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
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?
0
Comments
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
there a better explanation
* Simple, not easy!
Maybe if the word "predicative" was replaced with "attributive"...
Bingo! Buy that man a banana!
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:
Certainly that description of annata is ... overly academic or something.
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.
Seconded!
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.
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
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.
"Understanding" Buddhism can be a big mistake.
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.
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 with eyes to see
_/\_
http://www.buddhanet.net/4noble.htm
.
"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?
What is the criteria for determining who is "best" at teaching Dhamma?
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?!
This teacher has done more for more people than has yet been acknowledged. This ofcourse is just opinion, but also an appreciation.
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.
And piling on volumes and volumes on incomprehensible wordiness doesn't seem to me to be the way to do it either
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
.
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.
Buddhist practice will never be lucid. Especially through text and doctrine. On paper, it is as useless or useful as any other printed word.