New Buddhist Path - A New Buddhist Story to A Pivotal Stage - PP 86 - 104

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Jundo
    Treeleaf Founder and Priest
    • Apr 2006
    • 41695

    New Buddhist Path - A New Buddhist Story to A Pivotal Stage - PP 86 - 104

    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
    Last edited by Jundo; 04-14-2017, 01:11 AM.
    ALL OF LIFE IS OUR TEMPLE
  • Enjaku
    Member
    • Jul 2016
    • 310

    #2
    I'm intrigued by Loy's suggestion that we are the universe's way of being aware of itself. However, I can't help feeling the theory is an effort to explain something that might beyond explanation... If reality is boundless and all-encompassing, surely we can't describe it, only experience "it". It makes sense to me that we do this by letting thoughts and judgements drop away... When I'm reading something like Loy, fascinating as it is, I sometimes feel like it's leaving me with a very busy mind...

    Is there some inherent conflict in intellectualising Buddhism? For me, personally, this book is making me want to sit more and read less.

    Gassho,
    Enjaku
    Sat
    援若

    Comment

    • Mp

      #3
      Thank you ... =)

      Gassho
      Shingen

      s@today

      Comment

      • Tairin
        Member
        • Feb 2016
        • 3034

        #4
        Originally posted by Enjaku
        Is there some inherent conflict in intellectualising Buddhism? For me, personally, this book is making me want to sit more and read less.
        I think I am having a similar reaction.

        Gassho
        Warren
        Sat today
        泰林 - Tai Rin - Peaceful Woods

        Comment

        • Jishin
          Member
          • Oct 2012
          • 4826

          #5
          That's the big trap. Learn enough to say no and then be done with it. Just stop. Quit it. Leave it alone.

          My two cents.

          Gasho, Jishin, _/st\_

          Comment

          • Onkai
            Dharma Transmitted Priest
            • Aug 2015
            • 3273

            #6
            I read somewhere, I thought I knew where, but I can't find the quote, that emotions are not caused by meanings; emotions are the meanings. If emotions are taken away, a person can't make decisions. This section discussed meaning, and that meditation rewires the brain, but doesn't discuss emotion directly. Many emotions are rooted in greed, aversion and ignorance, but not all, such as empathy and compassion.

            I don't know know if the cosmos and people are improving, but I do think there is a progression to increasing complexity, in natural evolution and in human culture.

            Gassho,
            Onkai
            SatToday
            美道 Bidou Beautiful Way
            恩海 Onkai Merciful/Kind Ocean

            I'm always learning

            Comment

            • Amelia
              Member
              • Jan 2010
              • 4980

              #7
              It seems to me that I practice to avoid needing to answer these questions for myself, because I don't really feel the need to know the answers. I feel like I'd be happy with either divine direction or random spread, or something in between. Fun to think about and intellectualize, but pointless, really. There is no right or wrong answer as of yet.

              Gassho, sat today
              求道芸化 Kyūdō Geika
              I am just a priest-in-training, please do not take anything I say as a teaching.

              Comment

              • Tai Shi
                Member
                • Oct 2014
                • 3497

                #8
                Poetry is an overflow of powerful emotion recollected in tranquility. William Wordsworth. Red Pine says that the Heart Sutra is not only a powerful expression and condensation of Buddhist thought, but great poetry. The point of Wordsworth's definition is the recollection of powerful emotion in tranquility, because if as the Buddha taught, we allow humankind to catch its breath, so to speak, we come into accordance with the universe. If in consciousness, we can step back and take a look at our environment, then we can also align ourselves with a living universe, a consciousness which cannot be fully realized in analytical terms, and must include art and poetry. Art and poetry (to include prose) allow us to express ourselves in ways impossible with technology and science. The Arts, and religion in its best form, allow us to come as close to a living breathing universe as possible; because it includes that slowed emotion which cannot be quantified, that, as others with us might agree, is beautiful. And beauty is truth. Art and poetry explore life at is Nobelist, as beauty and truth. It takes a leap to make ourselves in accord with a living universe, and Art, Religion, and philosophy bring us tranquilly into a living universe that includes emotions, emotions we can now deal with in a universe that is alive.

                Tai Shi
                std
                Gassho
                Last edited by Tai Shi; 04-11-2017, 12:06 AM.

                Comment

                • Onkai
                  Dharma Transmitted Priest
                  • Aug 2015
                  • 3273

                  #9
                  Originally posted by Tai Shi
                  Poetry is an overflow of powerful emotion recollected in tranquility. William Wordsworth. Red Pine says that the Heart Sutra is not only a powerful expression and condensation of Buddhist thought, but great poetry. The point of Wordsworth's definition is the recollection of powerful emotion in tranquility, because if as the Buddha taught, we allow humankind to catch its breath, so to speak, we come into accordance with the universe. If in consciousness, we can step back and take a look at our environment, then we can also align ourselves with a living universe, a consciousness which cannot be fully realized in analytical terms, and must include art and poetry. Art and poetry (to include prose) allow us to express ourselves in ways impossible with technology and science. The Arts, and religion in its best form, allow us to come as close to a living breathing universe as possible; because it includes that slowed emotion which cannot be quantified, that, as others with us might agree, is beautiful. And beauty is truth. Art and poetry explore life at is Nobelist, as beauty and truth. It takes a leap to make ourselves in accord with a living universe, and Art, Religion, and philosophy bring us tranquilly into a living universe that includes emotions, emotions we can now deal with in a universe that is alive.

                  Tai Shi
                  std
                  Gassho
                  Thank you, Tai Shi

                  Gassho,
                  Onkai
                  SatToday
                  美道 Bidou Beautiful Way
                  恩海 Onkai Merciful/Kind Ocean

                  I'm always learning

                  Comment

                  • Jakuden
                    Member
                    • Jun 2015
                    • 6139

                    #10
                    Originally posted by Tai Shi
                    Poetry is an overflow of powerful emotion recollected in tranquility. William Wordsworth. Red Pine says that the Heart Sutra is not only a powerful expression and condensation of Buddhist thought, but great poetry. The point of Wordsworth's definition is the recollection of powerful emotion in tranquility, because if as the Buddha taught, we allow humankind to catch its breath, so to speak, we come into accordance with the universe. If in consciousness, we can step back and take a look at our environment, then we can also align ourselves with a living universe, a consciousness which cannot be fully realized in analytical terms, and must include art and poetry. Art and poetry (to include prose) allow us to express ourselves in ways impossible with technology and science. The Arts, and religion in its best form, allow us to come as close to a living breathing universe as possible; because it includes that slowed emotion which cannot be quantified, that, as others with us might agree, is beautiful. And beauty is truth. Art and poetry explore life at is Nobelist, as beauty and truth. It takes a leap to make ourselves in accord with a living universe, and Art, Religion, and philosophy bring us tranquilly into a living universe that includes emotions, emotions we can now deal with in a universe that is alive.

                    Tai Shi
                    std
                    Gassho
                    Deep bows!
                    Gassho
                    Jakuden
                    SatToday


                    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                    Comment

                    • Jeremy

                      #11
                      Originally posted by Jundo
                      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 our in our telescopes at the starts, 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 dangerous 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.
                      In the previous section, he said a lot more than this, but passing over that...

                      From a scientific perspective, nobody would argue with "we are made of the stuff of the universe". It's obviously true but not very informative. What doesn't make sense is "we are the universe" or "it is the universe making toast". This is perfectly acceptable Zen rhetoric, but from a scientific viewpoint, it's obviously false and might even sound solipsistic or egomaniacal! After all, the universe contains an awful lot of stuff that's not us. (I would stress that this is from a scientific point of view. I know the Zen/Hua Yen arguments which argue otherwise). The closest statement that is true from a more scientific viewpoint might be "we are (a very small) part of the universe (which is very big, compared to us)". Again, this is true but not in the least bit analytical. There's a nice Einstein quote on this. (Lots of "Einstein quotes" aren't really things he said. There's a slightly longer version of this that isn't, and this may or may not be the real thing):

                      A human being is a part of the whole, called by us "Universe", a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest — a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. The striving to free oneself from this delusion is the one issue of true religion. Not to nourish it but to try to overcome it is the way to reach the attainable measure of peace of mind.
                      As you say, the rest of what you say here isn't radical. It's all very nice, but not in the least bit scientific. It stands just on the dividing line between the harmless weak versions of the anthropic principle (e.g. Carter) and the stronger, more disagreeable versions (e.g. Barrow & Tipler)

                      Jeremy
                      SatToady

                      Comment

                      • AlanLa
                        Member
                        • Mar 2008
                        • 1405

                        #12
                        My (as a manifestation of the universe) thoughts:

                        Progress is not always synonymous with improvement. Here are two extreme examples; Art and poetry, yes; politics, not so much.

                        I like Loy's logic about us as the universe as meaning makers, but i take it as faith rather than science. I don't need a physicist's formulaic proof to make it true or not. His point is the inherent beauty in the process of it all, and I get that. To get lost in the scientific intricacies of it is to lose its spiritual significance.

                        After reading this section I needed to sit zazen outside. A bird joined me and started chirping. How wonderful, I thought, and then I realized it meant to warn me away from its nest. My enlightenment was to stop zazen and leave the universe in peace.
                        AL (Jigen) in:
                        Faith/Trust
                        Courage/Love
                        Awareness/Action!

                        I sat today

                        Comment

                        • Jundo
                          Treeleaf Founder and Priest
                          • Apr 2006
                          • 41695

                          #13
                          Originally posted by Jeremy
                          In the previous section, he said a lot more than this, but passing over that...

                          From a scientific perspective, nobody would argue with "we are made of the stuff of the universe". It's obviously true but not very informative. What doesn't make sense is "we are the universe" or "it is the universe making toast". This is perfectly acceptable Zen rhetoric, but from a scientific viewpoint, it's obviously false and might even sound solipsistic or egomaniacal! After all, the universe contains an awful lot of stuff that's not us. (I would stress that this is from a scientific point of view. I know the Zen/Hua Yen arguments which argue otherwise). The closest statement that is true from a more scientific viewpoint might be "we are (a very small) part of the universe (which is very big, compared to us)".
                          Hi Jeremy,

                          May I offer an alternative way to look at this? To say that we are "parts of the whole" is one valid and apparently quite accurate way to look at things, but I would not say that it is the only way to look at things which might be accurate and valid or "scientific." In fact, you are making a subjective judgement of identity, separation, relationship and relative value. It might not seem like that is what you are doing, but it is so. There is nothing inherent in the universe that requires us to divide things into "parts of a whole" or "me/not me", and in fact, this "self/other" identity is created largely in your own brain's creation of its image of its own separate identity. The brain can learn to think and its "self" other ways.

                          Let me offer a quick, simplistic example.

                          You are Jeremy. Suppose a few neurons of the prefrontal cortex of your brain were suddenly to become independently sentient and self-aware, such that they felt as if they themself were a sentient being somehow standing apart from the rest of Jeremy's brain (In fact, there are various brain diseases and injuries that can create syndromes somewhat resembling that, a subject for another day). Now, the neurons would be correct to describe themself as "part of the whole." Yet, one could also imagine that the neurons could also learn to experience that they are a vital aspect or expression of the whole such as "we are the prefrontal cortex, " "we are the brain" and, ultimately, that "we are Jeremy.". That does not mean that the neurons are "all of the prefrontal cortex" or "all of Jeremy" (for certainly Jeremy is a construct of countless cells from head to heart to foot to hand), and this is not some form of solipsism (the view that "I am the only thing that exists in the world"). It is simply learning to change thinking about self-identity and where to draw borders for the cells to realize "we are not only cells standing alone, we are also ... Jeremy." As well, all the rest of you ... from head to toe ... can also have such a revelation of "we are Jeremy" or "aspects of Jeremy" (your foot might note that it is Jeremy walking, your taste buds that they are Jeremy tasting. Plenty of "Jeremy" to go around and embody all!)

                          Jeremy, is your brain and its cells not Jeremy? Are you just stuck together parts?

                          It is also something of a subjective value judgement to weigh importance or value by size, that we are a "very small" aspect of a universe that is "very big". If, for example, the universe at the time of the big bang was a singularity, where was "big" and "small", and what part of the singularity was "not us"? Assuming that there was not anything standing outside the singularity, and that the singularity was just as the name says ... single ... you, me and everything else were just that singularity beyond great or small. And, if the universe now is just that same singularity spreading out and expanding into the void (as physicists now seem generally to agree), from some aspect it is still beyond "big and small" and all of it is still "us."

                          Living in Japan, I sometimes see the universe as something like an intricate Origami folding from a single piece of paper. There is one single sheet but, with proper folding, it has taken on countless forms that appear individial. Still there is one sheet of paper, and we are that paper. Much as every pedal of this paper rose is just the paper (imagine for a moment that this rose stands for Jeremy and his whole body, or the whole universe for that matter) ...




                          Now, you mind say that the sheet of paper is very small, and the universe is very big ... but what are you comparing it to (besides yourself)? If there is not anything external to the universe, how do you know that the universe is "big" or "small"? As well, if you are a pedal of the paper, and I am a pedal of the paper ... we are just the paper.

                          What about modern science could possibly contradict anything above?


                          As you say, the rest of what you say here isn't radical. It's all very nice, but not in the least bit scientific. It stands just on the dividing line between the harmless weak versions of the anthropic principle (e.g. Carter) and the stronger, more disagreeable versions (e.g. Barrow & Tipler)
                          One of the best recent papers on the anthropic principle and "coincidences" is this one.

                          The Fine-Tuning Argument∗
                          Klaas Landsman
                          Department of Mathematical Physics, Institute for Mathematics, Astrophysics, and Particle Physics,
                          Faculty of Science, Radboud University Nijmegen
                          May 22, 2015
                          Abstract
                          Our laws of nature and our cosmos appear to be delicately fine-tuned for life to emerge, in a way that seems hard to attribute to chance. In view of this, some have taken the opportunity to revive the scholastic Argument from Design, whereas others have felt the need to explain this apparent fine-tuning of the clockwork of the Universe by proposing the existence of a ‘Multiverse’. We analyze this issue from a sober perspective. Having reviewed the literature and having added several observations of our own, we conclude that cosmic fine-tuning supports neither Design nor a Multiverse, since both of these fail at an explanatory level as well as in a more quantitative context of Bayesian confirmation theory (although there might be other reasons to believe in these ideas, to be found in religion and in inflation and/or string theory, respectively). In fact, fine-tuning and Design even seem to be at odds with each other, whereas the inference from fine-tuning to a Multiverse only works if the latter is underwritten by an additional metaphysical hypothesis we consider unwarranted. Instead, we suggest that fine-tuning requires no special explanation at all, since it is not the Universe that is fine-tuned for life, but life that has been fine-tuned to the Universe.
                          The heart of Landsman's view on selection effects is summed up by this well known example:

                          A mild form of satire may be the appropriate antidote. Imagine, if you will,
                          the wonderment of a species of mud worms who discover that if the constant
                          of thermometric conductivity of mud were different by a small percentage they
                          would not be able to survive.


                          Of course, one way to look at this is that mud worms are simply creatures that evolved to survive in the conditions of mud, and because the mud posses a certain thermometric conductivity of mud, that evolution and resulting life was possible. If thermometric conductivity had been otherwise, mud worms would simply not be. The mud worm (should it come to exist, somehow develop sentience and the philosophical ability to reflect on its luck at being alive) should really feel little surprise. If circumstances had been otherwise, it would not be able to think so. What it is experiencing is simply the surprise of the lottery winner who won the lottery.

                          On the other hand, if one looks at the universe not simply as a single lucky win, But much as the "crooked casino" from my previous posting in which (not a mud worm) but the "you yourself" of Jeremy has come up, not as the product of a single roll of the dice, but as the winner of 100 to the 100th power of rolls of the dice in which Jeremy could have afforded nary a miss, it is possible (just possible) that the wheel is weighted, there is something more afoot, and another mechanism at work. Jeremy could be just a very lucky guy, or there might be some as yet undiscovered process at work. (Buddha had his idea of Karma, by the way, which was just such a mechanism. I personally do not believe in traditional views of Karma, but I still entertain the possibility that there is something at work that can be hypothesized and tested for).

                          Gassho, Jundo

                          SatToday
                          Last edited by Jundo; 04-15-2017, 07:09 AM.
                          ALL OF LIFE IS OUR TEMPLE

                          Comment

                          • Byrne
                            Member
                            • Dec 2014
                            • 371

                            #14
                            Jundo,

                            What exactly is the traditional view of karma that you reject?

                            Gassho

                            Sat Today

                            Comment

                            • Jishin
                              Member
                              • Oct 2012
                              • 4826

                              #15
                              IMG_0064.JPG


                              Gasho, Jishin, _/st\_
                              Last edited by Jishin; 04-15-2017, 03:11 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...