>>11028811 Well, it's somewhat like the ``finger pointing to the moon'': you can't contain the moon

in your finger just like you can't express the Tao with words, because the Tao itself is not a concept, so we can only call it "Tao" or "The Way" to po int to it. Every elaboration on the Tao in this thread is like that. Oh and you can't ``interpret" the Tao, that's missing the point completely. I think there's a post or two about the ``emptiness'' (or ``voidness'') of everything. Basicall y, everything in this universe (1) moves, thus (2) changes constantly. Our minds , on the other hand, try to divide and reduce the world into abstract concepts, and we think using them as representation of the world. Now consider this: we tend to assign identity to things, but (1) in reality that thing we're talking about has already changed (in fact is still changing) into something different, and (2) is there actually a thing like our perception in th e first place? Heisenberg [0] realized that even mere observation changes the ph enomenon, so, is such perfect conception fundamentally possible at all? In fact, we can't determine indentity of anything using abstract concepts. They're just approximate representations we use to understand some aspect the world. They are the fingers. It got even more complicated when we derive new concept from other concepts, since the more abstract a concept is, the more ``things'' it points t o. Sometimes ago I read a guy's elaboration on [spoiler]/prog/[/spoiler] about ` `how to break every argument''. He just asks "define X", "how so", "what is the" ... on and on, until the opponent reached their edge of their fabrication of rea lity, where they have to deconstruct what they have taken for granted their whol e life. Sometimes my very own curiousity led me to such situation. Maybe that's why Koan work: they are there to break your reality and make you look beyond tha t. And this lack of identity is the inherent emptiness (or voidness) of everything: in the end there's no you, no me, no Earth, no Milky Way, no purpose in life, n o General Relativity, no fundamental particles, no Tao, no Dharma, no nothing. B y no mean I (or the masters before us) am against the use of abstract thinking that's what makes us human after all, the point is to be aware of this ``emptin ess". In emptiness, lies usefulness[1]. Without a doubt, human civilization adva nces pretty far by using those ``empty'' concepts: they are one of the most powe rful tools in human's possession. But by being aware of that, you can attain a l ack of attachment to everything, from physical possession to pet theories to pre ference: you can have possession, you can have your favored theory, you can like your favorite 2hu doujin to your heart content, but because you enjoy them for what they are, you don't have any attachment to them[2]. It's by chance that you met, and it's by chance that they're gone. You let them come, you let them go, you don't artificially tie your existences to each other. That's it, essentially , just taking it easy and do what you're doing. Let's again consider water, since it's one of the most carefree thing we know in the world. It can flow, peacefully and gently, it can be tidal waves, powerful and destructive. It can vaporize all the way to become cloud, riding in the wind . It can be frozen, sleeping in sub-273K degree for an almost-eternity. When it flows, it doesn't hold on to any shape and form, it just takes the shape of what it flows through. Is it that water flows in waterways and streams, or is it bec ause water flows, there are waterways and streams? No matter how you look at it, water must be a supreme expert in taking it easy, it just embraces whatever it is going through and doesn't tie itself to anything.[3] The ultimate realization is, however, not just that emptiness. Apparently, it is as >>11024670 said, the ultimate Satori lies in the realization (or perception? I haven't reached Satori so I don't know) that this very emptiness is, recursiv ely, empty[4]. That's the theme of [5], which was the only Sutra I had to learn (in that Zen school I told about before): that is the most essential ``finger'' of all in Buddhism literature, if you don't know anything you can just know this

one. ____________________ [0]: I think you know we're talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenber g_uncertainty_principle . This is not to be confused with the observer effect, h owever. The former is more fundamental in that it requires the observer to be a part of the system, while the latter just addresses the inadequate of technology . I don't remember all the theory since it's been so long, so if you want to tal k about that, go to /sci/. [1]: http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html#11 [2]: This might be the reason why Taoism and Zen Buddhism people are among the m ost open-minded people I know. [3]: Koishi anyone? Someone who shat her consciousness mind down, doesn't have a presence and just come and go like she's part of the nature itself. Looks like Byakuren is right about Koishi being really close to enlightenment. [4]: There are a lot of Koan and paradoxes involving recursion and self-referenc e. Maybe just like what was said in GEB, the key to the life of everything lies in this self-reference. Well, guess that I should go read that book again. [5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81#Prajna-paramita_Sutras . It's hard to make sense of this piece, especially when translated to English. It means something along the line of ``The sutra of perfect wisdom''. It is also the shortest sutra in Buddhism literature, only about 260 words in total. Somet imes I wonder if Byakuren actually skipped this sutra because it seemed so trivi al or something, since she surely couldn't take it as easy as she should be able to. [n]: God damn it /jp/, why the hell is footnote so fun? Just the footnotes alone make writing such a longass and boring post so fucking enjoyable. [n+1]: This is out of our discussion's scope but I feel like I have to mention i t, since it's the embodiment of abstract thoughts after all: formal systems. The most successful ones are mathematics, logics and computation models (Universal Turing Machine, lambda calculus and so on). They are pure abstractions, so abstr act that, as you know, it's actually hard to know how and where we should apply a piece of newly developed pure math. It normally takes years and decades for th em to go from theory to practice.

o /`-.__ / \.'^| o T l * _|-..-|_ O (^ '----' `) I CONJURE THE SPIRITS `\-....-/^ OF MY COMPUTER WITH LISP! O o ) "/ " ( / _( (-) )_ O /\ ) ( /\ / \( ) | \ o o \) ( / \ / |( )| \ / o \ \( / \ __.--' O \_ / .._ \ //|)\ , (_) /(((\^)'\ | | O ) ` | | / o___ / / / _.-''^^__O_^^''-._ / .' / -''^^ ^^''- \--'^ O

.`. `'''----'''^ .`. \ `'--..____..--'^ \ \ / _.-/ \ \ .::'_/^ | | `. .-'| | `-. _.--'` \ / `-. / \ / `-._ `'---..__ `. .`_.._ __ \ ``'''`. .'lisp `'^ `''---'^ `-..______..-' .' /

.'