Let's work together for a glossary of English Buddhism terms.

[yrreg]

Here is my first contribution:

Wholesome (as opposed to unwholesome) means in the ultimate analysis an act that will bring you to enlightenment and hence to nirvana, in the meantime you are by that act supposed to contribute to your liberation from suffering.


I am working next on these terms: skillful, unskillful, dependent origination, conditionally, self.

Please give your contributions so that we all can read Buddhists writing in English and not get puzzled with their use of English words like wholesome and unwholesome, skillful and unskillful, not knowing exactly their meanings for them in Buddhism -- and more important what equivalent concepts in English and perhaps better terms.



Yrreg aka Fat Laughing Buddha

[Zep]

www.dictionary.com ??

[Nosaj]

yrreg,

I would suggest taking a look at Access to Insight's Glossary of Pali and Buddhist Terms (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html) and Nyanatiloka Thera’s Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines (http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic_idx.html).

Jason

[Dancing David]

Here is my first contribution:

Wholesome (as opposed to unwholesome) means in the ultimate analysis an act that will bring you to enlightenment and hence to nirvana, in the meantime you are by that act supposed to contribute to your liberation from suffering.

I would disagree, wholesome are activities that do not lead to more dukka, that is things that cause pain in the self or others, attachment to the pleasant and fear of the unpleasant.

You could engage in wholseome acts and never attain enlightenment.



I am working next on these terms: skillful, unskillful, dependent origination, conditionally, self.

skillful:being mindfull and practicing the eightfold path in thought, word and acts.

unskillful:being unpracticed or un mindful of the eightfold path is thout, words or acts.

dependent origination: has many different application, generally involves errors of thopught, words and acts that are inherent in dukka.

conditioned: reacting to situations without regard for the impact of thoughts, words and acts.

self: a devisive point amongst schools there is the common self comprised of the five heaps (body, thought, emotions, sensation, habits) then there is the concept of the self and considerable debate thereafter.

[yrreg]

Thanks to guys here for the references to websites with dictionaries and explanations of Buddhist concepts and terms.


What I am looking for is a website that will go into what I might call A Dictionary of Buddhist English Usages.

In this kind of a dictionary I hope to find how Buddhists writing about Buddhism for English speaking people use English words in a peculiar manner, which readers must attend to if they would not get mistaken with the meaning intended by a Buddhist writer.


For example, the words wholesome, unwholesome, skillful, unskillful, up to the present I have not come to any Buddhist writer who will tell us in what sense exactly he wants people to understand what he calls a wholesome or unwholesome action, a skillful or unskillful action.


If anyone knows of any free online dictionary of Buddhist terms in English where these words are included and defined, namely: wholesome, unwholesome, skillful, unskillful, please give us the web reference here in this thread.


On my own part, from my admittedly limited reading so far of Buddhism written in English, wholesome means in the biggest picture of Buddhism contributive to enlightenment and nirvana in the last analysis, unwholesome is the opposite.

Now, with skillful and unskillful, correct me if I am wrong, and I don't mean to offend Buddhists here or anywhere who read this post, skillful seems to mean how you can rationalize an action you have done or will do so as to convince yourself that it is wholesome -- is that correct?


---------------


People reading this thread, you will most probably find here all kinds of meanings all kinds of people will give on what I consider peculiar usages of English words in Buddhism, but don't be disheartened; until Buddhists get together to publish a manual of Buddhist English Usages, you can after you have read a bit of the meanings of English terms used by Buddhists writing in English, you will get your own ideas of how English terms otherwise puzzling to you employed by English writers on Buddhism are supposed to mean.

That is why also eventually, and more and more, there will be different groups of English speaking Buddhists. So, the more the merrier.



Yrreg aka Fat Laughing Buddha

[Tricky]

You might want to add "suffering" to the list of words that need special Buddhist definitions. Apparently it means something totally different to them than it does to most people. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2947115#post2947115)

[Nosaj]

yrreg,

On my own part, from my admittedly limited reading so far of Buddhism written in English, wholesome means in the biggest picture of Buddhism contributive to enlightenment and nirvana in the last analysis, unwholesome is the opposite.

Instead of ignoring the resources that I have provided for you, why not utilize them? For example, see kusala (http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/g_m/kusala.htm). If you would like a more detailed analysis of this Pali word, please see Good or Skilful? Kusala in Canon and Commentary (http://www.buddhistethics.org/3/cousins1.html) by Lance Cousins.

Jason

[Nosaj]

yrreg,

I would suggest taking a look at Access to Insight's Glossary of Pali and Buddhist Terms (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html) and Nyanatiloka Thera’s Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines (http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic_idx.html).

By the way, if in the future there is ever an English word and you are in doubt which Pali word is being referenced, please feel free to ask me for assistance.

Jason

[Nosaj]

Tricky,

You might want to add "suffering" to the list of words that need special Buddhist definitions.

Please see dukkha (http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/b_f/dukkha.htm) (suffering) and dukkhata (http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/b_f/dukkhataa.htm) (the state of suffering).

Jason

[Loss Leader]

After this, we're going to compile a list of words Gerry just made up out of nothing.

[yrreg]

For example, the English word renunciation, when I pointed out to Elohim that it is a negative word, he told me that renunciation is understood in a positive sense in Buddhism.

I told him that if you want to understand renunciation in a positive manner as per Buddhism, you have to use another English term or compose an English phrase, and I suggested right off, 'differential concentration' -- instead of renunciation.

Read the following exchange in this connection:



Posted by yrreg
That is one enlightenment for me, Westerners are into Buddhism when you look at them carefully as a touristic fancy.

[...]

It can also be a trap, insofar as tourism can become a distraction from reality right here at home. And tourism itself implies an intent to go home again, but dhamma practice is all about starting where you are, not trying to escape. In that sense, "leaving home" is not part of dhamma practice. (And yet the practice involves nekkhamma, or renunciation.)

The idea that Buddhism can be a kind of spiritual tourism for westerners might be worth a thread. Certainly it would be a more meaningful discussion than what has unfolded in this lamentable thread.




[...]

dhamma practice is all about starting where you are, not trying to escape. In that sense, "leaving home" is not part of dhamma practice. (And yet the practice involves nekkhamma, or renunciation.)

You mean dhamma practice involves renunciation, like taking the vows of refuge in the Buddha, refuge in the dhamma, and refuge in the sangha?

That is the impasse between you and me, you for being a Buddhist submits yourself to renunciations to arrive at or attain nirvana, I don't renounce anything of my actuations except what I see to be:

1. Annoying to other people even hurtful to other people;
2. Injurious to my health and life;
3. Offensive to my self-respect or the respect owed to others;
4. Contrary to law and government rules.


And I observe the above self-imposed norms to direct my actuations in everything in order to live an enjoyable long life.

No, I am not into any and all kinds of taking refuge from except as required in my observance of the four above norms; but when I do take refuge, I take refuge in myself or something that is the ultimate refuge for myself. Make a guess what that refuge is.


Yrreg


yrreg,

[...]

Renunciation (nekkhamma) is an important part of the Buddha’s path to awakening. In the West, however, renunciation is often perceived as a negative word—a word that implies depriving oneself of something essential to living a full and happy life. In the Buddha’s dispensation, however, renunciation actually means the opposite of this—it is a word implying the relinquishment of something unessential to living a full and happy life.

In regard to renunciation, the Pali Canon mentions that it goes against the flow of craving (Iti 109), it is an escape from the bonds of sensuality (Iti 72), and ultimately, it leads to the bliss of release from fear, agitation, and distrust (Ud 2.10). In addition, for one who has abandoned passion, desire, fondness, thirst, fever, and craving for sensuality, there is no longer the fear of death even though one is subject to death (AN 4.184).

Jason




[...]

Well, then don’t use the word renunciation, pick another word or a phrase; allow me to suggest one right away: differential concentration.

Because renunciation is negative; please tell your Buddhist colleagues not to use negative words and insist on spinning on them a positive trend.

What is the Pali equivalent from which renunciation was chosen by translators as the best pick for English speaking or conversant people?


That is why however much Buddhist converts or originals want to insist, from your terminology Buddhism is a negativistic worldview.



Yrreg aka Fat Laughing Buddha


yrreg,


There is nothing wrong with "renunciation". Just because people are ignorant of its meaning in Buddhism does not mean it should be changed.

Jason [Elohim]




Well, there you have it, folks, renunciation in Buddhism does not mean giving up anything; Buddhist writers in English just can't find a better word or phrase to use to signify what is for them the positive aspects of their use of the word renunciation, to translate whatever word they have in Buddhist Pali corresponding to the English word renunciation but understood in a positive way.


That is what I have realized time and again that in Buddhism people get into all kinds of concepts and words which are totally against the Western discovery and employment of the Principle of Parsimony aka Occam's Razor.


As usual I take refuge in humor in which according to Pes Oir Amsus* there is always fact and truth -- here below this observation:


If you read one day in the news that in a certain sangha in some land of the West today where men and women are into seeking enlightenment by way of Buddhism, the news that there is some kind of a big brawl because the sexual combination among the parties inside leaves some members violently disgruntled, and reporters and even police get to the brouhaha -- you will smile if not laugh and say to yourself, that is what they certainly will sooner than later land into with their understanding of the English word renunciation in the positive Buddhistic sense.




Yrreg aka Fat Laughing Buddha

*Aka Yrreg or the guy looking at me as I look at myself in the mirror.

[nosho]

Hello again, yrreg. I'm happy to see that you have not taken your ultimate refuge.

Your latest criticism of Buddhism seems to be that the words people use to explain it are not satisfactory to you, because they can be imprecise. I can see how you might feel that way, and I think you have the right idea to try to develop a vocabulary for yourself if that helps you sort through the concepts.

I'm not sure I follow your complaint about the word "renunciation," however. If someone has a nicotine addiction and renounces cigarettes in an effort to kick the habit, isn't that a positive form of renunciation? I think renunciation is more of a neutral term. If people find the term to be negative, it might be because they have not thought it through.

I'm not sure your proposed alternative term, "differential concentration," does much good in clarifying the concept. I don't know what you mean by "differential concentration." I do know what "renunciation" means in English, though, and I think it's a workable term for people who are interested in learning about Buddhism.

But that might be the main problem: You have said in a recent post that Buddhism is not for you. It's not something you're really interested in learning about, so of course that attitude might make it more difficult for you to be open to the terms people use in explaining Buddhism to those who are interested.

[yrreg]

You might want to add "suffering" to the list of words that need special Buddhist definitions. Apparently it means something totally different to them than it does to most people. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2947115#post2947115)

That is why also I am perpetually suspecting that most probably Buddhism gets its focus and rationale all wrong, it is not suffering but patience.

So, instead of starting off with suffering, it should launch off as its point of departure, patience: Life is [all] patience, etc., etc., etc.


What do you think, Tricky, am I into a tremendous discovery of what Buddhism is quintessentially into, namely, not suffering but patience?

As far as I know about patience, it means that something tough has to be borne long and harshly, to put up with, to do, undertake, work on, which is an instrumental or way and means procedure and duration for something better to come thereby, while suffering does not connote anything better to come from suffering something -- except perhaps the lesson to not land yourself into a suffering situation again from that suffering experience.



So, if we substitute the word patience for the word suffering in all Buddhist literature in English [let's not talk at this point about the Buddhism that is in Pali, or Chinese, or Korean, or Japanese, or Nepalese, or Tibetan, literature. ancient and contemporary], we might make of Buddhism a more palatable religion or philosophy or plain worldview.

What is that someone wrote about patience seizing the crown while suffering gets you nothing but skillful [pun not intended] maneuvering to get out of suffering?*


Yrreg aka Fat Laughing Buddha


*It must be my favorite slogan smith, Pes Oir Amsus, or the guy looking at me as I look at myself in the mirror.

[Please bear or be patient ( -- suffering here not relevant), with my Catholic upbringing whatever, and no need to jeer if you are into exchange of ideas instead of hooting.]

[nosho]

So, if we substitute the word patience for the word suffering in all Buddhist literature in English [let's not talk at this point about the Buddhism that is in Pali, or Chinese, or Korean, or Japanese, or Nepalese, or Tibetan, literature. ancient and contemporary], we might make of Buddhism a more palatable religion or philosophy or plain worldview.

But it wouldn't be Buddhism any more. (And it wouldn't make much sense. The fourth noble truth would become: There is a path to the cessation of patience.)

Khanti, or tolerance, might be close to the term "patience." It is one of the mental perfections. These are developed over time with practice.

[yrreg]

Hello again, yrreg. I'm happy to see that you have not taken your ultimate refuge.

And I am happy and salute you again, because you are one achiever in Buddhism in respect of patience.



Your latest criticism of Buddhism seems to be that the words people use to explain it are not satisfactory to you, because they can be imprecise. I can see how you might feel that way, and I think you have the right idea to try to develop a vocabulary for yourself if that helps you sort through the concepts.

I'm not sure I follow your complaint about the word "renunciation," however. If someone has a nicotine addiction and renounces cigarettes in an effort to kick the habit, isn't that a positive form of renunciation? I think renunciation is more of a neutral term. If people find the term to be negative, it might be because they have not thought it through.



Well, I will just say that the negative of a negative spells a positive; so it is altogether sensible to describe his giving up of cigarettes to which he was attached, as a renunciation of what today medical experts tell us is negative to health and long enjoyable living.



I'm not sure your proposed alternative term, "differential concentration," does much good in clarifying the concept. I don't know what you mean by "differential concentration." I do know what "renunciation" means in English, though, and I think it's a workable term for people who are interested in learning about Buddhism.



Well, Gautama, the founder of Buddhism, did renounce his wife, newly born son, his home, his family, his presence to his parents and siblings, as obstacles to his quest for enlightenment.

Instead of using the word then of renunciation, isn't my off-the-cuff phrase differential concentration better, and it definitely is no spin whatever.


But that might be the main problem: You have said in a recent post that Buddhism is not for you. It's not something you're really interested in learning about, so of course that attitude might make it more difficult for you to be open to the terms people use in explaining Buddhism to those who are interested.

I am not keen on adopting Buddhism as a personal worldview where I would put in time and devotion and resources, to cultivating in order to get myself into a better situation or life's lot.

But I am curious to know what exactly this system is driving at and why, and to come to conclusions about whether it is acceptable, at least as acceptable as with those guys who undertake the differential concentration of joining the Red Cross or the Greenpeace.

Buddhism is not a movement to change the world for the better for mankind this side of the grave or the biological domains of life; it is after some nebulous, call that transcendental end destiny labeled nirvana, where biology is not around anymore, vaporized, popped, not even a smell left, and thus mankind and all sentient beings gone forever, never to return -- whatever, because it's all no good.




Yrreg aka Fat Laughing Buddha

[Hokulele]

<snip> and thus mankind and all sentient beings gone forever, never to return


Yes! You finally understand!

-- whatever, because it's all no good.


Never mind.

[lolurigeller]

www.dictionary.com ??

lol

[Dancing David]

There is an issue here, many places on this bulletin board there is a terminology or jargon that is used to help establish communication. Clarity comes about through usage and study.

Quantum leap is not an electron jumping off a building.
The unconscious does not exist.
Matter is energy and visa versa.
Morals and ethics do not exist in the abcense of humans.

There are common uses of words and then there are the narrow uses of words for certain subgroups.. Translation from one language to another adds another dimension of ambiguity.

[BPScooter]

I'm sort of interested in a religion that doesn't seem to care about the origin or the end of it all, and whose major figure sat beneath a tree and had a thorough and happy thought.

If you're shopping around for a religion, this one seems less likely to harm other people.

[Loss Leader]

If you're shopping around for a religion, this one seems less likely to harm other people.


Don't be ridiculous. As Gerry has conclusively proven, so long as there is even one Buddhist anywhere on the earth, humans are all doomed. Buddhists polute good, christian minds with nihilistic garbage that forces them to abandon their families, leave their infants neglected and unfed, let skyscrapers deteriorate and crumble and allow the sick to worsen and die. Buddhism is the very opposite of everything that is good about human behavior. Accept Christ as your personal God and Savior before it's too late and you waste your life contributing nothing, not even feeding yourself.

[Paid for by the Committee to Read into Subtext, Yrreg Division]

[Zep]

Yrreg's a fundie? Really? I would have thought he's just a poseur, a mischievous malcontent, a *****-stirrer. Fundies are FAR too serious for that sort of thing.

[JetLeg]

Eh.. May be the following will be useful for you?

http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/approaching_buddhism/modern_adaptation/recommendations/buddhism_west/workshop_tibetans_translating_dharma.html?query=wo rkshop%2520tibetans%2520translating%2520dharma

[nosho]

Well, Gautama, the founder of Buddhism, did renounce his wife, newly born son, his home, his family, his presence to his parents and siblings, as obstacles to his quest for enlightenment.

Don't forget that Gotama did all that years before he became fully enlightened. And after he became fully enlightened, he returned to his family and helped them to become enlightened. Could he have offered them this great benefit had he not followed his path to full enlightenment?

Also remember that Gotama was a prince, and he knew full well that his family would be well cared for, a luxury most of us don't have.

In between the time Gotama left his family and the time he became fully enlightened, he tried a bunch of different paths that did not work. I don't think the intended lesson here is to leave your wife and children.

Also, yrreg, I know that you have read the mangala sutta, which includes this passage: "To support one's father and mother; to cherish one's wife and children, and to be engaged in peaceful occupations -- this is the highest blessing." These are regarded as the words of the Buddha. His teaching is clear: cherish your family.

Buddhism is not a movement to change the world for the better for mankind this side of the grave or the biological domains of life; it is after some nebulous, call that transcendental end destiny labeled nirvana, where biology is not around anymore, vaporized, popped, not even a smell left, and thus mankind and all sentient beings gone forever, never to return -- whatever, because it's all no good.

If you really believe that's all there is to Buddhism, then you've completely missed the point. The most crucial practice in Buddhism is focused on the here and now, bringing one right into the present moment.

Buddhism could be regarded as a movement to change the world starting with oneself, in this very moment. You don't have to wait for any benefit; the benefits of practice are immediate. All that speculation about the future is secondary at best. It's meaningless if it doesn't serve one's practice here and now.

But you know all of this. You've heard it before. What I can't understand is why, in this post, you have repeated two falsehoods, namely: 1) your contention that Buddhism is anti-family; and 2) your contention that Buddhism's focus is only beyond the grave. I know that you know better. So why are you repeating falsehoods?

[yrreg]

[...]

But you know all of this. You've heard it before. What I can't understand is why, in this post, you have repeated two falsehoods, namely: 1) your contention that Buddhism is anti-family; and 2) your contention that Buddhism's focus is only beyond the grave. I know that you know better. So why are you repeating falsehoods?


Please don't talk here about people engaging in falsehoods, just say that they are into mistaken notions about something or some people. Okay?

If you want to emphasize that Buddhism for you is:

1. not against family,

2. not against improving mankind this side of the grave,

3. not into man's lot whatever beyond the grave except secondarily,

you have the privilege of a free agent to pick the differential concentrations you want to dress up Buddhism in.

On my part as a critical observer, reader, and thinker, I have the impressions that:

1. Buddhism does not regard marriage and family better or even just as good as the life cultivated by monks and nuns inside their sangha,

2. That Buddhism is not concerned with developing mankind this side of the grave,

3. But concentrated primarily and even essentially on leading mankind to a destiny or non-destiny beyond the grave, namely, to nirvana.

Those are my opinions, don't call them falsehoods. No one is I assume or should be into pushing falsehoods in a web forum at least not in my thread and certainly not from me.

I am just as I said time and again trying to make sense of Buddhism from my own observation, reading, and thinking, and on my own idea of making sense.

Again, don't go about accusing people starting with Yrreg with making falsehood statements about Buddhism.


If in your own kind of Buddhism you want to maintain that marriage and family is superior to or even just equal to the life of Buddhist monks and nuns in the sangha, that is your own opinion from your own version of Buddhism.

If in your own kind of Buddhism you want to maintain that Buddhism is concentrated on developing mankind this side of the grave, that is your opinion from your version or reading of Buddhism.

If in your own kind of Buddhism you want to maintain that the lot of mankind advocated by Buddhism, namely, getting to nirvana where you and I are no longer around, is not the primary and essential end destiny of man, but only the concern that is, is secondary, that again is your opinion from your own kind or reading of Buddhism.


But don't go around accusing people of falsehood statements just because from their observation, and reading, and thinking they like Yrreg come to their own opinions of Buddhism.


Okay, again, just tell me from your observation and reading and thinking about Buddhism, is marriage and family in Buddhism superior to or even just equal to the life of monks and nuns living their whole existence in the sangha?

And also is or is not in Buddhism the existence beyond the grave or non-existence beyond the grave in the state or whatever it is thought of as nirvana, is that not the primary and essential and sine-qua-non destiny of Buddhism, so that if Buddhism should abolish nirvana then it is no longer any Buddhism.



In the meantime, I and Pes Oir Amsus and the guy looking at me from the mirror, the man from L_a_M_f_t_M, and Fat Laughing Buddha who is a genuine publicly certified Buddha like Gautama, we are all laughing.

If you have just learned one lesson in Buddhism which I believe is any lesson any religion worth its salt in any civilized society wants to impart to its adherents, it should be this one:

Don't go around accusing people expressing their opinions of peddling falsehoods.


The man, Gautama, I would really like to meet him and have a good exchange with him, and tell him a few things about what we know of life and the universe today, so that he would be liberated from his inherited working ideas of karma, rebirth, and nirvana, trying in his turn 2400 years ago to polish them and refurbish them to his own liking, and not entertaining a lot of questions except by saying and assuring his disciples that the questions are pointless.

I will tell him that if he does not know, just be like the Dalai Lama and just say: "I don't know"* (as reported by some guy who asked the Dalai Lama where in the Pali Canon is it stated that homosexuality is not right or sanctioned in Buddhism).


But, good man Gautama, don't go around telling people that their questions are pointless, "important thing is that I will teach you how to rid yourself of suffering and bring or lead you to nirvana."


And you, nosho, don't go about accusing people of making falsehood statements, not in a web forum where people are just into expressing their opinions and trying to show others that their opinions are founded on substantial grounds, from their observation, reading, and thinking.

Accusing people of making falsehoods is the death of wholesome dialogue in a web forum; just say instead that "you are mistaken in your opinions or your opinions are not well-grounded."


Yes, you told me already, and everyone else who don't' agree with me the things that you want to say that I am mistaken about in Buddhism; but I am still of the well-founded opinions I do entertain about Buddhism.

There... that is why you should bring up the statements of beliefs and observances observed by your own group of Buddhists and also if there is one, a common declaration of consensus on beliefs and observances by all Buddhists who do sport the label of Buddhism.


And I will still tell them if I see their beliefs and observances to be unreasonable on my own observation and reading and thinking. then I will tell them so -- and hope that they don't go around subsequently accusing me of peddling falsehoods against Buddhism.

At least one Buddhist here, who calls himself the Resident Buddhist in JREF, he agrees with me that Buddhism is just a repertory of opinions. Who is that? Ryokan. Where? Here, look up this link: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2944904&postcount=79



Yrreg aka Fat Laughing Buddha

*Look up this link from Civilized Worm in an earlier thread from me: ...but the Dalai Lama had this to say... (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2942008&postcount=69)


Notice: To anyone who is of the mind and heart to accuse me of falsehoods, just say that I am mistaken with my opinions, and give your opinions or the facts on the question at issue; but if you insist that I am into peddling falsehoods, then I propose that you take a permanent leave of absence from my threads at your earliest convenience.

[yrreg]

Posted by yrreg
So, if we substitute the word patience for the word suffering in all Buddhist literature in English [let's not talk at this point about the Buddhism that is in Pali, or Chinese, or Korean, or Japanese, or Nepalese, or Tibetan, literature. ancient and contemporary], we might make of Buddhism a more palatable religion or philosophy or plain worldview.

But it wouldn't be Buddhism any more. (And it wouldn't make much sense. The fourth noble truth would become: There is a path to the cessation of patience.)

Khanti, or tolerance, might be close to the term "patience." It is one of the mental perfections. These are developed over time with practice.


I think that you, nosho, and Elohim and me, we can do some good service to the cause of Buddhism, if we just locate the most essential concepts in Buddhism, then look up the closest corresponding concepts in Western English language, next we or you presumably learned and sincerely devoted Buddhists but with a good command of English, tell the non-Buddhist English conversant readers how the concepts in Buddhism are different from these closest corresponding concepts in Western English language.


Starting off, I see karma, rebirth, and nirvana to be the most essential concepts in Buddhism, what do you say about my opinion?



Yrreg aka Fat Laughing Buddha

[nosho]

Please don't talk here about people engaging in falsehoods, just say that they are into mistaken notions about something or some people. Okay?

Okay, I thought you knew better after these many discussions, but I guess I was wrong. You still don't know any better.

Usually, the things you say about Buddhism are untrue, because you are mistaken. People have pointed this out to you, yet you persist in saying things that are untrue as if you have not heard what others have said. As far as I can tell, this has been going on for a couple of years here, and you have learned almost nothing.

It is difficult for me to understand how, after all of these discussions, you can keep on going back to your original, incorrect understanding of what Buddhism is all about.

[Loss Leader]

It is difficult for me to understand how, after all of these discussions, you can keep on going back to your original, incorrect understanding of what Buddhism is all about.


It makes a good Buddhist riddle (whatever the hell they're called): Does willful ignorance equal a lie?




A cannon? A canto? Something. Wait here and I'll look it ... koan. It makes a good koan.

[Nosaj]

yrreg,

Well, there you have it, folks, renunciation in Buddhism does not mean giving up anything; Buddhist writers in English just can't find a better word or phrase to use to signify what is for them the positive aspects of their use of the word renunciation, to translate whatever word they have in Buddhist Pali corresponding to the English word renunciation but understood in a positive way.

Perhaps you have misunderstood what I wrote in regard to renunciation and how it is understood in Buddhism. I never said that renunciation in Buddhism does not mean giving up anything. What I said was that people often get the wrong impression and perceive renunciation as a negative word in the sense that it seems to imply depriving oneself of something essential to living a full and happy life; whereas, in the Buddha’s dispensation, renunciation actually means the opposite of this—it is a word implying the relinquishment of something unessential to living a full and happy life. And, this is a good example from nosho of what I mean:

I'm not sure I follow your complaint about the word "renunciation," however. If someone has a nicotine addiction and renounces cigarettes in an effort to kick the habit, isn't that a positive form of renunciation? I think renunciation is more of a neutral term. If people find the term to be negative, it might be because they have not thought it through.

Jason

[lupus_in_fabula]

“Please don't talk here about people engaging in falsehoods, just say that they are into mistaken notions about something or some people. Okay?”

“Those are my opinions, don't call them falsehoods. No one is I assume or should be into pushing falsehoods in a web forum at least not in my thread and certainly not from me.”

“But don't go around accusing people of falsehood statements just because from their observation, and reading, and thinking they like Yrreg come to their own opinions of Buddhism.”

“Don't go around accusing people expressing their opinions of peddling falsehoods.”

“And you, nosho, don't go about accusing people of making falsehood statements, not in a web forum where people are just into expressing their opinions and trying to show others that their opinions are founded on substantial grounds, from their observation, reading, and thinking.”



What you have shown is primarily that your “opinions” aren’t founded on substantial grounds. They aren’t that because you do not engage in a discussion when arguments to the contrary are presented; either you rewrite them to suit your point of view, ignore them almost completely or end the thread… so that you can present your own “opinions” over and over again, unchanged. Now this is probably the clearest indication of wilful ignorance that really, and also in my opinion, should be interpreted as presenting falsehoods. There is no way you can call your approach ‘critical’ if you do not address arguments other that your own. And no, inventing imaginary friends to support your point is not critical either.

Going berserk and repeating your dislike over this observation (at least five times in one post) doesn’t make such observation go away. On the contrary, it serves to reinforce that observation because in stead of addressing the matter you simply choose the path of repetitive ignorance one again.

[Miss Anthrope]

What you have shown is primarily that your “opinions” aren’t founded on substantial grounds. They aren’t that because you do not engage in a discussion when arguments to the contrary are presented; either you rewrite them to suit your point of view, ignore them almost completely or end the thread… so that you can present your own “opinions” over and over again, unchanged. Now this is probably the clearest indication of wilful ignorance that really, and also in my opinion, should be interpreted as presenting falsehoods. There is no way you can call your approach ‘critical’ if you do not address arguments other that your own. And no, inventing imaginary friends to support your point is not critical either.

Going berserk and repeating your dislike over this observation (at least five times in one post) doesn’t make such observation go away. On the contrary, it serves to reinforce that observation because in stead of addressing the matter you simply choose the path of repetitive ignorance one again.

QED.

[lolurigeller]

Watch what you say fellas, I couldn't really put my finger on his posts but now I understand he most likely has psychosis (seriously). If I were you i'd let him win the argument.

[Dancing David]

Please don't talk here about people engaging in falsehoods, just say that they are into mistaken notions about something or some people. Okay?

If you want to emphasize that Buddhism for you is:

1. not against family,

2. not against improving mankind this side of the grave,

3. not into man's lot whatever beyond the grave except secondarily,

you have the privilege of a free agent to pick the differential concentrations you want to dress up Buddhism in.

On my part as a critical observer, reader, and thinker, I have the impressions that:

1. Buddhism does not regard marriage and family better or even just as good as the life cultivated by monks and nuns inside their sangha,

Nothing is better, nothin is worse, nothing the same. each individual is in the web of interdependant connections. To each thier own path.

2. That Buddhism is not concerned with developing mankind this side of the grave,

Except that the effects of the eightfold path and the acts of the eightfold path are all done by the living. There is nothing after death except the consequences of those choices.


3. But concentrated primarily and even essentially on leading mankind to a destiny or non-destiny beyond the grave, namely, to nirvana.

That is your interpretation, others will vary.

[Dancing David]

Starting off, I see karma, rebirth, and nirvana to be the most essential concepts in Buddhism, what do you say about my opinion?





Simple explanations:

karma-the consequences of choices.

rebirth-the transmission of suffering or not suffering through those choices.
(Some one cuts me off in traffic, I drive like a jerk causing other people to drive like jerks)

nirvana-a state of free action where one makes choices not based upon the past and to not create suffering. (Remeber the dharma is a raft, once to the other side, do you portage the raft?

[Dancing David]

It makes a good Buddhist riddle (whatever the hell they're called): Does willful ignorance equal a lie?




A cannon? A canto? Something. Wait here and I'll look it ... koan. It makes a good koan.

Maybe a canoe?

[Dancing David]

Watch what you say fellas, I couldn't really put my finger on his posts but now I understand he most likely has psychosis (seriously). If I were you i'd let him win the argument.


Not psychosis, seriously, there is too much organization, coherence and plotting for that.

It is deliberate.

I think that as a sandle maker who runs a coffee shop he is like Brian (Life of Brian) and that he has his bible study group and news letter, he then takes his material and the material of others (like Epekeke) and puts it in his news letter. That way he feels better.

Or he is a buddhist out to grind on other buddhists.

[yrreg]

That is all very well, saying that your opinions of what this system called Buddhism which is a repertory of opinions are the ones representing the Buddhism as it should be in your opinion, but my opinions are not, etc.

Intelligent readers will just conclude that your opinions are to you the true opinions according to your opinion of the Buddhism as it should be according to your opinions, but it is all your opinion and you feel that others don't have the true or right or grounded opinions as you have, all because you sport the title or label of Buddhist, and that is all.

Suppose, as I said time and again, you guys who sport the label of Buddhist, just get together and then draw up a list of your common opinions and tell people like myself that that is the repertory of opinions for you guys who call yourselves Buddhist accept to be the true or right or grounded opinions about what Buddhism should be all about according to your common opinion, and if others have opinions about Buddhism, then these latters are having opinions different from yours, and therefore you will consider them in this wise as wrong opinions relative to yours, thus namely that their opinions are different from yours and you consider yours to be the true, or right or grounded ones.


Okay?

But don go around accusing people of making falsehood statements about Buddhism, that is the death of dialogue, and dialogue is what we are after in a web forum.

Perhaps your kind of attitude is all right in the seminars or lectures you have attended from your Buddhism gurus of whatever school, and you have already given your heart and mind to their opinions of what Buddhism is all about; but don't bring this kind of a made-up mind which you derived from giving subservience to your gurus, to a web forum.

And don't engage in the fallacies of "already said won't repeat" and "he won't understand".


That is why also you guys are into defending your opinions in a web forum, and when you can't talk on the basis of reason to show that other people's opinions of Buddhism are not the true ones, the right ones, or founded on valid grounds, you go about accusing people of making falsehood statements just because they continue to draw their own opinions about what Buddhism is and its implications from their own independent observation, reading, and thinking which they believe to be critical.


Just remember this, we are in a forum, and we ventilate our opinions, if you can't accept that policy of a web forum, that people will continue to repeat and explain and expound and reason out their opinions, in the present context on what Buddhism is all about, then please take a leave of absence from my threads at your earliest convenience.

The reason why you guys are still around trying to convince me that my opinions are not valid and yours are, is because you are not really certain and secure and feeling so comfortable with your opinions.

Learn from the Amish, they are sure about their opinions on what life is all about and their end destiny in life, and they don't go about defending their opinions or positions, they just take to their own kind of community and live among themselves.

If you have to go about accusing people of making falsehood statements about what Buddhism is and its implications, it is like people who keep telling themselves that they have genuine dollars and not counterfeit ones and keep arguing with others about their dollars, but won't go and use those dollars to see whether everyone would agree with them on the genuinity of their dollars.

So, if you Buddhists are sure of your Buddhism or dollars, just use your dollars among yourselves and don't try to use them with others who question the genuinity of your dollars.

Be and act and live like the Amish.



So, will you please, nosho and Elohim and others who like to sport the name of Buddhist or are fans of Buddhism, just tell me what school or sect or cult or guru you belong to and a reference to their official statements of beliefs (opinions) and activities (practices)?

On that basis at least you can claim to have a group of like people with the like opinions about what you all opine to be the true, or right, or validly grounded teachings and observances of your group of Buddhists.

Notice to readers: No, they will not produce any such statements of their group of Buddhists; see if they will, just the same.


You know something? that dude Gautama, or Venerable B. Gautama, he himself was never sure of his own opinions about life and whatever else but he kept teaching others about them on the basis of his own self-certification of enlightenment, and he succeeded to garner unthinking folks to follow him and also princes to espouse his opinions (because they are good for keeping the populace in line); and thus he feels that his opinions must count for something because he had succeeded in gaining a following.

On this consideration he is not different from one L. Ron Hubbard who also had succeeded to get even Hollywood starts to follow his teachings and prescribed practices.


Again, to Buddhists here and also fans of Buddhism or anyone who wants to sport the label of Buddhist, please just produce your statement of beliefs and practices, if you belong to a group or to a guru, otherwise, go jump in the lake if you are a one man Buddhist order. Wait, don't jump in the lake, make disciples unto yourself then you will have done what that guy did who founded Friends of the Western Buddhist Order.


Anyway, I invite all of us to have a good laugh; if you can't laugh but must go about accusing people of making falsehood statements, please just take a permanent leave of absence from my threads in this free web forum, free as in free thought and free speech.



Yrreg aka Fat Laughing Buddha

[Darth Rotor]

yrreg,

I would suggest taking a look at Access to Insight's Glossary of Pali and Buddhist Terms (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html) and Nyanatiloka Thera’s Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines (http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic_idx.html).

Jason
Why were there any responses after this one? It answered yrreg's OP perfectly.

By the way, Elohim, thanks for the link. Putting the E into JREF, love your show.

:)

ETA

Dear yrreg

Please allow me to illustrate what your OP, and many other of your OPs, looks like when acted out visually. This is a possible youtube video in the near future, for one of the masochistic golfers in the crowd.

Fade in to stage with a chair

Cut Scene 1

Yrreg walks into room. Yrreg sits down and puts on a pair of golf shoes, with the old metal spikes. Yrreg unzips his fly, and pulls out his lizard. Yrreg goes into contortions trying to trample his lizard with the golf shoes.

Cut Scene 2

Camera pans to the audience on the JREF forum shaking their heads in pity at the lizard tromping antics.

Fade to black

DR

[Nosaj]

DR,

By the way, Elohim, thanks for the link.

Not a problem. I enjoy trying to be helpful.

Jason

[yrreg]

To readers who are into making a campus report on what Buddhism is all about and its implications, here are my opinions about what the essential linchpin concepts of Buddhism are and their closest corresponding concepts in Western English language.

First, you must know and realize that as in every worldview there is a plot where a human being is the main character, call that the protagonist.

Buddhism is also a plot of a worldview, and if you are frightened by its voluminous tonnage of words, don't run away thinking that it is oh! so profound or so transcendental as to exceed your capacity for rational analysis and systematic synthesis, because you just have to look at the human who is talking about his opinions on what life is all about and life's implications, and the human he is talking about starting with himself, and with yourself and myself.


Okay, here we go:


That dude Gautama if he ever really existed in history instead of being the code for a collectivity of opinion-makers, he was such a pampered dude, born a prince, got a luscious bride, and awaiting the birth of a princeling (read that baby prince).

One day when Gautama was 29 years old, he discovered, yes, discovered (and that is the only thing he ever discovered, everything else with the man in broad outlines are opinions and inventions) that there is a lot of pain or suffering around him –- some discovery to a overly indulged and pampered and sheltered dude


What did he discover? His eyes strayed into the sight of a sick man, then an old man, both devastated the one from diseases and the other from the ravages of years, then a foul decaying cadaver. That is of course all legends, but it's good for a launch pad to his 'conversion'.

He was horrified realizing that he would also end up that way. So he decided to find for himself what every thinking man is into if he does think, what is life and its implications aside from diseases, old age, and death.


But this question has already been discussed to death by people wiser than him already in his times; and the supposedly wise men of his times and climes and hundreds of years before him had already arrived at some concepts to explain life and its downsides, like diseases, old age, and death.

These concepts are called karma, dharma, rebirth, and nirvana.

Very briefly in my opinion for the time being, the way I would put it so as to be logical and systematic, in the order of things, this is the way the four concepts should be listed in terms of what should come first if you were building a house, thus: nirvana, dharma, karma, rebirth.

Nirvana is the house you want to build.

Dharma is the blueprint.

Karma is the manual of construction.

Rebirth is the redesign and modification as you go along trying to finish your house.



[ To be continued. ]


Yrreg aka Fat Laughing Buddha

PS If you think that I am not paying due respect to the Buddha and his Buddhism, please don't feel that way. Look up this text in the web which betrays the authentic attitude of a Buddhist ideologue, from the title of his own article:

ZEN (CHAN) STORY - LIKE A PILE OF BULLSH
By Ven Master Hsing Yun, from Merit Times.



[ Please take the initiative to search for the web link. I won't help you here, because it will take away the fun.


My apologies just the same if anyone takes offense. Just learn to laugh at worldviews because when you really examine them closely they are all full of bullsh. Do as I do, produce your own bullsh of a worldview from your own observation, reading, and thinking about life and the universe and the implications -- that's the word today, implications.

[Nosaj]

yrreg,

So, will you please, nosho and Elohim and others who like to sport the name of Buddhist or are fans of Buddhism, just tell me what school or sect or cult or guru you belong to and a reference to their official statements of beliefs (opinions) and activities (practices)?

I do not see what this has to do with the original topic, and I have answered this kind of question before, but just to humor you I will do so again. I study and practice Theravada Buddhism, and the belief is that an end to suffering is possible via practicing the Noble Eightfold Path.

Jason

[Fnord]

Yrreg,

May I suggest an in-depth perusal of "The Devil's Dictionary" by Ambrose Bierce? You will find many useful, real-life definitions for many Christian terms, which may find ready application to Buddhic terms, as well.

[Loss Leader]

Nirvana is the house you want to build.



My poor knowledge of Buddhism leads me to believe that you are already wrong. Nirvana cannot be acheived through any wanting or active attempt. It can only be acheived by emptying one's mind of all wants and living only in the moment. Anyone who desires nirvana by definition cannot attain it.

Now, I may have a poor knowledge of Buddhism but I have an excellent knowledge of the content of Yrreg threads. I know that this has been explained to you in more than one way by more than one person on more than one occassion.

Your statement is wrong. You know this or should know this yet you make it anyway. You are prevaricatic, obfuscating and you are lying.

By making this statement about Buddhism, you are lying.

[Nosaj]

Loss Leader,

Nirvana cannot be acheived through any wanting or active attempt.

Not exactly. Perhaps you would like to read Samsara Divided by Zero (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/resonance.html).

Jason

[lupus_in_fabula]

But don go around accusing people of making falsehood statements about Buddhism, that is the death of dialogue, and dialogue is what we are after in a web forum.

No, the death of dialogue is more obvious than that: It’s your refusal to engage in proper dialogue that kills it almost immediately (kind of obvious really!). To engage in dialogue you’d actually also have to listen and respond to other arguments so that you can reflect over your own arguments again, otherwise it’s just another monologue.

This being a web forum is a kind of a saviour for you because you somehow think that you don’t have to respond to contrary arguments. In a face to face interaction it’s more difficult to act like you do, unless you’re talking to your pet.

Perhaps your kind of attitude is all right in the seminars or lectures you have attended from your Buddhism gurus of whatever school, and you have already given your heart and mind to their opinions of what Buddhism is all about; but don't bring this kind of a made-up mind which you derived from giving subservience to your gurus, to a web forum.

Ok, here’s my rewrite about this statement (opinion) of yours: any disagreement with my position is quickly placed in the category of “made-up mind” by me.

Furthermore yrreg, there is a reason for why some people agree with a particular opinion of what Buddhism is, otherwise they wouldn’t say they are into Buddhism (or parts of it) in the fist place, duh. But in the end, that’s not really the important part for them anyway; the important part is that some teachings within the recognizable set of beliefs called Buddhism resonate with their own experience; yes, people actually agree with those things that resonate with them. What you yrreg present as being Buddhism is simply not recognizable to them as being Buddhism, not that it really matters to them what you believe Buddhism is all about, but because they think you’re acting like a dog chasing its own tail. Now, on the other hand, if you’re in the business of criticizing their beliefs, I suggest you find out what those beliefs actually are. But of course, that requires listening… not your best quality really!

And don't engage in the fallacies of "already said won't repeat" and "he won't understand".

No fallacies here. If someone replies to a question of yours, and the only answer you give is that he/she should write it again, it’s a pretty good indicator of you not understanding.

The reason why you guys are still around trying to convince me that my opinions are not valid and yours are, is because you are not really certain and secure and feeling so comfortable with your opinions.

Of course this is still just your opinion, yes? And yes, even though it’s just your opinion, it can still be wrong. Perhaps people just react to your views because they seem, well, so weird to them.

Moreover, it’s kind of funny when you start out with “the reason why you guys are still around trying to convince me…” As if you’d rather continue with your monologue uninterrupted and continue living under the illusion that it’s not actually you who’s trying to convince others about how silly they all are. Nice twist here since you started the post by uttering your concern with someone killing the monologue… uhm, sorry, dialogue that is.

If you have to go about accusing people of making falsehood statements about what Buddhism is and its implications, it is like people who keep telling themselves that they have genuine dollars and not counterfeit ones and keep arguing with others about their dollars, but won't go and use those dollars to see whether everyone would agree with them on the genuinity of their dollars.

In my opinion it more likely that it’s you who tries to buy something with counterfeit dollars, and when people point this out to you… well, a whole bunch of weird stuff seems to occur: imaginary friends popping up; bursts of hehehe hohoho hahaha; accusations of obfuscation; repetitive utterances, just to name few.

[Dancing David]

Nirvana is the house you want to build.

Nirvana is a state of action, the empty house already exists.


Dharma is the blueprint.

Or the roadmap.


Karma is the manual of construction.

Karma is choices and consequences.


Rebirth is the redesign and modification as you go along trying to finish your house.

Rebirth is the transmission of suffering and not suffering through consequences.



[

[nosho]

But don go around accusing people of making falsehood statements about Buddhism, that is the death of dialogue, and dialogue is what we are after in a web forum.

Hi yrreg,

I did not mean to offend you. I meant to challenge your stated views about what Buddhism is all about, because your stated views appear to contradict informed descriptions of Buddhism -- descriptions that I know you have read and are familiar with.

In this thread and elsewhere, you have described Buddhism as being anti-family. I consider that a falsehood. When you look at the teachings, you will find encouragement to take responsibility for family, to love family. And I know that's what you saw when you read the mangala sutta.

In this thread and elsewhere, you have described Buddhism as being focused on what happens after death at the expense of what is happening right in this moment. In this thread, you wrote: "Buddhism is not a movement to change the world for the better for mankind this side of the grave." I consider that a falsehood. When you look at the teachings, you will find encouragement to grow, and to help others, this side of the grave. I know you are familiar with these teachings, too.

These are the two falsehoods I was referring to in my post. When I said you were repeating falsehoods, this is what I meant.

Learn from the Amish, they are sure about their opinions on what life is all about and their end destiny in life, and they don't go about defending their opinions or positions, they just take to their own kind of community and live among themselves.

I was under the impression that you were inviting people to share their opinions with you, as well as their knowledge of the facts. If presenting this information to you means that, in your mind, I and others are "defending" our positions, that's not my problem. You are welcome to view me personally in any way you choose.

A question: Why do you ask for this kind of feedback if you find it offensive or hurtful?

So, will you please, nosho and Elohim and others who like to sport the name of Buddhist or are fans of Buddhism, just tell me what school or sect or cult or guru you belong to and a reference to their official statements of beliefs (opinions) and activities (practices)?

On that basis at least you can claim to have a group of like people with the like opinions about what you all opine to be the true, or right, or validly grounded teachings and observances of your group of Buddhists.

I practice dhamma in the Theravada tradition. I find that I also am influenced by other traditions.

[Fnord]

Nirvana is a city in Lake County, Michigan.

Dharma is a neighborhood in West Sacramento, CA., which fronts both West Capitol and Merkley Avenue west to Sycamore Street.

Karma is a city in Anbar Province, in Iraq.

Rebirth© is a copyrighted trademark of the Born-Again™ movement, and is used here without their permission.

[Loss Leader]

Dharma is a neighborhood in West Sacramento, CA., which fronts both West Capitol and Merkley Avenue west to Sycamore Street.


I have conclusive proof (http://www.girl.com.au/img/dharma_greg_1.jpg) that you are wrong.