Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Buddhist Retreat: Why I gave up on finding my religion (2003)

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–79 of 79 posts

Re: Buddhist Retreat: Why I gave up on finding my religion (2003)

#71

Post by makeitdouble »

aphantastic wrote: post #60
makeitdouble wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a critical mass of people call themselves X, whatever previous definition of X gets adapted to that reality. That's how language/society works. I see your point, but also think we're already past the threshold where the term's ownership has moved away from the Church.

That’s a rather Euro-centric view of things (you’ll find the corresponding articles for the american continents are very different), but even still it’s missing the point. The question is whether this “critical mass” you speak of seeks to be a disciple of Christ (the group of people first ever referred to as “Christians”), not whether they have a particular interpretation of “God as depicted in the bible”. It is, for…

I was specially referring to "Christians" as becoming a generic term for someone following a set of Christian values or belonging to a Christian group, even when they don't seek to be a disciple of Christ in any way shape or form.

I understand it goes against the very defintion of the term, but that's a thing.

I'm trying to steer away from my personal anecdotes, so for instance:

https://www.gotquestions.org/what-is-a-Christian.html

> Unfortunately over time, the word “Christian” has lost a great deal of its significance and is often used of someone who is religious or has high moral values but who may or may not be a true follower of Jesus Christ. Many people who do not believe and trust in Jesus Christ consider themselves Christians simply because they go to church or they live in a “Christian” nation.

Re: Buddhist Retreat: Why I gave up on finding my religion (2003)

#73

Post by aphantastic »

makeitdouble wrote: post #71
aphantastic wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a rather Euro-centric view of things (you’ll find the corresponding articles for the american continents are very different), but even still it’s missing the point. The question is whether this “critical mass” you speak of seeks to be a disciple of Christ (the group of people first ever referred to as “Christians”), not whether they have a particular interpretation of “God as depicted in the bible”. It is, for…

I was specially referring to "Christians" as becoming a generic term for someone following a set of Christian values or belonging to a Christian group, even when they don't seek to be a disciple of Christ in any way shape or form. I understand it goes against the very defintion of the term, but that's a thing. I'm trying to steer away from my personal anecdotes, so for instance: https://www.gotquestions.org/what-is-a…

What a ridiculous argument. By this “logic” anyone could claim anything at all is “a simple for of Christianity” and you’d jump in to say “why yes, you see some people don’t view Christianity as meaning much of anything, therefore we can clearly argue it means everything!”

Suit yourself but I find this reasoning cyclically brain-dead.

Re: Buddhist Retreat: Why I gave up on finding my religion (2003)

#74

Post by aphantastic »

deepfriedchokes wrote: post #65
aphantastic wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are conflating belief systems and behavioral patterns. Christianity is a belief system populated by folks who follow Christ as Lord. Full stop. This Kumbaya Collective you describe is a behavioral pattern that many folks take part in. Some of them may happen to be Christian, others may not. But to observe that some Christians are part of the Kumbaya Collective and then go on to imply that being part of the collec…

I believe you are committing the no true Scotsman fallacy, by claiming Christianity is a belief in Christ as lord. I myself was raised in a Christian organization that did not believe Christ was lord, but rather a person sent by god to show us by example, how to be, spiritually, in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. They also don’t believe in the holy trinity. So do consider that you do not speak for all Christian…

A better word is Disciple, this was the original usage of the term and a description which your group would seem to match. Of course, all of the original disciples considered Jesus to be their Lord and this terminology was used extensively throughout both the new and old testaments. Regardless, your case is more fitting the other thread than this one. That’s about folks who call themselves Christian despite not being particularly interested in Christ. This is about the claim that somehow being a “good guy” makes one Christian. (Or even is Christianity)

Re: Buddhist Retreat: Why I gave up on finding my religion (2003)

#75

Post by makeitdouble »

aphantastic wrote: post #73
makeitdouble wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was specially referring to "Christians" as becoming a generic term for someone following a set of Christian values or belonging to a Christian group, even when they don't seek to be a disciple of Christ in any way shape or form. I understand it goes against the very defintion of the term, but that's a thing. I'm trying to steer away from my personal anecdotes, so for instance: https://www.gotquestions.org/what-is-a…

What a ridiculous argument. By this “logic” anyone could claim anything at all is “a simple for of Christianity” and you’d jump in to say “why yes, you see some people don’t view Christianity as meaning much of anything, therefore we can clearly argue it means everything!” Suit yourself but I find this reasoning cyclically brain-dead.

Well, given the centuries and number of people and things around the globe that fit some kind of Christianity, yes I expect the meaning of the word to be pretty diluted.

That's the same logic regarding any concept at that scale ("American" would be the same case, there is a tight definition, but the wider usage has almost nothing to do with it)

To me that's just how language works.

Re: Buddhist Retreat: Why I gave up on finding my religion (2003)

#76

Post by aphantastic »

makeitdouble wrote: post #75
aphantastic wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a ridiculous argument. By this “logic” anyone could claim anything at all is “a simple for of Christianity” and you’d jump in to say “why yes, you see some people don’t view Christianity as meaning much of anything, therefore we can clearly argue it means everything!” Suit yourself but I find this reasoning cyclically brain-dead.

Well, given the centuries and number of people and things around the globe that fit some kind of Christianity, yes I expect the meaning of the word to be pretty diluted. That's the same logic regarding any concept at that scale ("American" would be the same case, there is a tight definition, but the wider usage has almost nothing to do with it) To me that's just how language works.

Saying it’s diluted is one thing - I actually agree there. Saying that because it’s diluted, it actually means specifically “X” is totally different and indefensible.

Re: Buddhist Retreat: Why I gave up on finding my religion (2003)

#77

Post by ewzimm »

xk_id wrote: post #57

This isn’t the place to go into detail, but the author mainly argues against a Western conceptualisation of Buddhism, which is sadly divorced from the original meaning. If you want to study Buddhism, don’t rely on people reinterpreting it for a Western audience; go right to the source and try to understand what the old masters and the sutras are talking about.

What you're saying is true, and every paragraph in this is wrong, but I would like to offer a tangential argument in favor of studying the Western conceptualization of Buddhism.

The first sentence here is no coincidence, that "Buddhism seems remarkably compatible with our scientifically oriented culture." This is because early Western science developed with a strong influence of secular Buddhism in the form of Pyrrhonism, which informed and merged over time with the Empirical school that led to the modern scientific method.

Western audiences should understand how secular Buddhism is not a new aspect of their civilization but a fundamental pillar of it. This does not mean that understanding the secular aspects will inform someone on the religious aspects, but it is a cultural starting point.

Beyond that, I would only consider sources like the author of this piece as a good source of common misunderstandings to investigate.

Re: Buddhist Retreat: Why I gave up on finding my religion (2003)

#79

Post by vogon_laureate »

sambapa wrote: post #78
vogon_laureate wrote: post #68

tldr: author has shocking revelation that a major religion is "functionally theistic".

But it isnt

I'd say that, at least with Tibetan Buddhism, there are things like deity yoga, wrathful and peaceful manifestations, Dakinis and Dharma protectors, Bodhisattvas, all are essentially theistic in nature. Adi-Buddha in the Vajrayana tradition is also a "primordial" Buddha, so it has many of the hallmarks of theistic religion.
Post reply on HN