em... orange juice.
some of you know who said that. well, i know who said it to me. i wanted to write something about this quote:
Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true. [paraphrased]
these are allegedly the words of the Buddha. as i recall it there was a part that said "believe nothing, even if I have said it to be true, that you yourself have not tested and judged to be true" i think that's the really unique part.
Most religious leaders/founders do not say things that impugn their authority... i find this endearing. enlightened. it makes me think that this religion was to give power to none. nor to take power from any. i think though, that once the words were written down, they lost something. and then translated, probably lost some more. so what was it that they lost?
here's a question. when we learned in chemistry about all the significant figures, do you remember that? there was a certain order of magnitude that you knew what you were talking about, and beyond that you should not pretend you did. for instance: if you have a quantity of dang gui dried root, it balances the scale at 15 grams. if you were to write 15.0000 grams you could be correct, but you don't know for sure. so you can say 15 gram, might be actually 16.0345 grams, but it seemed enough like 15 for your purposes. now, lets say you had and herb like fan xie ye, which in even small amounts can cause severe diarrhea and subsequent dehydration (when used improperly) well, let's say your scale says 1 gram. you really should find out if that means .02 grams or 2.02. because that's a very important difference to the effect.
where was i going with that. ok. so when something is lost in translation or interperetation, it could change what is seen later.. i think what i mean is when someone's words are important enough for generations of people to want to know them or hear them, they will propagate. but even writing is subject to the true medium of all communication, the human brains that exchange the messages.. so even though the words maintain their integrity as if they had been written down verbatim, still, the meaning is incomplete when all you do is read those words. those words will require explanation, contemplation, and a bunch of other gerunds. so ultimately, the purity of any person's words, and the truth people find therein, come in large part from the people reading or hearing them. as far as that person is concerned anyway.
the problem with that is... well, all around us. we see it every day. someone says this is more right than that, that they are more righteous than someone else, that they understand better than someone else these great words of truth. the fact that i'm even talking about it now, this could be percieved as me telling you, the reader, that i'm right. of course that's something i don't want to do, but i seem to have to struggle with it... i don't know everything. but consider how this idea might apply to you. that what you've been told, what you've assumed, what you have read, might have been derailed along the way.. by someone completely unknown to you.. a reporter, an author, a translator, anyone who passed the message along and thought their efforts to clarify or augment the thing.
so in passing along a message or quote or something, perhaps it is wise to remember things like this... and when you get a message.. no matter who it is that conveys it to you.. remember this. i think i had best go to sleep now.
Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true. [paraphrased]
these are allegedly the words of the Buddha. as i recall it there was a part that said "believe nothing, even if I have said it to be true, that you yourself have not tested and judged to be true" i think that's the really unique part.
Most religious leaders/founders do not say things that impugn their authority... i find this endearing. enlightened. it makes me think that this religion was to give power to none. nor to take power from any. i think though, that once the words were written down, they lost something. and then translated, probably lost some more. so what was it that they lost?
here's a question. when we learned in chemistry about all the significant figures, do you remember that? there was a certain order of magnitude that you knew what you were talking about, and beyond that you should not pretend you did. for instance: if you have a quantity of dang gui dried root, it balances the scale at 15 grams. if you were to write 15.0000 grams you could be correct, but you don't know for sure. so you can say 15 gram, might be actually 16.0345 grams, but it seemed enough like 15 for your purposes. now, lets say you had and herb like fan xie ye, which in even small amounts can cause severe diarrhea and subsequent dehydration (when used improperly) well, let's say your scale says 1 gram. you really should find out if that means .02 grams or 2.02. because that's a very important difference to the effect.
where was i going with that. ok. so when something is lost in translation or interperetation, it could change what is seen later.. i think what i mean is when someone's words are important enough for generations of people to want to know them or hear them, they will propagate. but even writing is subject to the true medium of all communication, the human brains that exchange the messages.. so even though the words maintain their integrity as if they had been written down verbatim, still, the meaning is incomplete when all you do is read those words. those words will require explanation, contemplation, and a bunch of other gerunds. so ultimately, the purity of any person's words, and the truth people find therein, come in large part from the people reading or hearing them. as far as that person is concerned anyway.
the problem with that is... well, all around us. we see it every day. someone says this is more right than that, that they are more righteous than someone else, that they understand better than someone else these great words of truth. the fact that i'm even talking about it now, this could be percieved as me telling you, the reader, that i'm right. of course that's something i don't want to do, but i seem to have to struggle with it... i don't know everything. but consider how this idea might apply to you. that what you've been told, what you've assumed, what you have read, might have been derailed along the way.. by someone completely unknown to you.. a reporter, an author, a translator, anyone who passed the message along and thought their efforts to clarify or augment the thing.
so in passing along a message or quote or something, perhaps it is wise to remember things like this... and when you get a message.. no matter who it is that conveys it to you.. remember this. i think i had best go to sleep now.
3 Comments:
Wow. That makes me wonder how many motes of wisdom have actually benefited from the repeating, rather than been weakened. In other words, it's just as possible that strength and truth have been added to a statement through re-dissemination, as it is that the meaning has been dilluted.
Just Anonymous Me again.
just who is this anono-advocate for the devil? and how do you come to advocate so clearly? i might say, well, yes, of course it's just as possible to go the other way. for instance, in the case of most science, it's the retelling that spurrs ideas and continual improvement and advancement. but that same force (time i think) can produce stagnation and hardness of beliefs.. i can always find something negative in what we as humans do.. always. of course, in non-election years i'm way less likely to sound this disallusioned and cynical..
Shall we call me "Screwtape"? A younger me would have laughed semi-maniacally and had fun with this anonymity -- to the point of annoyance and frustration, but we'll see how it goes. For now, I'll just hang around and fulfill the bitchvocate position.
Screwtape Me (not to be shortened as "Screw. Me")
Post a Comment
<< Home