To spin Buddhism as a way to win is funny to me. It simply isn't defensible by reading primary Buddhist texts. 1/
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.
-
Hahahahah. I'd sooner expect to find my Self than a central Buddhist authority.
-
I mean... fuck it. Touché.
-
The Hindus don't even agree on who the Supreme Being is, or if there even is one. Buddhism confuses with its endless reference to the Buddha, but those Buddhas are not the same. Nor are the ethics. Nor are the metaphysics. Nor, indeed, even the goals and means of practice.
-
Maybe Buddhism embodies a range of concepts found in such a constellation in no other place. But even that, I suspect, is a lie. "Buddhist" is just a word.
- 10 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.