Nirvana is often translated as either "emptiness" or "freedom". Specifically, emptiness or freedom of *concepts*. I am pretty sure that in a previous life, Duncan was a Zen master.
There's a whole book on this, by Buddhist Rob Burbea, called "Seeing That Frees: Meditations on Emptiness and Depending Arising".
He quite explicitly makes the same point as Duncan. His starting example is being in an attic and seeing three cross-beams that form a "Z" shape, and asking whether it's "really" a Z, and noting that it very much depends on your viewpoint. (Literally depends on your viewpoint: the beams only line up from a certain angle, so if you move around they don't form a "Z" anymore. Most other concepts depend on your viewpoint only metaphorically.)
He then says that _literally every_ concept is like this (and gives many examples later), and that it's super important, and that if you realize it on a deep level you'll be profoundly changed. And the book has progressive instructions for meditating to realize that various concepts are "empty" (translating to Duncan's words: are a "sticker").
I'm thinking now: "Does he really say the _same_ thing as Duncan, though?". Well, let's not put a "same" or "different" sticker on it.
New example found in the wild; a friend writes publicly on Facebook:
> So, some arguments are rational, and some irrational. If you say, "You have red eyebrows, therefore you are wrong that the sun will rise in the east." The statement itself is irrational. But statements aren't all about describing logical truth in a mathematical truth in a hyper direct way. After all, I wrote the statement, and I don't *feel* like I did anything irrational, because I don't *feel* like I was making a logical argument. What makes it *irrational* is that you make the argument and *feel* like you made a *rational* argument.
> Similarly, if you borrow money, and feel happy, like you had received a gift, this is irrational, since you'll have to pay it back later. I'm not the first person to talk about rational or irrational emotions, but can we take it further? If I eat a donut, and I taste the sweetness of the donut, but eating the donut makes me fat, unhealth, and unhappy, isn't the sensation itself, and the enjoyment of the sensation, irrational? It seems to me that it is.
My somewhat off-the-cuff reply:
> You have cleverly identified the problem with trying to use made-up concept-lassos like "rational" and "irrational" as if they are actually real.
> Neither "rational" nor "irrational" is a real thing, and the labels are useful only insofar as they simplify and clarify actual problems of discernment. In the cases described above, where you understand all of the underlying mechanics of what's going on, it's pointless to try to figure out whether those-things-that-you-fully-understand qualify for the label "rational" or for the label "irrational" ... in point of fact, all you're doing with such a game is drawing increasingly unnecessary detail into *your definitions* of each word.
> (b/c applying the label doesn't bring anything *new* to your understanding of the actual situation at hand; you're just clarifying the boundaries that you personally draw between the "rational" and "irrational" sets.)
This is useful, thanks
Nirvana is often translated as either "emptiness" or "freedom". Specifically, emptiness or freedom of *concepts*. I am pretty sure that in a previous life, Duncan was a Zen master.
There's a whole book on this, by Buddhist Rob Burbea, called "Seeing That Frees: Meditations on Emptiness and Depending Arising".
He quite explicitly makes the same point as Duncan. His starting example is being in an attic and seeing three cross-beams that form a "Z" shape, and asking whether it's "really" a Z, and noting that it very much depends on your viewpoint. (Literally depends on your viewpoint: the beams only line up from a certain angle, so if you move around they don't form a "Z" anymore. Most other concepts depend on your viewpoint only metaphorically.)
He then says that _literally every_ concept is like this (and gives many examples later), and that it's super important, and that if you realize it on a deep level you'll be profoundly changed. And the book has progressive instructions for meditating to realize that various concepts are "empty" (translating to Duncan's words: are a "sticker").
I'm thinking now: "Does he really say the _same_ thing as Duncan, though?". Well, let's not put a "same" or "different" sticker on it.
New example found in the wild; a friend writes publicly on Facebook:
> So, some arguments are rational, and some irrational. If you say, "You have red eyebrows, therefore you are wrong that the sun will rise in the east." The statement itself is irrational. But statements aren't all about describing logical truth in a mathematical truth in a hyper direct way. After all, I wrote the statement, and I don't *feel* like I did anything irrational, because I don't *feel* like I was making a logical argument. What makes it *irrational* is that you make the argument and *feel* like you made a *rational* argument.
> Similarly, if you borrow money, and feel happy, like you had received a gift, this is irrational, since you'll have to pay it back later. I'm not the first person to talk about rational or irrational emotions, but can we take it further? If I eat a donut, and I taste the sweetness of the donut, but eating the donut makes me fat, unhealth, and unhappy, isn't the sensation itself, and the enjoyment of the sensation, irrational? It seems to me that it is.
My somewhat off-the-cuff reply:
> You have cleverly identified the problem with trying to use made-up concept-lassos like "rational" and "irrational" as if they are actually real.
> Neither "rational" nor "irrational" is a real thing, and the labels are useful only insofar as they simplify and clarify actual problems of discernment. In the cases described above, where you understand all of the underlying mechanics of what's going on, it's pointless to try to figure out whether those-things-that-you-fully-understand qualify for the label "rational" or for the label "irrational" ... in point of fact, all you're doing with such a game is drawing increasingly unnecessary detail into *your definitions* of each word.
> (b/c applying the label doesn't bring anything *new* to your understanding of the actual situation at hand; you're just clarifying the boundaries that you personally draw between the "rational" and "irrational" sets.)