Is It Real?

I posted this on a list in response to a discussion on philosophy around Wittgenstein. The concept fascinates me and so I'm transplanting it here in the hope of wider discussion and that I might return to it now and again.

----

In Buddhism, there is a lot of teaching around 2500+ year old quantum theory - some of it seems to echo the passages you selected from Wittgenstein. In particular, there is the concept that everything is composed of the things that make it up. This seems so sensible (because I worded it that way) that people accept it. Until it is applied deeply.

In the West, there is a perception that a thing exists inherently. We point at a car and say, "It exists! Step in front of it if you don't believe me!"

In Buddhism, a person might deny it exists. Not that there isn't a phenomenon labeled "car", but that the thing has any inherent existence outside being an effect of its parts. It doesn't exist independently as a thing, but rather simply an an effect of its parts. Remove a part and the car is something else. Language being what it is, we may still apply the label "car", but we are applying it to a different effect now: without the fender, it is a different effect. Close to the old one in our judgment, but undeniably different.

An interesting aside here is that the perception of the viewer is one of the parts. It is that which applies the label and so is an integral part of the identity "car."

Parts change from moment to moment. Thus, the effect they create is changed as well. The car exists for a moment, an atom spins off or a mud splash jumps in, the label is applied to this new combination of parts.

In Buddhism, the pertinence of all this is that the individual is encouraged to question the contribution of his personal filters to this process. Also, acknowledging that all things are in constant transition brings a perspective of transience to both attachments and aversions. Don't expect anything to last forever.

(One application of this which can cause shuddering is that of the Self - the soul or psyche or spirit. It, too, is considered to be an effect of body and mind. A concept created from those parts. Because the self-identity is a huge deal to this ego or Self as a part of its construction, it desperately resists the thought that it might not be permanent. For those who mistakenly identify the ego as the core self rather than as an effect of being alive in a human body, the conflict becomes a defining power in their lives.

There does seem to be a more basic Awareness beyond the busy ego-self, but it, too, is considered to be changing as experience. For there, we would we delve into Buddhist theory of rebirth where this Awareness [energy?] survives the death of form, but not as the individually identified ego or Self of popular Western conception.)

I imagine that Wittgenstein might have been thinking along lines like these? I can't deny that a car means something different to me than it does to someone else. It is appropriate to say that my reality of a car is different from another's. And that might lead to the difference in perspective between the idealist and the realist...?

---

D

Glitter and Lost Simplicity

We love to build elaborate conceptual constructs. We do it unintentionally, sometimes we do it on purpose. Usually we do it to reinforce our own identities. For whatever reasons, though, we take a simple starting point and add layer upon layer of decoration until the beginning is lost in the creation.

In reading about spiritual teachers from history, I notice that they seemed to follow a path noticeably different from those carrying their messages today. Jesus walked amongst the working class, teaching on the side of the road. It seems his Message was more important than the trappings and that he considered the words appropriate for all human beings.

What started so simply has grown, in some cases beyond recognition. Nowadays, priests charged with bringing the same message to the people often wear special clothing and have evolved many new rituals. Where Jesus went to homes or sat beside the road, we now have special buildings - sometimes expensive ones. The message is delivered with flair, during scheduled events, impressively decorated with vaulted ceilings and polished pews.

Spirituality is about human beings. Possessions are superfluous to the message; egoic identity gets in the way. A huge soaring cathedral is not more impressive than the sky, even if I created it. The original teacher spoke of kindness, compassion and human concerns. Would he approve of his spiritual tradition buying buildings rather than homeless shelters? Is a priestly uniform and residence the best way to walk in the original footprints? Should we deliver a message of humility in the soft glow of golden candelabras and coloerful windows?

I'm not knocking the trappings so much as asking if the message is still clear. At one time, it was about the straying lamb, a compassionate hand extended to each person encountered. The goal seemed to be to help the individual attain spiritual clarity. Simple, straightforward discovery offered to people. Maybe it's still there, beneath all the trappings, but it certainly seems harder to see.

When I see the priest, I see the spiritual tradition of Jesus brought forward 2,000 years, but with many changes. After all, the original was OK for its time, but we need progress, right?

D

David Carradine: Kwai Chang Caine

King Fu remains an inspiration to me despite all the hype around Carradine's death. I got the series on DVD for Christmas of 2007 and I still haven't watched them all from that because I only fit it in when I am in a nostalgic mood and sitting by the TV. It seems to be like having something to look forward to for special occasions.

For me, Carradine's (and Lee's) character Kwai Change Caine portrayed an excellent balance between the Buddhist commitment to compassion and the fundamental principles of self-defence common to all living organisms. What I saw was a man who dedicated his life to a thinking philosophy and to behaving according to that philosophy. Unlike most humans who seem to try to balance contradictory positions between high ideals and material pleasures or fears, Kwai Chang faced the moral challenge head-on and so walked the talk.

Carradine's death was tragic. I don't use that word lightly and I realize the use represents a subjective viewpoint. Many have not even heard of him and, if shown an episode of Kung Fu, would likely see only an outdated soap opera filled with staged martial arts. I have no problem with that - this is a personal interpretation. For me, though, Carradine was an artist and his work inspired me.

Kwai Chang stayed in the background of my thoughts after the show ended in 1975 and his philosophy was likely a factor in my own decision to change some major parts of my life around 1990, which set me on a new course where I am still going strong today. Years later, as I practice Aikido, work out with Hatha Yoga, sit in zazen and study Buddhist psychology, that quiet Shaolin monk still walks beside me with his worn working man's clothing and simple possessions, lending me his smile to share with people I pass.

Actors have the opportunity to touch many lives in their work. It is easy to forget that they are not their characters. Carradine was a human being with his own life to live and he died the death he did, which is simple reality and neither good nor bad. If, during my own time here, I can touch one life in the way he touched mine, I will be blessed.

Sorry - didn't mean this to turn into a eulogy! At least one person has seemed to think that the circumstances of his death may ruin the previous impact he had on me. Guess it weighed on my mind!

D