The unsatisfactory use of language and labels
Labeling is the basis of language is the basis of communication between humans.
The label does not describe reality, but rather identifies an element the individual's subjective experience of reality so that it can be referenced when communicating with others. It is a mistake to believe that just because we agree on a word to describe something, that we are speaking about the same experience.
This is a gooey, sticky mess, and I apologize for for my indulgence ;-)
When we both look at a stop sign and we both say, "red," we assume we are experiencing the color in the same way. But we really have no idea if our experience is at all similar. We have simply agreed to each call our own subjective personal experience of that reality, "red."
In Buddhist scripture, we hear of people questioning the Buddha, saying things like, "How can you say you have compassion for all sentient beings, when all is one, so there really are no individual sentient beings?"
And the Buddha would respond with something like, "Look smartass, I know there are no individual sentient beings, and you know there are no individual sentient beings. I use the term 'sentient beings' because I have to use words and labels, otherwise, we would just be sitting here staring at eachother stupidly, hoping for a psychic 'Communion' and you know and I know that shit just aint going to happen. So I use the term 'sentient beings' for the sake of expediency."
Okay, I admit it, I made up that conversation, but the Buddha did like to use the phrase "for the sake of expediency" when explaining his use of admittedly imperfect and inaccurate labels.
posted by Anatman @ Thursday, February 22, 2007
4 comments
4 Comments:
The problem, IMO, isn't that we use labels. It's that we continuously use them in areas where they fail and are innapropriate (spirituality).
I believe most of what passes as Buddhist doctrine is useless or worse than useless for learning to pay attention to the present moment.
And most of it can be summed up in one or two sentences.
People write and talk because we like to do it and sometimes its useful.
But most of it is not and most scripture, likewise, is just mind candy.
Thinking of it as something useful is just a way to justify further codifying and labeling the human experience.
I do feel the need to add the caveat that after I wrote the previous comment, i disagreed entirely with what i'd written.
"I believe most of what passes as Buddhist doctrine is useless or worse than useless for learning to pay attention to the present moment."
The link I posted in a comment on GZ is to some transcribed talks by my favorite (deceased) Buddhist teacher.
It is largely a critique of modern Theravada Buddhism, which he considered to be lost in superstition and wrong thinking. The value in the narrative is what is left after he slashes through the BS. Good stuff.
well put anatman.
Post a Comment
<< Home