In previous recent posts, I have argued that Buddhist teachings can be thought of as identification with nonduality advaita and emptiness shunyata , that they are fundamentally anti-reificatory. If those posts were intended primarily for those with no prior background in contemporary philosophy, this post will go in the opposite direction, and explain why I think Buddhism presents a crucial addition to contemporary philosophy, in more directly philosophical language. While usually I feel it’s essential to speak accessibly, there are also times to employ the specialized sub-languages of philosophy because of what they are uniquely able to do, which is imagine virtual worlds. For those who might not know all the terms used, however, what follows might read more like philosophical poetry of a sort, however, rather than just dry technicality, because it’s precisely about why the Buddha’s message can never be reduced to anything like that. Non-Duality, Or the Path Beyond And so, let’s start with the notion, developed in these posts, that Buddha’s teaching is a form of identification with the non-dual. But if non-duality is beyond duality and non-duality, then the very notion of binary of any form is a limitation. And this is why I think the issue is more unity and multiplicity, which really underlies duality anyway, for a duality is a clash of two unities, each of which conceals, in its reified fixation on one thing over others, multiplicity. Of course, this duality needs to be overcome as well. The Buddha’s dharma is beyond language. And this is why I like the single word description of it, which in this case, is damma Pali or dharma Sanskrit . As Carl Olson argues in The Different Paths of Buddhism: A Narrative Historical Introduction Rutgers, 2006, really great book! , dharma is both “universal cosmic law… and corrective process… both the source of cosmic order and a means of liberation from the world.” 80 . It is not something that can be grasped rationally, but rather, intuitively, for it is really a process in which one comes into sync: “In contrast to the rational and analytic type of knowledge associated with empirical consciousness, wisdom prana is nonrational and intuitive… intuitive knowledge that serves as a flash of insight into the nature of everything” 100 . For the Buddha, logical proof is a craving for certainty. What matters is that one redescribe the world so that it’s possible to see the path to liberation. Giving up certainty, and logical proof, is in fact a precondition to insight into dharma. Attachment to any particular logic, process, or set of ideas, beliefs, or feelings can blind one to what is right in front of one. What is needed is what Freud famously called “even hovering attention,” but not only in relation to one’s mind, but one’s world. This notion is nicely described by the notion of tathata, or “suchness,” the flip-side of seeing the “emptiness” shunyata of things, which is to relate to them with OPENness, trying to see the world without beyond limiting preconceptions . A non-dual, multiplicitous way of relating to the world. Curiosity and OPENness to the new, identification with the Deleuzian virtual or the Lacanian object a, are perhaps other ways to say this. But what might that actually mean?

via Emerging: Or, Why Buddhist Dharma is Like Identification With the Deleuzian Virtual In and Through the Lacanian Object a . . . « Networkologies.