If you stare at it, you will go blind!

P'an Shan's "There is nothing in the World": It is futile effort to linger in thought over the action of a lightning bolt: when the sound of thunder fills the sky, you will hardly have time to cover your ears. To unfurl the red flag of victory over your head, whirl the twin swords behind your ears - if not for a discriminating eye and a familiar hand, how could anyone be able to succeed? Some people lower their heads and linger in thought, trying to figure it out with their intellect. They hardly realize that they are seeing ghosts without number in front of their skulls. Now tell me, without falling into intellect, without being caught up in gain or loss, when suddenly there is such a demonstration to awaken you, how will you reply? Pythagoras believed that the Universe could in its entirety be described using natural numbers, which is clearly no the case. I would therefore not say that "everything is numbers" but that "everything can be described using numbers". I agree by the way totally that really good scientific ideas come as inspirations long before we apply mathematics to them. First we somehow "see" the solution - or rather the concept. "Somewhow" the concept of a problem materializes in the human brain, and only afterwards do we apply math to them. But the development of mathematics has been a long and tedious struggle with millenia of trial and error. Math consists of many branches, some of which are more obviously present on natural phenomena than others. It would seem to me that the fact that we can inuitively perceive problem solutions before applying math to them could also be used as an argument against the mathematical nature and in favor of a spiritual nature of rality. Everyone has intuitions and yet for most humans mathematics is a real pain in the ass. Feynman ones said something along the lines of: "A dog know Newtons laws - you can see that whenever he catches a ball". So indeed: something in the tiny, tiny brains of even the simplemost animal - even a fly - already knows a heck of a lot about applied physics. And we are lightyears away from understanding even the basics of these brain functions. Scientists ought to be careful about definite statements in borderland fields. History is full of stories about scientists who made fools out of themselves. Here a little quote from "Zen and the Art of Insight", which focuses on the Prajnaparamita and applies to the current state of Jediism as well: "For the time being, what is perhaps most essential to keep in mind, based on this teaching, is that a bhodisattva or Buddhist practitioner does not become devotee of just one form of knowledge, even perfect insight. In the course of time it may be necessary to concentrate on one or another mode of of knowing in order to round out the mind of the individual community, but on the whole it is not enlightening to focus exclusively on a partial capacity. Obsession with transcendental mode of perfect insight is particularly mentioned in Zen lore, no doubt as a balance to Zen's own intensity in this domain, as a dangerous form of intoxication that can deprive the obsessive individual of common sense. For pragmatic purposes, this important caveat can be brought to mind with relative ease by means of the Zen proverb "If you stare at it, you'll go blind." So, I guess, synthesis is called for. The middle way is the right one. Extremes and singlemindedness are to be avoided.