Originally posted by PalynkaLike I said, for me 'destiny' is merely 'where you end up', not some mystical force. You do agree that your moral choices (among other things) influence the way your life turns out, don't you?
Not JUST rejecting supernatural forces. I mean believing in destiny and rejecting other supernatural forces.
Originally posted by PalynkaAre you offering to explain what karma is ... ?
Yes, but Karma is much more than that.
Anyhow, I think that when discussing paradigms clearly different from one's own, one must generously attempt to place oneself within the paradigm, in this case, a paradigm that (at the risk of paradigmatic personification) has no supernatural beliefs, given that its concept of the natural includes the workings of karma, 'rebirth', etc.
The super/natural dichotomy is clear in Western thinking: God made nature; Man is in nature; God is outside nature. No such dichotomy in Buddhism. Voila.
Originally posted by PalynkaWhat circus?!
The circle (circus?) is complete.
When I say that "religion is a plexus of symbols, rites, temples, religious personages (priests) and worshipping of supernatural existences", am I obliged to offer also a definition of the "plexus", of the "symbols", of the "rites", of the "temples", of the "priests", of the verb "worship" and of the "supernatural existencies"?
😵
Originally posted by Bosse de NageCute;
Are you offering to explain what karma is ... ?
Anyhow, I think that when discussing paradigms clearly different from one's own, one must generously attempt to place oneself within the paradigm, in this case, a paradigm that (at the risk of paradigmatic personification) has no supernatural beliefs, given that its concept of the natural inclu ...[text shortened]... d made nature; Man is in nature; God is outside nature. No such dichotomy in Buddhism. Voila.
Good Luck😵
Originally posted by Bosse de NageCome on. Surely you understand that Karma contains an element of retribution/reward that is absent from your sentence above?
Are you offering to explain what karma is ... ?
Anyhow, I think that when discussing paradigms clearly different from one's own, one must generously attempt to place oneself within the paradigm, in this case, a paradigm that (at the risk of paradigmatic personification) has no supernatural beliefs, given that its concept of the natural inclu ...[text shortened]... d made nature; Man is in nature; God is outside nature. No such dichotomy in Buddhism. Voila.
I'm a Western Yogi as I think our friend black beetle once called me. Teach me differently, but don't ask me to simply accept.
Originally posted by black beetleIf I ask you and explain why I think it's a problem, then yes. That's what this discussion is about and what Bosse has been discussing with me all along, from "chaos" to "set of beliefs".
What circus?!
When I say that "religion is a plexus of symbols, rites, temples, religious personages (priests) and worshipping of supernatural existences", am I obliged to offer also a definition of the "plexus", of the "symbols", of the "rites", of the "temples", of the "priests", of the verb "worship" and of the "supernatural existencies"?
😵
Originally posted by PalynkaNo, not at all. It's easy to read into it (especially from a Western perspective) but it's just as easy to read out of it (especially from an Eastern perspective (I saw an Eastern perspective in a magazine once (the view was amazing))).
Come on. Surely you understand that Karma contains an element of retribution/reward that is absent from your sentence above?
I'm a Western Yogi as I think our friend black beetle once called me. Teach me differently, but don't ask me to simply accept.
I have no intention of teaching you about karma, man. I'm no kind of yogi. I knew bringing Buddhism into it would be a mistake! Fact is, our definitions on this point diverge too much for any fruitful discussion; we literally see things differently, and I can't lend you my eyes.
Originally posted by PalynkaIt is not a problem because we both know that we know well the definition of the word "priest" -but I have no problem to offer it right now: a priest is a person authorized to perform the sacred rites of a religion especially as a mediatory agent between humans and God.
If I ask you and explain why I think it's a problem, then yes. That's what this discussion is about and what Bosse has been discussing with me all along, from "chaos" to "set of beliefs".
So, why do you think that my definition of religion is circular?
😵
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleI changed one word. What would you change 'priest' to accordingly?
It is not a problem because we both know that we know well the definition of the word "priest" -but I have no problem to offer it right now: a priest is a person authorized to perform the sacred rites of a religion especially as a mediatory agent between humans and the State.
I just remembered that the political goal of Islam was (ideally) to establish a holy land, more or less -- why shouldn't a State consider itself sacred?