The premise: emptiness
The warrant: desire for meaning
The inference:
The claim: the search for meaning is impossible
Whether this is an ironically or intentionally meaningless argument I can’t tell.
Anyone care to fill in the blanks?
The premise: emptiness
No, you’ve made a distinct claim. You can either support the claim with a reasonable argument or we can dismiss it as nonsense.
By this reasoning everything is impossible, including the cessation of suffering, which would make the practice of Buddhism meaningless.Provisional meaning is possible. But it's, you know, provisional.
Lol, indeed. Do you believe this place expresses the meaning well?Have you been buzzing around here all this time and missed the whole Madhyamika thing?
Suffering is an illusion, so is it's cessation.
Just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly: Are you saying the Madhyamaka rejection of existence/non-existence includes a rejection of meaning? Also, what do we mean by meaning here?
Then why reinforce the illusion by practicing Buddhism?
Meaning in the sense of logical explanation. Or mean in the sense of profound and sublime? I guess it depends on where you find meaning.!
I really don't get that either. There is a sense in which the Buddha gestures towards 'that which is beyond words', for example, the legend of Mahakasyapa and the flower.Queequeg wrote: The search for meaning is impossible.
If Q’s statement is clear to you then please explain how emptiness relates to the search for meaning being impossible.PuerAzaelis wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 1:46 am I don’t get the confusion at Queequeg’s statement. From the side of purity, improper knowledge is not the obscuration, knowledge is obscuration. Supporting the ultimate perspective “with reasoning” is exactly what Nagarjuna showed in MMK can’t be done. I have absolutely no idea who I am, that’s the ultimate truth. If I said I know, I’d be in delusion.
That statement is meaningful.You can look for meaning. Knock yourself out.
Ever heard of "back-burning"?
Of course, I've had back issues my whole adult life. I went to a chiropractor religiously for well over a decade. A few years ago I visited a physical therapist for a shoulder injury and, noticing the condition of my lower back in his general examination, he recommended some daily moves, which was basically the McKenzie Method. Around the same time, our insurance plan changed and my chiropractor was no longer covered by the new plan. So I stopped going and focused on a daily practice of the new method, plus some yoga moves. The McKenzie method is a lot like yoga, specifically, the lower back stretch is similar to cobra. After about a year I was in much better condition than I ever was under the care of a chiropractor. Today I practically have no back issues, but I do need to continue the daily practice.
Oh yes, we were talking about meaning.
Sigh...boda wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:10 amOf course, I've had back issues my whole adult life. I went to a chiropractor religiously for well over a decade. A few years ago I visited a physical therapist for a shoulder injury and, noticing the condition of my lower back in his general examination, he recommended some daily moves, which was basically the McKenzie Method. Around the same time, our insurance plan changed and my chiropractor was no longer covered by the new plan. So I stopped going and focused on a daily practice of the new method, plus some yoga moves. The McKenzie method is a lot like yoga, specifically, the lower back stretch is similar to cobra. After about a year I was in much better condition than I ever was under the care of a chiropractor. Today I practically have no back issues, but I do need to continue the daily practice.
Chiropractic treatment did help, no question, but one visit to a physical therapist and self-treatment has proved to be vastly superior.
Anyway, what were we talking about?
In the meaninglessness lies the Point