Jeffrey Bell on Śūnyatā

The more I read him, the more I like what Jeffery Bell might be up to:

"[O]bjects are neither autonomous realities that are independent of all their relations, nor are objects reducible to being nothing other than their relations. If one follows the first approach then one accepts the appearance/reality distinction. There are appearances of objects, their phenomenal noematic correlates as Husserl puts it, or the illusions of maya as the Buddhists would understand it, and then there is the object itself that exceeds and is irreducible to each of these correlates and illusions. If one accepts, by contrast, that objects are nothing other than their relations, their causal dependencies, then an object is indeed undermined and cast asunder by the proliferation of depenencies. Nagarjuna’s middle path of emptiness steers a course between the Scylla and Charybdis of realism and nihilism."

— Jeffrey Bell, “Some Thoughts on Emptiness”       [h/t Shaviro]

I think there is a perfectly intelligible 'middle' way to increase or undertsanding of reality that moves between the extremes of relationalism and object-orientation, having to do with the temporality and vulnerability of things. Objects exist in relation and relations gather (withdraw) into individuated assemblages (objects) - at the same time.  Therefore, in my interpretation, śūnyatā शून्यता ('emptiness') signifies the absolute irreducibility of reality to either merely relation or simply objects. Being persists on its accord - and regardless of what we want to say about it.

* also: check out Skholiast's fantastic post on Buddhism, emptiness and objects: HERE

“Emptiness which is conceptually liable to be mistaken for sheer nothingness is in fact the reservoir of infinite possibilities.” - Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki