Thank you. Someone asked me knowing I practice ...what are you? Out popped "I am a realist". I stunned myself and now you have given clarification..thoughts are not mind. Mind is not thought. Thanksgiving indeed.
The problem with trying to explain “realism” as Nishijima defined it is that it is really something that can only be understood through experience. Reality is reality. You dont need to explain it or try to understand it for it to still be reality. And there you go, I tried to explain it.
The only organ we have for experiencing the world is our minds. But what we think and what we experience is so intertwined they're very difficult to separate. We can never really know what's 'real' as in what's 'true', because real, truth, material, and mind all interact as inseparable relationship. I think?
When we say "reality", it might be (initially confusing but) helpful to keep in mind whether we mean : experience (as in what seems like reality to me) or imagination (the reality that I imagine actually exists "out there")
What your experience is (to you) - is your reality. The only remaining question is, are we talking about your "Big self' (your Buddha Nature) or your egotistical small self. - And the answer is: "This is our true self, jiko. This is the real or universal self, or the reality of life, as I prefer to call it. Whatever way you put it, I am here only because my world is here. When I took my first breath, my world was born with me. When I die, my world dies with me." - Uchiyama, Kōshō . Opening the Hand of Thought: Foundations of Zen Buddhist Practice (p. 14). Wisdom Publications. Everybody seems to ignore this point. Maybe because they like to talk about quantum physics?
@@JimTempleman What is the point? The world that dissapears with me is my world? It is only the small self that experiences, has adventures? the big self is unknown, unknowing, beyond experience?
@@macdougdoug It's just the Dharmakaya. The one you have access to. The one that lets you see the unity of all things (you have, or ever will experience).. But you want more. You get a Holy Ghost, but you don't get to be God. Sorry about that.
The new book Flowing Zen talks about how Bodidharma invented a Qi gong form that's still popular today. I had no idea that was the case, and I've always wondered why Qi gong isn't emphasized more in the Zen tradition. Any insight as to why that is?
Back in 2000 I studied Schopenhauer. In his doctoral thesis "On the fourfold root of the proposition of sufficient reason" he dismantles the structure of transcendental idealism down to the last detail... If I had known that in 2023 Brad Warner would bring the whole topic home from the gym and serve it here in simple words, I could have spared myself all the mindfuck from my youth.
Hi Brad hope you have a great thanksgiving. Interesting video, would you say this Mind Only is like mind/matter coexist? Without mind no matter, and without matter no mind? Thanks, take it easy at the gym. Glen
Thx 🎉 Very interesting! My interpretation of Nishijimas statement would be to say that Buddhism is the unification of Idealism und Materialism (in the sense that there is „something“ bigger than us). I think it is equivalent to state that the human perception and phenomena (=reality) are interconnected. From this follows for example that illusion and truth come together. The mind is a reflection of reality and vice versa. 😄 Bye and Thank Giving.
As far as the materialist vs the idealist goes I would say that the idealist would be the person who would be obsessed with blurting out the phrases "This is subjective.That is subjective."Of course things can be and are subjective however there reaches the point where certain things start seeming pretty obvious,right up in your face and pretty unambiguous.Somebody who has a bit more of a materialist mindset might be able to still see that things can be objective but at the same time because of there more materialist mind set they wouldn't really be quite as afraid to just call a spade a spade.A realist as defined in this video would probably be somebody who acknowledges a subjective nature to reality however while they are moving through the material world they will still be perfectly willing to simply call a spade a spade when need be.
So Buddhism evolves out of Hinduism, and Hinduism has some notion of the oneness of all things and the Brahman and anatta (and all sorts of levels of reality and phenomenon and gods and avatars) - what a rich tradition of ideation. Anyhow, I think that a lot of spiritual seekers regardless of their labels and affiliations believe in some sort of universal conscious field that perhaps is the fundamental ground of reality, and perhaps a universal mind that we can tap into or something like that. Max Tegmark and Wolfram believe that everything is computation. Or the so called world is an illusion that is changing all the time like fleeting transient thoughts in this universal mind, maybe? So - my point is - I think this is why some people might think that Buddhism and Hinduism are aligned with Idealism. Maybe your teacher used the term Realism more in the epistemological sense of a practical correspondence between mind and matter than in the metaphysical sense? The word Realism is confused in Western philosophy. In any case this is all a word game and the Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao and that's why Zen monks ought to be silent a lot. The philosophy, metaphysics and epistemology (even the physics) of eastern thought is not Zen. Buddhism is about transcending word games (koans) and seeing and perceiving and being here and now and not getting stuck in the narrative. Christianity claims that in the beginning was the Word. I disagree, in the beginning was silence and in the end will be silence. You are the turkey and the turkey is you (with stuffing and gravy) after it is all digested. Happy Turkey day from Canada.
consciousness is just the knowing faculty of mind, the source of the “self”, but mind also includes the unconscious creative principle, will, unconscious perceptions, and probably a whole lot of other stuff.
Some additional remarks, if I may: a) The antinomous relation between "transcendentally sensed" being-towards-the-world and "immanently experienced" being-in-the-world seems to have been part of the human philosophia perennis for a long time. One of the early symbolifications seems to have been the snake-like mythic animal, called "Ouroboros". It points towards a complex interplay between what one may call, e.g., the realms of the (ever more ephemeral) "spiritual" and the (ever more course) "material world", which together form a bipolar, spheric whole - well, that is, the standard Buddhist "sacred [salvational] geography" introduces still a further basic "division" (sic!), which somehow (psychologically, cosmologically, ...) separates Samsâra from Nirwâna. b) The polymath-ish Karl Marx tried to develop a strictly scientific "materialistic [and dialectic] world-view" by inverting the "idealist" system of G.W.F. Hegel. Whereas Hegel accorded "primacy" to the "world-spirit" (Weltgeist), Marx did so with the "material world". Marx proposed that "being" determines or, at least, very heavily influences "consciousness". (Famous saying: "Das Sein bestimmt das Bewusstsein"!) However, both also harkened back to British Empiricism and Sensualism. - The "project" of Karl Marx´ and Friedrich Engels´ was a work in progress, which they never really could finish. They took up many inspirations. When C. Darwin´s "Origins..." were published, they took it as a strong confirmation of their general line. Their work had yet to remain fragmental; the time for "universal scholars" (Universalgelehrte) had already passed, so to speak... c) The early Buddhologist Theodore Stcherbatsky (he worked in Leningrad, did some field-work among the Burjats in the East, and so forth), interestingly, already observed several common points between certain varieties of Marxism and Buddhism, like, e.g.: - the non-existence of some "soul-ish" ur-essence of living beings, - the non-existence of a Platon-ish "heavenly" sphere of pure "eternal forms", - a certain "constructivism": -- example 1: the basic matrix of "basic material/ideal "atoms/dharmâ". -- example 2: the systems of "sense-realms", like the 18 dhatû, standing for the wholistic interplay between diverse ("inner") sense-organs, diverse ("outer") sense-fields, and the two main "individual" unifying instances of "thinking" and "ego", plus the "container-concsiousness" (Skr.: alayavijnana), which some interpret, at least in parts, as a kind of collective unconsciousness in the C.G. Jungian vein, and so forth. That would be an interesting subject for further studies, indeed... -Regards
a. In the Heideggerian sense of "truth as un-concealment", the separation of Samsara from Nirvana is the only means by which Nirvana could possibly be realized, as only Samara could possibly conceal Nirvana among its ever present midst from the only sort of beings whatsoever to which Nirvana could possibly be "unconcealed", namely karmic, volitionally "free willed" persons. Only this line of rational induction requires and thereby gives meaning to life and the cosmos. To the extent anyone realizes the physical term "primordial singularity" as synonymous with Nirvana, the "meaning of life" is no mystery, simply the means of a "primordial singularity" realizing itself, as only it must. b. "As mathematician David Berlinski writes regarding the material and informational aspects of DNA: “We quite know what DNA is: it is a macromolecule and so a material object. We quite know what it achieves: apparently everything. Are the two sides of this equation in balance?” More generally, Berlinski observes that since the information embodied in a string of DNA or protein cannot affect the material dynamic of reality without being read by a material transducer, information is meaningless without matter." CTMU To me the very notion of material (and information) is just how "infinity" must appear to itself in order to conceal its own essence, such that its essence can be revealed. The material/spiritual (informational) dichotomy is only mysterious in lieu of comprehending "infinity". There's no simpler or more generic means possible by which "information" can be transduced (as it must to conceal/reveal Nirvana) than by what science regards as the "physical world" of time & space, in particular quantum mechanics (virtually the universe as a cosmic computer in its own right). c. As for the "basic matrix", it's not overly complex reasoning: where "primordial singularity" equals "infinite mass" and hence "infinite potential", it must by hook or crook resolve its own inherent potential for self-realization (Nirvana), regardless even where "it" predominantly "fails" to (fully) self-realize (Samsara). By logical inversion of an "expanding" universe, simply modeling the "primordial singularity" OVER time and space, as per a Venn diagram composed of internally nested and rescaled "states", Nirvana is simply the "parallel processing" in totality, of the implied "singularity & space-time matrix" ensemble (conspansive manifold, per CTMU). "Extended superposition “atemporally” distributes antecedent events over consequent events, thus putting spacetime in temporally-extended self-contact. In light of the Telic Principle ...., this scenario involves a new interpretation of quantum theory, sum over futures. Sum over futures involves an atemporal generalization of “process”, telic recursion, through which the universe effects on-the-fly maximization of a global self-selection parameter, generalized utility." CTMU
Interesting topics, indeed! Some additional remarks from my side may be in order, I suppose: a) As I understand Martin Heidegger´s "thinking-ways" (Ger.: ´Denkwege´, ´Gedankengänge´), he really tried to follow Eduard Husserl´s maxim of "Back to the things themselves!". And he called his methodology "de(con)struction", building on Husserl´s triade of "epoché, reduction, purification". Part of this approach was and is, to move - in short - from "deduced" (´abkünftigen´) concepts (e.g., specific Buddhist "universals": Nirwana, Samsara, and Karma; and more "universally universal universals": psyche and cosmos, person and free will, etc.) towards the "primordial" (´urtümlichen´, ´ureigentlichen´) ground. According to Husserl, human beings (resp. Heidegger´s "being-there", Ger.: ´Dasein´) find themselves in the basic antinomian position of simultaneously being-towards-the-world (primarily by way of "knowingly grasping") and being-in-the-world (primarily by way of "bodily experiencing"). Heidegger seems to approach the reflexive understanding (i.e., Zen-interpreter Katsuki Sekida might here speak of the "three NEN") of our basic "knowing-being" from the "ur-arena" of having (partly intuitive) insight into the "horizonal structure of consciousness" as one of his key starting-points. Accordingly, the "veritas essendi" may refer, firstly, to "all items apperaring on the (´Lichtung des Seins´)", in the narrower sense, as well as, secondly, to the "overall Gestalt" of light/dark consciousness, plus the hunch of "something" beyond the ever receeding "general horizon", of which we, at best, can get some glimpses of. - However, the "hunching" usually already implies doing some "heavy metaphsics", which seems problematic in several ways, but that´s another story). (Ref.: If I remember right, Evan Thompson gives some similar, "neuro-phenomenological" explanations in, e.g.: YT-channel Mind & Life Institute, "Expanding Our View..") b) Re: The relation between "matter" and "energy". The early sociologist Emile Durkheim already keenly oberved/proposed that societies (as systems, to use current terminology) manifest themselves to their members primarily via the pressures it affects on them. Their "forcefullness" makes these "systems" feel "real" to us... Well, to put things short - and paraphrasing an idea of Schelling´s -: We use to establish the "vital space-time" after the basic subject-object-division has taken place. And this "mental map" seems even to be, grosso modo, cross-culturally convertible. c) There exist many concepts of "Nirvana" inside the House-of-the-Buddha. And, if I may say so, it is one of the real worthy tasks for scholars, to systematically work out a valid, reliable synopsis. There have already been quite a few "szenarios" presented, like the relatively short and concise one by the Russian buddhologist Theodore Stcherbatsky - in the 1920ies, if I remember right. Phenomenologically speaking, grosso modo, all Nirwana-"szenarios" are basically rooted in everyday life-world experiences and succinctly reach ever higher levels of higher-predicative, symbolic abstraction. One of the more recent "syncretistic" approaches that comes spontaneously to my mind, is the one presented by Tarthang Tulku (1977) in his booklet "Time, Space and Knowledge". In it, so my interpretation, he tries - in a somehow simple way: no formulas, no great philological apparatus, etc. - to harmonize the average modern physcial world-view with the tradtionional (Vajrayana-)Buddhist one. He offers, as I see it, at least some glimpses of "our world and all the rest" - what other human thinkers seemingly also already did and do ever in their ways since "Ur-Zeiten" (´primordial times´), that is, they did this maybe already even long before historical times, and especiall before the "axial era" (Karl Jaspers), which was seemingly very formative for "us". The understanding and mastering of the "big affair [... while] regrettably [...] time flies [...]" - as a relatively famous Zen-saying goes - ... well, it is, so to speak, a vast field, that opens up before our eyes, indeed. -Regards @@xxxYYZxxx
Recently heard a chat with Daniel Ingram in which he mentioned the notion of the 'spirit of material'. That got me to thinking the spirit of water is water vapor, of wood is fire and so on. Guess with plutonium you never want to actually know...
Huangbo: "From Gautama Buddha down through the whole line of patriarchs to Bodhidharma, none preached aught besides the One Mind, otherwise known as the Sole Vehicle of Liberation. Hence, though you search throughout the whole universe, you will never find another vehicle. Nowhere has this teaching leaves or branches; its on,e quality is eternal truth. Hence it is a teaching hard to accept. When Bodhidharma came to China and reached the Kingdoms of Liang and Wei, only the Venerable Master Ko gained a silent insight into our own Mind; as soon as it was explained to him, he understood that Mind is the Buddha, and that individual mind and body are nothing. This teaching is called the Great Way. The very nature of the Great Way is voidness of opposition. Bodhidharma firmly believed in being ONE WITH THE REAL ‘SUBSTANCE' OF THE UNIVERSE IN THIS LIFE! Mind and that ‘substance' do not differ one jot-that ‘substance' is Mind. They cannot possibly be separated. It was for this revelation that he earned the title of Patriarch of our sect, and therefore is it written: ‘The moment of realizing the unity of Mind and the “substance” which constitutes reality may truly be said to baffle description.'"
You haven't given me anything to think about. Because I 'don't-mind.' In other words no-mind is the real mind, and thought is unreal. (How much clearer can it possibly be?)
There are definitely a lot of "Marxists" out there that ignore a lot of what Marx himself said about what materialism means in favor of bringing their own baggage along.
When you say Asians know that the mind is different to thoughts, you mean the mind that is equal to the heart? In that sense it is probably easier to picture a non thinking mind.
![ร้อยพ่อพันแม่ - WanMai [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XY2pNYASEbg/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you. Someone asked me knowing I practice ...what are you? Out popped "I am a realist". I stunned myself and now you have given clarification..thoughts are not mind. Mind is not thought. Thanksgiving indeed.
oh man, "mind only" is definitely an off-limits topic at my family's gatherings since "the incident" but thanks for the suggestion!
Happy Thanksgiving! I really mean it.
The problem with trying to explain “realism” as Nishijima defined it is that it is really something that can only be understood through experience. Reality is reality. You dont need to explain it or try to understand it for it to still be reality. And there you go, I tried to explain it.
The only organ we have for experiencing the world is our minds. But what we think and what we experience is so intertwined they're very difficult to separate. We can never really know what's 'real' as in what's 'true', because real, truth, material, and mind all interact as inseparable relationship. I think?
Nishijima Roshi's Four Philosophies and One reality summarises this in a good way I think, especially in the context of the shobogenzo
Happy Thanksgiving and Metta Brad! May all beings and especially your family be happy this holiday
editor Brad here 😂👍👍👍
glad to hear you go to the gym! As you know body and mind are interdependent!
Optimism: the glass is half full.
Pessimism: the glass is half empty.
Realism: At some point, I'm going to have to wash this glass.
When we say "reality", it might be (initially confusing but) helpful to keep in mind whether we mean : experience (as in what seems like reality to me) or imagination (the reality that I imagine actually exists "out there")
What your experience is (to you) - is your reality.
The only remaining question is, are we talking about your "Big self' (your Buddha Nature) or your egotistical small self. - And the answer is:
"This is our true self, jiko. This is the real or universal self, or the reality of life,
as I prefer to call it. Whatever way you put it, I am here only because my world
is here. When I took my first breath, my world was born with me. When I die,
my world dies with me."
- Uchiyama, Kōshō . Opening the Hand of Thought: Foundations of Zen Buddhist Practice (p. 14). Wisdom Publications.
Everybody seems to ignore this point.
Maybe because they like to talk about quantum physics?
@@JimTempleman What is the point? The world that dissapears with me is my world? It is only the small self that experiences, has adventures? the big self is unknown, unknowing, beyond experience?
@@macdougdoug It's just the Dharmakaya. The one you have access to.
The one that lets you see the unity of all things (you have, or ever will experience)..
But you want more.
You get a Holy Ghost, but you don't get to be God. Sorry about that.
@@JimTempleman Sometimes I think that Mies was right, in architecture as in emptiness : less is more 😀
@@macdougdoug I prefer Louis H. Sullivan.
That aside: Emptiness is the All in All. (more or less)
The new book Flowing Zen talks about how Bodidharma invented a Qi gong form that's still popular today. I had no idea that was the case, and I've always wondered why Qi gong isn't emphasized more in the Zen tradition. Any insight as to why that is?
@@Jadedhedgehog Cool!
Back in 2000 I studied Schopenhauer. In his doctoral thesis "On the fourfold root of the proposition of sufficient reason" he dismantles the structure of transcendental idealism down to the last detail... If I had known that in 2023 Brad Warner would bring the whole topic home from the gym and serve it here in simple words, I could have spared myself all the mindfuck from my youth.
Song request: Mockingbird, as performed by Carly Simon and James Taylor
"What is mind?" "No matter!" "What is matter?" "Never mind!" (Murphyian Laws)
It’s always nice to see your new videos but best wishes to you and yours for a very happy thanksgiving!
Check out Wallace Stevens’ poem “Not Ideas about the Thing But the Thing Itself.”
Hi Brad hope you have a great thanksgiving. Interesting video, would you say this Mind Only is like mind/matter coexist? Without mind no matter, and without matter no mind? Thanks, take it easy at the gym. Glen
Thx 🎉 Very interesting! My interpretation of Nishijimas statement would be to say that Buddhism is the unification of Idealism und Materialism (in the sense that there is „something“ bigger than us). I think it is equivalent to state that the human perception and phenomena (=reality) are interconnected. From this follows for example that illusion and truth come together. The mind is a reflection of reality and vice versa. 😄 Bye and Thank Giving.
Dogen was quite the poet.
So wait, does the tree make a sound?
clear from my end.
As far as the materialist vs the idealist goes I would say that the idealist would be the person who would be obsessed with blurting out the phrases "This is subjective.That is subjective."Of course things can be and are subjective however there reaches the point where certain things start seeming pretty obvious,right up in your face and pretty unambiguous.Somebody who has a bit more of a materialist mindset might be able to still see that things can be objective but at the same time because of there more materialist mind set they wouldn't really be quite as afraid to just call a spade a spade.A realist as defined in this video would probably be somebody who acknowledges a subjective nature to reality however while they are moving through the material world they will still be perfectly willing to simply call a spade a spade when need be.
So Buddhism evolves out of Hinduism, and Hinduism has some notion of the oneness of all things and the Brahman and anatta (and all sorts of levels of reality and phenomenon and gods and avatars) - what a rich tradition of ideation. Anyhow, I think that a lot of spiritual seekers regardless of their labels and affiliations believe in some sort of universal conscious field that perhaps is the fundamental ground of reality, and perhaps a universal mind that we can tap into or something like that. Max Tegmark and Wolfram believe that everything is computation. Or the so called world is an illusion that is changing all the time like fleeting transient thoughts in this universal mind, maybe? So - my point is - I think this is why some people might think that Buddhism and Hinduism are aligned with Idealism. Maybe your teacher used the term Realism more in the epistemological sense of a practical correspondence between mind and matter than in the metaphysical sense? The word Realism is confused in Western philosophy. In any case this is all a word game and the Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao and that's why Zen monks ought to be silent a lot. The philosophy, metaphysics and epistemology (even the physics) of eastern thought is not Zen. Buddhism is about transcending word games (koans) and seeing and perceiving and being here and now and not getting stuck in the narrative. Christianity claims that in the beginning was the Word. I disagree, in the beginning was silence and in the end will be silence. You are the turkey and the turkey is you (with stuffing and gravy) after it is all digested. Happy Turkey day from Canada.
We do know what Thanksgiving is in Europe - we would all watch a bunch of American romcoms with the inevitable "Thanksgiving episode"
OH!
If you want a sound explanation on materials vs idealism listen to Bernardo Kastrup
What is Thanksgiving about?
It's the middle way 😁
all is mind, mind is not limited to consciousness or thinking! mind is infinite. :)
consciousness is just the knowing faculty of mind, the source of the “self”, but mind also includes the unconscious creative principle, will, unconscious perceptions, and probably a whole lot of other stuff.
Some additional remarks, if I may:
a) The antinomous relation between "transcendentally sensed" being-towards-the-world and "immanently experienced" being-in-the-world seems to have been part of the human philosophia perennis for a long time. One of the early symbolifications seems to have been the snake-like mythic animal, called "Ouroboros". It points towards a complex interplay between what one may call, e.g., the realms of the (ever more ephemeral) "spiritual" and the (ever more course) "material world", which together form a bipolar, spheric whole - well, that is, the standard Buddhist "sacred [salvational] geography" introduces still a further basic "division" (sic!), which somehow (psychologically, cosmologically, ...) separates Samsâra from Nirwâna.
b) The polymath-ish Karl Marx tried to develop a strictly scientific "materialistic [and dialectic] world-view" by inverting the "idealist" system of G.W.F. Hegel. Whereas Hegel accorded "primacy" to the "world-spirit" (Weltgeist), Marx did so with the "material world". Marx proposed that "being" determines or, at least, very heavily influences "consciousness". (Famous saying: "Das Sein bestimmt das Bewusstsein"!) However, both also harkened back to British Empiricism and Sensualism. - The "project" of Karl Marx´ and Friedrich Engels´ was a work in progress, which they never really could finish. They took up many inspirations. When C. Darwin´s "Origins..." were published, they took it as a strong confirmation of their general line. Their work had yet to remain fragmental; the time for "universal scholars" (Universalgelehrte) had already passed, so to speak...
c) The early Buddhologist Theodore Stcherbatsky (he worked in Leningrad, did some field-work among the Burjats in the East, and so forth), interestingly, already observed several common points between certain varieties of Marxism and Buddhism, like, e.g.:
- the non-existence of some "soul-ish" ur-essence of living beings,
- the non-existence of a Platon-ish "heavenly" sphere of pure "eternal forms",
- a certain "constructivism":
-- example 1: the basic matrix of "basic material/ideal "atoms/dharmâ".
-- example 2: the systems of "sense-realms", like the 18 dhatû, standing for the wholistic interplay between diverse ("inner") sense-organs, diverse ("outer") sense-fields, and the two main "individual" unifying instances of "thinking" and "ego", plus the "container-concsiousness" (Skr.: alayavijnana), which some interpret, at least in parts, as a kind of collective unconsciousness in the C.G. Jungian vein, and so forth.
That would be an interesting subject for further studies, indeed...
-Regards
a. In the Heideggerian sense of "truth as un-concealment", the separation of Samsara from Nirvana is the only means by which Nirvana could possibly be realized, as only Samara could possibly conceal Nirvana among its ever present midst from the only sort of beings whatsoever to which Nirvana could possibly be "unconcealed", namely karmic, volitionally "free willed" persons. Only this line of rational induction requires and thereby gives meaning to life and the cosmos. To the extent anyone realizes the physical term "primordial singularity" as synonymous with Nirvana, the "meaning of life" is no mystery, simply the means of a "primordial singularity" realizing itself, as only it must.
b. "As mathematician David Berlinski writes regarding the material and informational aspects of DNA: “We quite know what DNA is: it is a macromolecule and so a material object. We quite know what it achieves: apparently everything. Are the two sides of this equation in balance?” More generally, Berlinski observes that since the information embodied in a string of DNA or protein cannot affect the material dynamic of reality without being read by a material transducer, information is meaningless without matter." CTMU
To me the very notion of material (and information) is just how "infinity" must appear to itself in order to conceal its own essence, such that its essence can be revealed. The material/spiritual (informational) dichotomy is only mysterious in lieu of comprehending "infinity". There's no simpler or more generic means possible by which "information" can be transduced (as it must to conceal/reveal Nirvana) than by what science regards as the "physical world" of time & space, in particular quantum mechanics (virtually the universe as a cosmic computer in its own right).
c. As for the "basic matrix", it's not overly complex reasoning: where "primordial singularity" equals "infinite mass" and hence "infinite potential", it must by hook or crook resolve its own inherent potential for self-realization (Nirvana), regardless even where "it" predominantly "fails" to (fully) self-realize (Samsara). By logical inversion of an "expanding" universe, simply modeling the "primordial singularity" OVER time and space, as per a Venn diagram composed of internally nested and rescaled "states", Nirvana is simply the "parallel processing" in totality, of the implied "singularity & space-time matrix" ensemble (conspansive manifold, per CTMU).
"Extended superposition “atemporally” distributes antecedent events over consequent events, thus putting spacetime in temporally-extended self-contact. In light of the Telic Principle ...., this scenario involves a new interpretation of quantum theory, sum over futures. Sum over futures involves an atemporal generalization of “process”, telic recursion, through which the universe effects on-the-fly maximization of a global self-selection parameter, generalized utility." CTMU
Interesting topics, indeed! Some additional remarks from my side may be in order, I suppose:
a) As I understand Martin Heidegger´s "thinking-ways" (Ger.: ´Denkwege´, ´Gedankengänge´), he really tried to follow Eduard Husserl´s maxim of "Back to the things themselves!". And he called his methodology "de(con)struction", building on Husserl´s triade of "epoché, reduction, purification".
Part of this approach was and is, to move - in short - from "deduced" (´abkünftigen´) concepts (e.g., specific Buddhist "universals": Nirwana, Samsara, and Karma; and more "universally universal universals": psyche and cosmos, person and free will, etc.) towards the "primordial" (´urtümlichen´, ´ureigentlichen´) ground.
According to Husserl, human beings (resp. Heidegger´s "being-there", Ger.: ´Dasein´) find themselves in the basic antinomian position of simultaneously being-towards-the-world (primarily by way of "knowingly grasping") and being-in-the-world (primarily by way of "bodily experiencing").
Heidegger seems to approach the reflexive understanding (i.e., Zen-interpreter Katsuki Sekida might here speak of the "three NEN") of our basic "knowing-being" from the "ur-arena" of having (partly intuitive) insight into the "horizonal structure of consciousness" as one of his key starting-points.
Accordingly, the "veritas essendi" may refer, firstly, to "all items apperaring on the (´Lichtung des Seins´)", in the narrower sense, as well as, secondly, to the "overall Gestalt" of light/dark consciousness, plus the hunch of "something" beyond the ever receeding "general horizon", of which we, at best, can get some glimpses of. - However, the "hunching" usually already implies doing some "heavy metaphsics", which seems problematic in several ways, but that´s another story).
(Ref.: If I remember right, Evan Thompson gives some similar, "neuro-phenomenological" explanations in, e.g.: YT-channel Mind & Life Institute, "Expanding Our View..")
b) Re: The relation between "matter" and "energy". The early sociologist Emile Durkheim already keenly oberved/proposed that societies (as systems, to use current terminology) manifest themselves to their members primarily via the pressures it affects on them. Their "forcefullness" makes these "systems" feel "real" to us... Well, to put things short - and paraphrasing an idea of Schelling´s -: We use to establish the "vital space-time" after the basic subject-object-division has taken place. And this "mental map" seems even to be, grosso modo, cross-culturally convertible.
c) There exist many concepts of "Nirvana" inside the House-of-the-Buddha. And, if I may say so, it is one of the real worthy tasks for scholars, to systematically work out a valid, reliable synopsis. There have already been quite a few "szenarios" presented, like the relatively short and concise one by the Russian buddhologist Theodore Stcherbatsky - in the 1920ies, if I remember right.
Phenomenologically speaking, grosso modo, all Nirwana-"szenarios" are basically rooted in everyday life-world experiences and succinctly reach ever higher levels of higher-predicative, symbolic abstraction.
One of the more recent "syncretistic" approaches that comes spontaneously to my mind, is the one presented by Tarthang Tulku (1977) in his booklet "Time, Space and Knowledge". In it, so my interpretation, he tries - in a somehow simple way: no formulas, no great philological apparatus, etc. - to harmonize the average modern physcial world-view with the tradtionional (Vajrayana-)Buddhist one. He offers, as I see it, at least some glimpses of "our world and all the rest" - what other human thinkers seemingly also already did and do ever in their ways since "Ur-Zeiten" (´primordial times´), that is, they did this maybe already even long before historical times, and especiall before the "axial era" (Karl Jaspers), which was seemingly very formative for "us". The understanding and mastering of the "big affair [... while] regrettably [...] time flies [...]" - as a relatively famous Zen-saying goes - ... well, it is, so to speak, a vast field, that opens up before our eyes, indeed.
-Regards
@@xxxYYZxxx
Recently heard a chat with Daniel Ingram in which he mentioned the notion of the 'spirit of material'. That got me to thinking the spirit of water is water vapor, of wood is fire and so on. Guess with plutonium you never want to actually know...
Huangbo: "From Gautama Buddha down through the whole line of patriarchs to Bodhidharma, none preached aught besides the One Mind, otherwise known as the Sole Vehicle of Liberation. Hence, though you search throughout the whole universe, you will never find another vehicle. Nowhere has this teaching leaves or branches; its on,e quality is eternal truth. Hence it is a teaching hard to accept. When Bodhidharma came to China and reached the Kingdoms of Liang and Wei, only the Venerable Master Ko gained a silent insight into our own Mind; as soon as it was explained to him, he understood that Mind is the Buddha, and that individual mind and body are nothing. This teaching is called the Great Way. The very nature of the Great Way is voidness of opposition. Bodhidharma firmly believed in being ONE WITH THE REAL ‘SUBSTANCE' OF THE UNIVERSE IN THIS LIFE! Mind and that ‘substance' do not differ one jot-that ‘substance' is Mind. They cannot possibly be separated. It was for this revelation that he earned the title of Patriarch of our sect, and therefore is it written: ‘The moment of realizing the unity of Mind and the “substance” which constitutes reality may truly be said to baffle description.'"
Check out Roy Bhaskar’s work on critical realism.
I have the to meet the real dragon in Hebrew ❤
Look up quantum foam in physics.
Mind is the lathe that machines thought?
Mind is a bubble, with thought and material trapped inside it?
You haven't given me anything to think about. Because I 'don't-mind.'
In other words no-mind is the real mind, and thought is unreal.
(How much clearer can it possibly be?)
Realism is not materialism because both matter (28 Rupa) and mental factors (52 Cetasika) cause consciousness.
I love when Marxists define materialism in the way which makes Thomas Aquinas a materialist.
There are definitely a lot of "Marxists" out there that ignore a lot of what Marx himself said about what materialism means in favor of bringing their own baggage along.
When you say Asians know that the mind is different to thoughts, you mean the mind that is equal to the heart? In that sense it is probably easier to picture a non thinking mind.
Im sure there must br a rule that zen masters should have tidier bookshelves than yours. 😅😅😅.
read Fukanbookshelvi on that matter
@@Sand_Bank_ 😂
Zen bench press 💪get it done brother
And viva Ziggy!
whatever
6
If I slap you in the face, is the pain in the mind or is it in the material world? The answer is irrelevant. The pain is real.
So don't slap me!
@@HardcoreZen auch that hurt !