Many Buddhists, almost as a matter of habit, preach that the Buddha denied a self or atman apart from the Five Aggregates. However, it is actually impossible to find in the Buddha’s discourses where he says this, unambiguously. Often he simply says that each of the Five Aggregates such as material shape or feeling, are not the self (anattâ). Self, therefore, in this respect, is neither material shape, feeling, perception or any of the other aggregates such as habitual tendencies and, even, consciousness. This is somewht akin to Aristotle’s distinction between attributes and substance. An attribute might be hardness or shape, such as the form of a lion cast from gold. In this regard, the shape of the lion belongs to the substance of gold—the substance, on the other hand, never belongs to the attribute. Attributes can change and suffer but the substance or self cannot.
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.
Posted by: Sansiddhah | December 28, 2011 at 02:16 AM
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
Posted by: Java Junkie | December 27, 2011 at 02:47 PM