January 20, 2010
- Buddha on the Insubstantial -
“Bhikkhus, form is impermanent; that which is impermanent is suffering; that which is suffering is insubstantial (anatta); that which is insubstantial is not mine, I am not that, that is not my substance. Thus must this be viewed with perfect insight as it really is” (S. iii. 45).
So is this how you already see things or are you trying to convince yourself that this is true?
Comment by Ted — January 20, 2010 @ 5:43 pm
I’ve been reading Rupert Sheldrake’s book on Morphic resonance. Form is a really hard thing for science to explain. Its much easier to describe somethings mass and energy, but you can destroy the form of something and that won’t change.
As far morphogenesis goes people just think the genes do it, but none of the Orthodox Scientists really know exactly how that happens.
So to me its not hard to accept that my nature is that I am energy and that my form is not really me. Some aspect of me is permanent and its not my form.
I also think that our form is influenced by the day we are born. Its like we are a snapshot of what was going on in the galaxy at the time. That is the basis of astrology and numerology.
Comment by Ted — January 20, 2010 @ 6:20 pm
Not sure, though its a good question. I can think my way into, and see that it makes sense, but its not how I experience reality moment to moment, no. I very much subscribe to “form is no other than emptiness, emptiness no other than form, form is exactly emptiness, emptiness exactly form” of the Prajana Paramita Sutra, and I think form is really only a convenient shortcut for us, a sort of after-image of reality that’s right often enough that we don’t really notice when its wrong.
Yeah, that makes a kind of sense. We absorb life so quickly when we’re young that the time/space we’re born into and what follows in the first few months can certainly have a lasting impression on us. And there’s no reason to assume that the forces that move the planet and the galaxies around wouldn’t have some effect on us as well.
Comment by Ian — January 21, 2010 @ 3:03 pm