Dave K wrote:
> "ltlee1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <ltlee1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>
> > 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. What 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?
Your query has received a reply from the original
poster, but I'll jump in and add my opinion
(everybody has an opinion, like everybody has an
a**hole).
Zeno's theory objectively has a hole, in that in each
instant the arrow still moves, even if only
infinitesimally. But his insight applies subjectively,
in that in each instant we are free if we take it (the
instant) alone, without past and future, without
liaison, connection and relation. I am alluding to the
theory of the atomic instant, as propounded by
Epicurus and the Buddhist school called Sautrantika.
In Buddhism it is called the mere instant
(ksana-matra), which is only the instant and nothing
more. It is the instant in its baldness, shorn of all
associations, tem****al or causal or otherwise,
without reference to anything outside of itself. This
is the reverse to the usual Buddhist theory of
universal connectedness, also called
interdependence (in idiomatic English, mutual
influence), as here every connection is disregarded
and the instant is taken as an absolute, in and of
itself, a self-standing snapshot of the universe
(actually, of the mind) that has no precedent and
subsequent.
This is found in Hui-neng, who talks of freedom in
each instant (nian-nian jie-tuo), and indeed in
serenity and grace, there is a tremendous sense of
relatedness, and yet at the same time a tremendous
sense of self-sufficiency, so that, according to the
former, the universe is a thorougly connected whole,
but according to the latter the universe is a block
universe frozen in perfection from all eternity. This
is an experience to be experienced a posteriori, not a
concept to be analysed a priori. The saturation of
such an experience, the richness of it, the
overflowing abundance of it oozing out from all over,
are such that it can tolerate any kind of intellectual
views afterwards, even conflicting views, but in itself
it has to be experienced to be known as a unit (sorry
for all the pleonasms).
As I keep saying, liberation is purely subjective,
strictly sentimental, and has no objective counterpart,
nothing that it can be tied down to. In Buddhism,
there is a funny contradiction. On one hand, Buddhist
theory emphasises relations, mutual relations that go
on indefinitely, especially in causality, and on the
other in practice the sage is independent and
self-sufficient. There is another funny contradiction,
in that there is universal connectedness, and there is
the atomic instant, where all connection is disregarded.
It is said that in Buddhism different schools proclaim
different theories, and even different practices, so that
the relativity of such theories and practices is intimated,
ever so obliquely. It is said that Avalokiteshvara has a
thousand heads, a thousand eyes, a thousand arms, a
thousand hands, each hand holding a different weapon,
so that he (in China, he is a she, Guan-Yin) can help
people with different aptitudes. It takes all kinds. This
is openness, flexibility, tolerance for ambiguity *in act*.
Buddhism is itself an embodiment of such an attitude,
and would fail if it did not have room for such diversity.
Tang Huyen
|
