Interbeing in the small world and in the world of monastics

I know, you shouldn't mix up the quantum world with "our" world.
But Rovelli, the theoretical physicists, seems to do it. He anyway describes the quantum world in this way;
"Quantum mechanism teaches us not ti think about the world in terms of `things` which are in this or that state but in terms of `processes`instead. A process is the passage from one interaction to another. The properties of  `things`manifest themselves in a granular manner only in the moment of interaction, that is to say, at the edges of the processes and are such only in relation to other things.....an electron is nowhere when it is not interacting"

(from the book Reality is not what it seems)


Yesterday I met five monastics in the Buddhist tradition of Thich Nhat Hanh.
They gave us lay people meditations and we shared some questions to them.

In the eyes of Rovelli and Buddha, we all interacted, even when we meditated.
Maybe some of us lay people meditated in a deeper way than some of the monastics, so we helped each other from both directions.

It was easy to see that they also where different personalities and they also explained that there could be difficult to relate to  some other members in the community.
So of course its about interaction even there.


But doesnt it seems like a person has some kind of character that follow him/her through the life?
Maybe - but is it really that that holds us together?

Who is really Trump, who is really me?
What holds us together?

What about time - is time not the destroyer, but also the one that brings in the new?


In meditation all this questions disappear.

But if they reincarnate Julian Barbour  (another physicists) may have some answers in the end of this discussion:















Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Cora Diamond on eating animals - with the help of Wittgenstein´s ideas

Image
Cora Diamond is a new name for me, even if she has worked as a professor in Philosophy in the states for a long time and is still  teaching at the university of Virginia, even she is over 80 years old. She has written a lot about Wittgenstein and that has helped her to express her view of the topic. Although she, like Wittgenstein,  has lived in a hut in Norway - and actually brought Tractatus with hes - she seems to be different and for sure more glad than W. Anyways, its W: s writings that interests her and especially his critics of metaphysics and ethics in philosophy. As it is said in Tractacus  : " Whereof one  cannot speak , thereof one must be silent." And of ethics philosophy should not speak - why? Is it like in Buddhism - its better to sit in silence and let know yourself, than to speculate about what will happen when we die? But for sure there ethical guidelines in Buddhism,  but the behaviors is often named skilful, not good (or bad). Another
Read more

I think, therefore I am NOT

Image
So Descartes was wrong. He said that he could doubt everything about himself except that he was thinking. That proved that he existed. The word "I" is the central point here. What does it mean? Perhaps we are sure that we know the answer. Is it the thoughts? In that case - where are you when you aren't thinking? Is it your job, your title? In that case - what happens if you loose your job or change job? Is it your house, your nation? Under my course to be a mindfulness instructor, the teacher, Ola Schenström, made us ask to each other; "Who are you?" After each answer the question was repeated by the questioner.We soon discovered that there were no end to the answers - or maybe an adequate end could be; "I don't know."Or maybe; "It seems I have no essence." Other thinkers have come to the same conclusions; Buddha, Sartre and more recently Damasio and Parfit. Sartre, for instance, has said that we are the sum of our actions. We ha
Read more

Wittgenstein and Buddha -buddies?

Image
Ludwig Wittgenstein, the famous philosopher, reflected in the posthumously published  book "Philosophical Investigations" about the picture above; Is it a hare or duck?  He meant that we make, or must make, a statement what it is. And I suppose he meant that we often or always has to interpret the world around us. But two different interpretations can both be right! Language and thoughts controls what we see.....   You can compare with the picture of a glass. Half empty or half empty?  Who decides? Yes, it's you... And whatever you say is right.  But you can be aware of what you think. That can say more of yourself than of the glass....  You can be aware of that you always do interpretations of things that happens.  If you have a pessimistic or a naive point of view, you can be aware of the view and your statements.  Buddha and Wittgenstein were both aware of that different persons uses different perspectives.  But Buddha spoke about the "right 
Read more