This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Wow, super interesting to see how the Hindu use of the word seems to differs from the use of the word in western meditation circles, which might be more like "Ultimate Truth", or "Behaviors in harmony with the Ultimate Truth", where Ultimate Truth is understood to be the truth of No-Self, achieved by enlightened beings. So there "Dharma" means something like "the set of knowledge and behaviors that lead to Enlightenment, as well as the knowledge gained from Enlightenment"
In Buddhism this is Anatman or Anatta (Sanskrit or Pali, much of Buddhist writings are in Pali). Its is the negative prefix A- before a word mentioned earlier in this thread concerning Hinduism, Atman.
In short the major schools of Hinduism all agree on the existence of the Atman, a universal "self" or essence of an individual. There is some overlap here with the western concept of a soul. In the single clearest division of Buddhist teaching and Hindu, the Buddhists reject the existence of the Atman/Self as illusory and a hindrance to moksha.
More options
Context Copy link
Because, you are talking about the Buddhist version of the word. It isn't the same as the more orthodox Hindu schools versions. The Western version isn't even the same as the Buddhists, but it's closer to it.
I’ve always looked at Buddhism more like Hinduism, with most of the fancy God’s and supernaturalism cut out of it. There’s a ‘lot’ of overlap otherwise, between the two.
Buddhism’s often looked at as an atheistic religion, that either has no God’s at best, or “doesn’t make use of God’s,” at worst, in its practice. But it’s open to anyone’s use and import of the concept. Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism don’t make very heavy use of the supernatural when you compare it to Tibetan Buddhism, which makes ‘very heavy’ use of the supernatural.
Eh, the Buddhists say they don't believe in God, but the way they talk about Dharma or the Buddha nature is indistinguishable from how other religions talk about God. The contradictions seem to be the point in Buddhism though. It seems like they are trying to play a joke on you by passing off obvious contradictions as if they really make sense if you think about them enough. And then after you've wasted your life meditating on them you don't want to admit you got duped so you keep passing it on.
I've noticed this in the way some Pure Land traditions interact with Amitahba, or some ethnic traditions like the Tibetan's retain their traditional polytheistic gods, but in the Cha'an descended Mahayana traditions or the Sri Lankan descended Theravada there's nothing like the treatment of Siddhartha Gautama as a deity.
There are jokes though, something the Abrahamic faiths seem pretty light on. In general the laity don't seem to take it as seriously as the monastics do, its largely an ethnic church where you go to temple on certain times and perform certain traditions, try to live my a set of moral norms, and don't get all to bothered over it day to day. Buddhism also leaves space for traditional superstitions to co-exist in many cultures like the relationship with Daoism and Trad. Chinese folk beliefs or with Shinto in Japan.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link