There are so many interesting things to explore! And I’ve explored quite a few, thus far in my life—following the thread of my enthusiasm, what piques my interest, lights my fire. But in comparison to all possible things to explore—all the phenomena past, present, and future, in this universe and all others—clearly the explorations accomplished via this one body-mind are miniscule: an estimate …
[Read more...] about Practice Notes: Distinction and Separation
Would it be fair to consider the Tao of Taoism to be more-or-less the equivalent of the Aristotelian “unmoved mover”—the “first cause” of all motion in the universe? Let’s explore .... Why? Most two-year-olds, as they’re first learning how to speak, become fascinated with the question “why?”—which they quickly discover can be applied not only to their initial inquiry, but also—ad infinitum—to …
[Read more...] about Turtles All the Way Down: Tao as First Cause
In the great tradition of Neo standing in the kitchen with the Oracle, amidst the scent of cookies, here’s a passage from Wei Wu Wei’s Why Lazarus Laughed which, as of late, has really been “baking my noodle.” Questions that Are Not A good example of a question that is not is: “Do you believe in such-and-such a thing?” In so far as nothing exists, there is nothing to believe in. In so far as …
The first verse of the Tao Te Ching is one to be returned to, again and again ... The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao The name that can be named is not the eternal Name. The unnamable is the eternally real. Naming is the origin of all particular things. Free from desire, you realize the mystery. Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations. Yet mystery and …
It’s been quite a while since my last “practice notes” post. Partly this is because I’ve been deeply engaged, within the past couple of months, with a large writing project: the creation of a new book manuscript. So, the flow of my creative energy has been directed almost exclusively in this direction. And partly because there’s been such an abundance of, shall we say, “grist for the mill” …
If we define “bachelor” as “an unmarried man” – then the statement “Every bachelor is an unmarried man” is true by definition. Given how we’ve defined our terms, it simply cannot be false. It is necessarily un-falsifiable. Hence, it really doesn’t make sense to call such a statement a “theory” or a “hypothesis.” It’s not something that can be proved or disproved empirically. It’s not a matter …
[Read more...] about Bachelors & Buddhas: On The Validation Of Scientific & Metaphysical Claims
