On May 1, 8:43=A0pm, "ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 1, 10:18=A0am, Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{dele...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" wrote:
> > > Before get into the goal of buddhism, a more general question is
> > > religion. What is the commonality among all relgions? What is
> > > underlying all suffering?
>
> > > In the wewt, power is the root of all evil. Money is economic power.
> > > The common phrase in the west is Lord Aton's "Power tends to
corrupt;
> > > absolute power corrupt absolutely." =A0And of course, the westtern
> > > conception is wrong. The Chinese or eastern approach is
> > > "relation****p." Combing east and west, the underlying cause of all
> > > surffering is "power relation****p."
>
> > > First, "power relation****p" is ubiquitous. It is everywhere. Every
> > > relation****p we have is a power relation****p in which we coerce or
we
> > > are coerced. Interpersonally, intrapersonally and with nature.
>
> > > Sceond, "power relation****p" is what we learnt from the beginning.
It
> > > does not take long for a baby to discover that everytime she cries,
> > > her mom will pick her up or feed her or otherwise attending to her
> > > needs.
>
> > > Thrid, "power relation****p" brings suffering because we are often
> > > coerced to do something that we don't want to do. Of course, we
learn
> > > to turn the table around. For example, fire is to be feared until we
> > > learnt to control fire. The ability to use fire then because a
> > > hallmark of humanness. However, there are always more things/desires
> > > that can coerce us.
>
> > > Buddhism is an attempt to escape from this ubiquitous "power
> > > relatio****p," =A0especially the intra-personal relation****p because
th=
e
> > > self and his desires. Detachment means not to be coerced by one's
> > > desires or one's vision of a certain tuture and its associated
> > > suffering. Awakening in this sense means one is with eternity
without
> > > suffering.
>
> > It is often said that traditional society consists of "we"
> > whereas modern, especially modern Western society,
> > consists of individuals. In the USA individualism runs
> > rampant, so much so that people are trapped in their
> > own bubbles, so that people so to speak carry their
> > own prison around. Chinese society is composed of
> > liaisons, connexions or relation****ps (guan-xi, lian-xi),
> > regardless of political system. In that sense Chinese
> > society is still pre-modern. (By the way, Communism
> > has destroyed religions in China almost entirely, but
> > the family system inherited from Con****ianism is
> > still intact).
>
> > That said, in Buddhism, there is a funny contradiction.
> > On one hand, Buddhist theory emphasises relations,
> > mutual relations that go on indefinitely, especially in
> > causality, and yet in practice the sage is independent
> > and self-sufficient. Relations are to loosen up one's
> > sense of individuality, and awakening is to free oneself
> > of all identifications, especially to one's self, as one no
> > longer creates a self for one to carry around. Freedom
> > is freedom from norms and standards, especially the
> > biggest and baddest of them, the norms and standards
> > of one's self, the norms and standards that constitute
> > one's self. In freedom one has dropped norms and
> > standards, and is free to roam untrammelled, though of
> > course one is still bound by physical and social laws.
>
> I will distinguish between the atem****al or timeless self and the self
> at time t1,t2,t3... and etc. Similarly, one cannot drop the atem****al
> norms and standards. But should drop the tem****al norms and standards
> or the self's relation****pt with these standards and norms. To be more
> specific, I would say standars and norms are only standards and norms
> because they have power relation****ps with the self. =A0What can be
> dropped are by default limited by time. We cannot drop anytime which
> is timeless. Limited by time also mean non-optimal.
>
> One of Zeno's paradox goes like this: If we take snapshots of an arrow
> in flight at any time t, the arrow will have an exact position. So it
> is not moving at time t. If the arrow in flight is not moving at t, it
> cannot be moving at time t-1 or t+1. Hence an arrow in flgiht is an
> illlusion.
>
> The self is like an arrow in flight. If we look at it at any time, it
> is an illusion and can be dropped. But this is also an illusion.
So what do you do with all this philosophy?
-DaveK
|
