To spin Buddhism as a way to win is funny to me. It simply isn't defensible by reading primary Buddhist texts. 1/
-
-
Yes.
-
Sorry, what specifically do you disagree with?
-
That the quibbling over terminology is in any way ameliorated by... more quibbling over terminology. You're using a hammer to flatten a dough.
-
Well of course this comes down to semantics. Semantics actually matter, though. When people use specific words that have specific connotations, it matters whether those connotations are valid or useful.
-
Not what was entailed. I agree semantics matter. Connotations, too Yet, the disagreement is phenomenological, not semantic. You can redefine, but it won't clarify.
-
I don't disagree with that. Ultimately, phenomenology can't be clarified through redefining. It can, however, attempt to clear up some amount of confusion, if only a little bit of it.
-
The mistake is thinking "awakening", "waking up" & "enlightenment" even should connotate the same way to different people. Nothing else works like that. There are always more entailments.
-
Well anyone can mean whatever they want by anything, sure. But if we're talking about what something means in the context of Buddhism specifically - presumably using the pali canon as an authoritative text - then some connotations are more accurate than others.
- 14 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.