 |
| Source: Ha Ha! Funny! LOL! |
I have heard the phrase “If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him!” many times. Can you explain this?
Answer:
It actually comes from an old koan attributed to Zen Master Linji, (the founder of the Rinzai sect). It’s a simple one:
“If you meet the Buddha, kill him.”– Linji
I’m sure you already realize that it’s not being literal. The road, the killing, and even the Buddha are symbolic.
The road is generally taken to mean the path to Enlightenment; that might be through meditation, study, prayer, or just some aspect of your way of life. Your life is your road. That’s fairly straightforward as far as metaphors go.
But how do you meet the Buddha on this “road?” Imagine meeting some symbolic Buddha. Would he be a great teacher that you might actually meet and follow in the real world? Could that Buddha be you yourself, having reached Enlightenment? Or maybe you have some idealized image of perfection that equates to your concept of the Buddha or Enlightenment.
But how do you meet the Buddha on this “road?” Imagine meeting some symbolic Buddha. Would he be a great teacher that you might actually meet and follow in the real world? Could that Buddha be you yourself, having reached Enlightenment? Or maybe you have some idealized image of perfection that equates to your concept of the Buddha or Enlightenment.
Whatever your conception is of the Buddha, it’s WRONG! Now kill that image and keep practicing. This all has to do with the idea that reality is an impermanent illusion. If you believe that you have a correct image of what it means to be Enlightened, then you need to throw out (kill) that image and keep meditating.
Most people have heard the first chapter of the Tao, “The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao.” (So if you think you see the real Tao, kill it and move on).
Source: Bryan Schell
Science: "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment" (Oxford); also defined succinctly with subject examples here.
For the record: I am not a Buddhist. My fascination in this quote stems from the old "Kung Fu" series with David Carradine, (who was great, but I think in all fairness should have been the show's concept originator - Bruce Lee, oh well). It's also how this "Buddha murder" coincides with the scientific enterprise, and may explain the stress felt by this contradiction in other human endeavors.
This statement, however captures the "messiness" and disturbing protocol of science: what was a scientific accepted norm, theory or "truth" can with further (and, hopefully better-controlled) experimentation can be thrown away, discarded like previous theories regarding the speed of light (the Michelson-Morley Experiment). Science in the 19th Century looked at the universe as a mechanical, physical balance. Thus, Michelson and Morley tried to measure this balance, the stationary luminiferous aether: waves were transmitted in water; sound in air; light must be in the "aether wind." They "failed" to find it, but found something else; they "killed the [previous] Buddha."
From the site of Sci-Fi writer Peter Watts, he writes:
Science follows the creed of disproof, after all. The whole edifice is founded on the admission that everything we know might be wrong, that any of today’s "facts" might tomorrow be tested and found wanting. Science is pretty straightforward as a concept; in practice it’s messy as hell, full of arguments and counterarguments, noise and statistical filters. It’s a perfect target to those who crave certitude and simplicity: every dispute over detail can be twisted into an indictment of the entire process,...
Part of the enterprise is to learn something today you didn't know yesterday. If it is written down, and you want to refer to it as "science," then you have to lend the subject to scrutiny, criticism, relentless peer review and if found in error: disproving. If you require "steadiness," science can be a little disturbing, especially if its discoveries "kills" sacred Buddhas.
Michelson-Morley set the foundation for Einstein: first the Special Theory of Relativity (speed of light), then the General Theory (gravity). Einstein reluctantly contributed to Quantum Mechanics, which leads to modern micro-to-nano electronics and the laptops, flat screens, I-pads et al we now all enjoy. This set the stage for François Englert and Peter Higgs. They have hopefully, set the stage for those who will inevitably follow, making still new discoveries in their intellectual wake.
I watched the following TED Talk from Naomi Oreskes a while back. I initially didn't quite know then where to place it for a blog that promotes science curiosity and literacy - not that I didn't agree with it, but I now see as an appropriate denouement. Sourced from Physics Database, ending this discourse (and I am off to, of course "killing Buddhas"):
Science: "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment" (Oxford); also defined succinctly with subject examples here.
For the record: I am not a Buddhist. My fascination in this quote stems from the old "Kung Fu" series with David Carradine, (who was great, but I think in all fairness should have been the show's concept originator - Bruce Lee, oh well). It's also how this "Buddha murder" coincides with the scientific enterprise, and may explain the stress felt by this contradiction in other human endeavors.
This statement, however captures the "messiness" and disturbing protocol of science: what was a scientific accepted norm, theory or "truth" can with further (and, hopefully better-controlled) experimentation can be thrown away, discarded like previous theories regarding the speed of light (the Michelson-Morley Experiment). Science in the 19th Century looked at the universe as a mechanical, physical balance. Thus, Michelson and Morley tried to measure this balance, the stationary luminiferous aether: waves were transmitted in water; sound in air; light must be in the "aether wind." They "failed" to find it, but found something else; they "killed the [previous] Buddha."
From the site of Sci-Fi writer Peter Watts, he writes:
Science follows the creed of disproof, after all. The whole edifice is founded on the admission that everything we know might be wrong, that any of today’s "facts" might tomorrow be tested and found wanting. Science is pretty straightforward as a concept; in practice it’s messy as hell, full of arguments and counterarguments, noise and statistical filters. It’s a perfect target to those who crave certitude and simplicity: every dispute over detail can be twisted into an indictment of the entire process,...
Part of the enterprise is to learn something today you didn't know yesterday. If it is written down, and you want to refer to it as "science," then you have to lend the subject to scrutiny, criticism, relentless peer review and if found in error: disproving. If you require "steadiness," science can be a little disturbing, especially if its discoveries "kills" sacred Buddhas.
Michelson-Morley set the foundation for Einstein: first the Special Theory of Relativity (speed of light), then the General Theory (gravity). Einstein reluctantly contributed to Quantum Mechanics, which leads to modern micro-to-nano electronics and the laptops, flat screens, I-pads et al we now all enjoy. This set the stage for François Englert and Peter Higgs. They have hopefully, set the stage for those who will inevitably follow, making still new discoveries in their intellectual wake.
I watched the following TED Talk from Naomi Oreskes a while back. I initially didn't quite know then where to place it for a blog that promotes science curiosity and literacy - not that I didn't agree with it, but I now see as an appropriate denouement. Sourced from Physics Database, ending this discourse (and I am off to, of course "killing Buddhas"):
No comments:
Post a Comment