Jay Garfield and Guy Newland on Metaphors in Buddhism

[kirtu]

[Queequeg]

Kind of relevant.

[kirtu]

Kind of relevant.

How so?

Kirt

[Queequeg]

Following metaphors can get you wet, too.

[kirtu]

Following metaphors can get you wet, too.

What??? Porque?

Kirt

[Malcolm]

Following metaphors can get you wet, too.

What??? Porque?

Kirt

Metaphors can be misleading, like misreading GPS machines.

[kirtu]

Following metaphors can get you wet, too.

What??? Porque?

Kirt

Metaphors can be misleading, like misreading GPS machines.

Well yes, but the Garfield and Newland are correct in their use it Buddhism.

Queequeg's cryptic phrasing is throwing me ... perhaps the crocodile is after him ??

Kirt

[Queequeg]

Over explaining a joke is sure to kill it. Malcolm explained it better than I could.

Bertrand Russel observed we think only in metaphors. Everything is like something else. We co stantly use metaphors, not just Buddhists. In the end, though, metaphors are metaphors and never more.

Obvious statement is obvious.

[kirtu]

Over explaining a joke is sure to kill it. Malcolm explained it better than I could.

Bertrand Russel observed we think only in metaphors. Everything is like something else. We co stantly use metaphors, not just Buddhists. In the end, though, metaphors are metaphors and never more.

That's certainly true.

I didn't get the joke though (The Office of all things ?? and a car in water ??) and still don't but thanks!

Kirt

[Queequeg]

Also, metaphors are references to something else. A good metaphor sort of captures some quality about the thing referenced. But they are not the same and sooner or later the parallel breaks down. Following literally gets you in a lake.

[kirtu]

Also, metaphors are references to something else. A good metaphor sort of captures some quality about the thing referenced. But they are not the same and sooner or later the parallel breaks down. Following literally gets you in a lake.

Wittgenstein and others, the perils of the "language game." These are obvious points of course. But the metaphor used .... was perhaps a bit muddy?, at least for moi.



Kirt

[Yavana]

You guys are literally killing me with this discussion.

[Wayfarer]

I have the idea that there a ‘rogue metaphors’ - that is, metaphors that were originally devised to make a particular point, but then develop a life of their own, and start generating further implications which are widely accepted because the original metaphor has become so deeply embedded in cultural discourse that everyone assumes it. Language and culture are full of them.

The point about the Buddha was that he employed metaphors consciously and deliberately and with great effect. However even some of those metaphors have tended to go rogue, in the sense that they are bandied about by people who don’t really understand the metaphor but who think by repeating them, they are ‘expounding Buddhsm’.

[kirtu]

Buddhist Metaphors and the Inexpressible - Jan-Ulrich Sobisch

Kirt