Cari Alex e Stan, Cari Tutti,
condivido pienamente l'espistemologica impostazione filosofico-scientifica
di Alex e la logico-matematica insiemistica e/o la "gerarchia della
sussunzione in evoluzione" di Stan. Comunque, il riduzionismo non appaga nè
Un abbraccio collettivo alla rete Fis.

2016-05-01 0:38 GMT+02:00 Alex Hankey <>:

> It is good to see the discussion developing into deep considerations of
> the history (histories?) of the metaphysical understanding of the nature of
> the self, the soul, and the world(s) of experience, including the material
> universe in which it finds itself.
> I do not claim to have any great expertise in understanding Nagarjuna's
> approach, but we have to realise that both he and the great exponent of
> Vedanta, Adishankara, also known as Shankaracharya (meaning teacher of
> liberation), are said to have used almost identical formulations, albeit
> with a different emphasis. While Nagarjuna used the concept of emptiness as
> the foundation, Adishankara stayed within the traditional Vedic scheme
> where 'fullness' or completeness / wholeness is regarded as fundamental.
> While it is certainly true that to experience the 'self' clearly, all
> mental content has to allowed to settle down and fade away (one aspect of
> 'Chitta Vritti Nirodha', a definition of Yoga) the condition for
> maintaining that stably is that the subtle energy, prana (life-breath),
> should be enlivened fully, which is why the enlivenment (ayama) of prana
> i.e. pranaayama (normal spelling pranayama, in which the long 'a' is not
> explicitly emphasised) is a fundamental Yoga exercise, usually practised
> before meditation (Dhyana) practices in which the mind moves to its empty
> state (samadhi). As can be seen, increasing the prana (life-energy) to a
> state of fullness is thus an integral part of attaining a stable state of
> pure consciousness (samadhi).
> It is the fullness of the state of prana that stabilizes the mind from
> influences that might bring it out of samadhi. In particular, various
> emotions can block the flows of subtle energies (several websites explain
> this in detail e.g. Google on acupuncture meridians - emotions). Fullness
> of prana is thus considered equivalent to emotional stability, which
> requires balanced positive emotions and feelings.
> Both Nagarjuna and Adishankara are then concerned with how it is that
> all-that-exists emerges from the original absolute. Nagarjuna evidently
> shows that all things including all sentient beings have a 'dependent'
> existence - they do not exist in and of themselves. Adishankara on the
> other hand uses Vedic physics and metaphysics to trace how they emerge at
> various levels of perception. The essence of his argument is to show how
> the mental sensory apparatus came from the original source / Absolute, and
> thus how all objects of sensation can be traced back there.
> In modern terms, all things we have ever experientially encountered are
> quantum fields, and all quantum fields seem to have emerged from the Big
> Bang via the process of symmetry breaking at its source - the inflationary
> process. But symmetry breaking is an instability, and when one inspects the
> information states that that instability supports, they turn out to have a
> similar structure to O=======>, the one proposed in the material that was
> distributed.
> I feel that the role and significance of instabilities in the physical
> world, particularly life processes, has not been adequately expounded and
> that we may only be beginning to understand them.
> I hope this helps.
> Alex
> On 30 April 2016 at 08:18, steven bindeman <> wrote:
>> I hope the following passage I’ve written on Nagarjuna will be of use for
>> this discussion on the nature of self. The passage is from a manuscript
>> I’ve just completed on silence and postmodernism.
>> Nagarjuna’s thinking is deeply conversant with silence and with the use
>> of paradox as well. For him, contradictory things are never “either/or,”
>> but are always “both/and.” Refusing to choose between opposing metaphysical
>> problems, he would recommend responding through silence instead. For an
>> example of his reductive reasoning process, consider the following:
>> Whatever is dependently co-arisen
>> That is explained to be emptiness.
>> That, being a dependent designation,
>> Is itself the middle way.
>> Something that is not dependently arisen
>> Such a thing does not exist.
>> Therefore a nonempty thing
>> Does not exist.
>> Nagarjuna is criticizing the common paradoxical occurrence that when we
>> attribute abstract concepts (“something that does not dependently exist”)
>> like emptiness to the status of “reality” (like we do with the Platonic
>> forms), then they seem to be applicable to everything, while on the other
>> hand when we emphasize instead the individual uniqueness and particularity
>> of any one thing (“whatever is dependently co-arisen”), this emphasis makes
>> it impossible to  categorize its likeness with other things. Nagarjuna’s
>> point is that the abstract concept of emptiness and the concrete nature of
>> any particular empty thing are in fact codependent. He calls this
>> codependency “Conditioned Arising.” His “middle way” resolves the paradox
>> by viewing neither the abstract idea nor the concrete thing as having a
>> separate reality — both instead are characterized as “‘thought
>> constructions’ founded on experience.’ As such, they are not absolutely
>> real or absolutely unreal. …This middle path could thus be adopted in
>> understanding all forms of experience, whether they be linguistic, social,
>> political, moral, or religious.”
>> Another way of approaching an understanding of the middle way has to do
>> with recognizing it as constituting a resolution of the identity/difference
>> problem.  According to standard Buddhist doctrine the most dangerous false
>> view possible is the belief in a permanent, independent self (also commonly
>> referred to as the concept of identity). This notion of self is symptomatic
>> of our deepest fears, concerning things like death and the possibility of
>> our personal nonexistence. The concept of difference, which is the other
>> side of the problem, is the belief that nothing is real; it also asserts
>> the absence of all identities. This position would lead to the most mundane
>> things becoming unintelligible. Nagarjuna’s solution to this problem is his
>> assertion that neither identity nor difference is real. Both notions, when
>> seen properly, are “empty” of self-essence. They can exist only together
>> and not separately. Nagarjuna’s way of resolving this problem, by
>> pointing to the interdependency of identity and difference, is remarkably
>> similar to the one proposed by Merleau-Ponty many years later.
>> Steve Bindeman
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fis mailing list
> --
> Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.)
> Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science,
> SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle
> Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India
> Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195
> Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789
> ____________________________________________________________
> 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences,
> Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy
> <>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
Fis mailing list

Reply via email to