#Eastern philosophies

[a-contemplative-soul]

“At a certain point, to become closer to the truth, a shrinkage of the ego is necessary”

Author: Me

[consuetudinari0]

Amado Nervo Y Su Obra

[raffaellopalandri]

Exploring Diverse Topics for Deep Discussion

Daily writing promptWhat topics do you like to discuss?View all responses The question of what topics I like to discuss holds a fascinating mirror to the landscape of my own curiosity. Unlike a flat plain, my interests are more like a mountain range, with diverse peaks representing various subjects that pique my intellectual fervour. Photo by Miguel u00c1. Padriu00f1u00e1n on…

[thepursuitofunderstanding]

Understanding someone's suffering is the best gift you can give another person. Understanding is love's other name. If you don't understand, you can't love.

Thich Nhat Hanh

[illustratus]

Hypatia by Julius Kronberg

[crumblinggothicarchitecture]

Up next on Taylor Swift, you're wrong about...

Can I write about why Swift is wrong about her philosophical understanding of Karma?

Eastern Philosophy is a little bit outside my range, I'm more of an Ancient Greek metaphysics and aesthetics girly- but I did take at least three classes in which I spoke at length about the Hindu philosophical concept of Karma and have read extensively about it. I can, least explain it plainly to those who might not have heard about it before.

Swift seems to be under the impression that the word karma simply means "What goes around comes around" but that is not the case. Her understanding of it is rather shallow and "westernized."

[oneatlatime]

Want to get your thoughts on something you've touched on in a couple places. A pretty popular idea in the fandom is that one of the (in-universe) reasons airbenders have gone so hard into the peace-and-love monk thing is a self-awareness that, if they didn't, there's not a whole lot anybody could realistically do about it.

Like, Southern Air Temple pretty strongly implies that Gyatso solo'd a room full of comet-roided firebenders. It killed him but he did it, and while he is a master Airbender, we're not given any real indication that he is uniquely so, right?

I have many thoughts on this! Sorry in advance for the long post! And sorry if this goes a bit off topic!

Short answer: I don't agree.

Long answer:

We've seen that nations' cultures tend to reflect their native bending styles. Or vice versa. It's probably a chicken and egg scenario. The Fire Nation chose to spread (like wildfire) and is full of hot headed, impetuous roid-rage sufferers who can't see or plan for the long term. Fire itself easily becomes ungovernable and is at best muzzled/leashed, always waiting for the next chance to bubble over in unplanned / unpredictable / generally unhelpful directions (Hi Zhao!). So an element shapes a culture shapes and element until you've got a positive feedback loop (or in the case of the Northern Water Tribe, a negative feedback ourobouros due to outside pressure). Importantly, neither culture nor element develops in isolation; I think they develop simultaneously.

The Earth Kingdom is probably the most rigid and unchanging, even when it would benefit them to change/innovate. We see rigidity and humourlessness in response to change or the unexpected (see Toph's parents) and we see an inability to let go of a bad idea, or mitigate the consequences / think on the go when things that were clearly bad ideas go bad in ways anyone with a non-earthbender brain can see coming a mile off (think The Avatar State episode). Earth digs in when it should retreat, stands solid when it should duck and weave. It is grounded to the point of stupidity (unless you're Toph or Bumi, although even Toph seems to be unbending so far). It's linear to the point of being unable to deviate from that line.

This is me guessing, but I figure since fire and water are opposites, air must be the opposite of earth, right? So while we'll never see airbending culture in a non-shrunk-down-to-one-person form, we can look at earthbending culture for its dark reflection. Well, probably not dark, but you get what I'm saying. They'll be opposites in world view. We can extrapolate.

So if earth is grounded, humourless, aggressively traditional, linear, then air must be constantly fluctuating, unchained, lighthearted, bonkers-all-over-the-place. The heaviness of earth would dictate that problems should be faced by digging in and facing them head on until the problem blinks first. The lightness of air would dictate that problems should be faced the opposite way: blinking first i.e. removing yourself from the problem entirely. The linearity of earth dictates that fights are solved by fighting - you punch me, I punch you. The non-linearity of air would seek to recontextualise a problem until it's no longer a problem because we all forgot what we were fighting about in the first place, i.e. throwing pies at it or busting out the marble trick. The heaviness of earth would cause excessive earthly attachment; the lightness of air would cause excessive detachment from worldly concerns.

To start violence is to make a statement that you wish to be involved. It's rooting yourself to a particular dispute, choosing a hill to die on. It stems from attachment. This is earthbendery behaviour (and Zuko-y, but let's not go there). To never start violence is to never invest, never dig in your feet and make a stand. To be detached. (I'm oversimplifying here.) It's clear from in-show examples that Aang's pacifism is of the "ladies don't start fights but they can finish them" variety; he's got no problem with self-defence (caveat: we have no idea how typical an air nomad Aang was). But he never attacks first that I can think of.

Violence is a very direct tool. If someone starts a fight with you, and you decide to continue it, you're choosing the most obvious action. Since when is airbending direct or obvious?

All this to say, I think that pacifism, peace and love, monkiness, etc., was more likely a natural and inevitable outgrowth of air nomad culture, caused by constant culture / element interaction, rather than a conscious choice.

So I think airbenders "have gone so hard into the peace-and-love monk thing" because the nature of their element creates a culture that discourages the traits required for effective offensive violence, and the inherent detachment and ever-changing nature of air naturally encouraged spiritual (i.e. monkly) pursuits rather than earthly ones, like whatever the conflict of the week is. I don't think self-awareness of the dangers of their element factors into it. Not to take away from Gyatso's accomplishment, but I think air is nowhere near the most dangerous element. From what I've seen so far that would be Fire or Earth, though I'd give the edge to Fire because they self-generate, and also because they've spent a largely successful century dominating the other elements. Waterbenders and earthbenders can be neutralised by taking away their element; airbenders - due to the very nature of their element - probably can't get past that initial avoid and evade instinct to become legitimate offensive threats.

As for Gyatso, I think he's an outlier. We know little about him so far, but we do know that: a) Aang says he's the best airbender (in I think the Southern Air Temple?); b) he's good enough that he was granted a statue while he was still living, learning, improving; and c) he's good enough that the monkly council (of which he is part) granted him the honour/responsibility of being the quasi-dad of the Avatar. These things tell me that Gyatso was the Spiders Georg of the Airbenders. I suspect Bumi is the same for the Earthbenders, and at least as far as the philosophy of bending is concerned, Iroh may be so for Firebenders. Even the example of Gyatso nuking the comet-enhanced firebenders is a case of defensive action in ultra extraordinary circumstances: he was staring into the teeth of a genocide while mourning the disappearance of his quasi-son and the likely loss of the world's only hope / chance at stopping the war. That's how far you have to push an airbender before they'll take a life. Unless the Avatar world pre-war is a lot more godawful than Aang has implied, airbenders probably wouldn't have been taking lives frequently enough for them to get to the point where they would have to start questioning whether they should consider pacifism.

I think what this fandom idea ultimately is, is a desire for the hidden badass trope. Everyone loves it when the most peaceful character in the story is revealed to secretly be a Rambo-level fighting badass, right? Who didn't love it when kindly grandpa Roku manifested in his temple and unleashed a volcano? But I think this trope fundamentally takes something away from the appreciation of Airbending, Air Nomad culture, and the concept of Pacifism as a whole. This is just my interpretation, but applying the "secretly the deadliest all along!" trope to airbenders undermines their commitment to pacifism and makes it performative rather than earnest. It's a cop out; an acknowledgement that violence actually is the answer, and even those head-in-the-clouds monks know to use it when the chips are down. This show goes out of its way to show that non-combatants have value and a place in this world that's worth fighting for, that fighting goes way too far pretty frequently, that non-violent solutions are valid, even preferable. It would kind of undermine that message if all of the elements were easily weaponisable.

Something I've loved so far about Avatar is the show's earnestness. There have been no Marvel-style fakeout bathos plots. I feel making airbending secretly the deadliest element or similar would be exactly that sort of thing. Can't my pacifists be peaceful not because they're secretly untouchable badasses who carry the biggest stick, whom the rest of the world leaves alone out of fear, who are not a threat only because they have chosen not to be, but because that's just who they are?

On the other hand: Aang's been a one-man-army plenty of times. We've seen that; that's undeniable. So air is stupidly powerful as an element. No denying that. Gyatso did murder a bunch of people trying to kill him, so air can be deadly. But I don't think your typical airbender could be deadly. If you gave a can of airbending to a firebender, an earthbender, or even a particularly provoked waterbender, I don't doubt that they could kill people with it. But the culture that the element generated - rather than a conscious choice by that culture's participants - prevents them from taking the direct, violent, solution. And I think that culture developed in tandem with airbending, so there could not have been a time when airbenders were deadly as a rule. Air shaped airbenders as much as airbenders shaped air, and it shaped them into non-violent people.

There's a lot of power in the idea of consciously choosing, and sticking to, something that is perhaps not in line with your natural abilities. Styling airbenders as deadly-but-choosing-peace is a great way to explore themes of agency, identity, strength of character, morals, maturity, etc. But, to me, there's also a lot of power in the idea that some people just can't - not won't, but CAN'T - fight their way out of things, and this doesn't make it any less wrong to genocide the crap out of them.

If the fandom wants to headcanon airbenders as secret badasses who consciously choose nonviolence, I say a) go ahead! there's more than enough evidence to support that conclusion; b) I respectfully disagree; and c) is Iroh not enough?

tl;dr in my opinion, air's pacifism was a natural outgrowth of, and restriction imposed by, the element rather than a conscious choice; airbending can be deadly but airbenders aren't; Gyatso is not representative; 'speak softly and carry a big stick' is all well and good as a philosophy, but those who speak softly and don't have a stick are of value too.

[he-is-lightning-in-a-bottle]

Plot Circling or Spiraling? Asian thinking vs the West.

Is your BL plot being uselessly repetitive or diving deeper? Hear me out.

In Eastern religions and philosophy, repetition plays a central role: the repetitive nature of rituals and prayers and meditation and life itself is super common. To Westerners (especially Protestant Christians or those who grew up in that culture), these things are frowned on as being useless and shallow and boring. Depth is created by spontaneity and newness. Progress FEELS huge and life-altering, a walk down the church aisle to repent, not so incremental you can hardly pinpoint when it happened.

The analogy one priest told me is this. Think of repetitive prayer and the cycles of life like a screw driver, every turn drives the screw deeper. You're not spinning in place, going in shallow, repetitive circles. You're growing. Each turn of the cycle matures you, deepening the meaning you find in the ritual/prayer/experience. It may just be a fraction of an inch deeper, but it's happening. It's a spiral, not a circle!

So is the plot of Between Us really just circling on itself giving us the same thing over and over again? Or is it a spiral where every time they share a bed and get challenged by their friends to define their relationship, their relationship gets incrementally deeper until they can't deny their feelings any longer?

And is the plot of episode 6 of The Sign really just filler, circling back on itself and repeating previously established dynamics? Or is it another iteration of a spiral, taking us incrementally deeper into the characters, their struggles and fears, their back stories and past lives and current experiences?

Spirals are not circles, and what Westerners see as a uselessly repetitive plot may in fact be seen as an essential deepening of the plot and character development in Eastern modes of storytelling and narrative thinking.

@lurkingshan and @bengiyo this is for you, generated by my thinking about our discussion in the comments on Shan's post.

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of the Observer

The philosophy of the observer examines the role and nature of observation in shaping reality, knowledge, and experience. In various philosophical contexts, the observer plays a crucial role in determining how we perceive and understand the world, influencing fields such as metaphysics, epistemology, phenomenology, and even quantum mechanics.

1. Epistemology and the Observer

Knowledge and Perception: In epistemology, the observer is central to questions about how we gain knowledge. The subjective nature of observation raises concerns about the reliability of perception and the distinction between appearance and reality. For example, empiricism emphasizes that knowledge comes from sensory experiences, where the observer plays a passive but critical role in perceiving the external world.

Kantian Philosophy: Immanuel Kant argued that observers do not passively receive information from the world. Instead, the mind actively structures experiences according to innate categories, such as time, space, and causality. For Kant, the observer shapes reality by organizing sensory data into coherent experiences, making human perception partly responsible for how we understand the world.

2. Phenomenology and the Observer

Subjective Experience: Phenomenology, particularly as developed by Edmund Husserl, investigates how things appear to observers in their conscious experience. In this approach, the observer’s point of view and intentionality (the direction of conscious experience) are essential in determining the nature of reality.

Being-in-the-World: Martin Heidegger expanded phenomenology to consider the observer's embeddedness in the world. Rather than detached observers, humans are beings who exist in a dynamic relationship with the world, shaping and being shaped by it. Heidegger’s Dasein refers to the human condition as fundamentally involved in interpreting the world.

3. The Observer in Quantum Mechanics

Observer Effect: In the realm of quantum mechanics, the observer effect refers to the idea that the act of observation can affect the outcome of an experiment. For instance, in the double-slit experiment, the behavior of particles (acting as waves or particles) changes when observed, suggesting that the observer plays an active role in determining physical phenomena.

Copenhagen Interpretation: Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg’s Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics posits that physical systems exist in a superposition of states until observed. This view raises philosophical questions about whether reality exists independently of observation and challenges classical notions of objective reality.

Philosophical Implications: Quantum theory brings the observer to the forefront, suggesting that observation is not merely a passive reception of reality but an active process that influences and even creates the conditions of reality. This has led to discussions about the nature of consciousness and its relationship to the physical world.

4. Metaphysics and the Observer

Idealism: In metaphysical idealism, particularly as espoused by George Berkeley, the observer's role is central. Berkeley argued that reality consists only of perceptions and that things exist only insofar as they are observed (summed up by the phrase “to be is to be perceived”). For Berkeley, the external world has no independent existence outside of being observed.

Objective vs. Subjective Reality: The metaphysical question of whether reality exists independently of observers or is constructed through perception continues to be a central issue. Realism holds that the world exists independently of observation, while constructivism and idealism emphasize the role of the observer in shaping or even constituting reality.

5. Existentialism and the Observer

Sartre’s View of the Gaze: Jean-Paul Sartre explored the concept of the observer in his analysis of the gaze. He argued that being observed by others brings about a kind of self-awareness, often leading to feelings of alienation or objectification. For Sartre, the awareness of being an object in someone else’s gaze causes existential discomfort, as it limits one's freedom and projects them into a defined role.

Authenticity: Existentialists argue that the awareness of being observed often challenges one's authenticity. The need to act in ways that are socially accepted, based on the observer’s expectations, can conflict with living authentically, which is a key existential concern.

6. Ethics and the Observer

Moral Observers: In ethics, the role of an observer can shape moral judgments and actions. The impartial observer is a common thought experiment used in ethical theory, where one is asked to adopt an unbiased, detached standpoint to determine the morality of an action. This is especially prominent in utilitarianism, where the impartial observer is expected to weigh the consequences of actions for all involved.

The Ethical Role of Observation: In moral psychology, the idea of being observed often influences behavior. The panopticon, as discussed by Michel Foucault, illustrates how the possibility of being observed can encourage conformity and self-regulation in ethical and social contexts.

7. Observer in Eastern Philosophy

Buddhism: In Buddhist philosophy, the observer (or the self) is seen as a transient construct rather than an enduring entity. The concept of no-self (anatta) suggests that the idea of a permanent observer or self is illusory. Observation, in this view, is part of the ongoing process of change and interdependence, with no fixed "observer" apart from the flow of experience.

Non-Duality: In Eastern philosophies like Advaita Vedanta, the observer is not seen as separate from the observed. The subject-object distinction is considered illusory, with the realization that there is no fundamental separation between the observer and the world leading to enlightenment or ultimate knowledge.

8. The Observer in Postmodernism

Relativity of Perspectives: Postmodernism, particularly through thinkers like Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida, challenges the idea of a neutral or objective observer. Instead, they argue that observation is influenced by cultural, social, and linguistic structures, meaning there is no single, privileged point of view.

Power and Observation: Foucault argued that observation is a tool of power, as those who observe hold control over those being observed. He examined how institutions, such as prisons and hospitals, use observation as a means of social regulation and discipline.

9. The Observer in Art and Aesthetics

Aesthetic Experience: The role of the observer is also critical in the philosophy of art and aesthetics. The observer’s interpretation, perspective, and emotional response to a work of art can shape its meaning. The idea that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" reflects the subjective nature of aesthetic judgment.

Phenomenology of Art: In the phenomenology of art, the observer's engagement with the artwork is considered an integral part of the aesthetic experience. The meaning of the artwork is not fixed but emerges through the observer’s interaction with it.

The philosophy of the observer addresses the fundamental role observation plays in shaping reality, knowledge, and personal experience. From quantum mechanics and metaphysics to ethics and existentialism, the observer is often seen as a critical factor that influences the nature of reality, perception, and even morality. The relationship between the observer and the observed challenges our understanding of objectivity, subjectivity, and the nature of existence itself.

[arabdoll]

“Why do you style yourself "your worthless and insignificant brother"? You recognize your insignificance? . . . Recognize it before God; perhaps, too, in the presence of beauty, intelligence, nature, but not before men. Among men you must be conscious of your dignity. Why, you are not a rascal, you are an honest man, aren't you?

Well, respect yourself as an honest man and know that an honest man is not something worthless. Don't confound "being humble" with "recognizing one's worthlessness."

Anton Chekhov, The Letters of Anton Chekhov

[non-conventionnel]

How did the first concept of God originate?

Who was Yahweh and who was Moses? Where did the Ten Commandments originate from?

Who was Jesus Christ, and what do the Gospels which were left out of the New Testament say?

Who was St Paul, and which was the first Church before the Roman Catholic one?

How did the papal pontificate originate, and what were the repercussions of the false document which was supposedly left to the Church by Emperor Constantine the Great in order to cling to power?

Was there a different scenario to how things could have unfolded? This book, backed by the discoveries which have occurred in the last centuries, will tackle these questions unearthing new ones in the process.

"In this book, author Anton Sammut undertakes a challenging task in a race to uncover various aspects affecting the development of religion in relation to culture. This task is considered delicate and for some even dangerous. Delicate because it requires meticulous research and gathering of information; dangerous because it ventures far beyond the borders of religion which we normally restrict ourselves to because they offer security and certainty. In this respect, this book will appeal hugely to those who are not satisfied with what they have been instructed but are interested in exploring how the information arrived to them."

- Rev. Dr René Camilleri

"The laborious and careful exercise carried out by Mr Sammut, both on the Bible as well as on the History of the Church, is intended to assist the reader to view both of them from an angle which we are not accustomed to. This type of mental exercise is always useful, especially when the thoroughly researched and examined subject is not easy, not necessarily understood in one way, and is more complex than the human brain can handle."

- Rev. Prof. Peter Serracino Inglott

Anton Sammut's Fb Page

Goodreads

[maxiemartmanager]

Sideshow Bob drops the First Noble Truth of Buddhism.

[teenageascetic]

“When the holy Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara had truly grasped the transcendent wisdom, he realized that visible form is only illusion. The same applies to its perception, to its names and categories, to discriminative intellect and finally even to our consciousness. They are all illusion. With this realizaton he was beyond all sorrow and bitterness.

Disciple Sariputra! The material is not different from the immaterial. The immaterial and the material are in fact one and the same thing. The same applies to perception, concepts, discriminative thinking and consciousness. They are neither existing nor not existing.

Sariputra! All things therefore they are in themselves not good and not bad, they are not increasing and not decreasing.

Therefore one may say there are no such things as form, perception, concepts, thinking process, and consciousness. Our senses such as eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind are misleading us to illusion; thus one may also say there is no reality in visible form, sound, smell, taste, touch and mindknowledge. There are also no such things as the realms of sense from sight up to mind, and no such things as the links of existence from ignorance and its end to old age and death and their end. Also the caturāryasatyāni are nonexistent, just as there is no such thing as wisdom and also no gain.

Because the holy Bodhisattva who relies on transcendent wisdom knows that there is no gain, he has no worries and also no fear. Beyond all illusion he has reached the space of highest Nirvana.

All Buddhas of the past, present and future, found highest perfect knowedge because they relied on transcendental wisdom.

Therefore we ought to know that the great verse of the transcendent wisdom is unsurpassed in its splendor, and that it appeases truly all pain. It reads:

GATE, GATE, PARAGATE, PARASAMGATE BODHISVAHA!”

-The Heart Sutra.

[anne-bsd-bibliophile]

When you are reading a book you defeat your purpose altogether if you think about yourself trying to concentrate on it; instead of thinking about what is written, your attention is absorbed in your efforts to concentrate. The secret is to think of the book and forget yourself. But that is not all. The book is of little use to you if you go to the other extreme and simply let it "run away with you." On the contrary, you must bring your own understanding and intelligence to it, and then through the union of your own thoughts and the thoughts in the book, something new is born. This union is the important task; you must just do it, and not waste energy in thinking about doing it. The same is true in Zen.

- Alan Watts, "Zen" from Become What You Are

[zensui1022]

Wabi-Sabi

True imperfectly perfect thing cannot be achieved without being always perfectionist to everything we do. By being perfectionist to everything and realizing that we can never be perfect, we can really feel imperfectly perfect thing.

[bananonbinary]

today i had to deal with a relative ranting about her uhhh medical(?) practicioner doing reiki on her kids, not because its fake con man bullshit, but because, quote, "i know the science behind it is sound, but you've mixed it with witchcraft!"

so hows yall's thanksgiving family gatherings going.