Confession of a Buddhist Atheist (tangent)

[charlou]

Having conditionally agreed with Charlou, my dislike of aphorisms remains because they are too much akin to maxims. They can be tautologous (Only that which always existed can be eternal. — G. Antuan Suárez), questionable (That which does not destroy us makes us stronger. — Friedrich Nietzsche) or plain banal (Lost time is never found again. — Benjamin Franklin) or any combination thereof, but most of all I dislike them because they typically become clichéed platitudes disguised as words of wisdom that are so 'self-evidently' ( ) true (by their authors) that they cannot be argued against. Aphorisms are the poor cousins of poetry: If you can't muster enough competence to discuss philosophic issues analytically - let alone synthetically - you'll just have to resort to them - or confine yourself to discussing football, the weather and what you read about Paris Hilton earlier today.

As for analogies, I don't actually don't mind them nearly as much as aphorisms, except for the fact that they are so frequently misapplied.

My bold: Well, that much is always arguable, as we know (ie, of course we can argue against so-called 'self-evident' maxims, just as we can argue anything), and that was made implicit in the advice notFBM was offering (which I quoted).

[floppit]

As there are others in a better position than me to comment I hope they chip in. I find that Asian culture uses metaphor a lot and I don't really mind, metaphors and analogies can be cow poo but also can be a way to have a clearer idea of what the speaker is trying to describe and where the latter applies they can also clarify arguments against what's being said. As a reader they also help me weigh up the depth of what's being said, how well thought out it is, and how much ties to the real and observable world the idea has. A metaphor that holds water (metaphorically!) shows a clear understanding of the idea being related, that doesn't mean it's true but at least it's a start as many ideas are so truly half baked as to evade even the most basic clarity.

I also find that asian culture uses pictorial metaphor to illustrate an idea where as in the west it can become more blurred by the use of historical and factual metaphor, the latter, I think, has more power to convince the speaker and listener without going through the reasoning process. Comparing the presence of religion to an over zealous police force is a metaphor but can be passed off as evidence because it is based on fact (such a police force has existed in the real world and real consequences have been observed), or more commonly in forum life the use of Nazis as a metaphor for just about anything disagreed with. Comparing the above to treating 'ideas?' (my memory has let me down and I can't scroll back far enough to check whether it was ideas, knowledge or understanding) as rafts to cross rivers the more pictorial, less westernised metaphor is clearly no more or less than a descriptor of what's being said and does nothing to divert the listener from applying their own reasoning.

In short metaphor is no more than description of what's being said and as such can aid argument both for and against - the confusion exists not because of the presence of a metaphor but rather because either the speaker or listener has confused it with evidence. TBH where that mistake has been made I've found it largely not worth the effort to argue against, perhaps one attempt to point out metaphor isn't evidence is worthwhile but if the 'other' can't grasp that the rest is like trying to push a wet noodle up a cats bum!

[FBM]

...but if the 'other' can't grasp that the rest is like trying to push a wet noodle up a cats bum!

Sometimes analogies are just the right tool to add a little spice to the message.

Metaphors, analogies, similes, aphorisms, etc. are just literary tools/pedagogical devices; some people who use them are skilled and effective, others are hack jobs. Don't blame the tool. (Unless the user happens to be one. )

[Twoflower]

What is emptiness? The explanations that the different books, and my teacher have been giving are confusing me. Is it that everything is empty and nothing really exists, or that something exist and other things dont because they are made up of particles that dont exist, but those empty particle make up things that are real?

[FBM]

What is emptiness? The explanations that the different books, and my teacher have been giving are confusing me. Is it that everything is empty and nothing really exists, or that something exist and other things dont because they are made up of particles that dont exist, but those empty particle make up things that are real?

It means that every phenomenon is devoid of essence, identity, eternal nature, etc. Everything that is is constantly undergoing change, so there is no fixed identity or meaning to anything. The identities and meanings that we attribute to our experiences are fleeting and transitory. You can test the concept for yourself. Just try to find something, anything, mental or physical, that remains unchanged over time. The concept can be used to deny the existence of an eternal soul, for example, the one postited in Hinduism/Brahmanism, and the one you say your teacher claims is so important to Buddhism.

[floppit]

What is emptiness? The explanations that the different books, and my teacher have been giving are confusing me. Is it that everything is empty and nothing really exists, or that something exist and other things dont because they are made up of particles that dont exist, but those empty particle make up things that are real?

It means that every phenomenon is devoid of essence, identity, eternal nature, etc. Everything that is is constantly undergoing change, so there is no fixed identity or meaning to anything. The identities and meanings that we attribute to our experiences are fleeting and transitory. You can test the concept for yourself. Just try to find something, anything, mental or physical, that remains unchanged over time. The concept can be used to deny the existence of an eternal soul, for example, the one postited in Hinduism/Brahmanism, and the one you say your teacher claims is so important to Buddhism.

Having only read books aimed at non buddhists, such as the one referenced above, I don't have a rounded or full understanding of even the most core concepts. It might be really naive (sp??) but your explanation of emptiness seems tightly clipped to dependent origination, if nothing that makes me me is actually wholly contained in me, and is also in constant flux then I have very little beyond my will and even that cannot be said to originate inside me. As I think in words taught to me, act (or try to) by learned reasoning, and speak from what I've stolen from others this strikes me as having some weight.

But, being honest with myself, I also find it attractive. I lose patience too quickly with the confidence of people who see their judgements as both correct and self contained, I'd like to be more patient but find it 'unpleasant' - possibly even more so than say religion.

[FBM]

Having only read books aimed at non buddhists, such as the one referenced above, I don't have a rounded or full understanding of even the most core concepts. It might be really naive (sp??) but your explanation of emptiness seems tightly clipped to dependent origination, if nothing that makes me me is actually wholly contained in me, and is also in constant flux then I have very little beyond my will and even that cannot be said to originate inside me. As I think in words taught to me, act (or try to) by learned reasoning, and speak from what I've stolen from others this strikes me as having some weight.

Yes, the 'big three' concepts that many people take as the core teachings of the Buddha (anatta, paticca samuppada and...something else... ...oh, the Four Noble Truths ( ) are intertwined. By understanding paticca samuppada (co-dependent origination), you quite naturally see anatta, as you described. The meaning of the 4NT is quite different from the vernacular interpretation once you understand the other two. That is, once you see phenomena as fundamentally interconnected and that there's no clear, discrete, enduring 'thing' that you can stake your self-hood/identity on, you see the 4NT as dealing with phenomena, not people. At least, that's my current understanding. Roughly. Sorta. But as always, I could be wrong. That's just my experience to date.

But, being honest with myself, I also find it attractive. I lose patience too quickly with the confidence of people who see their judgements as both correct and self contained, I'd like to be more patient but find it 'unpleasant' - possibly even more so than say religion.

These days, I'm looking at things with a healthy dose of Pyrrhonian skepticism.

[charlou]

Yep, floppit, there's no free will. I find that both scary and liberating ...

Emptiness ... not the best descriptive word from a human/emotional perspective, but oddly (oddly? there's that human emotion sneaking in again ) appropriate none-the-less.

[floppit]

Yep, floppit, there's no free will. I find that both scary and liberating ...

I think there is some free will, just not entire and not necessarily belong to a distinct self. I'm not sure of it, just what I think. I'm also not sure that the concepts talked about above equate to a complete lack of free will, albeit transient. A lot of what I have read seems to heighten rather than lessen a sense of choice, the most basic of which is the choice to ride the mind or be ridden by it (in our terms ). There was someone talking about mindfulness on the radio this am - I just caught a brief clip during a short journey - he was asking what freedom really is and gave the analogy of a sailor, he asked whether the sailor is free when he is taken by the tide and winds in whatever direction they bring about or whether he's free only when he starts to sail and direct the ship. This was in reference to meditation and the discipline of the mind. In that sense I think buddhism places an emphasis on choice which wouldn't be compatible with having no free will.

[FBM]

Doesn't the question of free will pre-suppose the existence of an abiding self/identity?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Doesn't the question of free will pre-suppose the existence of an abiding self/identity?

Why should it? Can't a transient self have free will? Me-that-was-yesterday is not me-that-will-be-tomorrow but both of them are capable of making choices - at least, that is what me-that-is-today chooses to think!

[floppit]

Doesn't the question of free will pre-suppose the existence of an abiding self/identity?

In our common understanding perhaps, but there's more to will than self, a group can have the will to do something - again that's going by our common understanding.

Personally I think free will is something most often talked about in absolutes, either complete presence or none at all, and neither of those propositions have ever made much sense to me - perhaps that's why a sense of it as a transient phenomenon that I'm part of doesn't seem implausible or too problematic.

I don't know the subject well enough to know how that fits with buddhism, just that I've haven't so far felt the two are incompatible.

[FBM]

Doesn't the question of free will pre-suppose the existence of an abiding self/identity?

Why should it? Can't a transient self have free will? Me-that-was-yesterday is not me-that-will-be-tomorrow but both of them are capable of making choices - at least, that is what me-that-is-today chooses to think!

I agree, "Why should it?" But most people who engage in the free-will/determinism debate are making that assumption, in my experience. That's why I thought it would be a good idea to ask.

...I don't know the subject well enough to know how that fits with buddhism, just that I've haven't so far felt the two are incompatible.

There's some ambiguity with the word 'free', seems. If you mean it in the sense of 'unforced' or 'without coercion', then I don't think it would be incompatible. If you mean it in the sense of 'uninfluenced', as if you could choose something out of the blue, then there's a major conflict with paticca samuppada.


I recall reading recently that in Madhyamaka philosophy, not only do phenomena arise co-dependently, but that no single phenomenon can have a single cause, nor produce just a single effect. (Not sure how relevant that is here, tho.)

[Hermit]

What is emptiness?

It means that every phenomenon is devoid of essence, identity, eternal nature, etc.

You can arrive at that concept - or one resembling it very much - by studying David Hume's epistemology. I prefer that approach because it bypasses the least useful branch of philosophy: metaphysics.

[FBM]

What is emptiness?

It means that every phenomenon is devoid of essence, identity, eternal nature, etc.

You can arrive at that concept - or one resembling it very much - by studying David Hume's epistemology. I prefer that approach because it bypasses the least useful branch of philosophy: metaphysics.

And again I have to mention Pyrrhonian skepticism as a metaphysics-free discipline. Hume had his shit together, but Pyrrho, Sextus Empiricus and the lot applied their approach to the real-life pursuit of ataraxia. As for me, a philosophy that is purely academic, ie, without practical application, is insufficient.