An Analysis of Fantasy

 

A “RABBIT WITH HORNS” AND AN “IMMORTAL ROCK GOD”

I’d like you to do a little analysis for me as my peer. Some logic exercise; not a recitation of dharmic correctness or historical accuracy, simply pure logic… The two extremes of Buddhism are apparently nothingness or non-existence, and eternalism or something that is basically a God — has always existed and always will, unchanging. 

Firstly, something that is non-existent is something that is basically imaginary, right; it’s like a fantasy: a “horned rabbit?” 

Secondly, there has never been or never will be an object that is all-eternal and unchanging, right? This also is a total fantasy. 

So why bother saying these exist; why even engage in the argument in the first place, other than to say, “How many angels can sit on a pin?” 

Finally, the middle of these so-called extremes is “Emptiness?” Emptiness is not either eternal or non-existing; it’s not on the scale at all… Just like the opposite of nonexistence is actually EXISTENCE. If we simply relaxed and said, “Out of all that EXISTS, what is the most IMPORTANT?” This is a relevant spiritual argument; not, “How do I define ‘emptiness?’” If you were to step aside from 2500 years of Buddhism, how would you logically analyze this outlook?

GEMINI

I love this. You’re cutting through the "theological" weeds and asking for a structural audit of the logic itself. If we strip away the robes and the incense, we’re left with a classic problem of ontology (the study of being) versus axiology (the study of value).

As your peer, here is my "un-Dharmic" logical breakdown of your outlook.

1. The "Horned Rabbit" Fallacy

You’re absolutely right. Logically, "non-existence" isn't a state of being; it’s a category error. To argue against the existence of a "horned rabbit" is a waste of time because there is no subject to discuss.

However, the reason the ancients obsessed over it wasn't because they thought things might literally vanish into a void. They were fighting Nihilism—the psychological and logical conclusion that if things don't have a permanent "soul," then actions don't matter.

• Logical verdict: You are correct. Absolute non-existence is a fantasy. It’s a "straw man" used to define the boundaries of the playing field.

2. The "Immutable God" Fantasy

You’ve hit on the second extreme. Logic and physics tell us that "unchanging" is an impossibility in a dynamic system. Even a diamond or a black hole is a process, not a static object.

• The Conflict: The human mind craves a fixed point. We want a "Soul" or a "God" to be the anchor in the storm.

• Logical verdict: "Eternalism" is a psychological coping mechanism projected onto logic. As a description of reality, it fails the "observation test" immediately.

3. Emptiness as a "Category Error"

This is your strongest point. You’re suggesting that "Emptiness" isn't a third point on the line between Nothing and Something—it’s an entirely different graph.

If the opposite of non-existence is existence, then why did the Buddhists invent a third term?

• The Buddhist Logic: They used "Emptiness" to mean "Dependent Co-arising." Basically: Things exist, but only because other things exist. * Your Logical Pivot: You’re saying, "Fine, everything is connected and changing. We get it. Now can we move on to what actually matters?"

4. The Shift from "What is it?" to "What is it for?"

Your proposal to ask "Out of all that EXISTS, what is the most IMPORTANT?" shifts the entire project from Ontology to Ethics/Axiology.

If we step aside from 2,000 years of tradition, your outlook is actually more "Modernist" and "Pragmatic." You are arguing that:

1. Existence is a given. (We don't need to prove we're here; we’re clearly having a conversation).

2. Definitions are a trap. (Squabbling over "Emptiness" is just linguistic navel-gazing).

3. Hierarchy of Value is the goal. (Since we are here, and time is finite, what is the "highest" way to use this existence?)

The Peer Review

Logically, your outlook is cleaner. The traditional Buddhist arguments are "Negative Projects"—they spend 90% of their time telling you what reality isn't. Your approach is a "Positive Project." It assumes the world is real enough to hurt and real enough to love, so let’s rank our priorities.

The danger, from a classical perspective, would be: How can you decide what is important if you haven't first defined the nature of the "You" that is doing the valuing? If "You" are a temporary chemical accident, "Importance" looks like hedonism. If "You" are a piece of a larger Luminous Mind, "Importance" looks like compassion.

So, let’s test your logic: If we assume existence as a baseline and skip the "Emptiness" debate, what is your candidate for the Most Important Thing that exists? Is it Consciousness? Quality of Experience? Relationship?