Option 1:
I chose to watch the episode of Rick and Morty(Rick’s Potion #9) in which the final conclusion to an,
essentially, apocalyptic event is that the main duo, choose to abandon their reality, and transport to a
reality in which nothing went wrong to create an apocalypse, but their former selves did indeed die. I
believe this to be an excellent thought experiment to try and analyze what a human can hold as being
their true existence. The buddhist claims come to mind primarily, the impermanence of and being or
any consciousness. One could say that we go through something along the lines of what the leading
duo go through, in every moment of our lives. If we were to rigorously follow the buddhist view of
existence. We could say that the new existence, whilst seemingly identical, is a completely different
experience. To expand on this, what would we say if we were to instead state that the duo continuously
shifted realities every day. Every time they woke up, it was in a new reality, but perfectly replacing “Rick
and Morty” from that reality. Would we then be able to argue that the duo don’t actually have any
sense of true reality? What defines reality for someone in this situation? I believe Buddhist philosophy
touches on this quite well in that there is no final and true reality, we are all in a transient state of being,
and our entire realities are also in transient states. Could we say that the transient nature of our
existence in itself is what gives it identity? Could we say that for this hypothetical duo the fact that their
reality is identical in its appearance and nature, but is known as being different to the reality from the
day before is what gives the existence its own identity.
Option 2:
My love for you is
Empty, hence dependently
Originated
I believe the meaning behind this poem alludes to the buddhist claims we covered in class, in that love,
or attachment to someone or something is inherently empty due to the person or thing being
inherently empty. We could say that love itself is free of any properties of love if we follow the buddhist
view of the world. This prompts us to think about what love truly even means, if we describe a
combination of emotions as love? What are the inherent properties that make up what we call love? We
could say that the emptiness as a property of love is what gives it meaning. That the origin of the love is
dependent on what we love, or how we love. I am called to wonder about what the buddhist teachings
have to say about love, it in itself can be seen as an already empty concept so it becomes difficult to even
say it is an amalgamation of its components, since the components are already such an abstract idea.
We could say that love is non-existent, and is purely a word we use to define attraction, lust, friendship,
dependence. I would be interested in exploring whether Buddhism even acknowledges love as an idea,
or even if it does, what their interpretation of love entails. The poem might also imply that love is
defined by where it originates from, from the mind, what part of the mind, what combinations of
emotions can we say are the true origin of love?