xuan zang_📑

at the outset, this movie is worth-to-be-watched. It has a comprehensive visual graph of xuan zang's journey and the contemporary socio-cultural, geopolitical, and philosophical glimpses that existed in the 19 years of the storyline that the scriptwriter and the director have chosen to show in this movie.

the immediate vibrations that i felt while resembling a few words and subtitles from the film were "dharma", "slaves," etc. it was astonishing to interpret whether they are taken the same as "dhamma", "untouchables/achoot"? if yes, why are they being replaced interchangeably? likewise, the usage of the word "god" by xuan zang was a point to consider in the same line of inquiry.

what is more interesting i saw, which i was expecting more descriptively, but the movie restrained only to two points, was the debate between mahayana and hinayana. the film emphasized more on xuan zang's scholarly understanding that 1) hinayana is more individualistic and abstract. in contrast, the mahayana is more extensive in assimilating 'others' into the 'self'. 2) hinayana believes that the 'universe' is material. but 'perception' is illusionary. while mahayana believes both are mutable and illusionary.

mahayana sees the universe's true face_ all is mutable, and all is illusionary. this point was profound for me, and i think i need to follow them through readings and processes. the missing thing i felt within this debate was pranagupta's critique of mahayana. it was mentioned but not explained.

📑 xuan zang_
🖋 @dnyanesh_____
🌱 read this piece on blogspot, link is in the bio.

The movie, Xuan Zang.

On Post-Structuralism

When it comes to post-structure; to my knowledge from the sociological point view, it appears as a perspective that deconstructs and decodes the "meta-narrative" of existing paradigms that originated in the land of hegemonic epicentres of knowledge. Be it functionalism, symbolic interactionism or even the Marxist paradigms.

What evolved in my mind during this lecture was that there is a more deep vacuum in btw that has to be understood. Articulating conventional and analytical school of thoughts as ontological and epistemological processes respectively, brought more clarity on my understanding about what a 'post-structure' is and what it intends to be. I need more cultivation of mind to process it further. However, a general idea premise I saw in the lecture but was too more focused on the 'metaphysical' and 'normative' arena of post-structure.

The reflection came from an article that I read a few weeks ago in a "science" magazine, which forced me to look at whether a similar debate exists in physical science also? It is still in bits and pieces in my mind but I will try and explain it with best of my capacities.

The idea of binaries in general and its epistemological processes, i.e. signifier and signified, linguistic dynamics etc. might be seen in the realm of the debates that are currently happening in the contemporary modern science (physics), specifically in the recent studies on quantum physics.

The research indicates that quantum physics essentially studies what consists in an atom and even deeper micro-universe within now exist differently in 'strange-metals'. Which proves that there are linkages between 'quantum physics' and 'entanglement' for which cascade of electrons is the best evidence.

Now, The historical practice of looking at quantum from microscopic lenses has been questioned and is turning into understanding quantum in the macroscopic dynamics also. Here, the question comes in between, how is the physical science addresses the macroscopic quantum or the quantum criticality in 'strange metals'. There might be no conventions that are existing ontologically or no analytics can explain its epistemology. It is yet to find whether there are and are no binaries in them. Let us hypothesized that there is no binary, then it proves that post-structure flops here!

Reflection is still moving and changing just like a process that doesn't end!