Spirituality
23 Nov 13
23 Nov 13
The broad appeal of Buddhism, particularly to the young, is largely due to the fact that it does not concern itself with God. Since we can neither prove nor disprove His existence, it neatly sidesteps this metaphysical jungle and places the problems of the individual centre stage. In a largely selfish and unhappy world this seems to me eminently sensible.
Any views?
23 Nov 13
Originally posted by Pianoman1I cannot understand the lingo they use. I've tried; but nope. Not so much.
The broad appeal of Buddhism, particularly to the young, is largely due to the fact that it does not concern itself with God. Since we can neither prove nor disprove His existence, it neatly sidesteps this metaphysical jungle and places the problems of the individual centre stage. In a largely selfish and unhappy world this seems to me eminently sensible.
Any views?
23 Nov 13
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitThank you for your response, SwissGambit.
I cannot understand the lingo they use. I've tried; but nope. Not so much.
A distillation of Buddhism's general doctrine can be found in The Four Noble Truths. They concern themselves with the cause and ending of suffering - a topical theme for these days, I'm sure you will agree. These are quite jargon free and easy to understand.
Originally posted by SwissGambitYes, because the topics of the discussions are addressed to people who have already study these matters in depth.
I cannot understand the lingo they use. I've tried; but nope. Not so much.
For example, when it is said that “the world is a delusion”, it is not implied that we imagine non-existent things; instead, it is argued that the so called “objective world” (phenomenal World) is a product of a specific modification of the mind that perceives it.
Also, Emptiness (Sunyata) is not a case of “complete nothingness”, but a condition empty of phenomena. Therefore the Cosmic Reality is understood as absolute and not dependent on causes and conditions, whilst the everyday reality (of the Phenomenal World) that we perceive is not absolute and remains always dependent on causes and conditions.
Furthermore, when it is said that “nirvana is bliss”, it is not supposed that when one “feels nirvana” then one is blissfully calm etc; the phrase points towards to a situation in which one perceives the Cosmic Reality as absolutely free of thoughts and phenomena.
In addition, “Enlightenment” is merely the ability to perceive both the Cosmic Reality and the reality of the Phenomenal World. There are four basic states the meditator is aware of, as regards this matter. 1: Inner Calm, in which no thoughts arise; 2: Breaking Free from mental and sentimental modifications, so that the mediator sees on her/ his own that the Phenomenal World lacks of substance; 3: Understanding that all phenomena are mind-dependent; 4: The level at which the meditator cease to think that the Cosmic Reality and the Phenomenal World are two different planes of being; over there the dualism falls apart;
😵
23 Nov 13
Originally posted by Pianoman1Of course it is a selfish and unhappy world ......and this is because God has been taken out of the equation of our lives.
The broad appeal of Buddhism, particularly to the young, is largely due to the fact that it does not concern itself with God. Since we can neither prove nor disprove His existence, it neatly sidesteps this metaphysical jungle and places the problems of the individual centre stage. In a largely selfish and unhappy world this seems to me eminently sensible.
Any views?
You may say [aaah but!] the world has Christianity and Islam and Judaism and so God is everywhere.
But God is not everywhere because the God peddled by false religion is not God.
False religion cannot give people God and either can Buddhism............hence we see Buddhism passing itself off as some sought of pseudo spirituality to dupe the innocent.
When a person is sincere & genuine about spirituality they will embrace TRUE RELIGION taught by the eternal bonafide Vedas
We are now seeing in society that Buddhists are eating meat which goes against the foundation of Buddhism itself and its non-violent teachings.
Any ideology which allows the slaughter of animals is maya and a false teaching / for true knowledge will never support the slaughter and cruelty of the lower species.
23 Nov 13
Originally posted by black beetleSimply rubbish................meant to delude and dazzle innocent women.
Yes, because the topics of the discussions are addressed to people who have already study these matters in depth.
For example, when it is said that “the world is a delusion”, it is not implied that we imagine non-existent things; instead, it is argued that the so called “objective world” (phenomenal World) is a product of a specific modification of t ...[text shortened]... the Phenomenal World are two different planes of being; over there the dualism falls apart;
😵
23 Nov 13
Originally posted by Pianoman1Spiritual truth shall never be presented in jargon at any time.
Thank you for your response, SwissGambit.
A distillation of Buddhism's general doctrine can be found in The Four Noble Truths. They concern themselves with the cause and ending of suffering - a topical theme for these days, I'm sure you will agree. These are quite jargon free and easy to understand.
Jargon is a ploy to deceive the vulnerable.
Buddhism in its simplest form is jargon free....................but puffed up western male pseudo intellectuals write books full of Buddhistic jargon to bewilder the innocent to solicit adulation and worship.
Originally posted by twhiteheadDo you “get the impression” that a Russian speaker understands what s/he’s saying, even if you don’t? Less trivially, do you tend to get the impression that people who use technical terms in any system understand them, even if you don’t? If you were to walk into, let’s say, an intermediate to advanced lecture on musicology (or poetry, or some other subject that you have no prior exposure to), and didn’t understand the “jargon”, will you leave with the impression that, because you didn’t understand what was being said, they don’t either?
Same here. I often get the impression that they don't understand it themselves, but I can't be sure.
If you have any interest, you’ll make an effort; if you don’t, you won’t. No fault there—really; there are subjects that I too am not interested enough in to pursue even a basic line of questioning. But I’m suggesting that your “impression” is generally wrong. At least with regard to the Buddhists that I read and converse with—and with regard to myself, of course. 😉
Sometimes “jargon” (technical language) is more efficient, because translation—and this is true of almost any language, translating from Hebrew to English, for instance—often requires more words to capture the range and depth of meaning of the original, as well as extended explanatory commentary. Sometimes, a certain jargon may capture my aesthetic sense, but not someone else’s (why should I expect that should?)—and so I pursue that line of inquiry, and they don’t.
Zen itself is extremely straightforward; but Wittgenstein, for example, might appeal to someone else. But if you want a detailed, thoroughgoing study about Zen, cast in Western scientific language, I might suggest Zen and the Brain by research neurologist James H. Austin, M.D.. (I picked that one because of your scientific bent.) If not, not—again, no fault.
I have spent a lot of time on here over the years translating Zen Buddhism (and its inherited jargon) into English. Nevertheless, my failures at translation/explanation are just that: my failures, due to my shortcomings and lack of skill when it comes to that attempt.
But I really don’t want to spend the time anymore. Sometimes somebody raises something that piques my interest, and it’s sometimes helpful as an aid to my own thinking to try to respond. But, mostly, I don’t have the interest in doing that to sustain the effort anymore. So this’ll likely be my last post on this particular subject. That doesn’t mean that I won’t from time to time converse on here with blackbeetle and Bosse and others who already have the jargon that allows for shortcutting (or maybe injecting a little koan or Zennish bit of doggerel, without extended commentary).
My lack of interest doesn’t imply fault on my part either. No fault, all around.
EDIT: My Buddhist philosophy is mostly Zen; but my practice has become more Jodo Shin (I find that "translation" pretty effortless).
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117006
23 Nov 13
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitMe neither. Often it seems to be an attempt to elevate ones self by demonstrating belonging to the in-group through using incomprehensible group terminology.
I cannot understand the lingo they use. I've tried; but nope. Not so much.
Edit: Sorry, that reads a lot harsher than I mean but the point remains.
23 Nov 13
Originally posted by divegeesterNot quite sure what the point of your post is. You don't like Buddhism because you don't understand the jargon? Rather shallow, if you will excuse the directness.
Me neither. Often it seems to be an attempt to elevate ones self by demonstrating belonging to the in-group through using incomprehensible group terminology.
Edit: Sorry, that reads a lot harsher than I mean but the point remains.
24 Nov 13
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleHow is Buddhism in respect to evolution and the age of the universe and Earth? My guess is they would not care one way or the other, that is to say, if science says the universe is billions of years old it would not flutter their feathers in the slightest. As opposed to some so-called christians here.
Yes, because the topics of the discussions are addressed to people who have already study these matters in depth.
For example, when it is said that “the world is a delusion”, it is not implied that we imagine non-existent things; instead, it is argued that the so called “objective world” (phenomenal World) is a product of a specific modification of t ...[text shortened]... the Phenomenal World are two different planes of being; over there the dualism falls apart;
😵
That alone makes it far superior IMO.
Buddhists don't really have an overpowering need for there to even be a god I think, right?
24 Nov 13
Originally posted by sonhouseEvolution and the age of the universe etc are accepted in full as they are proposed from the currently validated scientific peer reviews. The official Buddhist thesis as regards these matters amongst else, is that the various religious beliefs must be fully adjusted by whatever is accepted by the current science, and that they must be discarded if they are in contradiction with the available scientific facts, evidence and findings. Therefore, for example if a Buddhist argues that the universe is 6,000 old, s/he will be simply addressed to check on her/ his own the scientific facts and evidence, and he will be strongly adviced to either accept in full the scientific fact and evidence or to force the scientists to accept her/ his own peer review as regards this matter.
How is Buddhism in respect to evolution and the age of the universe and Earth? My guess is they would not care one way or the other, that is to say, if science says the universe is billions of years old it would not flutter their feathers in the slightest. As opposed to some so-called christians here.
That alone makes it far superior IMO.
Buddhists don't really have an overpowering need for there to even be a god I think, right?
And about G-d, they don't care at all as regards its existence or its non-existence;
😵
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117006
24 Nov 13
Originally posted by Pianoman1I didn't say I didn't like Buddhism nor in fact Buddhists themselves? I'm sorry that you find my straightforward point shallow and yet still so difficult to understand.
Not quite sure what the point of your post is. You don't like Buddhism because you don't understand the jargon? Rather shallow, if you will excuse the directness.