On Sat, 03 May 2008 10:23:19 -0400, Tang Huyen
<tanghuyen{delete}@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>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
>
>
Continuity, cause and effect, and karma are rational
interpretations of so-called events in time. But they
must depend on unreliable memory and unknowing
imagination-expectatons - all in the present. Where
else is there to go for anything? Without rationalizing
the changes of time, where are the connections?
The mind makes time out of nothing, and always
in the present.
|
