Content area
Full Text
Parts of the natural sciences have been deepened to the point where evidence can be brought to bear in a controlled way on problems classified as metaphysical.
Abner Shimony1
According to Elizabeth Napper, sunyata inheres in "the utter unfindability of objects" owing to their intrinsic emptiness: "If things existed in the palpable, independent way we imagine them to, they would have to be such that they could be found when sought-but they cannot." She further notes that when objects are subjected to meditative analysis "they disappear altogether," and "one is left with the absence of what was sought, with a mere vacuity that is emptiness."2
This definition of sunyata originates with Nagarjuna, who insisted that causes, parts, and an apprehensible nature (a nature that is amenable to apprehension-at least seemingly so) mark an object as empty.3 Because these characteristics constitute objects as we know them, objects cannot be said to exist in their own right. Hence the intrinsic emptiness and consequent unfindability of a pencil, say. We cannot find it apart from its parts, causes, and apprehensible nature.4
In the present article, I argue that physical light-the light that science investigates and the agency by which we see the world-is an exception to Nagarjuna's declaration. That is, I wish to show that light exists without parts, causes, and an apprehensible nature. Put differently, though we may attribute these characteristics to light, that attribution attenuates with further consideration until light is seen as "its own thing." In developing this argument, however, I ultimately embrace rather than reject Nagarjuna's pronouncement. Light, I believe, is a deeper expression of emptiness than that revealed in the unfindability of material objects. To study light is to approach the moment at which the bottom falls out of the bucket.5
The article consists of three parts. In the first, I propose that light cannot be found in any straightforward sense because it exists and moves in ways that break the frame of our everyday understandings of reality. Not only that, but light is beyond the reach of vision and visualization: it lacks an apprehensible nature. In the second part, I build on the previous analysis by suggesting that light also lacks parts and causes; that is, it is difficult to compare light...