Keynes wrote:
> 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
>>
>
> 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.
Book recommendation:
The Ending of Time
by J. Krishnamurti, David Bohm
|
