On Sat, 3 May 2008 11:32:18 -0400, "^@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>---*=#" <yomama@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>"Keynes" <Keynes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:itvo14h2jkcl4snms2m38fv41t6iguv9i7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> 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.
>
>rational ? does it really appear
>to you that anyone is rational ?
>have you driven the freeway
>lately ?
>
>> But they
>> must depend on unreliable memory and unknowing
>> imagination-expectatons - all in the present.
>
>imagination and expectations are not
>only present moment motivated they
>also rely on past memory for formulation
>and negotiation and future expectation
>for the same.
>
>> Where
>> else is there to go for anything?
>
>"oh the sights we'll show you."
>>pinhead from 'hellraiser'
>
>> Without rationalizing
>> the changes of time, where are the connections?
>
>there are synaptic firings which
>correlate the electromagnetic and
>chemical cinematics that allow us
>the fantasy that we are rational.
>
>> The mind makes time out of nothing, and always
>> in the present.
>
>there is no present to our psyches.
>by the time that one ten thousandth
>of a second p***** that is needed
>to cognize the present moment, it
>too has passed.
Lost in time and space?
|
