0109 Chapter two is titled, “Why Lacan is not a Buddhist”.

Zizek claims that the preceding discussion (D) reflects the discipline of Lacanian psychoanalysis and (E) does not coincide with Buddhism, despite apparent similarities.

0110 Similarities?

Allow me to draw some more associations between Lacan’s terminology and the perspective-level category based nested form (that this examiner uses to structure this look at Zizek’s book).

0111 A Big Other_3c brings an {objet a (corresponding to matter) [contiguity] objet a (corresponding to form)}_2c into relation with jouissance_1c, designated as the potential for ‘truth and synthesis’_1c (or should I say, “the potential of a synthetic truth_1c“?).

0112 The normal context_3c seems to go with the Big Other_3c and the relativist one_3c.  Both exclude Christ_3c and offer [a petit objet a] that confirms the realness of the thing itself_2c (that is, an objet a).

0113 The substance of the actuality_2c, the petit objet a, is like a clue that indicates that both the matter and the form of objet a_2c are present.  Perhaps, I may associate objet a_2c to a noumenon and the petit objet a to its phenomena, if the association could sustain scrutiny.  It cannot, of course.

Well, to start, objet a is like a thing, composed of matter and form, that is an object of interest because the [substance]_2coffers clues that say, “This_2c is the object that you are looking for.”

0114 Objet a_2c cannot make sense, because it_2c refuses to be grasped by natural philosophy, which regards it_2c as something similar to Aristotle’s hylomorphe.  It_2c is.  And, it_2c is not.  After all, why label both matter and form with the same term, objet a?   Is Lacan working with explicit abstraction?  Or is he conjuring an act of implicit abstraction? The objet a_2c is a hook on a string.  The [petit objet a]_2c is a squirming worm.

0115 The Big Other_3c holds the fishing rod.  Jouissance_1c is a mighty hunger.

Is there a word for this sport?

0116 Louis Althusser calls it “interpellation”.

Jesus calls it “fishing for men”.

0117 Framed in this way, the red colors are like fishing flies, skimming the surface, yet attached to the line and pole of an expert fisherman.

No wonder Buddhists see similarities with their doctrines.

The system_3c is an illusion_2c fishing for human desire_1c.

So, the question is, “What does the Buddhist fail to see?”

The Buddhist regards every aspect of the above category-based nested form as an illusion, even the jouissance, the desire.

And, the Buddhist is correct.

So, let me pause, and brew a pot of tea.

0118 Is our karmic burden to grasp to acquire and find ways to exercise order?  The Buddhist monk begs for alms and food.  The Buddhist tradition exercises order, softly, in pragmatic approaches.  Buddhists coach those who suffer from excess jouissance_1c.  They offer subtle resistance to the relativist one_3c who personifies the system_3c.  Let go your illusions.  Stop suffering.

Then, according to Zizek, the Buddhist tradition goes on to codify the appearances (the diverse petit objet a) that are not spiritual beings, but rather contiguities within things_2c, that seductively whisper, “This is the objet a that you are looking for.”

The apparently spiritual entities (petit objet a) are influential and attractive. They constellate modes of acquisition and exercises of order (objet a).  Who would not be drawn into their intrigues?  So, strict boundaries are set.  Buddhists are not fools.

Buddhist institutions appear hopelessly formalized, hierarchical, and stagnant, in the same way that a river stays within its boundaries, knows where it is going and where it has been, and never seems to get anywhere.  But, look at the eddies that shimmer on the surface.  Buddhism flows without moving.

0119 The crux of Zizek’s configuration, [wealth and power], is an illusion.

But, Zizek says, “Not so fast.”