Free Not the Wind, Not the Flag Essay Sample
From 'Not the Wind, Not the Flag,' it is notable that its analysis, understanding and interpretation can only be reached after several stages of keen analysis. This is a common concept applied by Buddhists. This is a way of denying some of the experiences themselves. From the arguments of the monks, it shows that everything depends on how we perceive it. For instance, one monk believes that the flag is moving, but the other denies saying that it is the wind that is moving, not the flag. This changes dimensions when the patriarch intervenes and says that both the flag and the mind are not at all moving. On the contrary, the mind is what should be moving.
From the above argument, it appears that the first two monks are trying to gain gold or buy iron as presented. This is the main reason why it becomes quite hard for the patriarch to deal with them. The patriarch sees the priests as 'dull heads' and therefore he decides to make such a big bargain and also prove something to them. He sums their argument up by saying that all the three (mind, flag and the wind) moves. A similar understanding is therefore applied to explain how everything becomes wrong when we all open our mouths to say something. To survive in the world, the trick lies in making sure whatever happens around us has been examined and explained from all possible dimensions or angles. This will help individuals make informed decisions regarding all the situations faced.
The above kind of explanation represents the modern Buddhism's metaphysical dimensions or negations applied by both materialists and rationalists. The peculiarity is that the thoughts can derive similarities and differences in their thinking trains. Looking at the argument, we see that everything is definitely reduced to the mind as the defining 'tool' in our lives. This is achieved by ensuring that all subjective elements have been denoted from whatever we experience as human beings. The mind is thus reduced to formlessness, something achieved by turning the argument to a different path. On the contrary, our modern materialists will on the other hand decide to substitute mathematics for 'true' subjectivity. This reaches at a point of no subjectivity.
From a personal point of view, I suppose that the above two approaches towards the same situation is genuine and the eventual consequences can as well remain complementary. For instance, such views contribute to the Buddhist procedure which as well can be used to make all scientific ontology plausible in a subjective manner. But also we note that two wrongs can never make a right; they remain very wrong and a different 'right' exists. As humans, it is of importance not to just think that humans are 'conscious enough' or that 'time' moves. The fact of the matter is that the two are very real as we see from the argument between the monks. This kind of knowledge is therefore representative of the metaphysical idealism and not the relativism of Buddhism or materialism.
With the above understanding, it is necessary for us to agree that time is certainly not always 'real.' However, while there is true consciousness in human thoughts, there is nothing like self-existent. This means that 'we' as humans and time are certainly very dependent but conditional non-entities. This is something held true by modern metaphysics. It is therefore mandatory for 'we' humans to understand that this will not translate to a fact that we do not experience things happening around us, and that time passes by. The material universe is therefore undeniable as well.