From: tran@neep.engr.wisc.edu
Subject: [REL. & SCI.] Khoa Ho.c va` PG
Originator: daemon@media-lab.media.mit.edu
Reply-To: tran@neep.engr.wisc.edu
Organization: SCV Relay
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 04:26:37 GMT



From: v-nguyenddretina#.cis.ohio-state#.edu

>>So, to sum it up: Since these are only parallels, they should not be expected
>>to be perfect.  And though all these parallels are interesting to note,
>>perhaps they should not be taken too seriously#.

As long as they are only parallels, that's OK.  But when Capra made some
statements implying modern physics and the mystics have the same way of
training and attain the same realities he was talking nonsense#. And those who
believe in what he said do nothing but repeat nonsense#.  Why#?

Here is a quote from: Ken Wilber, "Physics and Mysticism", pages 164-165,
Nhu+~ng ca^u trong da^'u ngoa(.c ddo+n la` cu?a to^i:

"One of the frequently mentioned doctrines of mysticism is that of "mutual
interpenetration," (tu+o+ng tho^ng) as presented, for instance, in the Kegon
school (Hoa Nghie^m to^ng) of Buddhism.  By "mutual interpenetration" the mystic
means BOTH forms of interpenetration: one-dimentional and multi-dimentional,
holo-archic and hierarchic, horizontal and vertical.
Think of the six levels of consciousness (1.Physical-nonliving matter/energy;
2.Biological-living, pranic, sentient matter/energy; 3.Mental-ego,logic,
thinking; 4.Subtle-archetypal, trans-individual, intuitive; 5.Causal-formless
radiance, perfect transcendence; 6.Ultimate-consciousness as such, the source
and nature of all other levels.  O+? dda^y Ken Wilber dda~ du+.a va`o ca'c
quan nie^.m trong Duy-Thu+'c-To^ng PG dde^? pha^n quan nie^.m ve^` the^'
gio+'i va^.t cha^'t va` tinh tha^`n ra la`m 6 ca^'p co' thu+.c the^? tu+` tha^'p
to+'i cao#. Theo Duy-Thu+'c-To^ng thi` ca^'p 1 va` 2 va` ddu+o+.c bie^?u thi.
bo+?i 5 thu+'c ca?m gia'c (Vijnanas); ca^'p 3 go.i la` Y'-thu+'c (Mano-
vijnana; ca^'p 4 go.i la` Ma.t-Na thu+'c (Manavijnana); ca^'p 5 go.i
la` A-La.i-Da thu+'c hay Ta`ng thu+'c (Alayavijnana), ta^'t ca? xe^'p
chung la`m 8 thu+'c thuo^.c Ta^m Pha'p; co`n ca^'p 6 (cao nha^'t) la`
ca'i "Mo^.t" tuye^.t ddo^'i, ca'i "Mo^.t" kho^ng co' ca'i thu+' 2, ma` trong
PG ddu+o+.c bie^'t du+o+'i nhie^`u danh tu+` kha'c nhau nhu+ Pha^.t Ta'nh,
Cha^n Nhu+, Nhu+ Lai Ta.ng, Ba?n Lai Die^.n Mu.c, Ti'nh Kho^ng v..v..)
as a six-story building: the mystic means that all the elements on each floor
harmoniously interact, and, most importantly, each of the floors interact with
each other.  As for this multileveled interaction, the mystic means that the
physical elements interacts with the biological elements which interact with
the mental which interact with the subtle which interact with the causal which
pass into infinity, each level superseding its predecessor but mutually
interpenetrating with it. And thus, "They all interpenetrate one another and
exist together." (DDa^y chi'nh la` quan nie^.m tu+o+ng tho^ng trong
Kinh Hoa-Nghie^m).
   Now it happens that the modern-day physicist, working with the lowest realm
-that of material or nonsentient and non living processes- has discovered the
ONE-DIMENTIONAL interpenetration of the material plane: he has discovered that
all hadrons, leptons. etc. are mutually interpenetrating and interdependent.
As Capra explains it:
  >Quantum theory forces us to see the universe not as a collection of physical
  >objects, but rather as a complicated web of relations between the various
  >parts of a unified whole#... All [physical] particles are dynamically
  >composed of one another in a self-consistent way, and in that sense can be
  >said to "contain" one another.  In [this theory], the emphasis is on the
  >interaction, or "interpenetration" of all the particles.

  In short, speaking of these subatomic particles and wave fields, the
physicist says, "They all interpenetrate one another and exist together."
Now A LESS THAN CAUTIOUS PERSON, seeing that the mystic and the physicist have
used precisely the same words to talk about their realities, would thereby
conclude that the realities must be the same#.  AND THEY ARE NOT.
  The physicist, with his one-dimentional interpenetration, tells us that all
sorts of atomic events are interwoven one with the other- which is itself a
significant discovery#.  But he tells us, and can tells us, NOTHING WHATSOEVER
about the interaction of nonliving matter with the biological level, and of
that level's interaction with the mental field-what relationship does ionic
plasma have with, say, egoic goals and drives?  And beyond that, what of the
interaction of the mental field with the subtle, and of the subtle with the
causal, and the reverse interaction and interpenetration all the way back down
through the lower levels?  What can the new physics tell us of that?
   I suggest that the new physics has simply discovered the one-dimentional
interpenetration on its own level (lowest).  While this is an important
discovery, it cannot be equated with the EXTRAORDINARY PHENOMENON OF
MULTIDIMENTIONAL INTERPENETRATION described by the mystics... To put it crudely
the study of physics is on the first floor, describing the interactions of its
elements; the mystics are on the sixth floor describing the interaction of all
six floors.
   Thus, as a blanket conclusion, even as an approximation, the statement that
"The world views of physics and mysticism are similar" is a wild over-
generalization and is based, as one physicist recently put it, "on the use of
accidental similarities of language as if these were somehow evidence of deeply
rooted connections."

  Ca'i Extraordinary Phenomenon of Multidimentional Interpenetration ma`
Ken Wilber ne^u tre^n du+.a tre^n quan nie^.m ve^` 4 Pha'p Gio+'i trong
Kinh Hoa-Nghie^m ma` Wing-Tsit-Chan dda~ vie^'t trong "A Source
Book in Chinese Philosophy", trang 407, nhu+ sau:

   "The whole Hua-Yen (Hoa Nghie^m) philosophy centers around its
fundamental concept, the Universal Causation of the Realm of Dharmas (elements
of existence).  The Realm of Dharmas (Dharmadhatu) connotes the whole universe,
which in the belief of the school, is four fold.  It involves the Realm of
Facts (Su+. Pha'p Gio+'i), the Realm of Principle (Ly' Pha'p Gio+'i),
the Realm of Principle and Facts harmonized (Ly' Su+. Vo^ Nga.i Pha'p Gio+'i),
and the Realm of All Facts interwoven and mutually identified
(Su+. Su+. Vo^ Nga.i Pha'p Gio+'i).  Principle is static, spaceless,
formless, characterless, Emptiness, the noumenon; while facts are dynamic, have
specific forms and specific characters, are in an unceasing process of
transformation, and constitute the phenomenal world.  They interact and
interpenetrate and thus form a Perfect Harmony#.  The basic principle underlying
this perfect harmony is the simple idea of interpenetration (tu+o+ng tho^ng)
and mutual identification (tu+o+ng tu'c).

   Cu~ng nhu+ ca'c quan nie^.m kha'c trong PG, quan nie^.m "tu+o+ng
tho^ng" kho^ng pha?i dde^? hi' lua^.n ma` la` dde^? ta^.p cho nhu+~ng ai muo^'n
ta^.p, 1 ca'ch nhi`n su+. va^.t ba(`ng ta^m chu+' kho^ng pha?i ba(`ng ma('t.
Trong ddo+`i so^'ng ha`ng nga`y chu'ng ta ra^'t i't khi nhi`n su+. va^.t
ba(`ng ta^m ma` thu+o+`ng nhi`n ba(`ng ma('t tra^`n, du+o+'i 1 go'c ca.nh nha^'t
ddi.nh, cho ne^n tha^'y ca'i gi` chi? bie^'t be^` ngoa`i ca'i ddo', vi' du.
nhu+, tha^'y 1 ngu+o+`i qua^`n a'o sang tro.ng cho la` sang tro.ng, tha^'y
1 ddo^'ng ra'c cho la` nho+ ba^?n, tha^'y 1 ca'i dda^`u tro.c hay 1 bo^. qua^`n
a'o na`o ddo' cho la` 1 tha^`y tu (Eh! L'habit ne fait pas le moine)
v...v... Ca'ch nhi`n su+. va^.t nhu+ tre^n co' ti'nh ca'ch loa.i tru+`,
nghi~a la` hoa(.c the^' na`y hoa(.c the^' kia, va` pha^`n lo+'n bi. ngoa.i
ca?nh, tho'i quen, ti'n ngu+o+~ng, thie^n kie^'n chi pho^'i#.  Tha^'t ti`nh
lu.c du.c dde^`u do ca'ch nha^.n thu+'c na`y ma` ra, va` nhu+~ng o'c be` pha'i,
cuo^`ng ti'n, u` li`, tu+. cao, tu+. dda.i, tu+. to^n, tu+. ty v...v.. pha^`n
lo+'n cu~ng dde^`u ba('t nguo^`n tu+` dda^y#.  Tu+o+ng tho^ng la` ca'ch nhi`n su+.
va^.t 1 ca'ch toa`n die^.n, du+o+'i nhie^`u go'c ca.nh kha'c nhau, dde^? nha^.n
ra su+. ho`a ho+.p va` bo^? tu'c la^~n nhau cu?a nhu+~ng ca'i ma` nhie^`u khi
o+? be^` ngoa`i co' ve? nhu+ ma^u thua^~n hoa(.c ddo^'i cho.i nhau#.  DDe^? cho
de^~ hie^?u to^i xin la^'y 1 ba't co+m ga.o lu+'c muo^'i me` la`m vi' du.:

   Trong ba't co+m na`y hie^?n nhie^n co' ga.o, nu+o+'c, me`, muo^'i v..v.
Nhu+~ng thu+' na`y kho^ng pha?i tu+. nhie^n ma` co' ma` la` do ra^'t nhie^`u
duye^n ho+.p la.i: dda^'t, nu+o+'c, gio', mu+a, na('ng, ma`u mo+~ trong dda^'t,
ngu+o+`i tro^`ng, ngu+o+`i ga(.t, ngu+o+`i xay, ngu+o+`i tho^?i co+m, ngu+o+`i
rang me`, xay me` v..v.. nghi~a la` trong ba't co+m co' dda^`y ddu? vu~
tru..  DDa^y la` nguye^n ly' duye^n sinh dda~ vie^'t trong 1 ba`i tru+o+'c
[mo.i su+. va^.t nu+o+ng tu+.a va`o nhau ma` co', kho^ng co' 1 su+. va^.t na`o
tre^n the^' gian co' tu+. ti'nh, nghi~a la` ti'nh tu+. tu'c, tu+. to^`n ta.i,
ddo^.c la^.p, kho^ng tu`y thuo^.c ba^'t cu+' su+. va^.t na`o kha'c] va` thu+o+`ng
ddu+o+.c du`ng dde^? mo^ ta? pha^`n na`o 1 y' nghi~a cu?a Ti'nh Kho^ng.
Ngu+o+`i na`o ho^.i nha^.p ddu+o+.c nguye^n ly' duye^n sinh na`y thi` PG ba?o
ngu+o+`i ddo' dda~ dda.t ddu+o+.c 1 pha^`n Tue^. Nha~n, nghi~a la` con ma('t Tri'
Tue^. dde^? nhi`n tha^'y ddu+o+.c thu+.c tu+o+'ng cu?a mo.i su+. va^.t.

   Thu+' dde^'n, ca^`m ba't co+m trong tay, tuy bie^'t ra(`ng ba?n cha^'t
cu?a no' la` kho^ng nhu+ng no' co' the^? la`m cho ta ddo+~ ddo'i, va` cu`ng
lu'c ta cu~ng bie^'t ra(`ng hie^.n nay o+? tre^n the^' gio+'i va^~n co`n nhie^`u
ngu+o+`i ddang ddo'i, do ddo' ta ddo^.t kho+?i 1 y' nie^.m mong ca^`u mo.i
ngu+o+`i tre^n the^' gio+'i co' ddu? co+m a(n a'o ma(.c.  Cu. the^? ho+n nu+~a,
ta co' the^? kho+?i ta^m ddo'ng go'p cho 1 ho^.i tu+` thie^.n na`o ddo' dde^?
gia?i quye^'t pha^`n na`o na.n ddo'i tre^n the^' gio+'i#.  Ngu+o+`i na`o co'
the^? thu+.c hie^.n ddu+o+.c nhu+ tre^n thi` PG ba?o ngu+o+`i ddo' dda~ nhi`n ba't
co+m tre^n tay vo+'i 1 pha^`n cu?a Pha'p Nha~n, nghi~a la` con ma('t
thu+.c chu+'ng ddu+o+.c ddie^`u: "Tuy mo.i su+. va^.t trong mo.i ca?nh gio+'i
(va.n Pha'p) chi? la` nhu+~ng the^? hie^.n kha'c nhau cu?a "Kho^ng",
nhu+~ng su+. va^.t trong ca?nh gio+'i (realm) na`o cu~ng dde^`u CO' THU+.C
ddo^'i vo+'i ca'c chu'ng sinh trong ca?nh gio+'i ddo'", do ddo' tu+. ddo^.ng
pha't sinh 1 lo`ng tu+` bi kho^ng gio+'i ha.n, kho^ng ddie^`u kie^.n,
kho^ng pha^n bie^.t, va` ta^'t ca? nhu+~ng ha`nh ddo^.ng cu?a ngu+o+`i na`y
chi? dde^? cu+'u vo+'t chu'ng sinh ra kho?i vo`ng kho^? ddau thuo^.c nhu+~ng
ca?nh gio+'i cu?a ho..  PG go.i nhu+~ng ngu+o+`i na`y la` Bo^` Ta't.

   Sau cu`ng, va^~n cu`ng 1 ba't co+m tre^n, ddo^'i vo+'i 1 vi. Thie^`n Su+
co' the^? Ngu+o+`i tha^'y ca? vu~ tru. trong ddo'.  DDo^'i vo+'i to^i, to^i tha^'y
co+m ga.o lu+'c co' nhie^`u Vitamin B so vo+'i ga.o tra('ng tho+m Na`ng
Hu+o+ng, tro^.n vo+'i muo^'i me` la` 1 thu+'c a(n tuye^.t ha?o dda^`y ddu? cha^'t
bo^? du+o+~ng dde^? nuo^i co+ the^?.  DDo^'i vo+'i 1 ngu+o+`i quen a(n nha^.u Si`-
Te^'ch vo+'i la.i Sa^m Banh ba't co+m tre^n co' the^? la`: "ca'i na`y ai
ma` a(n ddu+o+.c, chi? dde^? cho heo a(n."  DDo^'i vo+'i 1 con me`o thi` la.i
co' the^? la` "ca'i na`y me`o na`o a(n ddu+o+.c, chi? dde^? cho ngu+o+`i a(n."
Nhu+~ng su+. kha'c bie^.t tre^n kho^ng co' gi` la` la. vi` theo PG, mo^~i
chu'ng sinh co' 1 nghie^.p rie^ng va` so^'ng trong 1 ca?nh gio+'i
rie^ng.  Nhu+ng ddie^?m tuye^.t die^.u o+? dda^y la` nhu+~ng ca?nh gio+'i na`y
cu`ng lu'c cu`ng nhau the^? hie^.n tre^n cu`ng 1 su+. va^.t ma` kho^ng he^`
nga(n nga.i la^~n nhau#.  Ho+n the^' nu+~a chu'ng cu`ng lu'c nha^.p va`o
vo+'i nhau va` bao ha`m nhau 1 ca'ch vo^ nga.i#.  DDa^y chi'nh la` ti'nh
"Tu+o+ng Tho^ng"" cu?a va.n Pha'p va` la` 1 quan nie^.m dda(.c thu` trong
PG, nha^'t la` trong Hoa-Nghie^m To^ng.  Danh tu+` "Tu+o+ng Tho^ng"
kho^ng nhu+~ng bie^?u thi. Nguye^n Ly' Duye^n Sinh ma` co`n go^`m 3 dda(.c
ti'nh: cu`ng lu'c cu`ng nhau the^? hie^.n (DDo^`ng Tho+`i Ca^u Kho+?i),
cu`ng lu'c nha^.p va`o vo+'i nhau (DDo^`ng Tho+`i Ho^~ Nha^.p) va` cu`ng lu'c
bao ha`m nhau (DDo^`ng Tho+`i Ho^~ Nhie^'p).

>>Perhaps a devout Buddhist among us could help explain to me what "not to
>>slander" (Right speech) really means - does it include "not to spread biased
>>and unchecked info to defame other religions"?  Or perhaps, it's just a
>>matter of (lengthy) interpretation?

This, I can explain:

Right speech does include "not to spread biased and unchecked info not only
to defame other religions but also to any bad purpose".

But first, let's look at the definition of the word "slander":

SLANDER: 1. Law. The utterance of defamatory statement injurious to the
reputation or well-being of a person. 2. A malicious statement or report.
(The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition)

I would like to add the definition of the word "truth":

TRUTH: 1.Conformity to fact or actuality#. 2. Fidelity to an original or
standard. 3. Reality; actuality#. 4. A statement proven to be or accepted as
true#.

For me, to reveal the TRUTH to give a warning, to look squarely into the past,
the present, and to drive for the better for the future, is by no means to
SLANDER. We have to be courageous and honest enough to face the truth, 
otherwise we are simply cheating ourselves, and the truth is still the truth.

Now, how do you know that what I and other netters such as Longan and KB have
posted are biased and unchecked info#? Do you have any proof to refute all
the "facts" in those posts?  Have you read any of the books mentioned in those
posts?  The point is, just by looking at the titles of those books, some people
consider them right away as trash, biased and unchecked info, just like the 
Archbishop of Canterbury and a Catholic student in the following story:

"The evening of January 2, 1969 was an historical one, it being the first time
that a Roman Catholic Cardinal had been invited to enter and preach in
St.Paul's since the Reformation..That evening the Archbishop of Canterbury was
solemnly heading a procession to meet Cardinal Heenan, Primate of England,
inside St. Paul's Cathedral, which although the main Protestant Church of
England, was nevertheless packed with Catholic priests and nuns, when he came
suddenly to a halt.  A Londoner, Miss Amy Phillips, having stepped from her
pew, courteously handed a copy of the present book to the Archbishop.  The
Archbishop smiled, took the book, graciously thanked the lady, then read the
title CATHOLIC TERROR TODAY#.  At such sight "his heavy jaw cracked." Thereupon
in a most unecumenical and unepiscopal fit of anger, he hurled the book across
the Cathedral.  The book hit a couple of Catholic nuns, who made several signs
of the cross.  A few days before a Catholic student, upon noticing the same
book in the hands of a fellow student at Queen's University, Belfast, had
thrown the book to the ground, jumped upon it and kicked it with uncontrollable
rage#.  NONE OF THESE PEOPLE HAD READ A LINE OF IT.  An additional demonstration
of the intelligent objective of the Catholic Intelligantia, in Ireland, Britain
or, for that matter, in the USA#."

Now, in the Preface to the American Editions, the author wrote:

  "THE VATICAN'S HOLOCAUST is not a misnomer, an accusation, and even less a
speculation.  It is an historical fact.  Rabid nationalism and religious
dogmaticism were its two ingredients.
(I deliberately deleted horrible descriptions on what has happened in Croatia)
   What has been gathered in this book will vindicate the VERACITY OF THESE
FACTS. DATES, NAMES, AND PLACES, AS WELL AS PHOTOS ARE THERE TO PROVE THEM.
   They should become known to the American public (Should I add Vietnamese
public?), NOT TO FOSTER VINDICTEVENESS, but to warn them of the danger, which
racialism and sectarianism, when allied with RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE can bring to
any contemporary nation, whether in Europe or in the New World (or in Asia).
   This work should be assessed WITHOUT PREJUDICE and as a lesson; but even
more vital, as a warning for the future of the Americans (Vietnamese),
beginning with that of the USA#.

Avro Manhattan
1986

The above statements were never, ever, disproved by anybody, because they were
supported by full authentic documentation with official documents, photographs,
etc. that nobody could deny it.  And because they couldn't deny it, the papal
teaching emphasized on forbidding their followers to read those anti-catholic
"trashes" with a scary tactic, those who read those literature are "ipso facto"
uncatholic and will automatically go to hell.  That's why "good" catholics 
never read those books.  They play safe: why take the risk of going to hell,
who knows? better not read them.

BTW, the book contains a chapter on Vietnam, chapter 23, and the author
concluded his book with the following:

"FORGETFULNESS and, even more, IGNORANCE are dangerous twin brothers in our
turbulent world.  Since they are the breeders of unscrupulous ideological and
ecclesiastical intrigues, and thus of potential new Croatias and new Vietnams.
The basic Catholic claims have never changed ane single iota#.  The Catholic
Church's insistence about her own uniqueness has remained as granitically firm
now, as it has always been.  These are the same claims which produced the
Inquisition, Croatia and the Catholic Dictatorship of Vietnam.  If the past be
an indication of the shape of things to come then, given the right
opportunities and appropriate political climate, New Inquisitions, New Croatias
and New Vietnams will be created again and again.  When, where and how, only
the future will tell."

What should we, as Vietnamese, catholics and non-catholics, who claim to
love their country, do#?  I strongly believe that the Vietnamese are intelligent
enough to prevent a dark chapter in the VN history form happening again.
But how? By revealing the TRUTH, NOT TO FOSTER VINDICTIVENESS OR TO DEFAME, but
as a warning and calling for our common sense, intelligence, right 
understanding and patriotism.  Only with wisdom and determination we are able
to escape from slavery#. Actually, I don't hate anybody.  I don't hate 
catholics.  I don't hate the Vatican and I don't hate even the Communists
because I see everything as the law of karma.  But, as a human being, I have 
the duty to work for the better of humanity.  If anybody misunderstood me
that's his/her problems, not mine.

But, if you consider all the above as slandering, so be it.

Enjoy#.

CTN

Newsgroups: soc.culture.vietnamese