definition defined

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

definition defined

Postby Individual » Sat Oct 23, 2010 4:46 pm

gabrielbranbury wrote:
Individual wrote:So I don't just seem like I'm playing games... See this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics#Heidegger


I dont get it. Sometimes things like this just take me a while. Or I might never understand.

Words have no intrinsic meaning. They are just a collection of arbitrary symbols, used by in order to create meaning.

So, I can see something and go, "ABRABRABRA" and some other human can see the same thing, and use a different word, or he can use the same word for a different experience (this applies to phrases too, which are just combinations of words). And so, "meaning" is not part of either reality or language, but something which is ascribed to reality by minds. If our minds are different, we are essentially in a different reality (because of a differing perception) and no matter how much we talk, unless we both make a genuine effort to understand eachothers' minds, no quantity or methodology of talking will help clarify things.

And so, when you understand how words work, you see that there is never any point in debating definitions and interpretations (the "true meaning" of texts). Words are just a tool, in order for people to express their mind & understand others' minds or to play with. More often than not, words are just for play-time. :)
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
Individual
 
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

definition defined

Postby Prasadachitta » Sat Oct 23, 2010 5:02 pm

So, I can see something and go, "ABRABRABRA" and some other human can see the same thing, and use a different word, or he can use the same word for a different experience (this applies to phrases too, which are just combinations of words). And so, "meaning" is not part of either reality or language, but something which is ascribed to reality by minds. If our minds are different, we are essentially in a different reality (because of a differing perception) and no matter how much we talk, unless we both make a genuine effort to understand eachothers' minds, no quantity or methodology of talking will help clarify things.

And so, when you understand how words work, you see that there is never any point in debating definitions and interpretations (the "true meaning" of texts). Words are just a tool, in order for people to express their mind & understand others' minds or to play with. More often than not, words are just for play-time. :)



Oh but of course. Why didnt you just say that? Although I do think meaning is a part of reality. For example.....

This being (insert any kind of meaning as it is perceived),

This becomes(insert proximate experience).

From the arising of this(insert present experience),

This Arises (insert proximate perceived meaning).

From the ceasing of this(insert perceived meaning),

This ceases (insert proximate experience).


Thats my way of seeing it.


Metta

Gabe
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
Prasadachitta
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA

Re: definition defined

Postby Individual » Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:00 pm

Can't you see the framework you created above -- of beings, becoming, rising and ceasing, is itself a kind of meaning you ascribe?
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
Individual
 
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: definition defined

Postby Prasadachitta » Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:33 pm

Individual wrote:Can't you see the framework you created above -- of beings, becoming, rising and ceasing, is itself a kind of meaning you ascribe?


Yes, and this meaning conditions me. With mindfulness I strive on.

Metta


Gabe
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
Prasadachitta
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA

Re: definition defined

Postby Individual » Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:22 am

gabrielbranbury wrote:
Individual wrote:Can't you see the framework you created above -- of beings, becoming, rising and ceasing, is itself a kind of meaning you ascribe?


Yes, and this meaning conditions me. With mindfulness I strive on.

Metta


Gabe

About the second part: AWESOME!

Regarding the first sentence, I am wholly indifferent. You are smart to point out that even what I say is a kind of ascribed meaning. So, you seem to fully understand what I was saying, which is great. :)

And yes, what you said earlier... You could say that meaning is a part of reality. If we don't regard it as such, we have no basis upon which to communicate about "this" or "that". The point is that's not something you have to say, or that's the right thing to say in all situations. Just as words are merely a tool in order to communicate, views are only a tool in order to establish understanding. Views which have no relevancy to understanding (you can find examples of these in the suttas) are pretty much an irrelevant thing to talk or think about.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
Individual
 
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: definition defined

Postby Prasadachitta » Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:42 am

Individual wrote:About the second part: AWESOME!

Regarding the first sentence, I am wholly indifferent. You are smart to point out that even what I say is a kind of ascribed meaning. So, you seem to fully understand what I was saying, which is great. :)

And yes, what you said earlier... You could say that meaning is a part of reality. If we don't regard it as such, we have no basis upon which to communicate about "this" or "that". The point is that's not something you have to say, or that's the right thing to say in all situations. Just as words are merely a tool in order to communicate, views are only a tool in order to establish understanding. Views which have no relevancy to understanding (you can find examples of these in the suttas) are pretty much an irrelevant thing to talk or think about.



Sounds good to me. I might even say its relevant.

Meaning is also something which we roll over in our own minds in a sense communicating with ourselves. I think this too is reality. I think that whatever takes part in the process of causation must be included in reality.

Gabe
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
Prasadachitta
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA


Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 11 guests