I am still in the early stages of translation of your book, truly mind expanding, and have come across Yamauchi's writings on Logos as Judgement and the implication of 'bivalence' as I understand it being two values of 'true' or 'false', the duality as he said of affirmation or negation. Is there no middle ground? You talked of macrocosm and microcosm, then mentioned mesocosm to me.... is this the value of middleground? And why must it always be a world of duality? I did ask my son who believes firmly in multiple possibilities and all factions of possibilites in multiple universes and once something is measured or observed the reality changes....he spoke of D wave quantum computers... I do not have a mathematical urge to learn about equations,(turning against mathematics when the teacher made me wear a hairnet one day) but theoretical knowledge I enjoy and spacial awareness, meditation etc; that can produce answers in certain states of consciousness. I like the way Yamauchi studied and questioned Western logic and metaphysics in comparison with, I assume, his own Buddhist conceptions. The Tetralemma, I believe, that Nagarjuna touches on from India reminds me of the four faces of Shiva that I came upon in Udaipur at the Shiv Nawas Palace and also the Shunyata state in Sanskrit translations where one occupies empty space where questions and answers do not matter but are also simultaneous. Does that make sense? RJ, my son, mentioned Shrodinger's Cat theory but from the cat's perspective. Looking forward to your perspective and why you close to write this book.
While when philosophers talk about judgment, they talk from the point of view of the mind or consciousness (which is traditionally dualistic for logical reasons), when it comes to what happens in our world or universe, they usually tend to talk from a theoretical external point of view (which is more open).
Yamauchi discussed the dualistic approach and thought that it may be sufficient for some objects and/or in everyday life, but some other objects or circumstances may require something less closed. This is a very interesting point of view, since philosophy, as well as the sciences, has a long history of emphasizing precision and strictly dualistic approaches.
The question that will always remain is whether we need to be more open because what we can accurately see, understand, and describe is limited by our own capabilities, or whether the problem arises from what some objects really are. I think Yamauchi's point tends toward the second option only for some limited objects.
I wrote this book for several reasons, but the most important one is that Yamauchi pointed out important questions that remain unresolved (because neither Aristotle nor Nāgārjuna was entirely wrong from their own points of view) and that need to be addressed again today. To do this, I think we need to question the strict division between science and philosophy (and spirituality as well). We can do better if we are able to work together and not just against each other. But I am probably an idealist on this point.
Cohesive collaboration is very compelling and the thought is definitely idealistic. One wonders if egos need to be suppressed to enable this to happen successfully or if appreciation of group knowledge can overcome the divisions. An open mind beyond retained teachings would certainly help. Can human thinking rise above competitiveness as that is inherent right from the moment of the race for the first coupling with the ova? Perhaps there is also a race within us for the gaining of knowledge. There has to be a valid reason why we are here.***
While competition is an important part of our lives, it does not prevent us from working together for the greater good. Of course, it requires a bit of "open-mindedness" (not sure if that word exists!) and compassion.
But you are right, there is definitely a race for knowledge (and fame). At the end of the century, however, it will not really matter who did what, but only whether there will be a "who" again, who will be able to talk about the past or not; because an Earth without "us" is also where competition motivated by bad feelings could lead.
If the planet itself is a ‘being’. And I believe it is, with different cognitive abilities as in for example the relationship between the mycelium network and trees/vegetation... I spoke to a Swiss scientist who informed me that when the dreadful bombs destroyed so much life in Japan, Hiroshima and Nagasaki etc; the Earth itself released something which was not harmful to humans but attempted to eradicate the harmful particles of radiation. There was an attempt or plea to further this study which was rejected at the time. However certain vegetation did recover especially the Ginkgo Biloba Tree at the Myojoin Temple that is in the Shukkelen Garden Hiroshima. Seeds were harvested from that survivor tree that produced trees that now grow in Glasgow and I have one tree in the arboretum here. If the Earth is not damaged by us then Nature will certainly work with us for the greater good.
I wonder about the cosmos out there, and if any sentient beings from other dimensions of planets exist, they will hardly be enamoured by the antics of humans playing about with science here. X
I agree with you about the role of imagination in such a question. In fact, with one of my friends I work with on meditation/mindfulness, I have suggested many times that imagination should be studied more, for instance since depression can probably be supported by toxic imagination and worldview.
His son is the first researcher who really encouraged me on my journey. Talking about his work is a humble way of thanking him...
I agree with you totally. Imagination is a wonderful tool in creation but also it has a two-edged sword and can be destructive as much as it can be useful in creativity. Run away imagination is a way of increasing obsession and as you say, can increase depression. There have been too few studies in it, especially with its preemptive force that may cause one to create scenarios based on past experiences in human behaviour that may not apply to present situations or set a precedent for wrong predictions for the future. It may cause mistrust. Building faith in Judgement can be a long road to tread if illusions caused by over active imagination takes root. ...
I loved the images... they reminded me of similar scenes of changes in the environment in different parts of the world. I visited Fukuoka. On top of a cairn on a mountain in Ireland a cloud descended on me that wiped out the countryside below so I was on a tomb on a cloud... so exhilarating. In Miami, during thunderstorms the city on the other side of the bay disappeared regularly in a rain mist... in Ireland fog swirled over bogs and here I live surrounded by water meadows that are fields one day and lakes the next. This surrealism has always been part of my life. In deep meditation open-eyed, the room disappears into light and sometimes into a grid where everything expands in all directions. You said the environment within is also outside and this jolted me because of the state of the world environment right now... yet if this is so then we have the power to change it with our minds alone, do we not? Thank you for this post...
I love these pictures too. I put them here with Season Lao's permission. What he is doing is really interesting.
Regarding the question of the environment, I was thinking of the microbiotic world. But you can also think more simply of breathing or eating. We make room for the "environment" in our own bodies in different ways, and we give the "environment" lots of little things. Of course, in such an approach, the meaning of the word "environment" is also questioned.
The question of whether or not we can change our current situation with our mind is very complex. First, if we think of the mind alone (separate from our body), its influence on materiality (if such an influence exists) should probably be modest and reduced by other forces.
Moreover, for there are differences of scale on the one hand, and differences of intensity on the other. My influence as a single person is not enough to change a process that has its own inertia. Together we can do better. But unfortunately it cannot be an easy way.
I agree that one mind alone could not do what a group of minds could achieve, but it may take a lifetime to achieve an enlightened mind. However I do think that a small percentage of enlightened pure minds within the world's population of millions, could certainly make positive changes. Breathing and eating certainly takes the elements of the environment into us...we are bound to the corporeal world that limits our bodies, however soul consciousness is limitless, although purity of soul is not a guarantee and has a sort of duty to attachment and entanglement because of the mind, thoughts and sanskars. It takes a lot of cleaning and clearing the more attached we are... I know you mentioned the microcosm and macrocosm but there was one other that held my interest when reading your discourse with Lao, and now at this moment I have forgotten the word but I meant to ask you about it. It jumped out at me at the time. ***
I think we agree that we need to improve our actions, our thoughts, and our minds (also to purify them) in order to have a positive impact.
The word you mention is probably "mesocosm". It is a word used in philosophy to qualify the level at which we evolve as human beings in reality. The microcosm, the mesocosm, and the macrocosm are, of course, one big entity. But the one we are most connected to in our daily lives is the mesocosm.
I didn't use that word in my book (as far as I remember!). The "relationship" between these dimensions is one of the things I have in mind at the moment. But there is also the question of the accuracy of such a distinction between the microcosm, the mesocosm, and the macrocosm.
Yes, that is the word ... I had never come across it before and now I am intrigued. I shall mull it over in my mind and may have to have a greater understanding of the level of evolving in reality. I look forward to your writings on these three that exist in one big entity, makes me think of a soup of sorts.***
I am still in the early stages of translation of your book, truly mind expanding, and have come across Yamauchi's writings on Logos as Judgement and the implication of 'bivalence' as I understand it being two values of 'true' or 'false', the duality as he said of affirmation or negation. Is there no middle ground? You talked of macrocosm and microcosm, then mentioned mesocosm to me.... is this the value of middleground? And why must it always be a world of duality? I did ask my son who believes firmly in multiple possibilities and all factions of possibilites in multiple universes and once something is measured or observed the reality changes....he spoke of D wave quantum computers... I do not have a mathematical urge to learn about equations,(turning against mathematics when the teacher made me wear a hairnet one day) but theoretical knowledge I enjoy and spacial awareness, meditation etc; that can produce answers in certain states of consciousness. I like the way Yamauchi studied and questioned Western logic and metaphysics in comparison with, I assume, his own Buddhist conceptions. The Tetralemma, I believe, that Nagarjuna touches on from India reminds me of the four faces of Shiva that I came upon in Udaipur at the Shiv Nawas Palace and also the Shunyata state in Sanskrit translations where one occupies empty space where questions and answers do not matter but are also simultaneous. Does that make sense? RJ, my son, mentioned Shrodinger's Cat theory but from the cat's perspective. Looking forward to your perspective and why you close to write this book.
While when philosophers talk about judgment, they talk from the point of view of the mind or consciousness (which is traditionally dualistic for logical reasons), when it comes to what happens in our world or universe, they usually tend to talk from a theoretical external point of view (which is more open).
Yamauchi discussed the dualistic approach and thought that it may be sufficient for some objects and/or in everyday life, but some other objects or circumstances may require something less closed. This is a very interesting point of view, since philosophy, as well as the sciences, has a long history of emphasizing precision and strictly dualistic approaches.
The question that will always remain is whether we need to be more open because what we can accurately see, understand, and describe is limited by our own capabilities, or whether the problem arises from what some objects really are. I think Yamauchi's point tends toward the second option only for some limited objects.
I wrote this book for several reasons, but the most important one is that Yamauchi pointed out important questions that remain unresolved (because neither Aristotle nor Nāgārjuna was entirely wrong from their own points of view) and that need to be addressed again today. To do this, I think we need to question the strict division between science and philosophy (and spirituality as well). We can do better if we are able to work together and not just against each other. But I am probably an idealist on this point.
Cohesive collaboration is very compelling and the thought is definitely idealistic. One wonders if egos need to be suppressed to enable this to happen successfully or if appreciation of group knowledge can overcome the divisions. An open mind beyond retained teachings would certainly help. Can human thinking rise above competitiveness as that is inherent right from the moment of the race for the first coupling with the ova? Perhaps there is also a race within us for the gaining of knowledge. There has to be a valid reason why we are here.***
I meant take root. Faith is the absence of all forms of doubt. Shankara.
I should probably work on this question more...
While competition is an important part of our lives, it does not prevent us from working together for the greater good. Of course, it requires a bit of "open-mindedness" (not sure if that word exists!) and compassion.
But you are right, there is definitely a race for knowledge (and fame). At the end of the century, however, it will not really matter who did what, but only whether there will be a "who" again, who will be able to talk about the past or not; because an Earth without "us" is also where competition motivated by bad feelings could lead.
If the planet itself is a ‘being’. And I believe it is, with different cognitive abilities as in for example the relationship between the mycelium network and trees/vegetation... I spoke to a Swiss scientist who informed me that when the dreadful bombs destroyed so much life in Japan, Hiroshima and Nagasaki etc; the Earth itself released something which was not harmful to humans but attempted to eradicate the harmful particles of radiation. There was an attempt or plea to further this study which was rejected at the time. However certain vegetation did recover especially the Ginkgo Biloba Tree at the Myojoin Temple that is in the Shukkelen Garden Hiroshima. Seeds were harvested from that survivor tree that produced trees that now grow in Glasgow and I have one tree in the arboretum here. If the Earth is not damaged by us then Nature will certainly work with us for the greater good.
I wonder about the cosmos out there, and if any sentient beings from other dimensions of planets exist, they will hardly be enamoured by the antics of humans playing about with science here. X
I agree with you about the role of imagination in such a question. In fact, with one of my friends I work with on meditation/mindfulness, I have suggested many times that imagination should be studied more, for instance since depression can probably be supported by toxic imagination and worldview.
His son is the first researcher who really encouraged me on my journey. Talking about his work is a humble way of thanking him...
I agree with you totally. Imagination is a wonderful tool in creation but also it has a two-edged sword and can be destructive as much as it can be useful in creativity. Run away imagination is a way of increasing obsession and as you say, can increase depression. There have been too few studies in it, especially with its preemptive force that may cause one to create scenarios based on past experiences in human behaviour that may not apply to present situations or set a precedent for wrong predictions for the future. It may cause mistrust. Building faith in Judgement can be a long road to tread if illusions caused by over active imagination takes root. ...
I loved the images... they reminded me of similar scenes of changes in the environment in different parts of the world. I visited Fukuoka. On top of a cairn on a mountain in Ireland a cloud descended on me that wiped out the countryside below so I was on a tomb on a cloud... so exhilarating. In Miami, during thunderstorms the city on the other side of the bay disappeared regularly in a rain mist... in Ireland fog swirled over bogs and here I live surrounded by water meadows that are fields one day and lakes the next. This surrealism has always been part of my life. In deep meditation open-eyed, the room disappears into light and sometimes into a grid where everything expands in all directions. You said the environment within is also outside and this jolted me because of the state of the world environment right now... yet if this is so then we have the power to change it with our minds alone, do we not? Thank you for this post...
I love these pictures too. I put them here with Season Lao's permission. What he is doing is really interesting.
Regarding the question of the environment, I was thinking of the microbiotic world. But you can also think more simply of breathing or eating. We make room for the "environment" in our own bodies in different ways, and we give the "environment" lots of little things. Of course, in such an approach, the meaning of the word "environment" is also questioned.
The question of whether or not we can change our current situation with our mind is very complex. First, if we think of the mind alone (separate from our body), its influence on materiality (if such an influence exists) should probably be modest and reduced by other forces.
Moreover, for there are differences of scale on the one hand, and differences of intensity on the other. My influence as a single person is not enough to change a process that has its own inertia. Together we can do better. But unfortunately it cannot be an easy way.
I agree that one mind alone could not do what a group of minds could achieve, but it may take a lifetime to achieve an enlightened mind. However I do think that a small percentage of enlightened pure minds within the world's population of millions, could certainly make positive changes. Breathing and eating certainly takes the elements of the environment into us...we are bound to the corporeal world that limits our bodies, however soul consciousness is limitless, although purity of soul is not a guarantee and has a sort of duty to attachment and entanglement because of the mind, thoughts and sanskars. It takes a lot of cleaning and clearing the more attached we are... I know you mentioned the microcosm and macrocosm but there was one other that held my interest when reading your discourse with Lao, and now at this moment I have forgotten the word but I meant to ask you about it. It jumped out at me at the time. ***
I think we agree that we need to improve our actions, our thoughts, and our minds (also to purify them) in order to have a positive impact.
The word you mention is probably "mesocosm". It is a word used in philosophy to qualify the level at which we evolve as human beings in reality. The microcosm, the mesocosm, and the macrocosm are, of course, one big entity. But the one we are most connected to in our daily lives is the mesocosm.
I didn't use that word in my book (as far as I remember!). The "relationship" between these dimensions is one of the things I have in mind at the moment. But there is also the question of the accuracy of such a distinction between the microcosm, the mesocosm, and the macrocosm.
Yes, that is the word ... I had never come across it before and now I am intrigued. I shall mull it over in my mind and may have to have a greater understanding of the level of evolving in reality. I look forward to your writings on these three that exist in one big entity, makes me think of a soup of sorts.***