My work is heavily influenced by Buddhist phenomenology and object oriented ontology. I think of the human body as a tube and a semiconductor, this thought comes from meditation experiences and from some classic buddhist sutras as well as some taoism influence. I learned Martin Heidegger from Lee Ufan, which had huge influence on him, the concept of Dasein has influenced my idea of semiconductor as well. Merlau-Ponty further developed the work of Heidegger while mainly focus on the body, and Judith Butler applied phenomenology to gender. Being performative is also a vital concept of my work.
Besides Heidegger, Derrida's deconstruction and Deleuze's multiplicity has influence to my work and the understanding of buddhism and vice versa, deconstruction is like the buddhism concept of emptiness is full and full is emptiness, and Deleuze's multiplicity is similar to Buddhist understanding of the senses, that all senses are interconnected.These are all very important to my practice, mainly affecting my way of thinking and conceptual development. Below are some key paragraphs from sutras and some videos about philosophers that influenced me the most.
Bodhi originally has no tree.
The mirror has no stand.
The Buddha-nature is
always clear and pure.
Where is there room for dust?
The mind is the bodhi tree.
The body is the bright mirror's stand.
The bright mirror is
originally clear and pure.
Where could there be any dust?
Bodhi originally has no tree.
The bright mirror also has no stand.
Fundamentally there is not a single thing.
Where could dust arise?
The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch
How come in this great universe there is not even place for my cane
Though I am enlighten by the emptiness of life and phenomena
No matter how precious and heavy your 3 feet sword are
It would be just like Lightening shadows cutting the spring breeze
心經 Heart Sutra
Avalokiteshvara Boddhisattva, when practicing deeply the Prajna Paramita, perceived that all five skandhas in their own being are empty and was saved from all suffering. O Shariputra, form does not differ from emptiness, emptiness does not differ from form. That which is form is emptiness, that which is emptiness, form. The same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses, consciousness. O Shariputra, all dharmas are marked with emptiness. They are without birth or death; are not tainted nor pure, do not increase nor decrease. Therefore, in emptiness: no form, no feelings, no perceptions, no impulses, no consciousness, no eyes, no ears, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind, no color, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch, no object of mind, no world of eyes, through to no world of mind consciousness. No ignorance and also no extinction of it, through to no old age and death and also no extinction of it. No suffering, no origination, no stopping, no path, no cognition, also no attainment, with nothing to attain. The Bodhisattvas depend on Prajna Paramita and their minds are unhindered. Without any hindrance, no fears exist. Far apart from every deluded view they dwell in Nirvana. In the Three Worlds all Buddhas depend on Prajna Paramita and attain unsurpassed, complete, perfect Enlightenment. Therefore know: the Prajna Paramita is the great transcendent mantra, is the great bright mantra, is the utmost mantra, is the supreme mantra, which is able to relieve all suffering and is true, not false. So proclaim the Prajna Paramita mantra, proclaim the mantra that says: Gyate, gyate, paragyate, parasam gyate, bodhi svaha!
The Diamond Sutra
Subhuti was gratified, and signified glad consent.
Then the venerable Subhûti answered the Bhagavat and said: 'So be it, O Bhagavat.'
Thereupon, the Lord Buddha, with majesty of person,8 and perfect articulation, proceeded to deliver the text of this Scripture,9 saying:—— “By this wisdom shall enlightened disciples be enabled to bring into subjection every inordinate desire! Every species of life, whether hatched in the egg, formed in the womb, evolved from spawn, produced by metamorphosis, with or without form or intelligence, possessing or devoid of natural instinct—from these changeful conditions of being, I command you to seek deliverance, in the transcendental concept of Nirvana. Thus, you shall be delivered from an immeasurable, innumerable, and illimitable world of sentient life; but, in reality, there is no world of sentient life from which to seek deliverance. And why? Because, in the minds of enlightened disciples there have ceased to exist such arbitrary concepts of phenomena as an entity, a being, a living being, or a personality."
Then the Bhagavat thus spoke to him: 'Any one, O Subhûti, who has entered here on the path of the Bodhisattvas must thus frame his thought: As many beings as there are in this world of beings, comprehended under the term of beings (either born of eggs, or from the womb, or from moisture, or miraculously), with form or without form, with name or without name, or neither with nor without name, as far as any known world of beings is known, all these must be delivered by me in the perfect world of Nirvâna. And yet, after I have thus delivered immeasurable beings, not one single being has been delivered. And why? If, O Subhûti, a Bodhisattva had any idea of (belief in) a being, he could not be called a Bodhisattva (one who is fit to become a Buddha). And why? Because, O Subhûti, no one is to be called a Bodhisattva, for whom there should exist the idea of a being, the idea of a living being, or the idea of a person.'
Subhuti replied, saying: “Very numerous, Honoured of the Worlds!”
The Lord Buddha continuing his discourse, said: “Subhuti, the Lord Buddha declares that all these ‘atoms of dust’ are not essentially ‘atoms of dust,’ they are merely termed ‘atoms of dust.’ The Lord Buddha also declares that those ‘myriad worlds’ are not really ‘myriad worlds,’ they are merely designated ‘myriad worlds.’”
Subhûti said: 'Yes, O Bhagavat, yes, O Sugata, that dust of the earth would be much. And why? Because, O Bhagavat, what was preached by the Tathâgata as the dust of the earth, that was preached by the Tathâgata as no-dust. Therefore it is called the dust of the earth. And what was preached by the Tathâgata as the sphere of worlds, that was preached by the Tathâgata as no-sphere. Therefore it is called the sphere of worlds.'
The Lord Buddha, continuing, addressed Subhuti, saying: “Within these innumerable worlds, every form of sentient life, with their various mental dispositions, are entirely known to the Lord Buddha. And why? Because, what the Lord Buddha referred to as their ‘various mental dispositions,’ are not in reality their ‘various mental dispositions,’ these are merely termed their ‘various mental dispositions.’ And why? Because, Subhuti, dispositions of mind, or modes of thought, whether relating to the past, the present, or the future, are alike unreal and illusory.”
Bhagavat said: 'As many beings as there are in all those worlds, I know the manifold trains of thought of them all. And why? Because what was preached as the train of thoughts, the train of thoughts indeed, O Subhûti, that was preached by the Tathâgata as no-train of thoughts, and therefore it is called the train of thoughts. And why? Because, O Subhûti, a past thought is not perceived, a future thought is not perceived, and the present thought is not perceived.'
The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “What think you? Can the Lord Buddha be perceived by means of any physical phenomena?”
Subhuti replied, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! it is improbable that the Lord Buddha can be perceived by means of any physical phenomena. And why? Because, what the Lord Buddha referred to as ‘physical phenomena,’ are not in reality ‘physical phenomena,’ these are merely termed ‘physical phenomena.’”
Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O Subhûti, should a Tathâgata be seen (known) by the possession of signs?'
Subhûti said: 'Not indeed, O Bhagavat, a Tathâgata is not to be seen (known) by the possession of signs. And why? Because, what was preached by the Tathâgata as the possession of signs, that was preached as no-possession of signs by the Tathâgata, and therefore it is called the possession of signs.'
Subhuti continuing, addressed the Lord Buddha, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! what the Lord Buddha discoursed upon as ‘infinite worlds,’ these are not in reality ‘infinite worlds,’ they are merely termed ‘infinite worlds.’ And why? Because, if these were in reality ‘infinite worlds,’ there would of necessity be unity and eternity of matter. But the Lord Buddha, discoursing upon the ‘unity and eternity of matter,’ declared that there is neither ‘unity’ nor ‘eternity of matter,’ therefore it is merely termed ‘unity and eternity of matter.’”
And what was preached by the Tathâgata as the sphere of a million millions of worlds, that was preached by the Tathâgata as no-sphere of worlds; and therefore it is called the sphere of a million millions of worlds. And why? Because, O Bhagavat, if there were a sphere of worlds, there would exist a belief in matter; and what was preached as a belief in matter by the Tathâgata, that was preached as no-belief by the Tathâgata; and therefore it is called a belief in matter.'
The Lord Buddha thereafter addressed Subhuti, saying: “Those who aspire to the attainment of supreme spiritual wisdom ought thus to know, believe in, and interpret phenomena. They ought to eliminate from their minds every tangible evidence of every visible object. Subhuti, concerning ‘visible objects,’ the Lord Buddha declared that these are not really ‘visible objects,’ they are merely termed ‘visible objects.’”
Bhagavat said: 'Thus then, O Subhûti, are all things to be perceived, to be looked upon, and to be believed by one who has entered on the path of the Bodhisattvas. And in this wise are they to be perceived, to be looked upon, and to be believed, that a man should believe neither in the idea of a thing nor in the idea of a no-thing. And why? Because, by saying: The idea of a thing, the idea of a thing indeed, it has been preached by the Tathâgata as no-idea of a thing.'
Dao De Jing
Dao De Jing:(Embodying the Dao)
The Dao that can be trodden is not the enduring and unchanging Dao. The name that can be named is not the enduring and unchanging name. (Conceived of as) having no name, it is the Originator of heaven and earth; (conceived of as) having a name, it is the Mother of all things.
Always without desire we must be found,
If its deep mystery we would sound;
But if desire always within us be,
Its outer fringe is all that we shall see.
Under these two aspects, it is really the same; but as development takes place, it receives the different names. Together we call them the Mystery. Where the Mystery is the deepest is the gate of all that is subtle and wonderful.
Dao De Jing:(The manifestation of the mystery)
We look at it, and we do not see it, and we name it 'the Equable.' We listen to it, and we do not hear it, and we name it 'the Inaudible.' We try to grasp it, and do not get hold of it, and we name it 'the Subtle.' With these three qualities, it cannot be made the subject of description; and hence we blend them together and obtain The One. Its upper part is not bright, and its lower part is not obscure. Ceaseless in its action, it yet cannot be named, and then it again returns and becomes nothing. This is called the Form of the Formless, and the Semblance of the Invisible; this is called the Fleeting and Indeterminable. We meet it and do not see its Front; we follow it, and do not see its Back. When we can lay hold of the Dao of old to direct the things of the present day, and are able to know it as it was of old in the beginning, this is called (unwinding) the clue of Dao.
Dao De Jing:(The universal use (of the action in weakness of the Dao))
The softest thing in the world dashes against and overcomes the hardest; that which has no (substantial) existence enters where there is no crevice. I know hereby what advantage belongs to doing nothing (with a purpose).
There are few in the world who attain to the teaching without words, and the advantage arising from non-action.
Enjoyment in Untroubled Ease:...:In the Northern Ocean there is a fish, the name of which is Kun - I do not know how many li in size. It changes into a bird with the name of Peng, the back of which is (also) - I do not know how many li in extent. When this bird rouses itself and flies, its wings are like clouds all round the sky. When the sea is moved (so as to bear it along), it prepares to remove to the Southern Ocean. The Southern Ocean is the Pool of Heaven.
There is the (book called) Qi Xie, a record of marvels. We have in it these words: 'When the peng is removing to the Southern Ocean it flaps (its wings) on the water for 3000 li. Then it ascends on a whirlwind 90,000 li, and it rests only at the end of six months.' (But similar to this is the movement of the breezes which we call) the horses of the fields, of the dust (which quivers in the sunbeams), and of living things as they are blown against one another by the air. Is its azure the proper colour of the sky? Or is it occasioned by its distance and illimitable extent? If one were looking down (from above), the very same appearance would just meet his view.
And moreover, (to speak of) the accumulation of water; if it be not great, it will not have strength to support a large boat. Upset a cup of water in a cavity, and a straw will float on it as if it were a boat. Place a cup in it, and it will stick fast; the water is shallow and the boat is large. (So it is with) the accumulation of wind; if it be not great, it will not have strength to support great wings. Therefore (the peng ascended to) the height of 90,000 li, and there was such a mass of wind beneath it; thenceforth the accumulation of wind was sufficient. As it seemed to bear the blue sky on its back, and there was nothing to obstruct or arrest its course, it could pursue its way to the South.
A cicada and a little dove laughed at it, saying, 'We make an effort and fly towards an elm or sapanwood tree; and sometimes before we reach it, we can do no more but drop to the ground. Of what use is it for this (creature) to rise 90,000 li, and make for the South?' He who goes to the grassy suburbs, returning to the third meal (of the day), will have his belly as full as when he set out; he who goes to a distance of 100 li will have to pound his grain where he stops for the night; he who goes a thousand li, will have to carry with him provisions for three months. What should these two small creatures know about the matter? The knowledge of that which is small does not reach to that which is great; (the experience of) a few years does not reach to that of many. How do we know that it is so? The mushroom of a morning does not know (what takes place between) the beginning and end of a month; the short-lived cicada does not know (what takes place between) the spring and autumn. These are instances of a short term of life. In the south of Chu there is the (tree) called Ming-ling, whose spring is 500 years, and its autumn the same; in high antiquity there was that called Da-chun, whose spring was 8000 years, and its autumn the same. And Peng Zu is the one man renowned to the present day for his length of life: if all men were (to wish) to match him, would they not be miserable?
The Adjustment of Controversies:...:Formerly, I, Zhuang Zhou, dreamt that I was a butterfly, a butterfly flying about, feeling that it was enjoying itself. I did not know that it was Zhou. Suddenly I awoke, and was myself again, the veritable Zhou. I did not know whether it had formerly been Zhou dreaming that he was a butterfly, or it was now a butterfly dreaming that it was Zhou. But between Zhou and a butterfly there must be a difference. This is a case of what is called the Transformation of Things.'
No thing anywhere is ever born from itself, from something else, from both or without a cause
Then there is no going in what has gone; there is no going also in what has not [yet] gone. Motion is unknowable apart from what has gone and not [yet] gone.
Where there is moving, there there is going. Furthermore, because moving is within motion -- and is neither gone nor not [yet] gone, therefore, there is going within motion.
Seeing and hearing and smelling and tasting and touching, mind are the six sense organs; their experienced objects are what-is-seen and so forth.
Seeing does not see itself. How can what does not see itself see anything else?
Apart from the cause of form, form is not perceived. Apart from “form”, the cause of form also does not appear.
If there were form apart from the cause of form, it would follow that form is without cause; there is no object at all that is without cause.
If form existed, a cause of form would be untenable; if form did not exist, a cause of form would be untenable.
Not the slightest bit of space exists prior to the characteristics of space. If [space] existed prior to its characteristics, it would follow that it would be without characteristics.
If a desirous one without desire exists before desire, desire would exist dependent on that [desirous one]. [When] a desirous one exists, desire exists.
If birth were compounded, it would possess the three characteristics [of a compound]. If birth were uncompounded, how would it be a characteristic of a compound?
If [that] thing is not evident, how can there be seeing etc? Therefore, the presence [of that] thing [must] exist before them.
For that without beginning [and] end, where can a middle be in that? Therefore, it is not possible for it to have before, after, and simultaneous phases.
If the present and the future were contingent on the past, then the present and the future would have existed in the past.
If the present and future did not exist there, then how could the present and the future be contingent on it?
If everything were empty, there would be no arising and perishing. From the letting go of and ceasing of what could one assert nirvana(-ing)?
About Deleuze, Rhizomatic, Multiplicity, Plateus