There is a theorem regarding polynomials, which states:
Let P be a symmetric polynomial in F[X1,X2, ..., Xn]. Then, there exists a unique polynomial T in F[X1,X2, ..., Xn] such that P(X1,X2, ..., Xn)=T(S1(X1,X2, ..., Xn), S2(X1,X2, ..., Xn), ..., Sn(X1,X2, ..., Xn) ), where each Si denotes the elementary symmetric polynomial, for i = 1, 2, ..., n.
When Lagrange first encountered this theorem, he said, "Oh, this is so simple. You don't even need to prove this!"
And believe it or not, the proof of the theorem above goes a lengthy construction of method that converts variables into the elementary symmetric polynomials.
Also, one thing I found so intriguing and astonishing about Buddhism is that it makes components of life look so simple. Yes, those buddhist monks -well, majority of them -are known for their simple lives, but then even the very ground of their ideas make human lives look so simple.
I have been immersed with this book, "the Compass of Zen" by Zen Master Seung Sahn, who died recently. I have been reading this book for almost a year now, over and over again, and whenever I open the book to any page, the astonishing restarts! Things that looked so entangledstartedto lookas if there were no strings attached in the very first place. It looked like living in this world made me difficult to look into the things in the way they were supposed to be seen.
It reminds me of the first time when I encountered Emmanuel Levinas. I could not know a thin book like that (we used Ethics and Infinity) could agonize one person so much. To be honest, I did not understand what he was talking about until the very night right before my final oral exam. However, it is not a shameful thing to me. At least, I was open to theenlightenment and was not acting stubborn as I used to be. The fact that I opened to ideas of Levinas didn't came as a shame but it opened my eyes to look at things differently, correctly.
In reading "the Compass of Zen," Seung Sahn discourses on the complicated lives of these days. However, after all, it's just lives of human beings.
For example, all the unhappines stem out from five (only five!!!) Insights into Impurity: Desire for material wealth, Desire for sex, Desire for fame, Desire for food, and Desire for sleep.
Also, there is so called the Eightfold Path to be true "I" without desires, anger, and ignorance: Right View, Right Thought, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Meditation.
(For a lengthy explanation, read into Hinayana Buddhism)
However, if one can think logically, one cannot disagree with so many "simplified" components of lifemeant by(Hinayana) Buddhism. In the end, this Hinayana Buddhism (the first part of Buddha's teachings)will give enlightenment that thereare no permanent things, there is impurity everywhere, and there is no I.Since there is no I, then it means things are all equal, thus everything is empty. It's where Mahayana Buddhism starts. After all the truth he attained, Buddha was then propelled to share his enlightenment, than keeping it to himself despite of the fact that it might be too difficultfor majority of people to comprehend.
I want to stress on the part that there is no I. It's similar to what David Hume said. He said that one has be empathetic to be moral. One has to put oneself into shoes of the others. That is, one has to be able to detach oneself from oneself.
What makes things so complicated? It's the system of human society, or perhaps this society alone. The system always changes. History is inevitable to changes, and so are all parts of histories. However, one interesting point, once marked by my dear friend Mr. Ezerman, is that despite of the shifts on the surface of the system, what is beneath stays the same. What is beneath the system of this society? Ideology. However the face changes, what is beneath stays the same. Thus, one can say it's right or wrong.
Therefore, Emmanuel Levinas stressed so much of his usual lectures (and parts of his books) on "the Face." The human face is so complicating indeed - eyes, nose, lips, teeth...etc. Not even a single part of this face is simple. However despite of all things, beneath it, there is this person, the Other. There is difference though, because Levinas is dealing with the Other,it's another being, thus it has this infiniteness that I cannot grasp. However, beneath "the face" of system, there's only ideology which it's rooted from, a result of someone's thinking.
Yes, we think therefore we seem to live a very complicated lives, however, after all, we are doign the same thing: living. Thus, when one can see that we are just in BEING, it is perhaps easy to see the BEINGNESS, thus, putting ourselves into situations of other beings should be not that difficult and as reluctant as it might sound (to some people).
