On May 3, 10:23=A0am, Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{dele...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> Dave K wrote:
> > "ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <ltl...@[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. =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?
>
> 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).
You are talking Hui-neng's sudden realization. It is the instant
between self at time t, or self(t) and self(t+1). It is the hole of
Zeno's paradox. There is a sense of tremendous inter-relatedness
because the power aspect of all relation****ps disappear or becoming
not im****tant during this moment. We are not seeing things according
to norms and standards but as they are.
>
> As I keep saying, liberation is purely subjective,
> strictly sentimental, and has no objective counterpart,
> nothing that it can be tied down to.
Subjective experience is stil grounded in objective mind/brain state.
In this sense, they do have objective counterpart.
> 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.
The wests see power. The Easts see relatedness. During the atomic
instant, the power separates from the relatedness.
>
> 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
