May 28, 2008
Just A Sec
HOURGLASS NEBULA
I wrote:
“In the Soka Gakkai Dictionary of Buddhist terms it states:
“In the "Life Span" chapter, Shakyamuni revealed his attainment of Buddhahood numberless major world system dust particle kalpas in the past. No matter how far in the past, however, it occurred at a fixed point in time and therefore is not eternal.” Uh, no, that’s not “fixed”. That’s “infinite” and just one of the meanings of “numberless”. But “fixed” is not one of them.”
A good friend of mine pointed out to me that contextually, I was wrong. “Numberless” can mean “infinite” but it can also mean “too numerous to be counted” but that doesn’t necessarily have to imply infinity. There are numberless stars, but they are so because there isn’t enough time to count them all for a myriad of reasons; the life span of the tabulators is one; the constant changing in the actual number of stars for another. But let’s say we ground up the entire cosmos into particles. From the current theory of the big bang creation of what we call our universe, it’s finite. “Time” didn’t exist until things started to change. Kaboom! Conjoined with the word “attainment”, which also denotes time by a change from one state to another and therefore not eternal, this particular statement about a fixed point in time, even though relatively improbable to actually pin point, is absolutely plausible.
I was wrong. This hasn’t happened to me in numberless major world system dust particle kalpas. But it seems like only yesterday. As Groucho says, “Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.”
Posted by joeisuzu at May 28, 2008 08:52 PMI'm not sure what your point is, but the Big Bang theory does not say the Universe is finite.
Posted by: Vanya at May 28, 2008 09:39 PMYou have a point. If it were an infinite time in the past, since Shakyamuni attained Buddhahood, all beings would be converted [because the Buddha would have already encountered all beings over and over] and there would be nothing left to do. If it were truly infinite since Shakyamuni attained Buddhahood their would be no Original Buddha or first Buddha to have realized Myoho renge kyo. Original too denotes a beginning. One could say that delusions are infinite, always predate Buddhahood, and that they [delusions] are the cause for Buddhahood. If Buddhahood was infinite, there wouldn't have been a first being to realize Myoho renge kyo and many would have realized it on their own. You have proved the Kempon Hokke perspective. You have given a rational for the Buddha's, Nichiren's and our deep reverence for Shakyamuni Buddha.
Mark
Posted by: Mark Rogow at May 28, 2008 10:27 PMVanya,
Yes and no. The big bang is the model for the expansion of the universe, not the existence of matter. This singularity started at a moment which cannot be measured only estimated but it's .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 of a second into the bang. And yeah, I read that in a book. As Einstien showed, time as we perceive it is an illusion. Absolute time does not exist. One suggestion or possibility is that there was an infinitely long, or indefinitely long period of nothing prior to the 'big bang'. However, the newly emerging Membrane Theory (a theory developed out of string theory) offers interesting possibilities. For one thing it offers some explanations for the behavior of gravity that are difficult to explain without it, and it also suggests that our universe is really a membrane (like a flexible, bumpy skin, or plane). It doesn't look like a membrane to us, because we can't see it from the perspective of Quantum Mechanics. These membranes (it is theorized) bump into one another from time to time, and when they do--- there is a Black Hole, and the formation of a new universe. So this suggests the possibility that there in fact never has been 'nothing', nor will there ever be.
Cultures have creation myths in the context of the dominant thought system and all previous cultures on earth have collapsed. The dominant thought system today is science, which is the flip-side of mono-theism on the duality coin. Now we have the big bang theory (the name comes from a flippant remark by a theorist who was deriding the concept) and string theory (of which there are as many versions as there are string theorists) and the bookshelves are groaning with new editions by scientists who can translate math into something Oprah can understand. I'm a big fan of Membrane Theory, especially the well-lubed Mucous Membrane school, based on the MMMMM-Doctrine and Lie-3 (I'll respect you in the morning). Ask KatRama about Matrix Energetics, then sit back and hang on!
But seriously folks, it's like the Veil of Maya, whereby as you approach this illusory barrier its surface becomes increasingly complex in detail until, at the moment of passing through, you see the warp and woof of the weave and pass on into another world. At the twilight of the machine age our scientists, our high priests, are able to slice and dice the building blocks of creation with theoretical tools like time and space and math, put them into a cyclotron blender and exclaim, "Eureka, I'm going to get an extension on my grant!".
When all is said and done, we common mortals have to take it on faith just like the Indian Medicine Man asked about the beginning of the world. "The world rests on the turtle's back" he replied. "What does that turtle rest on?" "Another turtle." "And what does that one rest on?" "It's turtles all the way down".
By the way, the concept of "nothing" is central to Buddhism. Actually, we have "nothing" in common. I prefer the word "emptiness", for me it's richer for contemplation. I think that what western science and religion/philosophy have been missing is the inclusion of emptiness in the equations. Buddhism has been talking about "non-existence" since its inception. It's only in the last 100 years that science has had to do a major back pedal and come up with "energy from a vacuum" and "dark matter" to make the math work and account for all the energy/mass in the universe. It's only recently that science, especially biology, has been using scales of reference of the awe-full magnitude we find in the Lotus Sutra.
"Reality is an illusion, albeit a very persistent one" Einstein.
"Cultures have creation myths in the context of the dominant thought system and all previous cultures on earth have collapsed. The dominant thought system today is science, which is the flip-side of mono-theism on the duality coin."
Science is systematic study of the structure and behavior of observable phenomena. It's not a thought system in the context you stated but a system of thinking. Theories produced by science remain so until either proven correct or false. Which brings us to the word you used "faith" as in "When all is said and done, we common mortals have to take it on faith". In the mono-theistic world, or even a poly-theistic one, faith means belief in something that cannot be proven, or worse, regardless of the facts against it. That's not science. Faith in science, in this sense, is an oxymoron.
But the question you posed where did the last "Yertle" come from, is the one that can't be answered and the one mankind has always asked unless prohibited by the dominant belief system which imposes it's "faith" upon it.
I love "we have nothing in common"! Now that's funny! Too cool for school.
Posted by: joe at May 29, 2008 04:27 PMWhat's the difference between a thought system and a system of thinking?
Unfortunately, the word "faith" has been co-opted by certain forces of the dominant culture to apply to things no rational person can possibly accept. For me, faith is about recognizing truths in things I don't fully understand. I think it was Neils Bohr who said that anyone who says they understand Quantum Mechanics, doesn't understand Quantum Mechanics. So what noun do you use do describe the application of the scientific method based on quantum theory that nobody understands? Belief is way too dicey a prospect for me, very easy to manipulate though often to our personal advantage. I think I have the faith of a farmer or star navigator, a faith in awe and chaos, rhythm and sequence, and OSX.
I'm greatly encouraged by the works of Richard Dawkins, Hitchens and Sam Harris (who has some positive things to say about Buddhism). I've been an atheist, blasphemer, agnostic, anarchist . . . whatever, since I stole a book by Bertrand Russell out of the small town library when I was a twelve year old altar boy. I guess it's a personal choice whether one can have "faith" in science. That system of thinking, with its self proclaimed lock on "truth" certainly has its shortcomings. The Church once had a lock on truth and life without god is still incomprehensible to most people. Faith and belief-in-god are not inseparable, but perhaps this is a futile linguistic exercise. Is the Dalai Lama faithless?
Look for my forthcoming essay, "Tales of the Last Yertle" coming to a blog near you soon. All will be revealed, my son, including why some turds float.
Verses on folly, faith and fantasy
Great Caesar saw what we still find
In much of modern humankind,
That wishful thinking will suppress
The reason we should all possess.
Take health. That is a main concern.
We look for cures at every turn
For sicknesses that cause unease
And nasty things that bring disease.
But from the science of the age
Too many now will disengage,
Forget the studies, evidence
Of remedies that will dispense
A tested way of healing those
Conditions doctors diagnose.
They say they’ve lost their confidence
In science, and have a preference
For substances that they perceive
Fit in with what they all believe
In nature’s realm of field and flowers,
Along with supernatural powers
Or energies that ebb and flow
And are released by those who know
The proper touch or breath or spell
For proper paying clientele.
And other forms of therapy
Like healing touch they all agree
Despite their failure to explain
Result in easing of their pain.
For grave conditions that could kill
It’s nature’s bounty fills the bill,
From goats a serum crushes AIDS
And grape juice makes Altzheimers fade,
Red clover makes the blood come clean
And sugar pills become routine
As remedies for things they feel
They cannot count on science to heal.
And substances that they produce
To cure complaints or pain reduce
They say they must dilute and then
Dilute, dilute, dilute again
Because the less you have, not more
Will guarantee a better cure.
(Conclusions such as this imply
There’s no attempt to reason why.)
And quite impervious they stay
To anything their critics say
About placebos and effects
That challenge rational intellects.
Their gurus sanction their belief
That things they give them bring relief
From anything they want to try,
(Because the more they wish, they buy)
If people give them hope and say
That black is white, then that’s OK.
But there’s the rub – for harm can come
By seeing this as rule of thumb
For if you disregard the facts
That science tells, then this detracts
From treatments that show evidence
Of beneficial consequence.
More harm than good can come to those
Rejecting treatments that propose
Results that doctors can compile
Which don’t depend upon a smile
Or harmony with sundry forces
Brought to bear by doubtful sources.
So those who wish upon a star
Or herb or potion in a jar
To grant relief from ache or pain
Could well decide to think again
And weigh the chances that desire
Not reason is what we require
To make us well when we succumb
To ailments that are troublesome.
For wishful thoughts beguile the mind
But leave reality behind.
"What's the difference between a thought system and a system of thinking?"
Okay, I was being too picky about context.
Funny you mention that about Harris. I was at a debate between Harris and Chris Hedges at UCLA when Hedges referred to Harris in what was meant to be detrimental in "and your Buddhist ideas."
Posted by: joe at May 29, 2008 06:44 PMHi Joe, JC, and Clown:
Very interesting discussions. Robin stated today, he was an empiricist. I've seen people cured of disease that all their doctors including myself said were incurable, from Jamaican Bush tea, to excercize, to illogical homeopathic remedies, to holy water from Lourdes. Both actual proof and introspection will enable us to arrive at the solutions for that which ails us, whether birth, old age, illness or death or delusions a greater about the nature of the individual, society, or the phenomenal world. I think Einstein propounded a concept of rational intuition, that when you struggle so hard to resolve a problem, the answer comes out of the depths of the mind. As someone stated, "the world is ailing" and I don't see any solution other than the Lotus Sutra. However, much of the world of Lotus Sutra Buddhism is in conflict with the very principles propounded in the Lotus Sutra itself and by it's Supreme Votary, The Sangha is in disarray.
As insignificant as I am, I have made it my life's mission to unite the Sangha and the time for this is now. We can not wait any longer. The world is waiting and the time is now.
I have posted a Buddhist challenge on my blog in an effort to unite us, not to me and my way of thinking [because I have already sublimated my manner of reading the Sutra to Nichiren's manner] but to unite each and everyone of us under the banner of the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren. I see no hope that Buddhist debate will resolve this most serious of problems because even the Great Shonin, Honda Nissho, despite winning his debate with the Taisekaji priests, almost a hundred years ago, did not succeed in uniting the sects. I beieve that only through actual proof will one succeed in uniting "Nichiren Buddhists." True Lotus Sutra and Nichiren Buddhism is the last best hope for mankind and united, our grandchildren, possibly even our children, have a chance to experience the Land of Eternal Quiescent Light.
Mark, disciple of Shakyamuni Buddha and Nichiren Daishonin.
Posted by: Mark Rogow at May 30, 2008 04:03 AMHi Mark,
I think you are confusing Einstein with Edison. Edison claimed to work on problems and then solved them by intuition. I consider him to have been a charlatan who gathered most of what he had by cheating and having more money for crooked lawyers than the people who's ideas he stole.
What Einstein called intuition was more what we call "thinking outside the box.
http://www.mtnmath.com/book/node39.html
"...Sam Harris (who has some positive things to say about Buddhism).."
Boy is that misleading. He talks about counting your breath, and tuning out the world, but not in terms of religion, I better watch what you say for now on, you are a spinner of words.
Maltz
Posted by: Bruce Maltz at June 6, 2008 01:45 AM