pp. 28-32:
MATTHIEU: When you say "infinite period" do you mean without a beginning?
THUAN: Anything is possible. We simply arrived at 10-43 seconds by extrapolating the known laws of physics back toward zero time. But they break down behind this wall. So it is that our current physics begins at 10-43 seconds aften the Big Bang.
MATTHIEU: For Buddhism, the reality of our universe is seen from a quite different perspective. Buddhism considers that phenomena aren't really "born", in the sense that they pass from nonexistence into existence. They exist only in terms of what we call "relative truth" and have no actual reality. Relative, or conventional, truth comes from our experience of the world, from the usual way in which we perceive it—that is, by supposing that things exist objectively. Buddhism says that such perceptions are deceptive. Ultimately, phenomena have no intrinsic existence. This is the "absolute truth". In these terms, the question of creation becomes a false problem. The idea of creation becomes necessary only if we believe in an objective world.
The Buddhist view does not, however, exclude the possibilty of the unfolding of the world. Obviously the phenomena we all se around us aren't nonexistent, but if we examine how they exist, then we soon see that they can't be viewed as a set of independent entities, each with its own existence. Thus, phenomena exist only as a dream, an illusion or mirage. Like mirror images, they can clearly be seen, but have no separate existence. Nagarjuna, the great second-century Indian philosopher, said, "The nature of phenomena is that of mutual dependence; in themselves, phenomena are nothing at all". Their evolution is neither random nor fixed by divine intervention. Instead, they follow laws of cause and effect in a global interdependence and reciprocal causality. The problem of an "origin" comes about only from a belief in the absolute reality of phenomena and the existence of space and time.
In terms of absolute truth, there is no creation, no duration, and no end. This paradox is a good illustration of the illusory nature of the world of phenomena. It can reveal itself in an infinite number of ways because its final reality is emptiness. In terms of the relative truth of appearances, we say that the conditioned world, called samsara, is "without beginning" because each state must have been caused by a previous one. So, with the Big Bang theory, do we have an ex nihilo creation, a creation out of nothingness, or the expression of some kind of preexisting potential that is not yet manifested in the universe? Is it seen as a real beginning, or as a stage in the universe's evolution?
THUAN: As we've discussed, modern physics can't look into the time before Planck's wall. So, before the Big Bang, there could easily have been an infinite period of time or no time. Another possibility is that the universe is cyclical, and that theBig Bang is just the start of one cycle among an infinite number of cycles. In either case, the issue of how the universe could possibly have arisen, ex nihilo, at zero time is avoided. These possibilities are ways of dodging the creation problem. But they are still pure speculation, unsupported by observation or experiment.
MATTHIEU: Perhaps the Big Bang can be interpreted as the process of the world of phenomena springing forth from an infinite but nonmanifest potentiality, which is metaphorically called "particles of space" in Buddhism. This term doesn't refer to particles in the sense of bits of matter, but rather to space's potential. This potential could perhaps be compared to the vacuum of physics you described, as long as we don't invest the potential with any form of concrete or independent "reality".
In Buddhism, we believe there can be no ex nihilo creation. As Shatideva wrote in the seventh century:
When nonbeing prevails, if there's no being.
How could being ever supervene?
For insofar as entity does not occur,
Nonentity will not depart.
And if nonentity is not dispersed,
No chance is there for entity to manifest.
Being cannot change and turn into nonbeing.
For otherwise it has a double nature.
The reason why "nothing" can become "something" is that in order to do so, the "nothing" would be done away with. But how is it possible to get rid of something that does not exist?Nothingness is a mere concept defined in relation to existence. It does not have the slightest reality on its own, because it can only be conceived in absence of existence. Nothingness cannot be transformed. If something appears, it means that the potential manifestation was already present.
THUAN: Physics says that the potential for manifestation lies in the vacuum's energy. But we are still left with the question: How was the vacuum created? Was there nothing, then sudden rupture, with the appearance of a vacuum full of energy, and simultaneously of time and space?
MATTHIEU: A causeless rupture, making nothing become something—that is quite a way to start? The Big Bang, or any other "beginning" of a given universe, can't happen without a cause and conditions. The world of phenomena can't come from nowhere. One of Buddhism's essential ideas states that because things have no independent reality, they can't really "begin" or "end" as distinct entities. When we speak of a "beginning", our mind immediatelypictures "something". The idea of the universe beginning and endingbelongs to relative truth. In terms of absolute truth, it's meaningless. When you consider a castle seen in a dream, for instance, you don't need to worry about who actually built it. All religions and philosophies have come unstuck on the problem of creation. Science has gotten rid of it by removing God the Creator, who had become unnecessary. Buddhism has done so by eliminating the idea of a beginning.
THUAN: Do you remember the story about the great eighteenth-century French mathematician and physicist Pierre-Simon de Laplace? When he gave napoleon a copy of his great book on celestial mechanics, the emperor scolded him for not once mentioning the "Great Architect". Laplace replied: "But, Your Highness, I have no need of that hypothesis". Questions still remain, however: Why is there a universe? Why are there laws? Why was there a Big Bang? We return to Leibniz's famous question: "Why is there something rather than nothing? For nothing is both simpler and easier than something. Moreover, assuming that things must exist, there must be a reason why they exist and not otherwise".
MATTHIEU: One reply could be the famous dictum of the second.century master Nagarjuna: "Since all is empty, all is possible". And the famous scripture Perfection of Wisdom says specifically, "Though phenomena appear, they are empty; though empty, they appear".In Buddhism, emptiness isn't just the true nature of phenomena, it's also the potential that allows the propagation of an infinite variety of phenomena. To use a simple metaphor, the continents, trees, and forests can exist because space allows them to. If the sky were of rock, nothing much would happen. In the same way, if reality were permanent, and its properties too, then nothing would change. Phenomena could not appear. But because things have no intrinsic reality, they can have infinite manifestations.
When you have understood that everything is intrinsically empty, it's easier to understandhow things work in relative, or conventional truth. Even though phenomena lack reality, they don't happen at random.This is the emptiness of Buddhism. It isn't nothingness, but rather the absence of any permanent and autonomously existing phenomena.
THUAN: Yes, but many people associate emptiness with nothingness. In the nineteenth century, Buddhism was accused of being nihilistic.
MATTHIEU: That was a serious mistake. We consider that there are two opposing and erroneous points of view: nihilism and materialistic realism. The latter, which Buddhism calls "eternalism", reifies the world by postulating the existence of immutable matter made of solid parts. What is more, when Leibniz wondered why there is "something rather than nothing", he presupposed that there really is something. In Buddhism's Middle Way, there is neither nothing (nihilism) or something (materialism or realism). We could now ask Leibniz, "Why should there be nothing, since phenomena are possible?" The true nature of interdependent phenomena goes against common sense because these phenomena can't be called either existent or nonexistent. The intellect has its limitations, and we can't grasp the true nature of realityjust by means of ordinary conceptual processes. Only direct knowledge that transcends conventional though can see the world of phenomena in a nondual way, in which subject and object have become meaningless.