Hi All Fellow Jewels in Indra's Net,
I am still not sure what aspects of David Loy's proposals seem to strike some folks as in conflict with the discoveries and perspective of modern science. He seems to me very conservative in his assertions: (1) we are made of the stuff of the universe and are certainly not separate from the whole, such that it might be said that we are the universe in one aspect or manifestation, and (2) therefore when we make toast or paint a picture or look through our telescopes at the stars, it is the universe making toast, painting and looking. In fact, since all is the universe, one might say that it is the universe toasting, painting and looking at the universe.
Granted, he does come dangerously close to (or steps over the line of) implying that there is some kind of "creative force" or drive or direction to the universe toward intelligent life. However, I think that a good argument can be made that there is such a natural tendency in the properties of the cosmos, given that here we (and all the other life on earth, and likely on other worlds too) sit. There seems to be something fertile and life (and intelligent life) encouraging in the structure of the universe, much as there is something in soil and seed to produce a tree. In fact, all of soil and seed and tree are made of the stuff of the universe, and are the universe sprouting and growing in the universe. Since we are intelligent life, and since we sprouted from the universe, there is ipso facto something about the universe capable and nourishing of the development of intelligence.
It does not seem such a radical proposition to me.
If we are the universe in a particular manifestation, and we are trying to understand that fact, is it not perhaps maybe true for each of us that "my subjective desire to awaken [can] be understood in a more nondual way as the urge of the universe itself to become self-aware, in me and as me" and "Awakening, then, involves realizing that 'I' am not inside my body, looking out through my eyes at a world that is separate from me. Rather 'I' am what the whole universe is doing, right here and now."
Do you agree with David that such an interpretation, "is not some fanciful reinterpretation of the Buddhist tradition, It is consistent with many of the metaphors and conceptualizations that have traditionally been used to describe the experience, in fact, it illuminates them."
He says, "your true nature -- your no-self-nature, right here and now -- is not different from the no-self nature of the cosmic process." He points to the cosmos and you (not two) as the very same emptiness, yet a creative and fertile emptiness. Does this resonate with you?
Do you believe that there is a tendency for progress and improvement in evolution, and in universal history in general? Generally, many biologists try to remain neutral on a question of "progress" (avoiding any question of whether, for example, human beings are improvements on earlier species, merely observing that we are different), yet is it possible that there is in fact a tendency for the universe to progress and improve via evolution (that humans have developed some very special abilities and talents that can be seen as somehow progress toward intelligence for example)? What do you think of David's handling of this question? He speaks of an "absolute and relative" view of evolution and diversity, in which some developments might be seen as "progress" or "improvement" on the one hand, but beyond such judgments on the other.
Do you believe that we can "choose to work for the well-being of the whole [the biosphere, other people and even the whole universe], to make that the meaning of our lives"? Do you believe that we are at a pivotal stage where we really should do so to protect our world?
Do you believe that the universe has meaning? No meaning? David writes, "Then to ask whether the universe itself is objectively meaningful or meaningless is to miss the point -- as if the universe were outside us, or simply there without us. When we do not erase ourselves from the picture, we can see that we are meaning-makers, the beings by which the universe introduces a new scale of meaning of value." (I would emphasize again the simple logical premise that, if we are the universe, and if we are able to find some meaning in the universe, then we are the universe creating meaning in the universe).
Since you are the universe reading a book (also the universe), and since these questions are the universe, what does the universe (as you) have to say about the universe (these questions)?
Gassho, J
SatToday
I am still not sure what aspects of David Loy's proposals seem to strike some folks as in conflict with the discoveries and perspective of modern science. He seems to me very conservative in his assertions: (1) we are made of the stuff of the universe and are certainly not separate from the whole, such that it might be said that we are the universe in one aspect or manifestation, and (2) therefore when we make toast or paint a picture or look through our telescopes at the stars, it is the universe making toast, painting and looking. In fact, since all is the universe, one might say that it is the universe toasting, painting and looking at the universe.
Granted, he does come dangerously close to (or steps over the line of) implying that there is some kind of "creative force" or drive or direction to the universe toward intelligent life. However, I think that a good argument can be made that there is such a natural tendency in the properties of the cosmos, given that here we (and all the other life on earth, and likely on other worlds too) sit. There seems to be something fertile and life (and intelligent life) encouraging in the structure of the universe, much as there is something in soil and seed to produce a tree. In fact, all of soil and seed and tree are made of the stuff of the universe, and are the universe sprouting and growing in the universe. Since we are intelligent life, and since we sprouted from the universe, there is ipso facto something about the universe capable and nourishing of the development of intelligence.
It does not seem such a radical proposition to me.
If we are the universe in a particular manifestation, and we are trying to understand that fact, is it not perhaps maybe true for each of us that "my subjective desire to awaken [can] be understood in a more nondual way as the urge of the universe itself to become self-aware, in me and as me" and "Awakening, then, involves realizing that 'I' am not inside my body, looking out through my eyes at a world that is separate from me. Rather 'I' am what the whole universe is doing, right here and now."
Do you agree with David that such an interpretation, "is not some fanciful reinterpretation of the Buddhist tradition, It is consistent with many of the metaphors and conceptualizations that have traditionally been used to describe the experience, in fact, it illuminates them."
He says, "your true nature -- your no-self-nature, right here and now -- is not different from the no-self nature of the cosmic process." He points to the cosmos and you (not two) as the very same emptiness, yet a creative and fertile emptiness. Does this resonate with you?
Do you believe that there is a tendency for progress and improvement in evolution, and in universal history in general? Generally, many biologists try to remain neutral on a question of "progress" (avoiding any question of whether, for example, human beings are improvements on earlier species, merely observing that we are different), yet is it possible that there is in fact a tendency for the universe to progress and improve via evolution (that humans have developed some very special abilities and talents that can be seen as somehow progress toward intelligence for example)? What do you think of David's handling of this question? He speaks of an "absolute and relative" view of evolution and diversity, in which some developments might be seen as "progress" or "improvement" on the one hand, but beyond such judgments on the other.
Do you believe that we can "choose to work for the well-being of the whole [the biosphere, other people and even the whole universe], to make that the meaning of our lives"? Do you believe that we are at a pivotal stage where we really should do so to protect our world?
Do you believe that the universe has meaning? No meaning? David writes, "Then to ask whether the universe itself is objectively meaningful or meaningless is to miss the point -- as if the universe were outside us, or simply there without us. When we do not erase ourselves from the picture, we can see that we are meaning-makers, the beings by which the universe introduces a new scale of meaning of value." (I would emphasize again the simple logical premise that, if we are the universe, and if we are able to find some meaning in the universe, then we are the universe creating meaning in the universe).
Since you are the universe reading a book (also the universe), and since these questions are the universe, what does the universe (as you) have to say about the universe (these questions)?
Gassho, J
SatToday
Comment