Nothingness, Science & Perception

[cathutch]

Hey, Sunsoul, let's forget about the all thing and start on a new basis, would you?.
People who are in the Noble search can't be in oppostion, can they?.

Cordially.

[cathutch]

Originally Posted by Gem

My most fundamental agreement would be that there is a clear distinction between what is Purusha and what is Prakrati.

Absolutely!
Two irreducible, innate and independent realities.

That is why I said in the previous post that you might have missed (for we are writting at the same time:
In Nature, "There is nothing that is not a "that" and nothing that is not a "this". The "nothing" of Purusha and the "nothing" of Prakriti°. And as soon that there is the distinction from aggregation, there is the production of something (with the unavoidable dichotomy).

[sunsoul]

PS I also fail to see how discussing Samkhya philosophy and distinct concepts like purusha and prakriti in the Buddhist forum on 'nothingness' has any relevance, and can also be confusing for newbies.

If comparisons are to be made they should be either be properly contextualised or not made (i.e. stick to Buddhist terms).

[cathutch]

Originally Posted by sunsoul

confusing for newbies.

I wished newbies could read about the relationship between Samkhya and Buddhism, before they got into Buddhism. And the Upanishads as well. I would let them skip Vedas and Nyaya.

Please read this Asvaghosha's Buddhacarita excerpt (Buddhacarita is the first ever account on Buddhism in litterature by an Indian brahman converted to Buddhism): bit.ly/1qBRu9T
You will understand that Buddha did draw much of his philosophy from Samkhya and that he perfected it; by skiping some concepts and adding some.
You will understand why, when Buddha says "this is not my self", he speaks about Purusha.
Buddha agreed with Samkhya up to the point where he saw the need to get rid of the Self, as much as getting rid of Prakriti (the phenomenal realm,) and their common creation (aggregate) that is Nature and its sorrowful outcome.

Getting rid of ALL qualities.

You cannot understand Buddhism if you don't know the path that Indian thoughts took before Buddha. As much as you cannot understand western philosophy if you don't read about the presocratic, Socrates, Plato, soon and so forth.
There is not "A Book", and nothing else. There is a flow of thoughts, that aggregated in the best outcome; and from there (that is my opinion,) started decay and the ignoble search; as in tantrism.

[sunsoul]

Originally Posted by cathutch

You will understand then why, when Buddha says "this is not my self", he speaks about Purusha.

This is a gigantic leap on your side. I know you like to see some parallels with Indian philosophy, which of course exist, but non-self has really nothing to do with purusha, which can be translated as soul, great self, or universal principle.

Purusha is also said to be unchanging, eternal and indestructible. It doesn't really correspond to core Buddhist teachings on impermanence.

[cathutch]

Originally Posted by sunsoul

which of course exist

Are you dead? Buddhism is purely Indian philosophy. It comes from the flow of thoughts that started with Veda.
So it is not like "I like to see some parallels," as you state it; It is a continuity in the Indian philosophical search that attained its maturity in Buddhism.

non-self has really nothing to do with purusha

Again western philosophy intruding the Indian mind.
It is not Non-Self as the opposite of Self, as westerners sees it. It is What IS NOT Self; namely what has no commonality with Purusha (or Atman if you want - same thing).
Anatta is not some counterpart of Atman (the sort of voidness (nothingness) out of this world, dear to the western mind)* - some kind of God OR Nothing; it is WHAT IS NOT Atman, in the sense of ANYTHING THAT HAS NO COMMON ATTRIBUTES with Atman.
So for instance, if power is not an attribute of Purusha; then it is Anatta.

*Voidness is part of this world in Indian philosophy. It is of the realm of the unmanifested, but part of Nature.

which can be translated as soul, great self, or universal principle.

Who cares how it is named for we must get rid of it.
And NO! - Soul is Ksetrjña; and that you would know reading Samkhya.
And Self is not Ahamkara either, as most people tend to put it.
And "universal principle" is something that you get at the local lodge, or in syncretic religion like Christianity (or both).

The confusion comes from the misinterpretation of terms; and that was a reason why Samkhya went to the rescue of the Upanishadic "mess" in the first place. And bloody westerners are bringing it back, and they complain about endless speculations. Sure you are going to speculate, if you don't know what you are talking about in the first place. It is going to be an endless exercise of style with the wrong tools.

Purusha is also said to be unchanging, eternal and indestructible.

This is the difference with Buddhism.

Buddhism is not Samkhya; but many people should read Samkhya (or the Upanishads - less evident) so they would grasp the real "Indian" meanings they try desperatly to fit with their western counterpart concepts.
Like a westerner should learn about what are "categories" before they dive into western philosophies. Otherwise, it is the door open to the endless speculations of the ignorant; trying to play "knowledgable". There is a great difference between knowledge and undestanding. And tha lastest is not proportional to the amount of the former.

Cathutch,

I think there was a bit of an error of interpretation. Since I risk fooling you further with more and more intellectually self-indulgent talk, this will be my last post on this topic:

Based on Chuang Tzu's statement that "nothing can be opposite to 'that and this' ", Hydrogen and Oxygen aren't quite descriptive. We can use what we were talking before: "let 'this' be something, let 'that' be nothing. Is there anything opposite to 'something and nothing'? 'Something and nothing' is a unity, the way things actually exist. Have you ever seen pure something and pure nothing? Neither thing actually exists! Nor is the universe a combination of something and nothing, as if both things sat in a cosmic refrigerator and were mixed in a blender to create the universe.

In my mind, however, I could break the unity of existence into "something" and "nothing" and then categorize them further into "these things", "those things" and "nothing" with no end. However, the root of enlightenment is opening one's eyes to see the unity. Once one sees the unity, then one realizes that concepts can be used, but have no reality in themselves to be pondered.

Best Wishes,
-TaoSandwich

[cathutch]

Originally Posted by TaoSandwich

"let 'this' be something, let 'that' be nothing

Again that western mind intruding the eastern one and trying to complicate something simple.
"something OR nothing"
"God OR Nothingness"
see my remark about anatta to sunsoul.

Nothing is; and not something good for the eastern mind. It belongs to the realm of Nature. A compounded living thing (that will die also,) to which is attached sorrow.

So yeah; 'Something and nothing' is a unity. But we don't grasp that concept the same way. For nothing is something for me (and that is why I liked the article in nautil.us.) Nothing has all the attributes of Something. It is not the "anatta" of Something. It is just the primeval quality of the monad called Prakriti (that we must get rid of).
Anyway, I guess if I can perceive it, as Buddha did, (and I didn't make it yet,) I think it must be someThing.

Originally Posted by TaoSandwich

"enlightenment is opening one's eyes to see the unity"

I guess that is what the venerable master of the lodge would tell me, trying to "fool me".

Personaly, I go for what Buddha said to Ananda at the end of his conversation, namely, we must get rid of all qualities, even numbers. Duality and unity all together.
(Bhuddadamn symbols!)

Cheers.


I want neither life, nor death; for they are the byproducts of this world; full of sorrow.
I head for the unknown; for the great adventure. And who cares what it is, for the Dhamma proves it good; all the way on the path to freedom.

Originally Posted by cathutch

Personaly, I go for what Buddha said to Ananda at the end of his conversation, namely, we must get rid of all qualities, even numbers. Duality and unity all together.

You've got it!

Best Wishes,
-TaoSandwich

[cathutch]

Originally Posted by TaoSandwich

You've got it!

Oh, thank you!