Okay, I’ll buy this, tent. If Buddhism allows for personal meaning, then I’m ready to move on from this whole meaningful/meaningless thing.
BUT, is that consistent with the concept of no-self?
Then, anon, why is nirvana - a state of non-life - the goal?
Shift gears for moment… The concept of no-self and nirvana as non-life assumes pre-eminence of ego. It isn’t that duality - I-ME isn’t always present, we simply ignore it as unimportant. In my first post I alluded to those times when self disappears and there is nothing but the doing - living. I realize it seems murky, but can you catch the subtle differences?
Okay, then we’re back on meaning. In Buddhist thought, what is it that personal meaning attaches to? If meaning is consistent with Buddhism (as I am being assured it is), then to whom is life meaningful in the Buddhist worldview?
Rainey,
Non-life isn’t the goal.
Back later…
I can’t answer for anyone but myself. What is meaningful is making the best of what is in front of me this day. Would this work? Why poetry? Do you sit and say to yourself; “Here I am writing a poem.” Or does YOU disappear and there are only words flowing on paper?
A Taoist line says that a sage does nothing and yet nothing is left undone. HUH??? All that says is that the wise person simply deals with whatever comes their way the best way they can. They don’t look for things to do, life comes effortlessly and if a “task” isn’t completed today, it received all the attention possible this day. Therefore nothing is left “undone”.
Perhaps one could say that all of life is meaningful and needs no explanation, no apology, no regret?
To the practitioner, of course. Me. You. Him. Her.
Are you questioning how no-self (annatta) fits into this? Selfhood is seen as generated by causes and conditions. The self generated by causes and conditions finds things meaningful.
I was about to reply to tent with a post seeking to dig deeper about the Buddhist concept of self, asking about how no-self fits into this, when anon posted with:
Nice.
Okay, so Buddhism allows for a concept of “self” and therefore there can be meaning. I have no problem with this at all. I would not, therefore, as a practitioner of Buddhism have to deny the concept of self. Is that correct? That has not been my understanding.
Trick question, no fair - lol.
Selfhood, and objecthood, are often compared to rainbows. They exist like that. They don’t exist in themselves, or “from their own side”.
We all think of our “selves” as existing. Buddhist theory and practice make that notion more fluid and open-ended, while the notion of an eternal soul (as in Christianity) takes it in the opposite direction, glorifying the sense of self.
I rather like this. Your rainbow metaphor seems appropriate then (as well as poetic).
In Taoist cosmology, what is self is merely a pattern of persistence (you) that comes into being, matures, and returns to the field. What is self is focus from the field. In this sense, there is no such thing as being, but rather becoming. We are all an “activity”. 
Anon, how does this compare with Buddhist thought? Not about returning to the field (versus reincarnation), but about the rest of it? Wouldn’t the concept of no-self be another way of positing the self as becoming, rather than being?
Ames and Hall are casually invited to suck my nuts.
Really? So which of the hundred schools do you like? Or do you dismiss Taoism entirely? I’ve a dozen or so translations (sadly, I don’t read Chinese) and while I question some of Ames and Hall, I found the bulk of their translation to be the clearest presentation if understanding is desired.
Ames and Hall are great, if you want post-structuralism presented using Daoist language. There is nothing wrong with that and, it can be brilliant. But know that you are getting a post-modern/post-structuralist (depending on how you delineate between the two) interpretation first and a Daoist interpretation second. Fusion philosophy, like fusion cuisine, can be MIND BLOWINGLY AWESOME. Since fusion places are usually shooting for things like a Michelin Star, what they are serving is often a whole lot better than traditional dishes. But I wouldn’t call them “authentic”. Right? There is an amazing Vietnamese fusion place right next to where I live. Really, really good. Due to colonialism, Vietnamese is already kinda fusion-y, and this place really emphasizes the “French” portion of the fusion. It’s really, really good.
If I wanted to take someone out to dinner, I’d take them to that restaurant. If they wanted to know what Vietnamese food was, I’d take them to Little Saigon.
As for the Hundred Schools, I forget when Ames and Hall were at the White Horse Academy. Hawai’i may be a little bit ahead of the rest of the world when it comes to time-travel technology, but I’m not sure they’re that good.
It would seem to be a bit of a dilemma. Where then does one find “authenticity”? Unless you were Chinese, born around 400 BCE, raised in the culture of the times, the understanding of Tao a couple thousand years later will have had to survive many interpretations let alone dozens of translations. So where would you like to place what is authentic -vs- inauthentic?
It seems to me that the charge of fusion philosophy could be aimed at any works with beginnings in ancient times. Where is the line?
Wenren, why is “authentic” necessarily more desirable?
rainey
Said in that way, buddhism doesn’t give a larger picture.
Suffering IS a part of life. Desire IS a part of life. Joy is also a part of life and flowing through desire, within reason, can lead to harmony.
Does one have to escape those things or try to balance them and find meaning in them?
If buddism does say the above, it seems to deny one’s humanity. Desire in its proper place can lead to creativity and productiveness.
Suffering in its proper place can lead to wisdom and teach one mental endurance.
Suffering can also bring on a much fuller appreciation and gratitude for when Life is contentment. The greater the suffering, the greater can be the joy and the pleasure.
One can indiscrimately too rise above desire but how does one transcend life?
Transcending life is not even seeing it as its cup being half full - nor half empty. There is no cup.
I thought that buddism was about a discriminating kind of rightful detachment.
tent
.
To some people, tent, that might sound like drudgery although “making the best of something” mght ultimately serendipitously bring on meaning. Maybe that’s what you mean. I’ve had days when all I could do was to make the best of them but I didn’t necessarily experience meaning in the doing, before or after.
No, but I am aware of trying to create one. When I am in the process of writing a poem, all of me is fully there. But you do have a point. By disappear, do you mean being fully in the zone, going with the flow of it?
And the words don’t necessarily flow on paper. Sometimes they are very stubborn little guys refusing to be placed there. Like a woman, whose water has already broken, giving birth to a breeched baby. I’ve had that experience. Have you? 
Writing poetry sometimes can be like that. But we’re not talking about poetry. lol But when we’ve reached that final destination, the end result is an experience which is similar, to different degrees.
That would be holy detachment?
That would depend on what one is experiencing in the moment. Granted, there are times when one might experience life as totally meaningless. I have had those moments and it was as if I was being hung over a precipice in danger of falling. Does buddhism say that we must transcend that?
When life becomes meaningful to us, we can say then that all of life is meaningful since all we have is the NOW.
When life is meaningful or meaningless, there is no time for explanation - only experience. The explan come later.
Yes, this was my concern as well and why I used the phrase life affirming as opposed to life denying. You’ve said it much better.
But I sense that it isn’t Buddhism that’s not giving the larger picture. It’s just rainey’s perception of Buddhism. 