phaedrus

Liquid

Those cliched conundrums are some classic koans used by zen practioners among the other complicatd ones. The obejctive of koans is noto to find an answer but in his/her effort to “solve” a koan the individual is expected to exhaust the analytic intellect and the egoistic will, and bringing in understanding on an intuitive level with the emphasis laid on the "experience". There is no right or wrong answers to these koans, these paradoxical statements merely help in changing the way one thinks and realizing the futility of language and words to accurately represent reality. For example,

If a tree falls in a forest when no-one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

Using logic or scientific knowlege, we can say "technically" the falling tree makes a sound (defined as vibration of air)irrespective of any observers or receptors. On the other hand, if sound manifests only when you "listen" to it, then there is no sound. The point of the koan is to understand that it doesnt matter whether there was a tree or it is falling or there is a planet, its about consciousness and how one approaches life. Comes down to the basic question, does reality exist coz you are "conscious" of it or does reality exist even if you are not "conscious" of it?

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

There are so many possible answers - half of two hands clapping or clap with one hand on your cheek or slapping someone or many other. The point of the koan is to emphasise "silence" and recognise the absurdity of subject-object duality and help in taking a break from linear thinking.

I think the following poem (Cheng-tao Ke ) sort of encapsulates the paradoxical nature of this way of thinking....

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: phaedrus ]</p>

Straight Hate

Given what I was taught in physics class about sound (it needs a source, a medium to travel through and a receiver), a tree falling in the forest with no one around to hear it, by definition, does not make a sound.

Of course, if you're one of those people who thinks that rocks are alive...

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: Kathall ]</p>

Amos

This same is true with all of our senses including time, light, taste, space, speach, pain and others you may think of.

Of these I find light the most interesting but without open eyes there will be no light on a bright sunny day. This makes light an illusion.

John Page

Amos:

I think there is some jesting here. Subjectively for you the light will disappear but outside your eyelids... well, just ask some friends to tell you the objective truth.

Amos

Hi John, would their eyes need to be open and if he is blind how does he know what second hand light looks like?

That is like a deaf person asking a friend if he heard the tree fall so the noise can exist for him too.

Or like these two monks are standing on a bridge watching the goldfish swim about eating small bits of food. One of them says,
“I wish I was a goldfish for they are so happy.”
“Ah,” his friend rejoins, “but you are not a goldfish. How do you know that they are happy?”
“But you are not me, how do you know that I do not know how goldfish feel?”

John Page

Amos:

Are you blind?

Amos

That was to be my next question for you.

Jonsey3333

Assuming reality exists, would it exist if we were not here to observe it? If there were no observer, what does exist really even mean?

-Mike

Amos

If there were no observers it would not exist for "without me God could no longer be [for me]."

We all are observers because we are creators and co-creators. We are creators in our soul and co-creators in our lymbic system (this is actually not true until we know who we are). This reality is retained in our soul and observed with our lymbic system.

Without dualism reality could never be called into existence. Duality is needed to be the two stands in the rout at every level of creation.

liquid

phaedrus, I know they are koans, but I just wanted to see what people would say about them.

What I have noticed is that people are summarily dismissing the physical situations rather than discussing the philosophical points that arise from them. I'm disappointed, to be honest, that people aren't prepared to dig.

How about I put it this way:

1) Is existence dependent on conscious observation?

2) Does a component of an incomplete system include within it an inherent potentionality?

and so on....