Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Nature of Interdependence!
taiyaki
Veteran
I was listening to a talk given by Lama Marut about emptiness and I wanted to break down his thought process because it is very, very interesting lol.
It basically helped me clear up a lot of "assumptions" I've had. I hope this will be useful for you! It is dense so good luck!
Emptiness of self and emptiness of phenomena. Emptiness of subject and object. Emptiness of me and you. Emptiness of the relationship between the subject and object.
Is it possible to pick up a coffee cup? Yes, I am doing it. But not the way we think it is happening. It is only happening as a projection of a person picking up a coffee cup.
In any way other than a projection, I would have to start that process, middle and have an end to that process. So when did I start pick up the coffee cup? So right now it’s 8:08 thirtieths second and this is when I started the process of picking up the coffee cup. What about tenths of a second or hundredths of a second. You could do this infinitely and keep trying to find the moment of starting to pick up the coffee cup. There is no moment that couldn’t be subdivided into its parts (beginning, middle, and end). So I could never start picking up a coffee cup. You can spend your whole life trying to pick up a coffee cup. There is no moment that isn’t further divisible into its parts, otherwise there could be no moment in time. A moment in time that isn’t divisible into its parts would be all of time or infinity time.
Moment of parts exist because they have parts. The beginning, middle, end of moments are further divisible into beginning, middle and end. Thus we can say a beginning, beginning of a moment. We project “beginning” onto the “moment (beginning, middle, end). So it is a projection of a whole on the basis of its parts.
So truly I could have never started picking up the coffee up, nor could I have finished picking up the coffee cup.
When did you walk into this room for this teaching? You could have never walked into this room like you think you did. It is impossible to walk into this room because every moment is divisible further into parts. But of course we are walking into the room, that is very obvious. The only way we can do it is as a mental projection of walking into room or picking up a coffee cup.
Furthermore there isn’t actually a coffee cup out there to pick up anyways. So that was the emptiness of time or duration. This also the emptiness of space or an object like this. This coffee cup is a whole based on the parts of the coffee cup. What about the parts? Do they have parts? Is there a top side, left side, right side, to the parts of the coffee cup? What about those parts, do they have parts? Again you could do this infinitely. There is no part that could possible exist unless it had parts and you are projecting a whole on the basis on its parts. A partless part would be everything and be indistinguishable AS everything. A partless moment of time would be all of time.
Things could only exist as projections. If they existed as we think it did, it would be impossible. It is impossible to conceptualize a beginning of a moment of time that doesn’t have a beginning, middle and end to it. So where are our wholes coming from?
It has to be from our minds.
How come you don’t exist the way you think you do. Did I say the coffee cup doesn’t exist? Of course it exists, it functions. Its an existing thing and a changing. And it functions and thats what it means by changing, existing thing. But it cannot exist the way we think it does.
How do we think a coffee cup exists? Would the coffee cup be there if we all left the room? That coffee cup never existed. The unperceived coffee cup, or the coffee cup that exists independently of being perceived as a coffee cup has never existed. Is it possible for a coffee cup to exist the way I think it does? If I left the room and came back the coffee cup would still be there, so therefore it must of stayed there while I was gone. This is the way we think. So what about if we left the room and set up a video camera and record the coffee cup to see if it left the room? This would only prove that the video tape existed. At the surface level we are confused on what is reality and what is representations of reality. There is a difference between a show on tv and reality. Of film verses what actually happened.
There are many proofs that reality can’t exist the way we think it does. All we need is one penetration into emptiness, thus I am giving multiple examples.
The coffee cup that we think exists when we all leave the room. The independently existing coffee cup is impossible. Which comes first the coffee cup or the perception of the coffee cup? The coffee cup we are trying to find would exist before the perception of the coffee cup. Right? It would have to exist before the perception. If we all left the room of coffee cup would still be there. An existing thing is a knowable thing. The coffee cup that would be there if we all left the room, would be an existing thing that would be unknowable. No one would perceive it, but it would be existing somehow.
Who could say it was existing? If a knowable thing and an existing thing are synonyms. and we impossible believe that there are existing things that are somewhat unknowable, who knows that? If they are unknowable, who can say that they’re existing? Right? You gotta think about this. A perceptible coffee cup, existing coffee cup, knowable coffee cup requires someone knowing that it exists. The coffee cup exists dependently. If you are a Buddhist you’re supposed to believe in dependent origination. Things exist dependently. Things depending on being perceived. Things do not exist until perceived. So they come into existence when they are perceived. It is a little mind boggling. It is a completely different way of thinking. I understand the doubt that is in your mind. An unperceived coffee cup literally does not exist. You cannot say it exists because it is unperceived. It would be an imperceptible perceivable thing if it weren’t being perceived. Being perceived means being perceived by somebody. Right?
The perceiver the subject has to be there for objects to exist. Things exist dependently. Objects exist dependently on subjects perceiving them.
What about the subject then?
So that was the emptiness of mind or phenomena.
Emptiness means that things do not exist independently. A coffee cup that would be there if we all left the room is an independently existing coffee cup. It wouldn’t require anybody to see it to be there. It might get lonely haha. The coffee cup does exist. How? Dependently. It is empty of existing independently, but it does exist dependently.
It basically helped me clear up a lot of "assumptions" I've had. I hope this will be useful for you! It is dense so good luck!
Emptiness of self and emptiness of phenomena. Emptiness of subject and object. Emptiness of me and you. Emptiness of the relationship between the subject and object.
Is it possible to pick up a coffee cup? Yes, I am doing it. But not the way we think it is happening. It is only happening as a projection of a person picking up a coffee cup.
In any way other than a projection, I would have to start that process, middle and have an end to that process. So when did I start pick up the coffee cup? So right now it’s 8:08 thirtieths second and this is when I started the process of picking up the coffee cup. What about tenths of a second or hundredths of a second. You could do this infinitely and keep trying to find the moment of starting to pick up the coffee cup. There is no moment that couldn’t be subdivided into its parts (beginning, middle, and end). So I could never start picking up a coffee cup. You can spend your whole life trying to pick up a coffee cup. There is no moment that isn’t further divisible into its parts, otherwise there could be no moment in time. A moment in time that isn’t divisible into its parts would be all of time or infinity time.
Moment of parts exist because they have parts. The beginning, middle, end of moments are further divisible into beginning, middle and end. Thus we can say a beginning, beginning of a moment. We project “beginning” onto the “moment (beginning, middle, end). So it is a projection of a whole on the basis of its parts.
So truly I could have never started picking up the coffee up, nor could I have finished picking up the coffee cup.
When did you walk into this room for this teaching? You could have never walked into this room like you think you did. It is impossible to walk into this room because every moment is divisible further into parts. But of course we are walking into the room, that is very obvious. The only way we can do it is as a mental projection of walking into room or picking up a coffee cup.
Furthermore there isn’t actually a coffee cup out there to pick up anyways. So that was the emptiness of time or duration. This also the emptiness of space or an object like this. This coffee cup is a whole based on the parts of the coffee cup. What about the parts? Do they have parts? Is there a top side, left side, right side, to the parts of the coffee cup? What about those parts, do they have parts? Again you could do this infinitely. There is no part that could possible exist unless it had parts and you are projecting a whole on the basis on its parts. A partless part would be everything and be indistinguishable AS everything. A partless moment of time would be all of time.
Things could only exist as projections. If they existed as we think it did, it would be impossible. It is impossible to conceptualize a beginning of a moment of time that doesn’t have a beginning, middle and end to it. So where are our wholes coming from?
It has to be from our minds.
How come you don’t exist the way you think you do. Did I say the coffee cup doesn’t exist? Of course it exists, it functions. Its an existing thing and a changing. And it functions and thats what it means by changing, existing thing. But it cannot exist the way we think it does.
How do we think a coffee cup exists? Would the coffee cup be there if we all left the room? That coffee cup never existed. The unperceived coffee cup, or the coffee cup that exists independently of being perceived as a coffee cup has never existed. Is it possible for a coffee cup to exist the way I think it does? If I left the room and came back the coffee cup would still be there, so therefore it must of stayed there while I was gone. This is the way we think. So what about if we left the room and set up a video camera and record the coffee cup to see if it left the room? This would only prove that the video tape existed. At the surface level we are confused on what is reality and what is representations of reality. There is a difference between a show on tv and reality. Of film verses what actually happened.
There are many proofs that reality can’t exist the way we think it does. All we need is one penetration into emptiness, thus I am giving multiple examples.
The coffee cup that we think exists when we all leave the room. The independently existing coffee cup is impossible. Which comes first the coffee cup or the perception of the coffee cup? The coffee cup we are trying to find would exist before the perception of the coffee cup. Right? It would have to exist before the perception. If we all left the room of coffee cup would still be there. An existing thing is a knowable thing. The coffee cup that would be there if we all left the room, would be an existing thing that would be unknowable. No one would perceive it, but it would be existing somehow.
Who could say it was existing? If a knowable thing and an existing thing are synonyms. and we impossible believe that there are existing things that are somewhat unknowable, who knows that? If they are unknowable, who can say that they’re existing? Right? You gotta think about this. A perceptible coffee cup, existing coffee cup, knowable coffee cup requires someone knowing that it exists. The coffee cup exists dependently. If you are a Buddhist you’re supposed to believe in dependent origination. Things exist dependently. Things depending on being perceived. Things do not exist until perceived. So they come into existence when they are perceived. It is a little mind boggling. It is a completely different way of thinking. I understand the doubt that is in your mind. An unperceived coffee cup literally does not exist. You cannot say it exists because it is unperceived. It would be an imperceptible perceivable thing if it weren’t being perceived. Being perceived means being perceived by somebody. Right?
The perceiver the subject has to be there for objects to exist. Things exist dependently. Objects exist dependently on subjects perceiving them.
What about the subject then?
So that was the emptiness of mind or phenomena.
Emptiness means that things do not exist independently. A coffee cup that would be there if we all left the room is an independently existing coffee cup. It wouldn’t require anybody to see it to be there. It might get lonely haha. The coffee cup does exist. How? Dependently. It is empty of existing independently, but it does exist dependently.
0
Comments
Does the coffee cup exist independently of its parts? Could a coffee cup exist independently of the handle, the lid, the blue part, the back part. Could it exist independently of its parts? No. Could it exist independently of its causes? That means I don’t need any causes I am here. I am here already I don’t need a cause. That would be an independently existing coffee cup that wouldn’t need anyone to manufacture it and put it on a shelf at starbucks so that you can purchase it. All of these are causes of how the coffee cup got here. So things are empty of existing independently of their causes and of their parts.
So which comes first the cause of the coffee cup or the effect of a coffee cup? If the effect came first, you wouldn’t need a cause. The classic example is a sprout. Which come first the sprout or the seed? See the seed is the cause of the sprout. Right? You cannot say the spout came first, wouldn’t need a seed then. It would be a seedless sprout. So the seed must come first right? The seed is the cause of the sprout right? So the cause must come before the effect right? The seed becomes the cause of the sprout only when? When there is a sprout. So neither one can come first. The effect certainly cannot come before the cause. The cause of the effect is not the cause until the effect comes about. Lots of seeds don’t actually sprout. If the seed came first as the cause it would bring about a sprout every time, inevitably. The cause and effect exist interdependently. There is no effect without a cause but there is no cause without an effect. There is no cause without an effect, we’re okay with that.
What about the parts? Are there parts of a coffee cup before or after the coffee cup? Do the parts exist before or after a whole? How could they exist afterwards? I got a coffee cup and then some parts. Later on the parts came hahaha. What do I need these parts for? So the whole cannot come before the parts. The coffee cup cannot come before the parts of the coffee cup. But the parts of the coffee cup cannot come before there is a whole coffee cup. The parts are just random things before there is a coffee cup. You cannot say they are parts of a coffee up until you have the coffee cup. So neither one can come first.
So the relationship of interdependence actually isn’t the interdependence of effects on their causes or parts who exist dependently on wholes. or wholes that exist dependently on parts. So you gotta go to the third level. A mind that is drawing the relationship. Things exist dependently on a mind that draws a relationship between cause and effect. Between parts and a whole. There are no parts of a whole until there is a conceptualization of whole and parts. There is no cause/effect until there is an observer who says retroactively that was the cause of this effect and links them together. So ultimately things exist only dependently on the perceiver of the things. The only way objects exists is dependently on the subject. The perceptible coffee cup exist only when it is perceived as a coffee cup. You could perceive this coffee cup as something else and it would exist as something else, such as a really tiny fish bowl.
When it is conceptualized as a tiny fish bowl and you put a fish in it then it would be that. You see? The mind makes it so.
So that means that me exists before mind. That the person exists before phenomena. That the subject exist before the object. The perceiver of the percectable thing exist before the perceptable thing. Yes or no? No. A perceiver exists only when they perceive something. There is no independently exist perceiver that is going, “I’m going to perceive something now”. I’m not actually perceiving anything right now but I am a perceiver waiting to perceive something. No, that is the me we “think” exists actually. We think that there is a “me” that exists independently, self existing, on its own, unitary self. Independent means a self or waiting self that is waiting to be perceiving something. And then it comes into the world, theres something, theres something I’m perceiving now. This is impossible. A perceiver exists only if there is an object to be perceived. You exist dependently on perceiving something. So object exists don’t exist independently. And subjects don’t exist indepdendently either. Subjects and objects only exist interdependently on each other. And neither one comes first. An object that exist independently or prior to a subject would be an inperceptable perceivable thing. And a subject that exists independently and prior to an object would be a perceiving perceriver that wouldn’t be perceiving anything.
-From the Podcast entitled, “Opening the Portals of the Death Star” by Lama Surati Marut
so this teaching is really only useful for you own projections and assumptions.
i came across this example before. say there is a person standing here. for me he is my brother so I project "brotherness" onto him. for you he may be just another person so you projection "personness" onto him. ultimately he is empty of being all these things, thus he has the infinite potential to be any projection.
the coffee cup can be examined as a projection of a whole onto the basis of parts. and the cup only exists in relation to the subject/perceiver and vice versa. so i can examine this directly.
but i don't know if you can examine it, until you tell me that you have. but i can only interpret what you say.
so basically reality isn't coming at you, it is coming from you by projections.
theres two way to look at this, the cup is different because we're both coming from different subjective points of view.
but truly the only difference is when we project a dualistic framework using concepts onto wholes & parts.
so ultimately it is the same cup, but relatively it is different.
thus the paradox. but idk if i answered you question or not hahaha. glad you enjoyed.
just like how we can agree that 1+1=2. we can agree that things exist interdependently. it's not a theory or an idea. it is just
how things are when we really look close.
lol.
I love this quote, I do I do. But oh it so much funnier when I imagine a guy yelling it at his girlfriend when she breaks up with him.
so most people when they see say a murderer, will only see a murderer, when you realize their buddha nature, which is the infinite potentiality of that being then you can realize that they can change and that they have the potential to be anything.
so you see clearly into the nature of reality as it is and then you see that you project all sorts of stuff onto reality. some of it useful and some of it useless. thus a buddha only see's buddha and the buddha see's normal people at the same time.
i see the world the way i see to because i project onto the world all the stuff i've accumulated whether from society or from my own experience. thus it is merely an abstraction. this is where the notion of a beginners mind is important because it is that beginners mind that we cultivate. seeing freshly into what is, rather than projecting ideas onto things.
it's not that projecting ideas onto things is bad/good, we just have to see it for what it is, a projection.
thus all responsibility for buddhahood is in your hands. it's this wisdom of emptiness that brings about the crumbling of all we cling to. from there freedom is apparent and we see things as they are. constantly changing and evolving processes that exist dependently.
thus you see infinite potentiality and expression in everything, but at the same time you accept the finite dualistic projections, because essentially when you understand emptiness it totally embraces the form. for there is no difference between emptiness and form. as both exist interdependently.
lol these are some of the conclusions i've been seeing these last couple days.
Ultimately there is no true division as they exist interdependently.
The relative is possible because of the Absolute and vice versa.
you can't assert emptiness as a position because it is completely dependent on form and vice versa.
we use our intellect to get to seeing clearly. we work through negation to come to what is. when we come to what is we can marry what is with everything.
thus the non dual is no-thing and every-thing. it is literally the infinite encompassing the finite.
thus that is the middle way between two extremes.
you don't deny ego because the ego is just a changing, dependently existing personality structure based on dualistic projections. the ego essentially only exists in the relationship with the other.
we embrace individuality and we embrace the truth, which is dependent origination.
everything is possible because everything is empty. it is more a fullness if you ask me. when in doubt assert both positions and then negate them both. stand no where and somewhere.
so yes emptiness is true non duality, when penetrated.
meow.
"I asked my lama pretty much this same question.. I am not sure exactly what a mandala I can try but you can just pick this up from context the vibe at least:
Lama Shenpen,
J'I was listening to part of your talk recently about how the mandalas are empty which we can engage with because we are empty. There is a kind of play of energy which cannot be predicted as the mandala expresses itself and through us.
I was thinking of a question of philosophy. If two people look at a mandala and they see it differently. That is they are not agreeing about either the values at the center or they don't agree how the pattern is radiating from the mandala. The second would probably imply a difference in the first. Couldn't these just be natural differences in view? I mean how could two people ever have the same view?
LS'People will always have their own perceptions and be viewing things from a unique point of view but there are mandala structures involved and if our perceptions are out of kilta with how the mandala connections actually are……….then we end up dysfunctional within that mandala.
J'But does that mean that there is a 'real' mandala there?
LS'Yes…………what ‘real’ means here needs careful thought. ‘Real’ is used in many senses……………real as opposed to what? Is a rainbow real? Do we really see a rainbow? It is real to the extent that when people look from a certain angle they can see it. It is conditioned, transient, contingent, dependently arising, relative……………………but there is a difference between there being a rainbow or there not being a rainbow……….it is not just a matter of a person imagining it.
J'That neither one knows for certain?
Essentially is mandala principle just a frame to understand things?
LS'Well it is a frame for understanding things but its also a working principle……..you can spot how the way things manifest conforms to all the mandala principles that operate in a mandala – every form of manifestation manifests in conformity with mandala principle………..you could use examples to show the principles…………anything you could think of could be used as an example to demonstrate the principles.
J'Like the sun rises in the east as you have said with karma.
LS'That demonstrates the principle of relativity……..relative to the observer, the sun rises in the east.
J'Because if its just an idea of energy expressing itself from mandalas where nobody has any idea what is at the center....
LS'Well everyone has a sense of the centre and the central principle or they wouldn’t be able to operate within that mandala………..but they might be trying to work against it either deliberately or out of confusion.
J'wouldn't the utility of such a view be decided from the experience of each person?
LS'I am not sure what the question is
J'I don't know if utility is the right word but there would be no reason to take the view unless it were somehow constructive towards releasing suffering.
J'I think I understand this a little, but I don't understand how the mandala principle is different from just experiencing a world that has sort of a 'cause and effect' science to it.
LS'‘Science’? Cause and effect is not science – it’s a very coarse way of understanding that goes with all sorts of other coarse ideas. In terms of karma how can what I do to someone here in this world be the cause of what happens to someone in another world – in my next life…………this is not science at all. Still it’s a good way to think about things in a coarse way………..from my point of view right now that is a functional way of thinking of it.
J'Like not really breaking things down into mandalas with centers,
LS'Nothing manifests except from some central principle…………how else could it manifest? You don’t have to break things down into centres. You just navigate yourself along in life and from time to time notice overlapping mandalas with different centres………….it is working anyway…………..you don’t have to break anything down in order to understand that
J'but just sort of a sprawling glob with manifestations.
LS'It would be overlapping mandalas
J'It seems like the mandala principle is a way to understand whats really going on breaking the experience into a sensitivity.
LS'Sensitivity in the sense that it is our sensitivity that allows us to orientate ourselves in response to the dynamic of the mandalas we find ourselves in.
J'For example if I say a football team is a mandala my notion of that mandala would be due to my sensitivity to that situation.
LS'Your experience of the mandala would be due to your situation. When you are ‘in the zone’ so to speak its because you are not thinking about it………you are just in it………just moving within the mandala of the game in a completely integrated way………………the mandala principles work by themselves and you don’t have to think about them.
J'But all of the facts that I know about the mandala (perceptions, feelings, imaginings) could be totally wrong.
LS'If you are ‘in the zone’ you would find that the mandala was working so well that you wouldn’t care about the facts of the situation. There would be facts such as the right speed needed to get to a certain point at a certain time………….but you wouldn’t ‘know’ that as a fact…………you would just be able to be exactly at the right point at the right time because you had orientated yourself within the mandala in such a way that it all took care of itself without needing to know all the facts.
J'So how does the mandala operate... sort of as I think of it 'the real mandala' operate with participants who are mistaken?
LS'Well on the one hand its amazing that it ever does……….and on the other hand well………it doesn’t always work does it……………mandalas break up and become dysfunctional or people become disfuntional within a mandala and find themselves being ejected……….so you never get away from mandala principle. It is not a matter of fairness………..its a matter of principle…….
J'Well I think I have asked a question perhaps on whether there are 'real' or just feelings/impressions of mandalas.
LS'Hope this helps"
Shenpen
it has been an interesting ride so far.
appearance IS spacious... relative truth is needed so that you don't take emptiness as meaning that nothing is mattering and we should just do whatever..
its only a view, a tool.. relative and ultimate are sautantrika understanding..
it basicly says: 1) there are views which we can aprehend 2) those views are just views and no view is 'it' 3) yet there is nothing else needed..
My bumbling of the 3 yanas
thats where I was about 21 and I loved things that gave me a wonder and release, zen candy, not exactly koans but cetain unusual profound things..
I started meditation and studying after my mental breakdown, and come down.
Now I am studying with Shenpen Hookham, I have diverted to basic wholesome-don't mean judgemental just vital living, truthfulness, goodwill and so forth to strengthen my energy and practice.
Shenpen Hookham seems to have her credentials. Very nice. It's good to have a teacher of Vajrayana who can actually read the texts in the original language and who has actually been a monk in the tradition for an extended period of time.
You are very fortunate!
Yeah this is really interesting loved the Opening Post and thinking about it good questions
If you don't mind I would like to approach with science to your OP. My broken English may make it difficult but let me try.
I don't want to get too technical but let me briefly discuss some concepts first..
Take coffe cup example for instance. You can divide coffe cup all the way to its atoms. And you can further divide the atoms into sub atomic particles like electrons. You can also divide time into its parts, hours, minutes, seconds, nano seconds. But there is a limit that we can do this. For time you can divide it until you reach 10^-43 seconds and you can divide any length until you reach 10^-35. When you reach this threshold, you can't subdivide time and length anymore (this is called planck time and planck length). Before you reach this threshold, all matter and time obeys classical physical laws as we know and as we experience. We live our daily lives based on these rules. There is gravity for instance. You drop the ball and it drops. If you throw a stone, you can calculate with 100% accuracy where the stone will fall as long as you know all the factors (like resistance, speed etc). This is deterministic. Cause and effect is determined and can be calculated with 100% accuracy.
When you reach the threshold, the physical laws change. The classical physics fails. Quantum laws take place. An electron for instance is below the planck scale and it is a subatomic particle. What is the nature of subatomic particles? Why can't we subdivide them? Because their true nature is probability. When you throw a stone as big as an electron (let's assume such a stone exists), you can never predict where it will land with 100% accuracy - not because we don't have the technology but because the nature of subatomic particles is different. Deterministic laws turn into probabilistic laws when we reach planck scale. We can estimate where the stone will fall but we cannot say with 100% accuracy where it will fall.
Quantum physics also says:
When the electron is observed ( you call this "percieved") it becomes a particle. Its original nature is potentiality (probability to become into a particle) but before the observation it is not there. There is only the potentiality of its existence. When we observe it, it becomes a particle and become part of our everyday reality.
So in its true nature, everything is potentiality until it is observed (percieved). But once the the act of observation is done, then it becomes a matter.
So, when there is a coffee cup on the table, that coffee cup will always be there because it is made of matter. Its electrons, neutrons etc were all observed long time before it became a coffee cup. A coffee cup will not disappear just because we are not looking into it. You cannot undo matter. This is called quantum wave function collapse.
See, this is very close to Buddhist emptiness concept. Emptiness in Buddhism is actually the potentiality or probability of existence as defined in quantum physics. Because there is nothing there it is empty but It is not really empty because there is a probability. Because there is probability, we can always predict where the potential electron will become a particle (we just can't do it with 100% accuracy).
So what bothers me is why there is probability? So throw an electron and you can say it will be in location A with 30% chance, in location B with 40% chance, in location D with 10% chance and in other locations with 20% chance.
Because the probability is not the same in each location, this suggests that there are forces at play that make the B is the most likely location. See what I am saying.
This suggests an intelligent creation of emptiness...yes, you heard me right. Even the emptiness is created intelligently because there are rules in the emptiness. Ok you can call me crazy now! There is only one solution to avoid intelligent creation but I cannot go there because I have a feeling that I lost everyone:)
Yes, when you mentioned her I looked her up and read her little biography. Impressive!
@taiyaki I bet it has. I know it has been for me and I haven't even been able to work closely with any teachers.
That's just the play of the consciousness of sentient beings.
You know how they say in quantum physics how a quantum particle will act a different way when unobserved than when observed, right?
Well, all this relativity is just our mutual co-creation. We are the intelligence behind creation, as a collective, not as a single monistic essence, but just as an inter-connective mass of sentient energy (conscious/subconscious/unconscious) playing as and through the elements.
Abhidharma gets into this.
The brothers Vasubhandu and Asanga, who make up some of the core of Mahayana (along with Nagarjuna) get into the nitty gritty of what you are talking about.
@zen_world I am following you just fine. Please go ahead and explain how you see getting around the intelligent creation. Also, I have thought and read a decent amount about the whole collapse when observed phenomenon and how it relates to buddhist principles. I must say that I constantly encounter people saying that buddhists are misunderstanding this principle. I don't know if it is truly that I don't understand the complex math behind all this, or that they don't understand the principles behind buddhism. Any insights or experience with this?
here's a fun article.
and another one:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704206804575467921609024244.html
I've recently gotten into physics/mtheory. it seems like there is a lot of overlap between buddhism and science.
essentially i think and assert that buddhism is science, but a science of pointing inwards.
fun stuff.
I have been looking at such things as of late. It's funny when it starts to get reflected in one's everday life and one is not trying, it's becoming the norm for me. There is some much wisdom in our path. I have studied Zen, Vajrayana and Theravada Buddhism and am so greatful for and have benefited from their respective teachings. Thanks for the post.
All the best,
Todd