Originally posted by black beetleNo. It's not there. There is too great a temptation to read significance backwards into mystical writing. I love Buddha and respect Buddhism but I have formed a view that he offers a method not a cosmology.
You do not see it probably because your approach to Zen is grounded on dualism, and surely because you are not well versed in this philosophy😵
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe fat one is the good one. I gave up about a quarter of the way in not because it failed but because I did and I resolved to start again when I get enough space to concentrate properly instead of trying to read at my typical pace. What stands out in this book is its determination that mathematics can be communicated and I picked out some superb concepts that I have retained. Sadly, my daughter's partner has a degree in maths and philosophy, and she is not one to be intimidated, so that book was sucked from my shelves as soon as I turned away.
I'm working my way slowly through the Emperor's New Mind as a dress rehearsal for the fat one that came out a few years ago.
Originally posted by finneganIt is there but you cannot see it cannot be seen; I am above temptation for I cultivate no attachment; I merely know myself thus I know every thing; my vehicle is just a vehicle and I am using it as such😵
No. It's not there. There is too great a temptation to read significance backwards into mystical writing. I love Buddha and respect Buddhism but I have formed a view that he offers a method not a cosmology.
Originally posted by finneganI originally set aside a year for it; I've revised that estimate and have determined to take it piece by piece. Chances are I'll retain some 'luminous fragments' rather than get the whole picture, but that's better than nothing. The problem is indeed reading pace, I don't want to be reading the same and only book for the next two to three years! So I'll be picking it up and putting it down for as long as it takes ... If it weren't for Escher, I wouldn't be reading Penrose at all.
The fat one is the good one. I gave up about a quarter of the way in not because it failed but because I did and I resolved to start again when I get enough space to concentrate properly instead of trying to read at my typical pace. What stands out in this book is its determination that mathematics can be communicated and I picked out some superb concepts t is not one to be intimidated, so that book was sucked from my shelves as soon as I turned away.
A minor vice: speed reading difficult philosophy purely for the sake of taking a bath. Current example: Frege.
Originally posted by black beetleThinking about causation, how about an n-dimensional regression of causes? Until that sweet naked singularity shows up.
It is there but you cannot see it cannot be seen; I am above temptation for I cultivate no attachment; I merely know myself thus I know every thing; my vehicle is just a vehicle and I am using it as such😵
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI cannot dismiss this idea; but if you understand non-existent emptiness and you understand existent emptiness and you understand ultimate emptiness, then
Thinking about causation, how about an n-dimensional regression of causes? Until that sweet naked singularity shows up.
you understand emptiness -and once more that sweet naked singularity is there😵
Originally posted by black beetleThat's what I get out of the Void and Black Holes.
I cannot dismiss this idea; but if you understand non-existent emptiness and you understand existent emptiness and you understand ultimate emptiness, then
you understand emptiness -and once more that sweet naked singularity is there😵
Zen is not an -ism or an -ology.
It is a "hammer" that beats your ego into submission.
It is not for everyone. I think one has to be born with a disposition towards Zen.
However some get lucky and stumble upon it.
quite rightly it has been labelled "elitist" .
Unfortunately for those not interested in Zen in serves no other purpose in this world . It is just a dead idea for those who cant get into the spirit of it. for those who can, there is nothing else.
The logical conclusions of this line of thought and consequent actions lead to the most ardous of all undertakings. You will be scared...you will be. And thats probably one of the best outcomes. Insanity is a distinct possibility for the Zen adept.
(just my thoughts)
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOuch I nearly let you get away with this.
Indian philosophy did bequeath us Zero, whereas Aristotle and his Catholic offspring refused to countenance the Void ...
Indian philosophy was able to persist and realize its potential - the idea of Zero is one of its glories but it did lose impetus and disappear into itself. Its strength I think was in its psychology which remains valid and valuable. Greek philosophy did not wither - it was actively destroyed as state policy throughout the Roman Empire as Christianity became the state religion in both the Eastern and Western empires in the century after Constantine. The academies were forcibly closed down. Arguably, Christianity rested on Plato from Augustine onwards, who concluded that it was impossible to reconcile Faith with Reason. It was only after some eight hundred years that Thomas Aquinas erupted in his Summa Theologica which resurrected Aristotle intact. This re-introduced Reason in the West and within a relatively short time, while the West rediscovered its lost works, produced Copernicus and then Galileo.
It is wrong to ignore the reason why Greek philosophy was lost for so long. It is also wrong to equate Greek philosophy with Christianity. Once that gross misrepresentation is resolved, then you will see why in my view Indian thinking turned out in the end to have less capacity for understanding the World than Western science based solidly on its Greek foundations.
This copy of my post to another thread covers my point as well as I want it to.
Early Christians failed to convert the Greek philosophers. Then they tried to use Greek philosophy to sort out their own beliefs. The doctrine of the Trinity owed a lot to Plotinus who supplied the terminology required to tackle this problem. But the philosophers always had the better of it.
Truth was that Christianity had been articulated in all sorts of ways by different groups, struggling to articulate anything coherent. The reason so many different versions were possible was that the basis on which Christianity rested was itself incoherent and inconsistent. Christians hated pagans but what they really hated was other Christians.
To some degree, consistency was enforced by the Roman Emperors from Constantine onwards. He got the great idea of tolerating Christians, and offered patronage and tax exemption to Christian clergy. Trouble was, all sorts of different sects wanted the benefits. Worse, they hated each other and attacked each other in vitriolic terms. So he tried to impose some coherence at Nicea, but failed and provoked new theological schisms accompanied by more vitriol. They were a truly unpleasant bunch of opinionated bastards to deal with.
There were perhaps 80 major heresies in a few hundred years. This could demonstrate the active work of demons. Alternatively and more likely, it could illustrate how many perfectly legitimate and sincere ways a pious and thoughtful human could interpret Christianity. It was a mess.
Ultimately, Augustine of Hippo reached the conclusion that it was impossible to resolve theological questions by Reason and anyway, Reason was not required. What we needed was Faith. This was elaborated to the argument that nothing mattered except Faith and Reason was tempting us into hell. Everyone loved this.
This was a great solution to making the Church all powerful and without opposition. The priority was order and control. Anyone outside "orthodox" Christianity was deemed a Heretic. The Church kept its wealth. Reason in the forms of philosophy, science, or any critical thinking was outlawed for nearly a thousand years.
Then Thomas Aquinas reintroduced Aristotle and all hell broke loose - notably Galileo. Thomas Aquinas died suddenly before he could be excommunicated. Then having been made a Saint, he somehow won the argument. And that was the end of Christianity. Not all Christians have noticed this yet.
Originally posted by finneganI don't think Reason ever entirely disappeared from the West, I wouldn't call Bede irrational, would you? But Aristotle denied the void as well as infinity and the Thomists followed him in his. Before Copernicus, Aristotle's walnut-universe reigned conceptually supreme. The reason: it placed mankind at the centre of the cosmos. Not until zero -- with much fear and trembling -- was given a sort of special exemption could science be legitimated. In effect, the Counter-Reformation was an attempt to stuff the genie back inside the bottle and turn the universe back into a walnut (Bruno roasted at the stake, Galileo under house arrest, yet Copernicus unmolested in his lifetime? Why?).
Ouch I nearly let you get away with this.
Indian philosophy was able to persist and realize its potential - the idea of Zero is one of its glories but it did lose impetus and disappear into itself. Its strength I think was in its psychology which remains valid and valuable. Greek philosophy did not wither - it was actively destroyed as state policy t ...[text shortened]... apacity for understanding the World than Western science based solidly on its Greek foundations.
In any case, I was merely pointing out that the gift of Zero made the whole thing possible and acknowledging the source of the idea in a culture that loved big numbers, infinities and voids. Of course Democritus also proclaimed the Void, which is perhaps why Plato wished to burn all his books -- but by and large the Greeks stuck with Aristotle, which is why their mathematics did not advance. (I am merely repeating from memory what I read in 'Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea' by Charles Seife). Mathematics being the engine of science, it must be conceded that India is the mother of modern science!
You know the Zen expression, there is no buddha? Well, there's no Zen either.
Originally posted by karoly aczelThe Zennist tradition is a solid ground for all kinds of conceptual and non-conceptual awareness at all the levels, but your sixth has to be trained in order to receive it. Of course there is actually no thing to pass from mind to mind; but in order to pass it we use objects and images that they do not contain fractals of common reason, which they cannot on their own hold something more than a glance. Then, all of a sudden, the one who sat quietly and did nothing and finally received the transmittance gets her/ his satori and can proceed free at last -but this deep understanding was actually ready to arise in her/ his consciousness. So the soon-to-arise thoughts of the person whose point of attention is thus permanently shifted are getting deeper and deeper in the intrinsic reality that penetrates the Floating World because the barriers set by dualism are debunked thanks to the new holistic approach.
Zen is not an -ism or an -ology.
It is a "hammer" that beats your ego into submission.
It is not for everyone. I think one has to be born with a disposition towards Zen.
However some get lucky and stumble upon it.
quite rightly it has been labelled "elitist" .
Unfortunately for those not interested in Zen in serves no other purpose in this w ...[text shortened]... the best outcomes. Insanity is a distinct possibility for the Zen adept.
(just my thoughts)
Concentrate, concentrate! Overcome the obstacles by means of the concentrated power of your mind; then maintain constant awareness of the illusionary-like nature of all phenomena -and, there you are!
Probably you will keep up your own way and you will keep up maintaining the delusional thought that whoever gets in grips with Zen faces insanity as a distinct possibility. This is not the case however, and I am blessed to know many people whose Zen is extremely sharp😵