On May 5, 10:40 am, Keynes <Key...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Sat, 03 May 2008 10:23:19 -0400, 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. 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
>
> Very interesting, Tang.
> Your knowledge of the sects and schools
> is wonderful and good to hear about.
>
> I think the paradox of time is central to buddhism from
> the beginning. Clinging is the past, and grasping is the
> future. In between lies the self sufficient, causeless state
> where there is nothing further to do, the end of faring on.
>
> Time is a paradox that has never been adequately explained.
> You say "Zeno's theory objectively has a hole, in that in each
> instant the arrow still moves, even if only infinitesimally."
> Scientifically speaking, that isn't so. The present is totally
> without measurable dimension. By definition nothing can
> move except in (presumably) measurable time. The visible
> sensible present is a snapshot and not a motion picture.
>
> Yet while the present has no measurable dimension
> it neither begins nor ends. While dimensionless it
> has infinite extent.
>
> We presume a continuity of moments, but that mechanism
> of continuity would have to leap the timeless gap of the
> present in some unknowable fa****on. If there is any gap
> at all in the continuity of time, then the chain would be
> irretrievably broken, since in timelessness there is no
> difference between an instant and eternity. How could
> causation span that dimensionless gap of nothingness?
>
> 'Past, present, and future are ungraspable.' Logically and
> scientifically there is no access to past or future except
> memory and imagination, and that only in the apparent
> present where we assume all activity of any sort must
> take place. ( Since the past is dead and gone, and the
> future yet to be born.) Yet nothing can possibly happen
> in the unmoving present. All events Must take place in
> the presumably measurable past or future.
> (Where we can never go.)
>
> We think we are living in physical time, so-called
> real life, and base our thinking on that proposition.
> So we have much to do and plenty to worry about.
> But what is this 'time'? Clocks know, but we don't.
> How many clocks are all around us. We have to look
> at them because we ourselves have no real sense of
> time. A minute of kissing is much shorter than a
> minute of torture, regardless of all the clocks.
>
> The minute, the hour, the day, the month, the year --
> all are much of a muchness. It's all just right Now
> without distinction.
>
> Where does the time go? Where does it come from?
> Nobody knows. Since it is an unfathomable paradox,
> why put one's absolute enduring faith in one's
> 'understanding' of it?
>
> There is no physical access to time. It is never present.
> By memory and imagination we only create it in our minds.
>
> Logically, our only access to time is rational calculating
> mind. But what happens when one ceases to brood and
> to plan and to scheme? No clinging, no grasping. Just This.
>
> Long time? Short time? Meaningless.
> Nowhere to go and no time to get there.
> Everything has arrived in perfection Now, right on time.
And you continue to be ignorant and stubborn time and again.
--
RaaN
|
