from Buddhism Without Beliefs by Stephen Batchelor''EMPTINESS'' IS A confusing term. Although used as an abstract noun, it does not in any way denote an abstract thing or state. It is not something we "realize" in a moment of mystical insight that "breaks through" to a transcendent reality concealed behind yet mysteriously underpinning the empirical world. Nor do things "arise" from emptiness and "dissolve" back into it as though it were some kind of form- less, cosmic stuff. These are just some of the ways emptiness has been appropriated as a metaphor of metaphysical and religious consolation.
"Emptiness" is a starkly unappetizing term used to under-cut yearnings for such consolation. Yet ironically it has been called into the service of such longings. Shunyata (emptiness) is rendered into English as "the Void" by translators who overlook the fact that the term is neither prefixed by a definite article ("the") nor exalted with a capital letter, both of which are absent in classical Asian languages. From here it is only a hop, skip, and a jump to equating emptiness with such metaphysical notions as "the Absolute," "the Truth," or even "God." The notion of emptiness falls prey to the very habit of mind it was intended to undermine.
emptiness
emptiness
-
Kevin Solway
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: emptiness
If Batchelor is so easily swayed by a mere capital letter, I don't think he has much hope of understanding Buddhism.Batchelor wrote:. . . a jump to equating emptiness with such metaphysical notions as "the Absolute," "the Truth," or even "God." The notion of emptiness falls prey to the very habit of mind it was intended to undermine.
Re: emptiness
Edit;
:]
Indeed."Emptiness" is a starkly unappetizing term used to under-cut yearnings for such consolation. Yet ironically it has been called into the service of such longings.
He forgot to mention "Totality"From here it is only a hop, skip, and a jump to equating emptiness with such metaphysical notions as "the Absolute," "the Truth," or even "God." The notion of emptiness falls prey to the very habit of mind it was intended to undermine.
:]
Re: emptiness
Makes sense.clyde wrote:from Buddhism Without Beliefs by Stephen Batchelor''EMPTINESS'' IS A confusing term. Although used as an abstract noun, it does not in any way denote an abstract thing or state. It is not something we "realize" in a moment of mystical insight that "breaks through" to a transcendent reality concealed behind yet mysteriously underpinning the empirical world. Nor do things "arise" from emptiness and "dissolve" back into it as though it were some kind of form- less, cosmic stuff. These are just some of the ways emptiness has been appropriated as a metaphor of metaphysical and religious consolation.
"Emptiness" is a starkly unappetizing term used to under-cut yearnings for such consolation. Yet ironically it has been called into the service of such longings. Shunyata (emptiness) is rendered into English as "the Void" by translators who overlook the fact that the term is neither prefixed by a definite article ("the") nor exalted with a capital letter, both of which are absent in classical Asian languages. From here it is only a hop, skip, and a jump to equating emptiness with such metaphysical notions as "the Absolute," "the Truth," or even "God." The notion of emptiness falls prey to the very habit of mind it was intended to undermine.
Is he still around? If yes; how about inviting on the talk show?
---------
-
Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Re: emptiness
Terms are never supposed to do denote abstract things or states because the denoting itself embodies the abstract. Bachelor creates a whole needless layer of abstract things and states, which only live in the very language or symbols our minds generate [ie the 'denoting']. Every term has this way a build-in limitation and the more all-compassing, multi-faceted, layered or complex the term is supposed to be (god, love, totality, existence, thought, zero, unity) the more confusing they could become to an audience lacking context.clyde wrote:Bachelor wrote:''EMPTINESS'' IS A confusing term. Although used as an abstract noun, it does not in any way denote an abstract thing or state. It is not something we "realize" in a moment of mystical insight that "breaks through" to a transcendent reality concealed behind yet mysteriously underpinning the empirical world. Nor do things "arise" from emptiness and "dissolve" back into it as though it were some kind of form- less, cosmic stuff. These are just some of the ways emptiness has been appropriated as a metaphor of metaphysical and religious consolation.
Seen this way it becomes clear Bachelor is just saying nothing at all; he could have written the same thing about a great many words but this was the one he picked because he had some vague notion to share to appear deep and thoughtful while at the same time sneering at metaphysics - which must be something he despises so much.
Re: emptiness
Diebert, I think he is talking about the attachment part.metaphysics - which must be something he despises so much.
---------
Re: emptiness
Kevin,Kevin Solway wrote:If Batchelor is so easily swayed by a mere capital letter, I don't think he has much hope of understanding Buddhism.Batchelor wrote:. . . a jump to equating emptiness with such metaphysical notions as "the Absolute," "the Truth," or even "God." The notion of emptiness falls prey to the very habit of mind it was intended to undermine.
<begin sarcasm> You certainly went to the heart of the small quote I posted. <end sarcasm>
Tell us, why do you capitalize the term "Totality"?
Re: emptiness
Diebert; Certainly some terms are supposed to denote an abstract thing and it is this ability of terms to represent actual things and abstract things that let us talk about actual things and abstract things. Isn't the term "abstract" itself abstract?Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Terms are never supposed to do denote abstract things or states because the denoting itself embodies the abstract.
-
Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Re: emptiness
I think you didn't get my intent. It needs a bit of a turn-around in perspective though.clyde wrote:Diebert; Certainly some terms are supposed to denote an abstract thing and it is this ability of terms to represent actual things and abstract things that let us talk about actual things and abstract things. Isn't the term "abstract" itself abstract?Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Terms are never supposed to do denote abstract things or states because the denoting itself embodies the abstract.
The terms are the only abstract. It represents no 'things', abstract or not. The terms are the only things. So yes, the term 'abstract' is itself abstract and also the only thing abstract about it.
-
Kevin Solway
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: emptiness
To distinguish it from all sub-totals.clyde wrote:why do you capitalize the term "Totality"?
Re: emptiness
The term "sub-total" already distinguishes it from "Totality".Kevin Solway wrote:To distinguish it from all sub-totals.clyde wrote:why do you capitalize the term "Totality"?
So why do you capitalize the term "Totality"?
Re: emptiness
Perhaps I’m still not getting your intent.Diebert van Rhijn wrote:I think you didn't get my intent. It needs a bit of a turn-around in perspective though.
The terms are the only abstract. It represents no 'things', abstract or not. The terms are the only things. So yes, the term 'abstract' is itself abstract and also the only thing abstract about it.
Terms (the name or words for something) are symbols representing or signifying either an actual thing/state (like a red apple) or an abstract thing (like logic) where abstract is defined as “not concrete, not relating to concrete objects but expressing something that can only be appreciated intellectually†(Encarta). So the symbols themselves are concrete though what they signify may be concrete or abstract.
Do you get my point?
-
Kevin Solway
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: emptiness
The term "totality" can easily be interpreted as a sub-total, whereas capitalizing it makes it harder to do so.clyde wrote:The term "sub-total" already distinguishes it from "Totality".Kevin Solway wrote:To distinguish it from all sub-totals.clyde wrote:why do you capitalize the term "Totality"?
So why do you capitalize the term "Totality"?
-
Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Re: emptiness
All symbols, words, thoughts, feelings and impressions appear to be operating in the same abstract realm. They only register by their meaning in a context - which is by identification and (non)contradiction in various degrees of complexity. You could regard it perhaps as a dialectic or semantic universe. It's the only aspect of reality we can understand, the only perspective we can deal with meaningfully. Some even would say it constitutes reality but then there's logic dictating us that's an incomplete notion ("we know that we don't know").clyde wrote:Terms (the name or words for something) are symbols representing or signifying either an actual thing/state (like a red apple) or an abstract thing (like logic) where abstract is defined as “not concrete, not relating to concrete objects but expressing something that can only be appreciated intellectually†(Encarta). So the symbols themselves are concrete though what they signify may be concrete or abstract.
Re: emptiness
That is just silly; if one is so easily confused, perhaps they'll confuse "Totality" for "Sub-Totality".Kevin Solway wrote:The term "totality" can easily be interpreted as a sub-total, whereas capitalizing it makes it harder to do so.clyde wrote:The term "sub-total" already distinguishes it from "Totality".
So why do you capitalize the term "Totality"?
It reminds me of an dialogue elsewhere with a person who used the term "singularity" in the way you use "Totality", but at least he argued that there was no need and in fact it was an error to capitalize the term as by definition there could not be another singularity with which it required differentiation.
Re: emptiness
Diebert; I don't want to overstate my understanding of your post; I believe we are in agreement though there may be subtlies with which we may or may not agree. I definitely agree that to think that the abstract realm constitutes all of reality is an error.
-
Kevin Solway
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: emptiness
In my experience Totality is much less likely to be misinterpreted than totality. Unless you have data that shows different then you don't have an argument.clyde wrote:if one is so easily confused, perhaps they'll confuse "Totality" for "Sub-Totality".
Re: emptiness
I need to have data, but you can make a statement based solely on your experience and it must be accepted. Is this another Genius Rule?Kevin Solway wrote:In my experience Totality is much less likely to be misinterpreted than totality. Unless you have data that shows different then you don't have an argument.
-
Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5740
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: emptiness
Some people are incapable of understanding data presented to them. Do you deny this, Clyde?clyde wrote:I need to have data, but you can make a statement based solely on your experience and it must be accepted. Is this another Genius Rule?Kevin Solway wrote:In my experience Totality is much less likely to be misinterpreted than totality. Unless you have data that shows different then you don't have an argument.
Re: emptiness
Dan, Your statement is off point. Does QSR and other enlightened persons get to make statements based on their experiences while unenlightened persons must supply data?Dan Rowden wrote:Some people are incapable of understanding data presented to them. Do you deny this, Clyde?clyde wrote:I need to have data, but you can make a statement based solely on your experience and it must be accepted. Is this another Genius Rule?Kevin Solway wrote:In my experience Totality is much less likely to be misinterpreted than totality. Unless you have data that shows different then you don't have an argument.