Category: Mahabodhi Mission

Posted on

Subjects, Perceptions & Conceptions

Dhamma wheel

From “The Mind and its Functions”
By Geshe Rabten
Chapter 1 and 2, excerpts herein

Chapter 1: Subjects

Subject and object are mutually dependent entities; we cannot consider one without referring to the other. Hence, due to this dependent nature, a subject (lit.: object-possessor) is defined as an effective entity endowed with its own object of any kind. But although subject and object are mutually dependent, this does not mean that they are mutually exclusive entities. All subjects, by virtue of their being existent phenomena, are necessarily objects of another subject. In addition, Buddhism ascribes subjective characteristics to material as well as non-material entities. A material subject is an articulate sound. Such a sound, be it a term or a phrase, is subjective in the sense of its denoting a particular object, whereas non-material subjects, such as cognitions and persons, are subjective in their apprehension of an object through the mental faculties.

Mind
The defining characteristics of mind are clarity and cognition. Here clarity refers to the non-material, space-like nature of consciousness… though it lacks physical properties it is not merely an abstract entity like space for unlike space it also bears the defining characteristic of cognition. Cognition is the conscious faculty of apprehension that functions in seeing forms and hearing sounds as well as in all kinds of reflection, inference and understanding.

The mind has tremendous potential, since in dependence upon how we develop and condition it our state of being is thereby determined.

Person
The person is said to be a subject because all individual beings without exception constantly apprehend an object… someone absorbed in a  state of meditation will always be referring to some object, however subtle that object may be.

Articulate Sounds
Articulate sound is thus defined as an audible that denotes what it articulates by means of a sign.

Terms are the simple units of speech that we use in order to denote the objects about which we think and talk.

There are two kinds of terms: standard-terms and common-terms. A standard-term is the main term by which a particular object or event is understood. It is defined as a term that is both the principal term for the object as well as the term volitionally and originally given to it. The principal term for an object is the one by which that object alone and no other is denoted.

The common-term for an object is defined as a term that is both a vulgar and a later term for the object. It is said to be a “vulgar term” in that it does not exclusively and precisely denote the object that it refers to, and “a later term” since it is coined at a date subsequent to the acceptance of the standard-term. Such terms are ascribed to their objects either for reasons of similarity or relationship with another object.

A phrase is defined as an expressive audible that connects a quality to its basis. Therefore phrases are compounds of words that give us further information about a particular object by means of description.

The definition of a letter is a clear sound that acts as the basis for the composition of terms and phrases.

All terms, phrases and letters are articulate sounds and hence subjects. Their subjective character is that of denoting something. Thus whatever is denoted or expressed by any of these articulate sounds is regarded as the object of that sound. Furthermore, since terms and phrases, in addition to explicitly expressing something, are also able to implicitly suggest something else according to the individual dispositions and outlooks of different listeners, they are said to have both direct and indirect objects. It should be clear how words and phrases are regarded as subjects, but we may wonder how letters fall into this category. Although they do not denote things in the same way as words and phrases, nevertheless since they are the elements by which speech is formed they are said to share its subjective nature.

Chapter 2: Perception and Conception

What is meant by “perception” here is a non-conceptual state of mind, that is to say, a visual, audial, olfactory, gustatory or tactile sense cognition as well as certain immediate mental cognitions. “Conception”, on the other hand, refers to any conceptual state of mind, i.e. a mental cognition that does not behold its objects immediately or barely as in perception but cognises them via the media of mental images.

Perception
Sense Perception and Mental Perception
“Sense-perception” here refers to all non-conceptual cognitions that are dependent for their arisal upon a physical sense-organ, an external form and a previous state of cognition. Hence a visual perception, for example, arises in dependence upon the eye sense-organ, a visual-form and whatever state of cognition that occured immediately prior to it. These three conditions of visual sense-perception are respectively called “the dominant condition”, the “object condition” and the “immediate condition”.

[see table below]

Mental perceptions are similar in nature to sense perceptions except that they do not depend upon a physical sense-organ as their dominant condition. Their dominant condition is said to be the mental-organ. This is not a physical organ but simply whatever state of cognition that immediately precedes the mental perception. This immediately preceding state of cognition, be it sensory or mental, is the dominant condition for a mental perception since it is primarily through its force that the mental perception comes into being. For a mental perception, then, the dominant condition and the immediate condition are the same. As for its object condition, mental perception can arise in dependence upon physical forms as well as subtle objects such as other person’s minds although this latter example would only be perceived in a state of heightened awareness.

True and False Perceptions
Among all these various perceptions some are regarded as“true” whereas others are regarded as “false”. A true perception is defined as a non-deceived cognition that is free from conceptuality. Whatever objects appear to a true perception necessarily exist in the way in which they appear. A false perception, however, although it is a cognition free from conceptuality, is deceived with regard to what appears to it. Its objects do not exist in the way in which they appear.

1. True Sense Perception
True sense perception is defined as a non-deceived cognition, free from conceptuality, that arises in dependence upon a physical sense-organ as its dominant condition.

2. Apperceptive and Non-Apperceptive Cognition
All cognitions experience themselves. They possess an inherent selfconscious quality. This quality of consciousness is known as apperceptive cognition. Apperceptive cognitions are exclusively perceptions. They only have states of mind as their objects and, in addition, they are substantially identical with those states of mind. They never observe any external phenomena. Non-apperceptive cognitions, on the other hand, are all the cognitions that apprehend, either conceptually or non-conceptually, external objects as well as cognitions that are not substantially identical with themselves. This category includes all sense perceptions and conceptual states of mind as well as mental perceptions that perceive external objects. Non-apperceptive cognition has the defining characteristic of bearing the aspect of an apprehensible object, whereas apperceptive cognition has the defining characteristic of bearing the aspect of an apprehension.

3. A True Mental Perception
A true mental perception is defined as a non-deceived, non-apperceptive cognition, free from conceptuality, that arises in dependence upon the mental organ as its dominant condition, An example of a true mental perception.

4. True Apperceptive Cognition
True apperceptive cognition is defined as a non-deceived cognition, free from conceptuality, that bears the aspect of an apprehension. In fact all apperceptive cognitions are non-deceived and non-conceptual and hence these characteristics are applicable to any apperceptive state of mind.

5. True Contemplative Perception
True contemplative perception is defined as a non-apperceptive cognition in the mind of an Arya that is non-deceived and free from conceptuality, and which arises in dependence upon the unified concentration of mental quiescence and penetrative insight as its dominant condition. Such a perception is exclusively true, non-deceived and non-conceptual and only occurs in the mental continuum of an Arya, i.e. one who has immediately comprehended selflessness. In addition, to attain its dominant condition, the unified concentration of mental quiescence and penetrative insight, it is first necessary to bring the mind to a state of concentrated quiescence as well as to cultivate a penetrating state of intelligence that comprehends the meaning of such things as the selflessness of the person. But it is only when these two states of consciousness are unified into one concentrated stream that they are said to be able to give rise to a true contemplative perception. Examples of such contemplative perceptions would be those that perceive subtle impermanence, those that perceive the gross selflessness of the person and those that perceive the subtle selflessness of the person.

Conceptions
It is by means of thoughts and conceptions that we consciously respond to the objects that have been barely perceived by the senses.

Perception is essentially a receptive, non-reflective form of cognition whereas conception is responsive and reflective. As we saw in the previous section, perception relies upon three primary causes for its arisal: the dominant, object and immediate conditions. Conception, though, only relies upon two of these, namely, the dominant and immediate conditions. Its arisal, therefore, is not primarily dependent upon an object condition but only upon the previously occurring state of cognition, which for it, since it is a mental cognition, would be both the dominant and immediate conditions. Unlike perception it does not apprehend an object through the force of the object’s appearing to it, rather, it apprehends the object primarily due to the force of a subjective disposition. predispositions are not intrinsic properties of the mind, it is possible to overcome any unwholesome and disturbing tendencies through acquaintance and habituation with their corresponding wholesome antidotes.

Mental Images
The most distinctive element within a conceptual cognition is its apprehension of the object by means of “mixing” it with a mental image. To any conception the object conceived appears indistinguishably mixed together with a subjectively projected image of the object. The conceptual cognition, however, is unable to distinguish between the object as it objectively exists and its own subjectively projected image that appears mixed together with the object. Therefore, it is said to be a deceived state of cognition. But to call a conception “deceived” is not necessarily a denial of any cognitive validity. The deception here only concerns the mode of appearance but not the mode of existence of the object. Of course certain conceptions are deceived as to the mode of existence of their objects as well as to their mode of appearance. Thus they fall into the category of mistaken cognition. But many conceptions do correctly apprehend their object’s mode of existence although the object appears in a fallacious manner. A conceptual cognition apprehends its object by means of the intermediary factor of a mental image.

Conceptions Based on Experiential and Nominal Images
A conception is defined as a conceiving cognition that apprehends its object through the media of experiential and nominal images that are fit to be mixed. Generally speaking, we define a mental image of an object as a mentally projected entity that, whilst not being the object, appears as though it were. Here, although we have to make a distinction between experiential images on the one hand, and nominal images on the other, both of them nevertheless bear these defining characteristics. Thus experiential images and nominal images are both types of mental images.

Their difference lies in the manner in which the object in question has been or is being apprehended. If we have had or are having a direct cognition of an object, then it is possible for us to conceive of it via the medium of an experiential image, but without such an experience it would only be possible to conceive of it by means of a nominal image. To conceive of something through a nominal image is not dependent upon a direct experience of the object but merely upon a verbal description of it. Only when we are familiar with the object through direct apprehension as well as through verbal description is it possible to conceive of it in both ways. In such a case the experiential and nominal images of the object appear together. Hence when the definition states “fit to be mixed”, this is to indicate that a conception of an object can occur by means of either an experiential image or a nominal image alone, or by means of the two of them together.

Term-Connecting and Fact-Connecting Conceptions
Most conceptions are said to function in one of these two ways: either they simply give a name to an object or they ascribe certain qualities to an object. A term-connecting conception is defined as a conception that apprehends its object through connecting a term to it.

True and False Conceptions
Furthermore, conceptions are said to be either true or false. A true conception is one in which the object apprehended  is existent, whereas a false conception is one in which the object apprehended is non-existent.

Recollections and Future-Orieneted Imagination
Perceptions are concerned with objects presently existing that we are able to immediately experience. The conceptual mind, however, in addition to considering one’s present experience, is also capable of remembering past experiences and planning for events to occur in the future. From a positive point of view we can use our memory to aid us in gaining an understanding of the transient and unsatisfactory character of our lives by recollecting and investigating the nature of our previous experiences. Likewise, we can constructively plan for the future by contemplating the various stages upon the path to enlightenment and by generating a desire to attain these stages and progress along the path.

Continue reading “Subjects, Perceptions & Conceptions”

Posted on

Synthesis

Universally,
In perception or conception, 
Manifestations
Synthesis of all 
Possible quantum scenarios.

Reflection on the introduction, by Paul Davies, to “Six Easy Pieces” by Richard Feynman:

… All physics is rooted in the notion of law-the existence of an ordered universe that can be understood by the application of rational reasoning. However, the laws of physics are not transparent to us in our direct observations of nature. They are frustratingly hidden, subtly encoded in the phenomena we study. The arcane procedures of the physicist- a mixture of carefully designed experimentation and mathematical theorizing are needed to unveil the underlying law-like reality…

The problem is that quantum ideas strike at the very heart of what we might call commonsense reality. In particular, the idea that physical objects such as electrons or atoms enjoy an independent existence, with a complete set of physical properties at all times, is called into question. For example, an electron cannot have a position in space and a well-defined speed at the same moment. If you look for where an electron is located, you will find it at a place, and if you measure its speed you will obtain a definite answer, but you cannot make both observations at once. Nor is it meaningful to attribute definite yet unknown values for the position and speed to an electron in the absence of a complete set of observations…

The Feynman method has the virtue that it provides us with a vivid picture of nature’s quantum trickery at work. The idea is that the path of a particle through space is not generally well defined in quantum mechanics. We can imagine a freely moving electron, say, not merely traveling in a straight line between A and B as common sense would suggest, but taking a variety of wiggly routes. Feynman invites us to imagine that somehow the electron explores all possible routes, and in the absence of an observation about which path is taken we must suppose that all these alternative paths somehow contribute to the reality. So when an electron arrives at a point in space-say a target screen—many different histories must be integrated together to create this one event. 

Posted on

About Time

A reflection on time:

Time is not a force acting on the universe it is merely a measure of relative change. It is subjective and only exists in the relative. Cognized as unidirectional by entropic observation, within a thermodynamic system.

Conscious living beings emergent of chemical processes are entropic observers perceiving via electro-chemical apparatus, thus limited in observation to the procedural “flow of time.” Themselves emerging from the ocean of space-time, not separate from perceived space-time, perceiving as temporal aggregate the transient nature of constant change.

Terms

Time is the continued sequence of existence and events that occurs in an apparently irreversible succession from the past, through the present, and into the future. It is a component quantity of various measurements used to sequence events, to compare the duration of events or the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change of quantities in material reality or in the conscious experience. Time is often referred to as a fourth dimension, along with three spatial dimensions (where a dimension is a mathematical measure in one direction).

In mathematics, a sequence is an enumerated collection of objects in which repetitions are allowed and order matters. Like a set, it contains members (also called elements, or terms). The number of elements (possibly infinite) is called the length of the sequence. Unlike a set, the same elements can appear multiple times at different positions in a sequence, and unlike a set, the order does matter. Formally, a sequence can be defined as a function from natural numbers (the positions of elements in the sequence) to the elements at each position. The notion of a sequence can be generalized to an indexed family, defined as a function from an arbitrary index set.

Basis

from the Bodhicharyavatara 

71. The basis of the act and fruit are not the same,
And thus a self lacks scope for its activity.
On this, both you and we are in accord
What point is there in our debating?

72. A cause coterminous with its result
Is something quite impossible to see.
And only in the context of a single mental stream
Can it be said that one who acts will later reap the fruit.

H.H. The Dalia Lama’s commentary from “Practicing Wisdom”

In other words, the karmic action is the cause, and the fruition of this is its consequence. However, from the point of view of time, the identity of the person who was responsible for the karmic act in the past and that of the person who undergoes the consequences are not one and the same. One exists at a particular time, while the other exists at another time.

To maintain their identity as one and the same in time would contradict even our ordinary conventions and experience. Their relationship as the same person is maintained because they share a single continuum of existence. Although the person undergoes moment-by-moment change, the basic continuum remains.

So, from the point of view of the continuum, we can maintain that the self is, in some sense, permanent or eternal without contradicting that the self is momentarily changing. From the point of view of its moment-by-moment change, the self is transient and impermanent. Thus, there is no contradiction in maintaining that in terms of its continuum, it is eternal, yet in terms of its momentary existence, it is impermanent. Of course, I am not suggesting that the self is permanent in the sense of unchanging!

Two-dimensional space depicted in three-dimensional spacetime. The past and future light cones are absolute, the "present" is a relative concept different for observers in relative motion. -credit Wiki Commons
Posted on

Heart Of The Matter

Mechanical energy is the sum of potential energy and kinetic energy.

Potential energy is the energy held by an object because of its position relative to other objects, stresses within itself, its electric charge, or other factors.

The kinetic energy of an object is the form of energy that it possesses due to its motion. 

Motion is when an object changes its position with respect to a reference point in a given time. 

Time is the continued sequence of existence and events that occurs in an apparently irreversible succession from the past, through the present, and into the future.

Existence is the state of having being or reality in contrast to nonexistence and nonbeing.

Reality is the sum or aggregate of all that is real or existent within the universe, as opposed to that which is only imaginary, nonexistent or nonactual.

Energy is the quantitative property that is transferred to a body or to a physical system, recognizable in the performance of [thermodynamic] work and in the form of heat and light.

Thermodynamic work is one of the principal processes by which a thermodynamic system can interact with its surroundings and exchange energy.

A physical quantity, quantitative property (or simply quantity) is a property of a material or system that can be quantified by measurement.

A physical system is a collection of physical objects under study. A thermodynamic system is a body of matter and/or radiation separate from its surroundings that can be studied using the laws of thermodynamics.

Thermodynamics is a branch of physics that deals with heat, work, and temperature, and their relation to energy, entropy, and the physical properties of matter and radiation.

Radiation is the emission or transmission of energy in the form of waves or particles through space or a material medium.

A physical object or physical body (or simply an object or body) is a collection of matter within a defined contiguous boundary in three-dimensional space.

Three-dimensional space (3D space, 3-space or, rarely, tri-dimensional space) is a mathematical space in which three values (coordinates) are required to determine the position of a point.

A mathematical space is a set (sometimes known as a universe) endowed with a structure defining the relationships among the elements of the set.

A set is a collection of different things; these things are called elements or members of the set and are typically mathematical objects of any kind: numbers, symbols, points in space, lines, other geometrical shapes, variables, or even other sets.

A mathematical object is an abstract concept arising in mathematics, where an abstraction is a process where general rules and concepts are derived from the use and classifying of specific examples, literal (real or concrete) signifiers, first principles, or other methods.

That signified and its signifier refer to the two main components of a sign (anything that communicates a meaning that is not the sign itself to the interpreter of the sign), where signified is what the sign represents or refers to, known as the “plane of content”, and signifier which is the “plane of expression” or the observable aspects of the sign itself.

A concept is an abstract idea that serves as a foundation for more concrete principles, thoughts, and beliefs.

A universe is a collection that contains all the entities one wishes to consider in a given situation.

Matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume.

Volume is a measure of regions (a non-empty, connected, and open set) in a topological space, three-dimensional space.

Mass is an intrinsic property of a body. It  experimentally defined as a measure of the body’s inertia, meaning the resistance to acceleration (change of velocity) when a net force (the sum of all the forces acting on an object) is applied. The object’s mass also determines the strength of its gravitational attraction to other bodies.

An intrinsic property is a property of a specified subject that exists itself or within the subject.

  • A subject is a being that exercises agency, undergoes conscious experiences, and is situated in relation to other things that exist outside itself; thus, a subject is any individual, person, or observer.
  • An object is any of the things observed or experienced by a subject, which may even include other beings (thus, from their own points of view: other subjects).

H.H. the Dalai Lama’s commentary “Defending the Two Truths, Practicing Wisdom” 

By meditating on the sphere wherein all dualistic elaborations have been pacified, we accumulate wisdom. And we accumulate merit by deepening our conviction in the validity of the casual principles within the context of conventional truth.

Categories such as “subject and object,” “perception and object,” “one and many,” “self and others,” and of course, the “existence of all phenomena” are dependent upon worldly conventions. They are thus relative.

Bodhicharyavatara: 

[108] Analysis and what is to be analyzed
Are linked together, mutually dependent.
It is on the basis of conventional consensus
That all examination is expressed.

[110] If phenomena are truly analyzed,
No basis for analysis remains.
Deprived of further object, it subsides.
That indeed is said to be nirvana.

When the object of an inquiry is subjected to critical analysis, the subject too is revealed to be devoid of any intrinsic reality or intrinsic origination. This absence is described as nirvana, the state beyond sorrow (defined in terms of the cessation of karma and afflictions). So while a meditator is directly experiencing the emptiness of intrinsic existence of all phenomena, there is no basis for grasping onto the intrinsic existence of anything else.

For the meditator in this state, there is no awareness of subject and object. A subject-object distinction could be made, but since the meditator’s mind is totally fused with the absence of inherent existence, there is no need to analyze the emptiness of the analyzing mind itself.

Posted on

I/O

Proposal of 

First Principle: Establishing that…

One can never physically perceive the fundamental components of nature. 

Ultimately, all one can ever “know” of them subjectively is their mathematical attributes, thus objects of math. 

Mathematically all numbers, rational or irrational, are ultimately  component the base unit, thus all real numbers are composite of 1.

Fractionally there is still the base unit of 1.

Computationally 1 is denoted as  the “on” state of a transistor.

The absence of 1 is known conceptually as 0 and computationally as the “off” state of a transistor. 

Thus ultimately, perceived reality is fundamentally either composite of 1 or 0, or what is the same, phenomena is ultimately binary.

Subsequent

If all one can know of reality is numeric,
Further,
If one does not perceive numbers in themself, but a subsequent manifest realty,
It follows one experiences life as simulated reality manifest mind, or it can be said in simulation.

Rhetoric:

“The origin of all phenomena lies beyond the reach of understanding.” –Shantideva, “Bodhicharyavatara” 

“So, as long as a thing is divisible-as long as we can break it into composite parts we can establish its nature as dependent upon its parts. If, on the other hand, a thing were to exist intrinsically as a substantial reality, then that thing would not be dependent upon its parts; it would instead exist as an indivisible and completely discrete entity.”  – H.H. The Dalia Lama  on being mindful of the emptiness of all phenomena from “Practicing Wisdom.”

Posted on

Ergo Non Sum 


René Descartes’s “first principle” of philosophy states:

Cogito, ergo sum
je pense, donc je suis (Fr.)
I think, therefore I am (Eng.)

Expounded by Descartes himself as:

Dubito, ergo sum, vel, quod idem est, cogito, ergo sum
I doubt, therefore I am — or what is the same — I think, therefore I am.

Posited:

Wherein, without objects of cognition, there can be no cognition.
Herein, “I” cognizes mind and infers a self.
Therein, mind cognizes mind, cognate, “I” is self cognizant.

Aggregate, ergo non sum
Summation, therefore I am not

Basis of posit:

Shantideva reflects in his text, “The Boddhisattva Way“:

57. The teeth, the hair, the nails are not the “I,”
And “I” is not the bones or blood;
The mucus from the nose, and phlegm, are not the “I,”
And neither is it made of lymph or pus.

58. The “I” is not the body’s grease or sweat,
The lungs and liver likewise do not constitute it.
Neither are the inner organs “I,”
Nor yet the body’s excrement and waste.

59. The flesh and skin are not the “I,”
And neither are the body’s warmth and breath.
The cavities within the frame are not the “I,”
And “I” is not accounted for within the six perceptions.

73. The thoughts now passed, and those to come, are not the self;
They are no more, or are not yet.
Is then the self the thought which now is born?
If so, it sinks to nothing when the latter fades.

“74c. Analytical investigation will find no “I,” no underlying self.”

H.H. The Dalai Lama’s meditative commentary in “Practicing Wisdom” elaborates: 

“It is quite evident that if we search for the “self,” it is unfindable. However, the implication of this is not that the self does not exist, for we know from our personal experience that we undergo pain and pleasure. We know that it is something or someone who has these experiences. However, if we search for it, it is unfindable. The conclusion we arrive at, therefore, is that the self can only be said to exist nominally, by the power of conceptual designation.

With this thought in the background, try and examine how things, including your own self, appear to your mind. Do they appear as if they possess only nominal status, or do they appear to you in a different light? Certainly they do not appear as being only nominally real; they appear to possess some kind of objective, intrinsic existence-to exist in their own right. They do not appear to exist by the power of designation; they appear to enjoy an objective, independent status.

What we arrive at, then, as a result of our reflection, is a deep conviction that things do not exist in the manner in which they appear.

While resting in meditative equipoise on emptiness, you should not have even lingering feelings that “This is emptiness” or “I am meditating on emptiness.” You should instead try to remain absorbed single-pointedly in the mere absence of intrinsic existence-the unfindability of phenomena when searched for through critical enquiry. It should be as if your mind has become fused with emptiness. You should not have any sense of a subject-and-object duality, as if you are observing something “out there.” Like this, meditate  on emptiness.”

“We can eliminate ignorance because we can develop its opposing state of mind, the insight into emptiness. This insight directly opposes the way our mind grasps onto a nonexistent self. Since, in reality, there is no such self, the insight that penetrates into the nature of reality perceives its absence. Thus, meditation on emptiness is firmly based on reason and can therefore eliminate the ignorant mind that grasps onto the intrinsic existence of the self.”

“The root cause of suffering is the misperceiving mind grasping at intrinsic existence, a distorted mind that has the potential to be eliminated. This can be achieved by generating a deep insight into the nature of emptiness. Reflect upon these potentials. We should then develop a deep compassion for all beings and try to enhance that capacity within.”

Posted on

Means to Attain

Dhamma wheel

”Seeing and being aware is the nature of the mind itself. As long as mind exists, it has the ability to know, but this ability does not reveal itself until all obstructions have been removed . This is what it means to attain enlightenment.”

Dali Lama , The Bodhisattva Guide

Posted on

POV

“According to the Madhyamikas, we can speak of two aspects of perception. From one point of view, it is valid; from another point of view, it is deceptive or deluded. From this understanding we can attribute two aspects to a single event of cognition. Just because we have valid, direct experiences of objects does not mean that these things and events experienced by us possess objective, intrinsic existence.” Practicing Wisdom 

“Every statement of view, however certain one may strive to make it, can never, on the relative level, be more than a point of view.” Translator’s Introduction to “The Wisdom Chapter” Jamgön Mipham

“By studying others’ points of view, it is possible for us to discover new and refreshing perspectives on the world.” Practicing Wisdom