« We have to change | Main | A huge chasm »

December 27, 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Sub-Stance directly means Under-Lying. Even more literally, it means Under-Standing (what stands under).

The Zennist is using Aristotelian terminology to explain Buddhism:

"In classical Aristotelian terminology, a property (proprium) is one of the predicables. It is a non-essential quality of a species (like an accident), but a quality which is nevertheless characteristically present in members of that species (and in no others). For example, "ability to laugh" may be considered a special characteristic of human beings. However, "laughter" is not an essential quality of the species human, whose Aristotelian definition of "rational animal" does not require laughter. Thus, in the classical framework, properties are characteristic, but non-essential, qualities."

Instead of using Greek terminology, we could also use the distinction from the Chinese tradition between 體 and 用. Which I see they translate as Essence and Function, but also as "Body" and "its functions".

Wikipedia extracts this from Miller:

"A tree, a pervasive living metaphor and mythical symbol throughout human cultures and icon of the branching, generation or lineage archetype, is employed as a teaching tool or hermeneutic device for explaining the relationship and operation of Essence-Function where 'Essence' the deep underlying ineffable cause are the "roots", and the 'Function' are the discernible effects, the "branches"."

The greatest question of philosophy was always this: what's the relationship between the Root and the Branches, between Essence and Function?

Each different philosophy is what it is because of the answer it gives to the above question: Platon's methexis, for instance.

Heidegger separated the two radically, and said being(ness) is not equal to being(s). He called this the Ontological Difference.

So are Essence and Function same? Are they not same? Are they both same and not-same? Are they neither same, nor not-same?

"... interpenetration hold that all phenomena are intimately connected; for the Huayan school, Indra's net symbolizes a universe where infinitely repeated mutual relations exist between all members of the universe. This idea is communicated in the image of the interconnectedness of the universe as seen in the net of the Vedic god Indra, whose net hangs over his palace on Mount Meru:

Far away in the heavenly abode of the great god Indra, there is a wonderful net which has been hung by some cunning artificer in such a manner that it stretches out infinitely in all directions. In accordance with the extravagant tastes of deities, the artificer has hung a single glittering jewel in each "eye" of the net, and since the net itself is infinite in dimension, the jewels are infinite in number. There hang the jewels, glittering like stars in the first magnitude, a wonderful sight to behold. If we now arbitrarily select one of these jewels for inspection and look closely at it, we will discover that in its polished surface there are reflected all the other jewels in the net, infinite in number. Not only that, but each of the jewels reflected in this one jewel is also reflecting all the other jewels, so that there is an infinite reflecting process occurring.

thats why there are NO SUCH things as waves

people "scientists" talk endlesssssly about X wave, this wave that wave

waves dont exist, no such NOUN as wave exists, PERIOD

a wave is an attribute/activity OF X.

however there are no such things as waves.

or, translated: quantum physics is BS sophistry

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo