Customer Reviews

Nothingness and Emptiness: A Buddhist Engagement With the Ontology of Jean-Paul Sartre

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I actually quite enjoyed this. No, it's certainly not for someone with a passing interest in Philosophy; likewise for someone with a minor vocabulary. It is, absolutely, a difficult work. But Laycock seems interested in preserving his ideas in the honeycombed Literary modes of Phenomenology, Existentialism and (a relatively esoteric form of) Buddhism, and succeeds by acheiving a work as complex as it is. This defines the barrier for the average reader though, regardless of how versed they are in "jargon." Laycock is painstaking in his analysis, both in its poesis and its content, and the book is certainly worth the time if you are deeply interested in any of the aforementioned doctrines. However, as the other reviewer exemplifies, if you're not able to really dig in and spend a few minutes with each page (literally so, it's a SLOW read), you may as well use it as a fan instead. Overall, though, _Nothingness and Emptiness_ turns out to be a wonderful experience of rich, meditative philosophy, challenging and rewarding in its complexity and linguistic depth. Laycock's assertions and conclusions (especially those involving Nagarjuna and Madhyamaka Buddhism) are absolutely fascinating even if one is compelled to disagree at times. But the end result is an expanded and appreciative view of Mahayana Buddhism, and an absolutely exploded take on Sartrean Existentialism/Phenomenology. I feel the book is deserving of far better than one solitary, short-sighted bash--give it a try. If you've any interest in either half of Laycock's equation (i.e.- Buddhism OR Sartre) you'll be surprisingly welcomed if you attempt it with patience and an empty mind.

This book is rich in insight and throughness. Yes, you need time to read it, but Laycock has taken an idea that I've thrown around in my own mind for some time and expanded on it with a philospher's throughness.
I am aware that similar arguments are available in Asian texts, but with a Westerner's skepticism, I needed a good Western argument to convince me!

It amazes me what some regard as "boring". But I will warn you, if you find
Derrida, Heidegger, Levinas and Sartre boring, then avoid this book. However,
if these authors fascinate you -Read this book! Then, read it again. I would
pay ten times what I did for this cerebral adventure!

First I feel obliged to say something nice about this work and have to say that any work that looks at one complex writer's ontology through the challenging frame of a concept like emptiness in Buddhist philosophy deserves some commendation. Laycock's work is, however, too dry, scholastic and obscurantist. Whatever his subjective experience, if he writes for the general public then he should try to imagine the needs of his reader. He should do a basic writing course as well. I also found more accessible accounts of Sartre's work and its similarity to early Buddhist epistomology and ontology by Asisan authors. I also found Sartre's "Being and Nothingness" much easier to read than Laycock's flight of associations.

The book reads like an academic journal whose audience enjoys reading in the jargon of its highly specialized field. I don't recommend this book at all. Boring...I want my money back.