Response to Dalai Lama’s Chapters

The paradoxical nature of reality revealed in Buddhist philosophy of emptiness is that at its heart there is a fundamental disparity between the way we perceive the world, including our own existence in it, and the way things actually are. Each day we tend to relate the world and to ourselves as if these entities possess self-enclosed, definable, discrete, and enduring reality. However, according to the theory of emptiness this way of thinking is a fundamental error. According to the theory of emptiness any belief in an objective reality ground in the assumption of intrinsic, independent existence is untenable. Everything is dependent on something else. In order for something to be independent, intrinsic existence would imply that things and events are somehow complete unto themselves and are therefore entirely self-contained. The Dalai Lama also said that the notion of intrinsic, independent existence is incompatible with causation. This is because causation implies contingency and dependence, while anything that possesses independent existence would be immutable and self-enclosed.
The paradoxical nature of reality revealed in the philosophy of modern physics is shown through the principle of uncertainty. The uncertainty principle tells us we can never know at the same time what an electron does and where it is. This is different from classical physics, in which objects behave in a deterministic predictable manner. The uncertainty principle tells that the more we know of an electrons position the less we know of its momentum and vice versa. This is a paradox because we will never be able to know the particles position and its momentum both at once. It is always probabilistic. We will always need to guess one. Also way the paradoxical nature of modern physics is shown is through twins paradox of the special theory of relativity. The twin paradox says that if one twin were to fly abroad a spaceship at near the speed of light to a star 20 light years away and then return to earth, he will find his twin to be twenty years older than he is.
“Dependent (co-)origination” lies at the very heart of the Buddhist understanding of the world and the nature of our human existence. The principle of dependent origination can be understood in three ways. First, all conditioned thing and events in the world come into being only as a result of the interaction of causes and conditions. Second, there is a mutual dependence between parts and the whole; without parts there can be no whole, without a whole it makes no sense to speak of parts. Third, anything that exists and has an identity does so only within the total network of everything that has a possible or potential relation to it. No phenomenon exists with an independent or intrinsic identity. This challenges the “Big Bang” theory of origin of our universe because according to the “Big Bang” theory there was a big bang that occurred 12 to 15 billion years ago. This “Bang” couldn’t have occurred independently as nothing can happen without a cause. According to “dependent origination” all things and events in the world came into being as a result of the interaction go causes and conditions. This goes against the theory that the “Bang” occurred out of nowhere independently.
When I compare the Buddhist philosophy and cosmology presented in these selections to contemporary physics the primary similarity that I see is the paradox nature of both concepts. For example in Buddhist philosophy/cosmology everything appears to be independent, however it says that nothing is independent and everything is dependent and has a cause. Also when we look at the contemporary physics we have the view of classical and quantum physics. Where one gives us a definite location of objects and where the other gives us just an approximation/probability. The differences between these two theories is that in Buddhist philosophy/cosmology it says that there are multiple world systems, but also the idea that they are in a constant state of coming into being and passing away. There is no absolute beginning. If there were to be an absolute beginning this would be problematic because this leaves Buddhism with two options. One theism proposes that the universe is created by an intelligence that is totally transcendent and therefore outside the laws of cause and effect. The second option is that the universe came into being from no cause at all. Buddhism rejects both these options. However in contemporary physics it says that the big bang occurred once and it is not a cycle. There is an absolute beginning which is when the big bang started. Also in contemporary physics they do no believe that universe was created by an intelligent being.
My understanding is very different from that of the Dalai Lama. I believe that there is an intelligent being that created the universe. Whether it be through the big bang or some other means. When thinking of the creation of the universe there has to have been something that is eternal. Whether it be an intelligent creator/being or the universe. Something could have no come from nothing so I believe that in an intelligent being. I find the belief in several world systems compelling in Tibetan Buddhist philosophy/cosmology. The fact that Tibetan Buddhists believe that there are multiple world systems and a constant state of coming into being and passing away. What I did not find compelling was that they do no believe in an intelligent being that is totally transcendent and therefore outside the law of causes and effect. I think there has to be an intelligent being that is totally transcendent because there must have been a start to this universe by a cause.

Cowell and Cage

I thought the readings by Cowell and Cage were very interesting. The first chapter was written by Cowell and it talked about now noise is a part of music. I agreed with Cowell that many people think the primary parts of music are the melody, harmony, and rhythm. Even in class these were the key words that were brought up when Professor Miller asked a question like “What are the different parts of music?” No one said noise. I found the chapter written by Cowell very interesting as he was explaining more about noise. I learned that noise should not be placed in the same boat as rhythm because rhythm is a conception and not a physical reality. I also learned that singers only make a “pure” tone when singing a vowel, because pronunciation of consonants produces irregular vibrations,which is noise. It was also interesting to learn that there is a noise element in the very tone of all instruments. This showed me that noise is a part of music and it should not be limited to just those three parts mentioned in the beginning. I feel the noise component of music is never discussed because whenever we hear the word noise it gives the impression of bothersome or annoying. Through this chapter I was able to learn that noise is a part of music.

The chapter by cage was a bit more confusing to read than the first chapter. From this chapter I thought it was cool how he explained about using noise and technology. Nowadays we use noise to create sound effects. I play the guitar for a couple of years and I have played the electric guitar for about 2 years. When playing the electric guitar we also use sound effect pedals. These pedals can create a wide variety of sounds or “noises” and they are all used in music. Alone they just sound like noise, but when used with other instruments and a rhythm it creates music. I thought it was also very interesting when he said that we can create music without and intermediary performers. I know a friend who creates music just through the computer, without any help of actual instruments. His creations sound very good and I thought it was cool how we can create music now without actual instruments. When the author describe the term music as “organization of sound” I realized that, that is what music is. It is literally an organization of sound. Different sounds come together with rhythm in order to create music. With no order, these different sounds go from music to just noise. For example when creating music, we organize each part of the music (drums, keyboard, vocals, etc..). If we were to just jumble each part and randomly arrange the pieces, it would just result in noise.

Making Sense of Music: Initial Encounters with Javanese Gamelan

After first listening to the gamelan music the first impression that came to mind was that it was repetitive. After reading the paper by Becker and going to the first session of class I can see why this is so. The cyclic organization of gamelan music contributes to its repetitiveness. Much of the paper explained a lot of what we went over in class doing the first session. During class we played gamelan music based on the asta-wara system. The basic unit of gamelan music is a cycle marked off by a gong. This cycle is then subdivided into halves, quarters, eights, etc., by instruments playing at successively greater levels of density, or at a successively faster rates of speed. My first experience playing the gamelan was very exciting. I haven’t touched a musical instrument in a while and it was fun getting into it again. After hearing the sounds of each instrument I was kind of able to imagine the instruments played in the “Gendhing Monggang.”

Although I had a background in music, playing and hearing gamelan music was different because it was based on a cyclic system. I was able to make sense of what I was playing and hearing because of the cyclic system. When Becker said gamelan music is “musical manifestation of the way in which the passage of time is also ordered,” it made sense to me because time can be subdivided into intervals. Having the cycle on the board and dividing each beat made it easier to play the music.

When I think about my own conceptualization of musics that are meaningful to me, much of the music are meaningful because of the lyrics. I am a person who likes to listen to the lyrics of a music more than just the melody. A good song does not have to have a good beat or melody, but for me great lyrics create meaning for me. After listening to the gamelan music and going to class I thought about this question and I came to a conclusion that music does not have to have lyrics in order for them to have meaning. It would be wrong to generalize that all music without lyrics don’t have meaning. I think in this case the meaning is in the creation and development of the music.

Meeting Cecilia Vicuna

The meeting with Cecilia Vicuna was very interesting and it was something I did not expect. Before meeting Cecilia Vicuna I did not really understand her work. Although we went over it in class and talked about her poem, I did not fully understand her concepts and it was in a way “foreign” to me. Her work was very unique and it was something that I have never seen before. After the two hours we spent with her in her studio, I was able to understand a little bit more of who she is and how she creates her pieces of work. I thought it was really cool when she said she sees words not as images but as little bursts of energy and feeling. She said she uses the drawings in her books to show and portray these burst of energy and feeling. Also it was very commendable when she said that she does not feel anxious or afraid before she publishes her work. I really liked how she did not care about what other people thought. This shows that the public opinion does not affect her work and she is creating her work out of OWN imagination not tainted by others.

One more memorable part of this visit was when she read a part of her book. When she read a part from Instan I was shocked. It was nothing close to what I expected, but in its own way I found it to be very soothing and beautiful. I was honestly waiting for her to read the part of the book. When she started I really thought she was just warming up her throat before she read the book, but when she said she was finished and that she only read a stanza I was left in confusion. All in all I thought the visit to Cecilia Vicuna’s studio was very insightful and fun. I really enjoyed listening to her answer my classmate’s questions and I was able to learn more about her and her work through this experience.

Cosmology Post

Reading the Dalai Lama’s paper called “The Universe in a Single Atom” was very interesting and it allowed me to think in a different point of view. As a child I always grew up in a Christian home and I never really thought about different ways the cosmos was formed or how the universe began because I was told that God made the universe. I have heard about the big bang theory and such, however I never really bothered to think about the theory because I always believed in what the church told me. Reading this paper allowed me to see what other people believe about beginning of the universe.

In the first chapter of the reading it explained about the Theory of Emptiness which says that “any belief in an objective reality grounded in the assumption of intrinsic, independent existence is untenable.” In short this meant that everything and every event is devoid of objective, independent existence. If something were to be independent it would mean that it is complete unto themselves. Then the Dalai Lama went into talking about classical physics and quantum physics. I thought it was really admirable how the Dalai Lama was really thing gain more knowledge. Although he is not an expert in science and math his effort and hunger for knowledge was very commendable.

When the Dalai Lama said “Buddhism must be wiling to adapt rudimentary physics of its early atomic theories, despite their long-established authority within the tradition,” I found that very interesting because most religious leaders would never say that their religion needs change. It really showed how the Dalai Lama was not stubborn, but was in a way really seeking for “truth.” The Buddhist theory of the atom is very different from the atom that we see in chemistry class. The Buddhist theory of atom proposes that matter is constituted by a collection of eight atomic substances: earth, water, fire, and air which are four elements and form, smell, taste, and tactility which are the four derivative substances. An atom in Buddhist theory is seen as a composite of these eight substances. After explaining the Buddhist theory of the atom, the Dalai Lama went into talking about the theory of relativity and the uncertainty principle. When the Dalai Lama explained these theories I was amazed at how he was so well rounded. He made these concepts sound very easy to understand and I was able to digest these concepts more easily than if I were to have read in a textbook.

The second chapter of the reading was more about the Buddhist cosmology and Modern cosmology. Modern cosmology is founded on Einstein’s theory of relativity. Also in cosmology astronomical observations are taken together with the theory of relativity and it is shown that the universe is neither eternal nor static in its current form, but it is continuously evolving and expanding. Researchers assumed that the expansion started after the Great Bang, which is thought to have occurred 12 to 15 billion years ago. Most cosmologists today believe that a few seconds after the explosion, the temperature decreased to a point where reactions occurred that began making the nuclei of the lighter elements, from which much later all matter in the cosmos came into being. This means that all of space, time, matter, and energy as we know and experience them came into being from this fireball of matter and radiation. In the 1960’s there was a discovery that validated the big bang hypothesis. Scientists found background microwave radiation throughout the universe and it came to be recognized as an echo, or afterglow of the Big Bang.

Buddhism explains the evolution of the cosmos in terms of the principle of dependent origination, in that the origin and existence of evertything has to be understood in terms of the complex network of interconnect causes and conditions. There are two main traditions of cosmology in Buddhism, Abhidarma and Kalachakra. From these two traditions Abhidarma is the dominant system of Buddhist cosmology today. Abhidarma cosmology describes a flat earth, around which celestial bodies like the sun and moon revolve. According to this theory, the earth is one of the four “continents” which lie in the four cardinal directions of a towering mountain called Mount Meru, at the center of the universe. Two smaller continents flank each of these continents while the gaps between them are filled with massive oceans. The entire world system is supported by a “ground” which in turn remains suspended in empty space. The power of “air” keeps the base afloat in empty space.

At the heart of Buddhist cosmology is not only the idea that there are multiple world systems, but also the idea that they are in a constant state of coming into being and passing away. There is no absolute beginning.  If there were to be an absolute beginning this would be problematic because this leaves Buddhism with two options. One theism proposes that the universe is created by an intelligence that is totally transcendent and therefore outside the laws of cause and effect. The second option is that the universe came into being from no cause at all. Buddhism rejects both these options.

According to Buddhist cosmology the world is constructed of 5 elements: the supportive element of space and the four basic elements. This space element is the basis for the evolution and dissolution of the four elements. Other interpretations of the four basic elements can be solidarity (earth), liquidity (water), heat (fire), and kinetic energy (air). Buddhist cosmology establishes the cycle of the universe in the following way: first there is a period of formation, next a period when the universe endures, then a period when it is destroyed followed by a period of void before the formation of a new universe. During that 4^th period, that of emptiness, the space particles subsist, and it is from these particles that all the matter within a new universe is formed.

From this reading I was able to learn two different views of cosmology, the view from the Buddhist cosmologist side and the Modern cosmologist side. My view of cosmology is that God created the world in seven days. The seven days might not be seven days, as we know it, but in God’s time. I think the Big Bang could have been a result of God’s doing and this would answer some of the questions proposed in the reading. Also as a Christian all of the questions that were proposed at the end of the reading were answered for me. I think it is very plausible that God started the Big Bang because the Big Bang couldn’t have come from nothing. When thinking about the universe something has to be eternal. Whether the universe is eternal or there is an eternal being. I believe that there is an eternal being that created the universe.

From this reading I was able to learn about Buddhist cosmology and a lot about the Dalai Lama. Although this reading was not about the Dalai Lama, I thought his writing showed a lot about him. This reading allowed me to see other views of cosmology and I was able to learn a lot about Buddhism as well.

Museum Of Modern Art

In my visit to MOMA my favorite exhibit was the architecture exhibit. I was really amazed by all of the designs and blueprints of cities and neighborhoods when looking through this exhibit. The one thing about this exhibit that I really liked was that, through this exhibit I was able to realize what architects really did. Before this exhibit I always thought architects only made the models of buildings that were pleasing to the eye, but from this exhibit I saw that they also think about resources and energy of their structures. In one of the models, the architect displayed how the city they built will create energy and how they will conserve it. They made the city extremely eco-friendly causing almost no pollution to the earth. Another part of the architecture exhibit that I liked was they part where they talked about the foreclosing crisis that occurred America a couple of months ago. This part of the exhibit gave us facts about the foreclosure and what the architects are doing to help the cause. In the Summer of 2011, five interdisciplinary teams of architects, engineers, urban planners, ecologists and landscape designers joined together to envision new housing and transportation infrastructures that could catalyze urban transformation, particularly in the country’s suburbs. This really put art into perspective because it was being used to help people. Art was not just used to be aesthetically pleasing, but it was being used to create better neighborhoods and cities. Also being an engineer myself, I found it really interesting to see what kind of work we could be doing in the future. Although I visited a lot of other exhibits, I had a hard time appreciating the art in MOMA and I was not able to really appreciate and connect to the art in this museum. There is something about modern art that makes it really hard for me to appreciate it. However overall I really enjoyed the experience in MOMA as well.

I feel like my experience at MOMA was less exciting than the MET, but I was still able to enjoy all the art in the museum.

Metropolitan Museum of Art

During my trip to the Metropolitan Museum of Art I had time to explore three exhibits. The first exhibit I went to was the “Schiaparelli and Prada: Impossible Conversations.” This exhibit was basically an exhibit showing the different fashion styles of both these designers. The exhibit’s title included “Impossible Conversations” because Schiaparelli is an old fashion designer from the past whereas Prada is a more recent fashion designer. The conversation is a conversation that we think these two might have had if they were to have a chance. The first thing that I noticed in this exhibit was the way the museum set up the conversation between these two people and the way the subtitles appeared. There were many different screens displaying the same conversation, but one of the displays stuck out to me. This display was shown into the a corner, where each corner had a person. It gave me the feeling that the two were really looking at each other and closer to each other than they really were. Also the subtitles of the conversation did not look like normal subtitles. They appeared in a more “fun” bubbly way and this really engaged me to read and listen to their conversation. When looking at the fashion pieces, I knew that they were not stolen because each piece’s description told us where the piece was from.

The next exhibit it checked out was Roman exhibit. I thought it was ironic how I was looking at Roman sculptures and art after watching the movie Gladiators on the bus. While looking through this exhibit I couldn’t help but think “How did the museum get all these sculptures and pieces of art?” One piece, the giant pillar, really got me thinking and I couldn’t help but doubt that the museum bought all the art. Also I noticed that many of the pieces were not in the best condition because many of the sculptures were chipped and broken. As I have mentioned in my first blog, I feel like replicas of these pieces wouldn’t have taken away from the experience. I would have never known that they were replicas if they were to have been.

The last exhibit that I explored was the African art exhibit. This was my favorite exhibit because I really liked the artwork of the Africans. They are so intricate, meticulously designed, and beautiful. As I was looking through the art pieces and reading the descriptions one thought came to my mind, “Are these descriptions really accurate of what the art pieces were actually made for?” Of course, I realized that there were experts and professionals who devote their whole lives to study this kind of art, but I really wondered if the descriptions were accurate. I always looked at the pieces and if I had no clue what the piece was I read the description. After reading the description, I always thought “Oh that seems possible, but is that really what it was made for? What if it was just made during the maker’s free time for enjoyment or a hobby?”

Overall, I really enjoyed my experience at the MET and in my opinion I really think more time should be spent in the MET than MOMA.

From Antiquity to the Pixel Zone: Virtuality

My experience of translating material into immaterial/virtual was a very unique experience for me. With me not having any background in visual art, I came into this part of the class not knowing what to expect. When we were told that we have to create a visual project and present to the class, I was a bit anxious because I knew that art and presenting was not my forte, but in the end everything worked out and I really enjoyed this part of the class.

In the beginning of the visual project we had to pick a material and create 5 different scans of the object. I had a lot of trouble trying to pick an object to scan because I wanted to something that had meaning to me. I ended up choosing swimming shorts (Swimming is a hobby of mine) in the beginning, but ended up with guitar picks (Playing the guitar is another hobby as well) in the end. Before this project guitar picks were just picks to me and I never really thought about its material, size, shape, and other meticulous details. They also had no meaning to me at all. However as I looked at all the guitar picks I realized that a lot of them were made of different materials, they all had different thickness to them, and their textures were all very different as well. My concept for the project became trying to expose the texture and size of the picks. Then later on I related this concept to how I play the guitar and pick my picks when I play the guitar.

The change in scale, juxtaposition, and color really changed the original content from something touchable to a technological imitation. When I zoomed into the pictures, it emphasized the texture and material feel of the guitar picks. I was able to see textures that I never bothered to pay attention to see before.  When I juxtaposed one guitar pick to another, I was able to compare the size and material of each pick. Also with the picks having different thickness to them, I tried to show this through shadowing to show depth (This was hard to do and not so successful). My objects did not change to the point where it was unnoticeable, but it was changed enough to really emphasize the structure, texture and size of the pieces. While doing this project I was able to relate this to when I play music on the guitar. I realized that when I play the guitar I change picks depending on the kind of music that I play. For soft and mellow songs I usually pick up a lighter and thinner pick to get that light, feather-like strumming sound. For meticulous songs and heavier songs I use a more thick pick to pluck the strings or produce a strum that has a heavier feel to them. Using this concept I wanted to show this through my pictures.

I had a really good time during the Pecha-Kucha event. Before this event I was confused and I was not too enthusiastic about what we were going to do, but after we got started I thought it was really exciting. Just seeing everyone’s scans and their visual art work showed how different everyone in the class was. It was very interesting to see how people had such unique concepts and the way they implemented their concepts into their visual pictures. I thought the Pecha-Kucha event enhanced my original ideas. I think explaining to class what my concept was really solidified and set my idea. Before explaining to class, I felt like my idea and concept was very jumbled and abstract, but once I spoke and explained what I was going for, I feel like it helped me enhance my original idea. Also when we put all of the projects together after each group, I thought that was really amazing. It was really interesting to see the different images that were formed from combining several different projects together and how the color changed with different overlaps of the projects.

When I read the article by Nicholas Mirzoeff, I really liked when he said “…virtuality can be understood as the transformation of space away from exterior three-dimensional reality to the polydimensinoal interior world of self.” He said this after explaining the experience Goethe and Jefferson had with “virtuality” through classical art. I feel in our age many people believe virtual reality has to be in a form of a hologram or something related to augmented reality, but I liked how Mirzoeff defined virtuality because it did not limit virtuality. Before reading this I would have never thought virtuality can come from classical art such as sculptures, but this paper allowed me to see a different perspective. I can now see why classical art can bring us into vituality because it brings us into an “imaginary realm.” I think when we presented our projects in the Pecha-Kucha event; it brought us to this “imaginary realm” where we were, in a sense, in awe of what our classmates did. It brought us into this “imaginary realm” where we tried to see what the presenter saw and to feel what the presenter felt from the material they scanned.

All in all I really enjoyed the past couple of days with the visual picture project. It helped me explore a new type of art that I really never knew existed and it helped me experience a little of how an artists thinks.

The Art and Poetry of Cecilia Vicuna

When reading from your website, it said that you are of a Spanish and Basque background, but you identify fully with Indigenous Latin America. How did this identification develop?

Can you explain taoism and how you formed such a deep connection between taoism and “the incredible coherence” of Andean culture? Also what is this “incredible coherence” of Andean culture?

How did you decide to choose the career of being an artist? Do you have a central theme in your art? How do you get inspired?

Buddhist art in the Johnson Museum

Based on the different types of Tibetan Buddhist art we’ve seen at the Johnson museum and the different types of art I’ve on blackboard, I feel like much of Tibetan Buddhist art consists of the historical Buddha, mandalas, and pictures of different regions of Tibet.

What I thought most differentiated the Tibetan Buddhist art were the colors. In the museum we learned that the colors of the divinities represented different things. For example, in the museum we saw red divinities which represented knowledge and white divinities which represented longevity. The colors of the divinities were really stood out in each picture and they were the focus of the art. Also in the gestures and the posture of the divinities differentiated the Buddhist art. We learned in the museum that the postures and gestures had different meaning, which differentiated each divinity art piece.

What I thought united Tibetan Buddhist art was that they all tell a story whether it be a picture of a divinity, a mandala, or a landscape picture. For example, in the pictures of divinities most of them have the same format, but they all tell a different story about the divinity. The teachers, postures, gestures, and implements in the picture tells us a little narrative about the divinity and we are able paint some sort of picture out of these things. The pictures of the landscapes tell us a story about the people of Tibetan villages. Also the religious significance and the educational value of the art pieces unites them together as well.