Religious Reform

[Nooj]

Maybe a Buddhism that has a concept of rebirth, samsara, karma, dependent origination, bodhisatvas, Pure Land, Buddha-nature etc belongs to the West more than one without.

 

[Breathe]

I didn't realize an idea was bland just because it is renamed to something easier to digest mentally. There's a reason teachers dumb down terms for their students: because what's important is communicating the meaning, not getting hung up on the words.

But it's not just what's being done. It's ultimately altering the ideas.

Same as the Trinity isn't "dumbing down" monotheism, it deviates from the Jewish Oneness of God.

...through the mind, since everything originates in the mind.

Kind of pointless to discuss the distinction of the self from the body, if the self is just an illusion created by the mind.

Do you have a verse for these attributed to the Buddha from earlier cannons, not from later, Yogācāra ones?

I would think the Buddha would have preferred his message be spread through the best cultural means possible.

As would be skilful means.

Regarding karma, it's about time Westerners grasp that karma is just the act. "Re-branding" isn't going to work though.

Saying the Self physically transfers into a new vessel is foolish though, since the Self doesn't exist beyond an illusion.

First and foremost, calling something foolish is foolish in itself. I prefer something a little.. lighter.

Second, can you define what Self is, and can you define what you mean by "physically transfers"?

In my opinion, the idea of there being no Self (nathatt&#257 is what Buddha spoke against in Samyutta Nikaya 4.400, which I posted.

 

[Breathe]

It is egoism that wants to change religion, so that our self-identity can fit into it more comfortably or adapt it to suit us and our environment. Whether that is right or wrong, will result in endless debate, as right and wrong are themselves relative and "illusionary".

Svāhā.

Maybe a Buddhism that has a concept of rebirth, samsara, karma, dependent origination, bodhisatvas, Pure Land, Buddha-nature etc belongs to the West more than one without.

I wholeheartedly agree.

However, I wonder: how much can be stripped off before it is no longer Buddhism, but naturalism with Buddhist ideals? What is your opinion?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Maybe a Buddhism that has a concept of rebirth, samsara, karma, dependent origination, boddhisatvas, Pure Land, Buddha-nature etc belongs to the West more than one without.

...you're not getting it. I'm talking about changing the most superficial of items: the word. The definition would not change at all. It's as simple as a child's game of getting the right-shaped block into the right hole, except in this version the block is a package carrying information. Are you going to sit and gripe over the block not going in the hole, or are you going to repackage it and try again? Which is more important: the word or the meaning?

 

[Breathe]

How do you know you have the right meaning, though?

How do you know it wasn't supposed to be interpreted according to the word itself?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

How do you know you have the right meaning, though?

How do you know it wasn't supposed to be interpreted according to the word itself?

I don't have to know I have the right meaning, I just have to get the idea to the person.

Then translate it to the best of your ability instead of clinging to the outdated "sacred language" concept. I equate reliance on ancient tongues to convey meaning as on par with reliance on rites and rituals, one of the ten fetters.

 

[Nooj]

I wholeheartedly agree.

However, I wonder: how much can be stripped off before it is no longer Buddhism, but naturalism with Buddhist ideals? What is your opinion?

I don't know to be honest.

I guess taking refuge in the Three Jewels might be considered the final arbiter of whether one can call oneself a Buddhist or not. It's been the doctrinal creed for a long time.

...you're not getting it. I'm talking about changing the most superficial of items: the word. The definition would not change at all. It's as simple as a child's game of getting the right-shaped block into the right hole, except in this version the block is a package carrying information. Are you going to sit and gripe over the block not going in the hole, or are you going to repackage it and try again? Which is more important: the word or the meaning?

That seems okay to me. Like changing the word Christ to Anointed?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I don't know to be honest.

I guess taking refuge in the Three Jewels might be considered the final arbiter of whether one can call oneself a Buddhist or not. It's been the doctrinal creed for a long time.

That seems okay to me. Like changing the word Christ to Anointed?

Exactly! And that was already translated from the Hebrew "messiah" and no one batted an eye.

 

[Breathe]

I don't have to know I have the right meaning, I just have to get the idea to the person.

Do you mean you are willing to risk giving someone the wrong meaning and passing it off to a person?

Then translate it to the best of your ability instead of clinging to the outdated "sacred language" concept.

Who is clinging to a concept of sacred language?

I equate reliance on ancient tongues to convey meaning as on par with reliance on rites and rituals, one of the ten fetters.

I don't. Reliance, anyway. Over-reliance yes.

Languages differ and misunderstandings can happen. It's for the same reason I don't translate deva as god when referring to devas such as Brahmā deva: although "god" is one translation, it is not the only one. It is the same with ātman/attā.


There is much that can be lost in translation.

There is, however, a difference between using terms that are used in literature for clarification purposes amongst the more knowledgeable, and just dropping all terms and applying ones that have different meanings and throwing them away altogether.

 

[Breathe]

I don't know to be honest.

I guess taking refuge in the Three Jewels might be considered the final arbiter of whether one can call oneself a Buddhist or not. It's been the doctrinal creed for a long time.

I can understand that But, if that is all that is required, then many people can consider themselves Buddhist whom others would oppose calling themselves Buddhist.

It seems like there becomes a lot of possibility for an incredibly wide range of thoughts in such a case.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Do you mean you are willing to risk giving someone the wrong meaning and passing it off to a person?

As much as you are.

Who is clinging to a concept of sacred language?

Anyone who relies on its use when there are words perfectly suited to act as a translation.

I don't. Reliance, anyway. Over-reliance yes.

Languages differ and misunderstandings can happen. It's for the same reason I don't translate deva as god when referring to devas such as Brahmā deva: although "god" is one translation, it is not the only one. It is the same with ātman/attā.

Most god concepts are lost in the term "god", so I see your point. Karma on the other hand can be summed up with the term "causality", without losing anything except for the whimsy of tradition.

There is, however, a difference between using terms that are used in literature for clarification purposes amongst the more knowledgeable, and just dropping all terms and applying ones that have different meanings and throwing them away altogether.

Absolutely.

 

[Breathe]

As much as you are.

Lol, that's kind of why I prefer the original terms: so they know them if I go and screw up somewhere along the way, at least they have knowledge of what that term is and entails.

Most god concepts are lost in the term "god", so I see your point. Karma on the other hand can be summed up with the term "causality", without losing anything except for the whimsy of tradition.

I can see that, but we then end up running a risk of language becoming even more confusing. Whilst some may prefer the term of causality, others may prefer action-reaction, others reaction, others casual-reaction, and so on. It seems like it's making things far more difficult.

I can understand your view, though - coming from a non-Hindu background, when I first began researching Hinduism, it made me dizzy with all the terms - but I think they are far more useful than the English ones at conveying what I am after, without misunderstandings and interpretations from a different perspective over what I mean.

As I mentioned, the Brahmā deva one. If I say "the god Brahmā", god, or God, infers things that are not necessarily part of the view. For example, there are some people who are going to think, because Brahmā has been translated as 'the god Brahmā', that, like the Abrahamic conception of God, Brahmā is eternal, unchanging, undying, all powerful: whereas this is not a Hindu belief, who instead believe that Brahmā will die.

As to keeping tradition, I think it's just a generally preferred thing: a few people who were raised with "causality" as a term would double-take and find it difficult to start using "action-reaction" later on in a new place of worship. For some words, it's not so difficult, such as karma > causality, but other words, how do you find room to get the subtle nuances in there? How do you translate anattā/anātman decently?

 

[idav]

However, I wonder: how much can be stripped off before it is no longer Buddhism, but naturalism with Buddhist ideals? What is your opinion?

The Buddha left a lot for interpretation and there is hardly a point that it stops becoming enlightenment.

 

[Nooj]

Speaking of translation, I prefer Awakened One over Enlightened One for the word buddha. And enlightenment sounds hardly appropriate for nibbana/nirvana. Sometimes, the original words are best. If people don't know, they'll ask. That's the best way to learn I think.

 

[Breathe]

The Buddha left a lot for interpretation and there is hardly a point that it stops becoming enlightenment.

Oh, I do agree - but, I have met many Buddhists who believe if you don't hold very specific views, then you are not a Buddhist.

These usually include, but are not limited to, things such as there being no soul or God -- which, to me, is not something I believe is in the original message of the Buddha - then again, my views are usually heckled or ignored.

 

[Otherright]

These all sound good.

I hate to say it, but for some people, it's best to just rid it all of metaphor from the start. The six realms, "rebirth", and even "karma" could be discarded for better terms, like "mental states" and "causality". In fact, I'm betting with a simple update of terms, Buddhism in the modern mind could be completely rejuvenated (possibly to the point where no average person would know that you're still talking about Buddhism to them).

I expected you to show up at some point. When I wrote these, I actually wondered what your opinion on them would be. I'd figured you, if anybody, would agree with such a statement, as we often tend to see Buddhism in the same light.

I'd still keep the term karma, but apply it only to the idea of karmic chains you are creating now. Some actions will prove to have positive or negative effects depending on the action. That should go without saying. It may even take a while to come about. And in my mind, the only way the chain can ever be resolved, is when you recognize it for what it is and plan to change it.

 

[Otherright]

1)Which concepts are you referring to? I've ended up picking up Hindu concepts without ever studying it so I'd like to hear your take.
2)I think I know what you mean there. Is that Karma that isn't necessarily deserved?
3)Don't know what you mean by Western version of reincarnation.

1) I don't like the ideas of gods and myths. It can survive without all of that. Some of Buddhism's writings are directly influenced by Hinduism, and that is normal as it hails from Hindu origins. I like the idea that Buddha tried to boil away all of Hindu ideologies and see what was left. It should remain that way.

2) I think karmic chains are created now, by your actions, and resolve now, by your actions. Of course, some take a while to come to fruition, but I don't like the mystical concepts that are attached to it. Especially, as there is no way to prove it.

3) Western understanding is typically a very vague notion of rebirth, not reincarnation.

 

[Otherright]

The true religion does not need to be reformed. False religions cannot be reformed.

You must believe that there is no true religion then. Keep telling yourself this until you believe it.