With this story, we can fully understand how the Buddha knew that there was a microscopic world and universe. By studying a flower, we can realize one thing, which is called Tao, and then "Tao gives birth to one, two, two, three, three things" (there are different interpretations of Tao here), and our understanding will tend to be infinite. There is a meaning of "seeing big from small", and we know a lot about the story of "seeing big from small". Zhuangzi saw my master's way of understanding the cow's life. Confucius looked at the flow of the river and sighed, "The deceased is like a husband, day and night." Ruan Ji "is not pitiful because of roads and rails, but needs to cry." We are more familiar with it.
Tao, in daily life, in ordinary things. Zhuangzi also said that Tao is drowned in the vector. You can do something about it, but where can't you do it? There are ways everywhere. Where is the world? It's on that branch.
This is really an enviable world.
I haven't read the original Buddhist sutra of "one flower, one world, one leaf and one bodhi", but all I can find are some attached or far-fetched explanations made by the world. Looking at these explanations, I always lament that "faith is useless": I have some conservative ideas about "one flower, one world, one leaf and one bodhi", and I am more inclined to believe in concrete analysis of specific problems.
Is it really possible to "know the autumn of the world"? In spring, a tree fell ill and its leaves fell off. When a child picks it up and tells you that it's autumn, you will laugh and cry. And even if it falls in autumn, is the "world" too big? The world is so big, the seasons vary from place to place.
Of course, you will feel a little suspicious when I say this. What I want to ask is, what about the story of a blind man touching an elephant? Several blind people touched different parts of the elephant's body and guessed that the elephant looked different. Since "a flower is a world" and since they can "see the big picture from the small", why can't they infer a real elephant from one leg and one tail? Is it because the blind and the Buddha have different understandings? But at this level, the question is meaningless. None of us can be as savvy as Buddha. We can only spend one flower and one world, two flowers and one world, 10,000 people spend one flower and get 10,000 world, and 10,000 people look at 10,000 flowers, and the world becomes 10 million: this is meaningless, and neither is "one flower, one world, one leaf and one bodhi".
Everyone makes romantic mistakes. Romance is just unrealistic. And "one flower, one world, one leaf and one bodhi" is such a typical example. Under this romantic idea, the whole world will become very simple. The ancients knew the world without leaving home. We can also stare at a flower with a magnifying glass to get to know the world, so everything will be beautiful.
But as I said before, this is meaningless. Can't solve practical problems. If a person asks you how to catch up with a girl with a frown, you mysteriously take out a flower to "show it off" and he will definitely kill you; And even if you study a leaf for hundreds of millions of years, you can't find a cure for AIDS. A flower in a Buddha makes a world. How can he know that there will be a disease called AIDS in hundreds of years? A flower has no world, only a small world, a small part of the world.
Or materialistic philosophy can attract the attention of our rational admirers. Specific analysis of specific problems, which makes us suddenly shine at the moment and feel happy. We not only know that blind people can't touch images, but also know that a mountain is a ridge or a peak when viewed from the side. Without these mysterious and romantic ideas, the sunshine is brilliant.