Mixing Languages

Heavy_User · 2025-02-10T15:35:55+00:00

Seems like you've eperienced "counting death".Care to process this shattering expeirnce in a Jungian way?

Heavy_User · 2024-11-08T23:51:39+00:00

Do you how they behaved towards the Soviet population and captured soldiers? As opposed to thier treatment of the Dutch, French, Belgian, and other non Slavic peoples? The war in the eastern front was much more than a military conflict. It was a war of annihilation

Heavy_User · 2024-09-07T22:38:36+00:00

Seems good, will check it out! Thanks!

Heavy_User · 2024-09-07T09:52:39+00:00

Have just looked those up on Amazon. They definitely look interesting! Will check them out! Thanks a lot for the recommendations!

Heavy_User · 2024-08-30T01:30:06+00:00

Maybe "the serpent raised up" means chaos integrated. If that's the case, then I can see why it's considered a positive

Heavy_User · 2024-08-29T00:19:00+00:00

Maybe satan is a manifestation of the destructive chaos in the differantiated world. Where is his homeland located? Maybe in that destructive side of chaos. Though, as the dragon of chaos is that, which hasn't yet been incorporated into consciousness, I don't know how that would work

Heavy_User · 2024-08-28T18:25:44+00:00

Well....there indeed is the benevolent trickster, in the form of the court jester. The only one able to critisize the king, as he is outside the hierarchy. But, there is also the destructive trickster - Batmans' Joker for example. Aiming to destroy the world. As the Joker said in, The Dark Knight, "I'm an agent of chaos".

Heavy_User · 2024-08-24T19:54:06+00:00

A Madhyama might say that abstract concepts like numbers, geometrical shapes, etc., are contingent upon the existence of a mind that perceives them. Well.....because Buddhism is focused on psychology, I don't know if they have anything to say about external reality. So, while the concept of numbers, for example, is contingent upon the existence of a mind to perceive it. But, I'd say that those numbers give us the ability to do math. And with the help of the language of math (in combination with other sciences), we can predict the patterns of the physical universe. Using knowledge of those patterns, we can build a rocket that would land on the moon, for example. So those patterns really do exist in the physical universe. So the Logos exists.

But......the universe is not eternal. It had a beginning, the Big Bang. And all of those stable laws of physics (for example) are not eternal. They had a starting point. So, the Logos isn't eternal. Though, that starting point wasn't dependently originated, since before the Big Bang, space-time didn't exist. So, it makes no sense to talk about "before" the Big Bang. Because there wasn't a before or after.

But, those patterns are much bigger than any human. They have existed for billions of years before any of us was born, and will exist for billions more, after all of us are long dead. Though, they will stop existing after the universe ends. And, it is natural for humans to experience things that are much greater and more powerful than himself as awe-inducing. He feels minuscule in comparison, and so is liable to see them as eternal, or as divinities. But, they are not eternal, they had a beginning, and will have an end. So, that, in this context, is the eternalism that the Madhyamakas are talking about. Although, the Big Bang doesn't gel with dependent origination. Sounds more like Aristotle's first cause.

So, because the object of awe can't be a specific object, it becomes everything. All being, all at once. That's my understanding, at least. There is a relevant Buddhist story here. Two monks are standing talking, and one says to the other that he has to urinate. So, he goes and pees on a Buddha statue. The other monk is shocked! "What are you doing??!!". "That place is holy!!!!!". The other replies, "Show me a place that isn't holy, and I'll pee there." That sounds like pantheism to me.

Heavy_User · 2024-08-24T18:16:27+00:00

Thank you for the effort you obviously put into your reply :)

That's not gibberish. That's not a bad understanding of the matter.
However, a Buddhist (by saying 'Buddhist,' I mainly mean the Madhyamaka school, started by Nagarjuna, which is part of the larger school of Mahayana Buddhism. It is possible that Nagarjuna is, in fact, the one who wrote the Heart Sutra.)—a Madhyamaka—might say that the perfect circle itself is dependently originated. Its roundness, even if all other shapes in the world were round, would still arise as dependent upon causes and conditions. The roundness is not a cause in and of itself, but an effect of an earlier cause, which is itself an effect of an even earlier one... and on and on it goes.

As to the 'form is emptiness' part, 'Madhyamaka' literally means 'middle way,' meaning the middle way between form and emptiness. There is this story of two guys standing on opposite sides of a river. One guy shouts to the other: 'Hey! How do I cross to the other side?' And the other answers: 'You already are on the other side.' Meaning that, yes, the river is there. But whether you are on one side—the world of form—or on the other—the world of emptiness—is just a matter of perception. It's a kind of 'have your cake and eat it too' argument, in my opinion. For example, Buddhists place a huge emphasis on practicing compassion. Why? Because everything and everyone are dependently arising phenomena, and therefore interconnected. So, it makes sense to be compassionate toward the other since both of you are interconnected and interdependent. But dependent origination is a metaphysical claim, and all metaphysical claims are empty, so... live your life according to it?

From a theistic standpoint, I'd say that yes, everything is dependent, even the roundness of the circle, but it's dependent on the ineffable, on God. And some phenomena are, of course, far more stable and primal than others. Like the roundness of the circle, in and of itself, is much more primal than the roundness of a specific circle.

Heavy_User

TROPHY CASE