my desire is the source of my misery. If I could come to terms with the fact that I am hungry, in pain, or cold, such that I no longer desired the cessation of those feelings, I theoretically might no longer suffer. In the positive case, I might want sex, or money, or power, or expensive consumer good/services, and my inability to attain these things might cause me to suffer. If I didn't want these things in the first place, I could not resent not having them.
But, there are two ways to deal with desire - one way is, as Buddhism suggests, to eliminate it. The other way is to actually achieve what you desire, to get what you want. There are entire moral theories that suppose that desire satisfaction is the principle source of good. So, though desire may be the source of suffering, it may also be the principle source of goodness. How else can we be benevolent to towards others other than by helping them to get the things that they want or ought to want. The kind of benevolent/charitable (compassionate) behaviour Buddhists are taught and encouraged Yet that does indeed seem to be the goal of Buddhism - those who achieve nirvana cease to reincarnate and cease to be. to engage in via the eight-fold path seems to require that they fulfill the desires of others (?) How can the path to enlightenment entail leading others away from enlightenment ? It's contradictory !
Next we have the third noble truth ( and consequently the fourth) which are the beliefs that desire,( and thus suffering), can be altogether eliminated. But to eliminate desire altogether would not merely eliminate suffering, it would eliminate happiness, since happiness is the product of satisfying our desires. In order for it to be possible to eliminate desire, we would have to actively pursue an entirely NEUTRAL mental state. And how could we pursue such a mental state without, on some level, DESIRING that mental state itself ?
More importantly, if we are not desiring anything -if we are in a perpetually neutral mental state, are we really alive in any meaningful sense? Does not life entail pursuits of one kind or another ? The man without any goals or dreams is a man already in the grave. Yet that does indeed seem to be the ultimate goal of Buddhism - those who achieve nirvana cease to reincarnate and cease to be. So the goal of Buddhism does seem to be well and truly non-existence. This leads to a very disturbing contradiction. The point of life, according to Buddhism, is to achieve permanent, eternal death (?)
In which case, doesn't Buddhism imply that we ought not to create life in the first place ? If all beings that are alive are beset with desires and suffering until they achieve nirvana, and most beings never achieve nirvana, isn't creating life an overwhelmingly harmful activity ? Yet Buddhism does not explicitly oppose childbirth anywhere that I can see, and it certainly does not advocate for the humane killing of other beings in order to eliminate the suffering that goes with life for most of them.
But perhaps, in order to achieve permanent death all we have to do is behave benevolently towards other for some length of time. But what meaning does this benevolence have if all of these other beings are themselves best off permanently dead in a state of non-existence ? How else can we be good to someone whose life purpose is not to be happy but to achieve death ?
You may say that I am an ignorant fool who is drawing crude, simplistic conclusions about the complex nature of the concept of Sunyata; that I am one who lacks a fittingly nuanced understanding of the Buddhist doctrine of Voidism and the Buddhist void, but, as an ordinary, non-expert layman of at least average ( I hope) intelligence, I have to tell you, Wayfarer, I sense a definite stench of nihilism about all of this. All human projects are the result of desire, so Buddhism negates all human projects. At the same time, Buddhism maintains that we should behave benevolently ( charitably/compassionately) towards one another, but if benevolence consists of making others happy and happiness for others means achieving their projects and humans having projects is the source of human suffering, then being benevolent under Buddhism consists of preventing people from achieving their rightly considered life purpose, the fulfilment of permanent death. And how could we all simultaneously attempt to achieve permanent death when doing so involves sating one's another's desire that we are all mutually committed to eradicate ? In the end, all of this must be resolved one way or another - the contradiction is too strong.
Either, Buddhism is a nihilist theory in which life's only purpose is its end, or Buddhism is a moral theory of how we should treat one another, in which case Buddhism's methodology for eliminating suffering is not really about desire, but is really about just being nice to other people. In the later case, either Buddhism is mistaken about what suffering is, or Buddhism is mistaken about whether or not it can be eliminated or ought to be eliminated.
In sum, it just doesn't hold together. While desires lead to suffering, they also lead to happiness if we can manage to to achieve them. The entire human project has, for thousands of years, been about improving the quality of the human condition by achieving human goals. Buddhism rejects the very idea that human beings ought to have projects, tasks, dreams or goals that they desire to achieve, and in doing so Buddhism denies the human project " in toto". If that's not nihilism, Wayfarer, then I don't know what is !
Regards
John