Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

Possible reason why most people find Buddhism incomprehensible

edited September 2010 in Buddhism Basics
I have fortunately been able to understand a lot of what I have read about Buddhism, but I get the feeling that some scholars are not really trying very hard to make it lucid enough to the average reader.

This single sentence is taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta

"The Buddhist term anatta (Pāli) or anātman (Sanskrit) is used in the suttas both as a noun and as a predicative adjective to denote that phenomena are not, or are without, a Self, to describe any and all composite, consubstantial, phenomenal and temporal things, from the macrocosmic to microcosmic, be it matter pertaining to the physical body or the cosmos at large, as well as any and all mental machinations, which are impermanent."

Is that clear?
:confused:

Comments

  • ValtielValtiel Veteran
    edited September 2010
    It is to me but I can imagine if that had been the first thing I had read about Buddhism I'd be WTFing. What part is unclear? I mean I guess the word "everything" could have replaced most of the sentence but... :P
  • aMattaMatt Veteran
    edited September 2010
    That quote is from a wiki. Typically, a dharma talk to beginners would use much different language, with examples.
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited September 2010
    I like how my teacher teaches very intuitively in english with reference to direct experience. At the same time some of her books are for a different audience and I do not understand them. You have to find something that YOU can understand.
  • MountainsMountains Veteran
    edited September 2010
    I've never seen the word "predicative" used before. I had to look that one up!

    The nice thing about Wikipedia is that you're absolutely free to edit that kind of gibberish right out. I've done that quite frequently in other (non-Buddhist) areas. It's amazing what kind of garbage you find in Wiki articles (presented as fact).

    Mtns
  • newtechnewtech Veteran
    edited September 2010
  • edited September 2010
    Buddhism is wonderfully simple*, pragmatic, and direct. None of its main texts -- Four Noble Truths, Eightfold Path, Dhammapada, Five Precepts, Five Aggregates, etc. -- is complicated, linguistically or content-wise. If one is looking to gain wisdom/enlightenment, one need not suffer through the erudite esoteric texts that Buddhist scholars have written over the years.

    * Simple, not easy!
  • edited September 2010
    I think if you just read it more slowly, or a couple of times...

    Maybe if the word "predicative" was replaced with "attributive"...
  • MountainsMountains Veteran
    edited September 2010
    rachMiel wrote: »
    Buddhism is wonderfully simple*, pragmatic, and direct. None of its main texts -- Four Noble Truths, Eightfold Path, Dhammapada, Five Precepts, Five Aggregates, etc. -- is complicated, linguistically or content-wise. If one is looking to gain wisdom/enlightenment, one need not suffer through the erudite esoteric texts that Buddhist scholars have written over the years.

    * Simple, not easy!

    Bingo! Buy that man a banana!
  • ShutokuShutoku Veteran
    edited September 2010
    I think a lot of it has to do with the teacher or author, and not just in Buddhism

    An effective teacher can communicate even very complex things in easy to understand ways. I know that as a music teacher dealing with students from 6 years old, to 86 years old, I try to always communicate in ways they can understand.

    However, many times ego gets in the way and teachers start trying to impress by using complex language. It gives them a sense of authority over the befuddled students.

    Zen is a bit of different ball of wax though, where sometimes teachers don't want it to make rational conceptual sense.

    Anyway, I definitely like my Buddhism simple....like me.:o:lol:
  • shanyinshanyin Novice Yogin Sault Ontario Veteran
    edited September 2010
    I'm pretty sure the Buddha did say that his way was 'hard to understand'.

    Certainly that description of annata is ... overly academic or something.
  • edited September 2010
    a lot of people find buddhism incromphensible, because it's either "just a bunch of chinkies worshippin a buddha statue" or because they're christians or muslims or just watch tv all the time
  • edited September 2010
    The reason I find a lot of texts on buddhism hard to follow is because of the writers, and not particularly the principle being explained. The extensive use of non-concise sentences with repetative uses of the same or similar words is very confusing.

    Im a research scientist, and I have always been told to be as consise and clear as possible, minimum words to convey the maximum information. My piers always remark along the same lines. Yet, the writers of Buddhist texts dont seem to have cottoned on to this technique yet.

    When I read books on Buddhism, the use of sentences 3-4+ lines long, or the use of 3 words sequentially that sound almost the same. I also feel that sometimes, the authors use too elaborate language.

    I am far from being stupid (ofc Im not the most intelligent either), but sometimes, I feel like I am pretty un-intelligent when trying to make sense of even "introduction to buddhism" books. There have been a good few times when I have finally understood, that I think, "that could have been explained using laymans terms much more efficiently". Although, I'm very much aware that a lot of writters possibly write in this way to provoke thought and to avoid spoon feeding the reader.
  • MountainsMountains Veteran
    edited September 2010
    Glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. As I mentioned, "Buddhism Plain & Simple" is very good, as is "Buddhism for Dummies". I'm sure there are others as well, but there are far too many that are essentially incomprehensible to the average beginner.
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited September 2010
    zadok wrote: »

    "The Buddhist term anatta (Pāli) or anātman (Sanskrit) is used in the suttas both as a noun and as a predicative adjective to denote that phenomena are not, or are without, a Self, to describe any and all composite, consubstantial, phenomenal and temporal things, from the macrocosmic to microcosmic, be it matter pertaining to the physical body or the cosmos at large, as well as any and all mental machinations, which are impermanent."

    Is that clear?
    :confused:
    Anatta is being conflated with Emptiness. Anatta usually refers the absence of a subject entity who is the experiencer of life. Emptiness usually refers the absence of inherent existence of all phenomena.
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited September 2010
    Many people find Buddhist concepts difficult because they come to them with all kinds of mistaken notions perpetuated by pop culture and new-age knock-offs. It is also common for prople to come to Buddhism with Theistic assumptions.
  • edited September 2010
    Richard H wrote: »
    Many people find Buddhist concepts difficult because they come to them with all kinds of mistaken notions perpetuated by pop culture and new-age knock-offs. It is also common for prople to come to Buddhism with Theistic assumptions.

    Seconded!
  • IronRabbitIronRabbit Veteran
    edited September 2010
    It is sort of a "not seeing the forest for the trees" thing.

    Succeeding in simply hearing of the Tathagata, incomprehensible or not, through the eons of time that have resulted in this moment is of enormous benefit as compared to the dark ages past and to come when such awareness is/was unattainable.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited September 2010
    While I wholeheartedly disapprove of 'Dharma-Lite' communications, I think there's an awful lot to be said for phrases like "Kamma is being 'rewarded' by your actions, not for them" and simple tales like the two monks crossing the river, one with a woman on his back (holding onto Anger and resentment) .... or the strings of a lute being kept too tight, or too loose (Right Effort).... and again, the simile of the candles lit by but one flame, then blowing the first flame out (rebirth) and of course the finger and the Moon analogy.....

    I think occasionally, some matters are best explained in simple terms.
    I have never been one for ploughing my way through endlessly verbose, repetitive and long-winded suttas. While there is nothing wrong with that (and thank goodness for scholars upon wom one can rely for underatanding and clarification!) I, me myself, like to keep it K.I.S.S.

    because I am a very simple person.
    not to mention quite stupid at times.....:o :D
    So the clearer, simpler and more succinct you make things for me (without losing the profound nature of the teaching) the better I like it.

    One prime example of keeping it Simple - yet accurate - is in my signature. the first two verses of the Dhammapada speak volumes in their simplicity. (item 5).
    And the second item in my signature says it best of all.
  • Floating_AbuFloating_Abu Veteran
    edited September 2010
    zadok wrote: »
    I have fortunately been able to understand a lot of what I have read about Buddhism, but I get the feeling that some scholars are not really trying very hard to make it lucid enough to the average reader.

    This single sentence is taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta

    "The Buddhist term anatta (Pāli) or anātman (Sanskrit) is used in the suttas both as a noun and as a predicative adjective to denote that phenomena are not, or are without, a Self, to describe any and all composite, consubstantial, phenomenal and temporal things, from the macrocosmic to microcosmic, be it matter pertaining to the physical body or the cosmos at large, as well as any and all mental machinations, which are impermanent."

    Is that clear?
    :confused:

    "Understanding" Buddhism can be a big mistake. :lol:
  • edited September 2010
    This was nothing compared to the gibberish in Wings of Awakening by Thannisaro Bhikku. That book was boinging my brain. Even when the Tibetans write about emptiness that can be complicated like for instance "rabbits without horns, or barren womens children" .... WTF..
  • fivebellsfivebells Veteran
    edited September 2010
    I've read the fist parts of wings of awakening, and I thought it was great. Certain things I read there have come back to me repeatedly, and informed my practice very positively.
  • zombiegirlzombiegirl beating the drum of the lifeless in a dry wasteland Veteran
    edited September 2010
    zadok wrote: »
    "The Buddhist term anatta (Pāli) or anātman (Sanskrit) is used in the suttas both as a noun and as a predicative adjective to denote that phenomena are not, or are without, a Self, to describe any and all composite, consubstantial, phenomenal and temporal things, from the macrocosmic to microcosmic, be it matter pertaining to the physical body or the cosmos at large, as well as any and all mental machinations, which are impermanent."

    longest run on sentence EVAAARRR... i feel like this could have been broken up into several more elaborate paragraphs.

    sometimes when i want to sound really smart when writing a paper, i will thesaurus the crap out of something and use a lot of unnecessary larger words to replace my common vernacular. this sentence gives me that feeling, kind of pompous.

    i'm sure something could be said about the fact that i have just attributed personality traits to a sentence. :lol:
  • cazcaz Veteran United Kingdom Veteran
    edited September 2010
    Their view of the world is opposite to the noble paths, So If even Buddha where to say to someone Practising giving will result in wealth someone who is very ignorant will not understand how such a thing works and dismiss it out of self grasping.
  • Floating_AbuFloating_Abu Veteran
    edited September 2010
    zombiegirl wrote: »
    longest run on sentence EVAAARRR... i feel like this could have been

    I don't use Wiki that much but I understand it can be written by anyone yes?

    Anyway some good reference sites I used to refer to were Access to Insight etc. And of course other traditions have their own method and nuances. But I prefer reputable sites and teachings in my own case. The only point I would make is sometimes not understanding can be a better balm than thinking one has understood, a sure rut if there was ever one. Not that that can't also be useful :pwith eyes to see

    _/\_
  • edited September 2010
    A good place to start is with The Four Noble Truths.

    http://www.buddhanet.net/4noble.htm




    .
  • andyrobynandyrobyn Veteran
    edited September 2010
    Hi Dazz, I don't need to visit as know this link so well :) find this is so very understandable and enjoyable to read.
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited September 2010
    Ajahn Sumedho is the best teacher alive today. New people should take in his teachings while they can, because he is retiring and tired from a life of spreading the Dhamma. Once he is gone...
  • GuyCGuyC Veteran
    edited September 2010
    Richard H wrote: »
    Ajahn Sumedho is the best teacher alive today. New people should take in his teachings while they can, because he is retiring and tired from a life of spreading the Dhamma. Once he is gone...

    "Ajahn Sumedho is the best teacher alive today" is only an opinion though. I have found his Dhamma talks insightful and useful, but I don't know if I can honestly say that he or any other teacher is the "best". How would I know?
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited September 2010
    GuyC wrote: »
    "Ajahn Sumedho is the best teacher alive today" is only an opinion though. I have found his Dhamma talks insightful and useful, but I don't know if I can honestly say that he or any other teacher is the "best". How would I know?
    Touchy. Guy. Of course it is an opinion. What else could it be?
  • GuyCGuyC Veteran
    edited September 2010
    I didn't mean it that way. What I meant was, how do we form these opinions?

    What is the criteria for determining who is "best" at teaching Dhamma?
  • seeker242seeker242 Zen Florida, USA Veteran
    edited September 2010
    zadok wrote: »
    I have fortunately been able to understand a lot of what I have read about Buddhism, but I get the feeling that some scholars are not really trying very hard to make it lucid enough to the average reader.

    This single sentence is taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta

    "The Buddhist term anatta (Pāli) or anātman (Sanskrit) is used in the suttas both as a noun and as a predicative adjective to denote that phenomena are not, or are without, a Self, to describe any and all composite, consubstantial, phenomenal and temporal things, from the macrocosmic to microcosmic, be it matter pertaining to the physical body or the cosmos at large, as well as any and all mental machinations, which are impermanent."

    Is that clear?
    :confused:


    For someone who already know what it means, yes. For people who are just learning, not really. Wikipedia is generally not very good at being simple. Most wikipedia editors are very academic, if they weren't, they would not be editing wikipedia articles. :) Anyone can edit it though.

    But personally, the reason why most people find Buddhism incomprehensible IMO is because, ultimately, it IS incomprehensible! The practice is not but the "results" of practice are very much so, especially to those who do not practice it.

    I forget what teacher it was but they used the analogy of "explaining" to someone what a strawberry tastes like, to a person who has never tasted a strawberry before. How is that even possible?!
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited September 2010
    GuyC wrote: »
    I didn't mean it that way. What I meant was, how do we form these opinions?

    What is the criteria for determining who is "best" at teaching Dhamma?
    The criteria that counts first is conduct. Having been around the Buddhist scene for a while I can safely say the Monks in this tradition have had the most ethically consistant conduct, impeccable in fact, at least those I've had the good fortune to know. The second is being living examples of the Dhamma, manifesting the Brahma Viharas, and teaching from that. Also being a Zenavadin I have always been conscious how ironic it is that the most deeply effective Bodhisattva activity I've seen has been in these "Hinayanists".
    This teacher has done more for more people than has yet been acknowledged. This ofcourse is just opinion, but also an appreciation.
  • GuyCGuyC Veteran
    edited September 2010
    I appreciate your opinion Richard, thank you. :)
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited September 2010
    I appreciate yours too guy.
  • mugzymugzy Veteran
    edited September 2010
    I think it can be difficult to explain simplicity :)
  • ChrysalidChrysalid Veteran
    edited September 2010
    Richard H wrote: »
    Anatta is being conflated with Emptiness. Anatta usually refers the absence of a subject entity who is the experiencer of life. Emptiness usually refers the absence of inherent existence of all phenomena.
    But ultimately they are the same thing, right?

    When you understand that a tree doesn't have an inherent "treeness", or a rock "rockness" then we can see that the same is true for our notion of self.
  • edited September 2010
    Chrysalid wrote: »
    But ultimately they are the same thing, right?

    When you understand that a tree doesn't have an inherent "treeness", or a rock "rockness" then we can see that the same is true for our notion of self.
    Ultimately, yes.
  • MountainsMountains Veteran
    edited September 2010
    mugzy wrote: »
    I think it can be difficult to explain simplicity :)


    And piling on volumes and volumes on incomprehensible wordiness doesn't seem to me to be the way to do it either :)
  • edited September 2010
    Richard H wrote: »
    Ajahn Sumedho is the best teacher alive today. New people should take in his teachings while they can, because he is retiring and tired from a life of spreading the Dhamma. Once he is gone...

    Very well said Richard !

    I have been attending his teachings, and also had a chat to him, since after I decided to end my involvement with Tibetan Buddhism.

    Absolutely wonderful, like a breath of fresh air. I only wish I'd known about him a long time ago. (and I do have first hand experience of other teachers)

    Still, better late than never -huh? ;)


    with metta,

    Dazzle


    .
  • FoibleFullFoibleFull Canada Veteran
    edited September 2010
    zadok wrote: »
    I have fortunately been able to understand a lot of what I have read about Buddhism, but I get the feeling that some scholars are not really trying very hard to make it lucid enough to the average reader.

    This single sentence is taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta

    "The Buddhist term anatta (Pāli) or anātman (Sanskrit) is used in the suttas both as a noun and as a predicative adjective to denote that phenomena are not, or are without, a Self, to describe any and all composite, consubstantial, phenomenal and temporal things, from the macrocosmic to microcosmic, be it matter pertaining to the physical body or the cosmos at large, as well as any and all mental machinations, which are impermanent."

    Is that clear?
    :confused:

    No it isn't. And anytime anyone tries to put an experiential truth into words, the words will fail to convey the experience, even if the writer doesn't use high-falutin' words like "consubstantial" for cryin' out loud. Someone was waaaaay too impressed with themselves, I think. :lol:
  • DeformedDeformed Veteran
    edited September 2010
    zadok wrote: »
    I have fortunately been able to understand a lot of what I have read about Buddhism, but I get the feeling that some scholars are not really trying very hard to make it lucid enough to the average reader.

    This single sentence is taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta

    "The Buddhist term anatta (Pāli) or anātman (Sanskrit) is used in the suttas both as a noun and as a predicative adjective to denote that phenomena are not, or are without, a Self, to describe any and all composite, consubstantial, phenomenal and temporal things, from the macrocosmic to microcosmic, be it matter pertaining to the physical body or the cosmos at large, as well as any and all mental machinations, which are impermanent."

    Is that clear?
    :confused:

    Buddhist practice will never be lucid. Especially through text and doctrine. On paper, it is as useless or useful as any other printed word.
Sign In or Register to comment.