Magicians...

[Aemilius]

[Mod note: This topic has been split from the topic in 'Academic Discussion "Philosophical implications of the emptiness of the teachings themselves".]

One interesting meta-philosophical byway related to the emptiness teachings is the implications of their own emptiness. Since the teachings themselves must be empty, they can’t *actually* be describing how things really are, since the whole point of the teachings is that there is no way that things inherently are. The teachings themselves are empty.

But this raises a number of interesting questions:

1. If the above is true, then why do they “work”?
2. If the above is true, then the emptiness teachings are no closer to or further from describing reality than any other set of teachings (say, Advaita)–-that is, they have no privileged access to reality; as such, any path may lead to soteriological goals. (If it were argued otherwise–-that the emptiness teachings are actually an accurate description of reality--then this would lead to a contradiction of the teachings.)
3. If we were to argue that another set of teachings (say, Sufi) are only provisional and that one needed to eventually arrive at an emptiness view for liberation, then we again are in danger of asserting some type of privileged access or correspondence theory of truth.
4. If we say that there is no way things inherently are, then haven’t we asserted something about reality? To say that there is “no way things inherently are” is still an assertion about the way things are–-an assertion via negativa.

In short, the emptiness teachings can’t be read as objective descriptions of reality–-doing so would contradict them–-so they must be read as purely therapeutic, in which case, they are simply one of many paths that seem to work to alleviate suffering in the world.

I think that magicians like the one below prove that atleast some of the natural laws are empty. Many people do not accept this. But there are lots of "tricks" that are hard to explain in an otherway.

[wei wu wei]

One interesting meta-philosophical byway related to the emptiness teachings is the implications of their own emptiness. Since the teachings themselves must be empty, they can’t *actually* be describing how things really are, since the whole point of the teachings is that there is no way that things inherently are. The teachings themselves are empty.

But this raises a number of interesting questions:

1. If the above is true, then why do they “work”?
2. If the above is true, then the emptiness teachings are no closer to or further from describing reality than any other set of teachings (say, Advaita)–-that is, they have no privileged access to reality; as such, any path may lead to soteriological goals. (If it were argued otherwise–-that the emptiness teachings are actually an accurate description of reality--then this would lead to a contradiction of the teachings.)
3. If we were to argue that another set of teachings (say, Sufi) are only provisional and that one needed to eventually arrive at an emptiness view for liberation, then we again are in danger of asserting some type of privileged access or correspondence theory of truth.
4. If we say that there is no way things inherently are, then haven’t we asserted something about reality? To say that there is “no way things inherently are” is still an assertion about the way things are–-an assertion via negativa.

In short, the emptiness teachings can’t be read as objective descriptions of reality–-doing so would contradict them–-so they must be read as purely therapeutic, in which case, they are simply one of many paths that seem to work to alleviate suffering in the world.

I think that magicians like the one below prove that atleast some of the natural laws are empty. Many people do not accept this. But there are lots of "tricks" that are hard to explain in an otherway.

This guy's impressive--though, as with anything televised, I can't help but wonder how much fx plays a role.

Anyway, how does this connect with the OP?

[Aemilius]

One interesting meta-philosophical byway related to the emptiness teachings is the implications of their own emptiness. Since the teachings themselves must be empty, they can’t *actually* be describing how things really are, since the whole point of the teachings is that there is no way that things inherently are. The teachings themselves are empty.

But this raises a number of interesting questions:

1. If the above is true, then why do they “work”?
2. If the above is true, then the emptiness teachings are no closer to or further from describing reality than any other set of teachings (say, Advaita)–-that is, they have no privileged access to reality; as such, any path may lead to soteriological goals. (If it were argued otherwise–-that the emptiness teachings are actually an accurate description of reality--then this would lead to a contradiction of the teachings.)
3. If we were to argue that another set of teachings (say, Sufi) are only provisional and that one needed to eventually arrive at an emptiness view for liberation, then we again are in danger of asserting some type of privileged access or correspondence theory of truth.
4. If we say that there is no way things inherently are, then haven’t we asserted something about reality? To say that there is “no way things inherently are” is still an assertion about the way things are–-an assertion via negativa.

In short, the emptiness teachings can’t be read as objective descriptions of reality–-doing so would contradict them–-so they must be read as purely therapeutic, in which case, they are simply one of many paths that seem to work to alleviate suffering in the world.

I think that magicians like the one below prove that atleast some of the natural laws are empty. Many people do not accept this. But there are lots of "tricks" that are hard to explain in an otherway.

This guy's impressive--though, as with anything televised, I can't help but wonder how much fx plays a role.

Anyway, how does this connect with the OP?

It relates to the general theory of causality of existence, or dependent arising in its general form, "this being that becomes; this not being that does not become; from the arising of this that arises; this not arising that does not arise." The Pratityasamutpada or theTwelve links are a special case of this, when it is applied to the arising of Duhkha and to the cessation of Duhkha. The general causality or general dependent arising is found for example in the Arya Salistamba sutra.

There is also another thing. In the Lotus sutra Buddha teaches that there is a period of Correct Dharma, which lasts for a certain time, thousands or millions of years, and it is followed by a period of Anti-Dharma, which lasts for an equal length of time. They seem to cancel each other out. I do not know if this view or interpretation is taken up anywhere in the commentaries of the Lotus sutra? I feel it is an important and highly significant teaching.

One possiblity of this is: In the sutras of Shakyamuni the view (expressed in the Four noble truths) says that by forsaking different kinds of desire, wanting and grasping one attains liberation. But then after sometime another view and teaching (expressed in Tantras and Taoism) has arisen, which says that by practicing desire one attains freedom, moksha and liberation. This means that first from A follows B, but then later from the opposite of A follows B. Do you see the connection?

[Aemilius]

There are several things that could be added. For example, how does the path exist in Kama loka or the realm of sense desires according to the buddhist theory? One explanation is that the mind is concentrated in the states of dhyana, deep sleep, dreaming sleep, orgasm and in the after death state. Thus you can attain realisation in these states or with the help of these states. Atleast some part or version of this was known even in the Chinese Mahayana. A couple of taoist books, like book of the Inner Alchemy, are included in the Chinese Tripitaka. Also, the Chinese Pureland school makes propaganda against the school of Maitreya, because it is on the level of Tushita Devaloka, which is a higher realm but still in Kamaloka. This means that there are female deities or devis present in Maitreya's paradise or Maitreya's deva realm. The school of Maitreya has periodically met fierce opposition in China, from other buddhist schools, as you could guess.

[wei wu wei]

I think that magicians like the one below prove that atleast some of the natural laws are empty. Many people do not accept this. But there are lots of "tricks" that are hard to explain in an otherway.

This guy's impressive--though, as with anything televised, I can't help but wonder how much fx plays a role.

Anyway, how does this connect with the OP?

It relates to the general theory of causality of existence, or dependent arising in its general form, "this being that becomes; this not being that does not become; from the arising of this that arises; this not arising that does not arise." The Pratityasamutpada or theTwelve links are a special case of this, when it is applied to the arising of Duhkha and to the cessation of Duhkha. The general causality or general dependent arising is found for example in the Arya Salistamba sutra.

There is also another thing. In the Lotus sutra Buddha teaches that there is a period of Correct Dharma, which lasts for a certain time, thousands or millions of years, and it is followed by a period of Anti-Dharma, which lasts for an equal length of time. They seem to cancel each other out. I do not know if this view or interpretation is taken up anywhere in the commentaries of the Lotus sutra? I feel it is an important and highly significant teaching.

One possiblity of this is: In the sutras of Shakyamuni the view (expressed in the Four noble truths) says that by forsaking different kinds of desire, wanting and grasping one attains liberation. But then after sometime another view and teaching (expressed in Tantras and Taoism) has arisen, which says that by practicing desire one attains freedom, moksha and liberation. This means that first from A follows B, but then later from the opposite of A follows B. Do you see the connection?

You seem to be making a statement about the interdependent cycle of the teachings, which can almost look dialectical. I suppose this substantiates the initial comment I was making about the emptiness of the teachings themselves?

[PeterC]

I think that magicians like the one below prove that atleast some of the natural laws are empty. Many people do not accept this. But there are lots of "tricks" that are hard to explain in an otherway.

This guy's impressive--though, as with anything televised, I can't help but wonder how much fx plays a role.

Anyway, how does this connect with the OP?

It relates to the general theory of causality of existence, or dependent arising in its general form, "this being that becomes; this not being that does not become; from the arising of this that arises; this not arising that does not arise." The Pratityasamutpada or theTwelve links are a special case of this, when it is applied to the arising of Duhkha and to the cessation of Duhkha. The general causality or general dependent arising is found for example in the Arya Salistamba sutra.

There is also another thing. In the Lotus sutra Buddha teaches that there is a period of Correct Dharma, which lasts for a certain time, thousands or millions of years, and it is followed by a period of Anti-Dharma, which lasts for an equal length of time. They seem to cancel each other out. I do not know if this view or interpretation is taken up anywhere in the commentaries of the Lotus sutra? I feel it is an important and highly significant teaching.

One possiblity of this is: In the sutras of Shakyamuni the view (expressed in the Four noble truths) says that by forsaking different kinds of desire, wanting and grasping one attains liberation. But then after sometime another view and teaching (expressed in Tantras and Taoism) has arisen, which says that by practicing desire one attains freedom, moksha and liberation. This means that first from A follows B, but then later from the opposite of A follows B. Do you see the connection?

Are you telling us that a magic trick, which we should all assume is fake and violates no natural law whatsoever, is proof of the Buddhadharma?

[Aemilius]

This guy's impressive--though, as with anything televised, I can't help but wonder how much fx plays a role.

Anyway, how does this connect with the OP?

It relates to the general theory of causality of existence, or dependent arising in its general form, "this being that becomes; this not being that does not become; from the arising of this that arises; this not arising that does not arise." The Pratityasamutpada or theTwelve links are a special case of this, when it is applied to the arising of Duhkha and to the cessation of Duhkha. The general causality or general dependent arising is found for example in the Arya Salistamba sutra.

There is also another thing. In the Lotus sutra Buddha teaches that there is a period of Correct Dharma, which lasts for a certain time, thousands or millions of years, and it is followed by a period of Anti-Dharma, which lasts for an equal length of time. They seem to cancel each other out. I do not know if this view or interpretation is taken up anywhere in the commentaries of the Lotus sutra? I feel it is an important and highly significant teaching.

One possiblity of this is: In the sutras of Shakyamuni the view (expressed in the Four noble truths) says that by forsaking different kinds of desire, wanting and grasping one attains liberation. But then after sometime another view and teaching (expressed in Tantras and Taoism) has arisen, which says that by practicing desire one attains freedom, moksha and liberation. This means that first from A follows B, but then later from the opposite of A follows B. Do you see the connection?

Are you telling us that a magic trick, which we should all assume is fake and violates no natural law whatsoever, is proof of the Buddhadharma?

Thanks. "Magic" is a complex social phenomenon. A say it is a "social or cultural etc.. phenomenon", because the present convention is that "there is nothing supernatural in it", that would violate the accepted physical laws. On this premise it is allowed to exist. I am sure that all magic tricks are not explainable by normal physical laws. There certainly are genuine tricks, that just fool the spectators. If the magic shows said that atleast some of the tricks are "supernatural" (in some sense of the word), they wouldn't be allowed to exist. They would offend the consensus that "all magic is just tricks", which according to my opinion and knowledge is not really true. The beliefs and habitual views of the audience are part of the tricks themselves. The situation in which the magic occurs is really quite complicated and difficult to analyze. Sometimes the tricks fail, maybe the audience wasn't imaginative enough or something else. Like when David Copperfield tried to make a Learjet airplane vanish from the TV studio. First time he failed, but then he succeeded in it. How do "explain" this kind of magic trick? Do you assume that the TV station and the audience were paid and that they were therefore "lying" to you and everybody else? I don't think that is the case.

[Kim O'Hara]

It relates to the general theory of causality of existence, or dependent arising in its general form, "this being that becomes; this not being that does not become; from the arising of this that arises; this not arising that does not arise." The Pratityasamutpada or theTwelve links are a special case of this, when it is applied to the arising of Duhkha and to the cessation of Duhkha. The general causality or general dependent arising is found for example in the Arya Salistamba sutra.

There is also another thing. In the Lotus sutra Buddha teaches that there is a period of Correct Dharma, which lasts for a certain time, thousands or millions of years, and it is followed by a period of Anti-Dharma, which lasts for an equal length of time. They seem to cancel each other out. I do not know if this view or interpretation is taken up anywhere in the commentaries of the Lotus sutra? I feel it is an important and highly significant teaching.

One possiblity of this is: In the sutras of Shakyamuni the view (expressed in the Four noble truths) says that by forsaking different kinds of desire, wanting and grasping one attains liberation. But then after sometime another view and teaching (expressed in Tantras and Taoism) has arisen, which says that by practicing desire one attains freedom, moksha and liberation. This means that first from A follows B, but then later from the opposite of A follows B. Do you see the connection?

Are you telling us that a magic trick, which we should all assume is fake and violates no natural law whatsoever, is proof of the Buddhadharma?

Thanks. "Magic" is a complex social phenomenon. A say it is a "social or cultural etc.. phenomenon", because the present convention is that "there is nothing supernatural in it", that would violate the accepted physical laws. On this premise it is allowed to exist. I am sure that all magic tricks are not explainable by normal physical laws. There certainly are genuine tricks, that just fool the spectators. If the magic shows said that atleast some of the tricks are "supernatural" (in some sense of the word), they wouldn't be allowed to exist. They would offend the consensus that "all magic is just tricks", which according to my opinion and knowledge is not really true. The beliefs and habitual views of the audience are part of the tricks themselves. The situation in which the magic occurs is really quite complicated and difficult to analyze. Sometimes the tricks fail, maybe the audience wasn't imaginative enough or something else. Like when David Copperfield tried to make a Learjet airplane vanish from the TV studio. First time he failed, but then he succeeded in it. How do "explain" this kind of magic trick? Do you assume that the TV station and the audience were paid and that they were therefore "lying" to you and everybody else? I don't think that is the case.

I think I've identified your problem.
It's often called 'wishful thinking', sometimes spoken of in terms of 'preconceived ideas'. There are other words for it, too, not all as complimentary as those.


Kim

[DNS]

Do you assume that the TV station and the audience were paid and that they were therefore "lying" to you and everybody else? I don't think that is the case.

The assistants and even some spectators are in on the act, yes. See this video and trick revealed for walking on water:

[PeterC]

Like when David Copperfield tried to make a Learjet airplane vanish from the TV studio. First time he failed, but then he succeeded in it. How do "explain" this kind of magic trick? Do you assume that the TV station and the audience were paid and that they were therefore "lying" to you and everybody else? I don't think that is the case.

Let me get this straight. You think David copperfield is doing *real* magic?

[Archie2009]

Like when David Copperfield tried to make a Learjet airplane vanish from the TV studio. First time he failed, but then he succeeded in it. How do "explain" this kind of magic trick? Do you assume that the TV station and the audience were paid and that they were therefore "lying" to you and everybody else? I don't think that is the case.

Let me get this straight. You think David copperfield is doing *real* magic?

LMAO

[Aemilius]

Do you assume that the TV station and the audience were paid and that they were therefore "lying" to you and everybody else? I don't think that is the case.

The assistants and even some spectators are in on the act, yes. See this video and trick revealed for walking on water:

My computer doesn't show that video. I have seen some videos in that category, one was by Criss Angel.

[Aemilius]

Like when David Copperfield tried to make a Learjet airplane vanish from the TV studio. First time he failed, but then he succeeded in it. How do "explain" this kind of magic trick? Do you assume that the TV station and the audience were paid and that they were therefore "lying" to you and everybody else? I don't think that is the case.

Let me get this straight. You think David copperfield is doing *real* magic?

I strongly suspect him of that.

Let me get this straight. You really don't know what magic is without getting into it yourself. As a youngster I found that there are books about magic or rather magic tricks in the public library. I then borrowed several books on magic, and tried to do some of these tricks for my friends, parents and relatives. I felt I was too clumsy and the tricks were often too simple and too easy to find out. Then on a summer vacation a stranger showed me how to do some simple tricks that mainly involved finger dexterity. But he also gave me a simple card trick, which was scientifically impossible, but it worked every time. As a teenager I didn't care so much about its philosophical implications. The important thing was that it worked. It was very simple compared to the card tricks that are done in the TV shows. Nevertheless, because it was theoretically impossible in normal scientifis terms, it has lead me not accept the normal attitudes toward magic tricks or magic. Nowadays think that certain part of the contemporary magic is explainable only by some form of Yogachara type of ideology. And that the contemporary arena of magic tricks hides in it some "real" magic, -for want of a better term.

I have seen numerous videos that reveal how magic tricks are done, I am not ignorant of them. If any one would happen to think that.

[Knotty Veneer]

First, David Copperfield is NOT doing real magic. Have some sense.

Second, magic tricks do not prove the laws of nature are 'empty'.

What they might do is tell us that we cannot always assume that we see is really what is going on. But that is as far as it goes.

[PeterC]

Like when David Copperfield tried to make a Learjet airplane vanish from the TV studio. First time he failed, but then he succeeded in it. How do "explain" this kind of magic trick? Do you assume that the TV station and the audience were paid and that they were therefore "lying" to you and everybody else? I don't think that is the case.

Let me get this straight. You think David copperfield is doing *real* magic?

I strongly suspect him of that.

Let me get this straight. You really don't know what magic is without getting into it yourself. As a youngster I found that there are books about magic or rather magic tricks in the public library. I then borrowed several books on magic, and tried to do some of these tricks for my friends, parents and relatives. I felt I was too clumsy and the tricks were often too simple and too easy to find out. Then on a summer vacation a stranger showed me how to do some simple tricks that mainly involved finger dexterity. But he also gave me a simple card trick, which was scientifically impossible, but it worked every time. As a teenager I didn't care so much about its philosophical implications. The important thing was that it worked.

Can you describe this card trick for us?

[Bristollad]

But he also gave me a simple card trick, which was scientifically impossible, but it worked every time.

I strongly suspect your belief that this "simple card trick" is actually scientifically impossible is false - it's simply that you don't understand the mechanism behind that trick that allows it to work every time. Your friend taught you the "what to do" for the trick, but not the "why it works". It's like telling someone to behave ethically if they want a good life but not explaining karma and results - behaving ethically will bring good results whether you understand karma or not.

[Archie2009]

Let me get this straight. You really don't know what ... is without getting into it yourself.

That should slow activity on DW down to a crawl.

[Giovanni]

If an intelligent person who is interested in Dharma comes across people who identify as Buddhists claiming that showbiz magic is actually due to supernatural suspensions of the laws of physics..what effect might that have on their interest in Buddhism?

[Kim O'Hara]

If an intelligent person who is interested in Dharma comes across people who identify as Buddhists claiming that showbiz magic is actually due to supernatural suspensions of the laws of physics..what effect might that have on their interest in Buddhism?

An intelligent person should realise that people who identify as Buddhists are as diverse as people who identify as Christian or female or flexitarian or Asian or baseball fans or ... (etc, etc, world without end, amen) and acknowledge that so identifying doesn't automatically confer good health, riches or wisdom on anyone.


Kim

[Archie2009]

If an intelligent person who is interested in Dharma comes across people who identify as Buddhists claiming that showbiz magic is actually due to supernatural suspensions of the laws of physics..what effect might that have on their interest in Buddhism?

An intelligent person should realise that people who identify as Buddhists are as diverse as people who identify as Christian or female or flexitarian or Asian or baseball fans or ... (etc, etc, world without end, amen) and acknowledge that so identifying doesn't automatically confer good health, riches or wisdom on anyone.


Kim

Right, they could just as well be turned off by the copious display of crystals and minerals at their local new-agey 'dharma' store. There is even a real Nyingma dharma store in Amsterdam that sells excellent meditation cushions (their own brand) which is otherwise full off crystals, minerals and singing bowls.