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.
The New Buddhist Dictionary
thickpaper
Veteran
Let's imagine we were decided to join together and write a dictionary of Buddhist terms, a "New Buddhist Dictionary," something that would be our combined attempts to define Buddhist concepts like Dukka, and Attachment and the Noble Eightfold Path, etc.
Imagine that, Lincoln, who has kept the forum going and growing, added a new category, "New Buddhist Dictionary," where any of us could post.
Imagine each thread was a discussion of a single term with the aim of coming up with a good set of definitions for the term as well as the full history of the discussion that has lead to those definitions.
When a definition was agreed one of the opp could make it sticky, and so over time we and anyone would be able to see the condensed definitions and the full discussion.
I think we should do this, I think we spend lots of time here, and its great (if not a little dukka at times) but all of our efforts and ideas and insights could be put into something really helpful to us, we new Buddhists and those who are just curious.
I would imagine the ops here should have the final editorial say on the content and that nobody would have ownership of the content (Creative Commons Share Alike?)
There are so many different opinions here when it comes to dharma. And many different ways of practicing dharma, but most of us on most things agree on the things that are important to dharma practice and understanding. There are many different areas of interest and focus too, from those with encyclopedia understanding of the scriptures and those who can meditate into nothingness to the dizzy dharma airheads like me and jeffry. It would be good to do for everyone of us I think, in openness.
So if we can all really nuke our imaginary egos, as much as possible, while we ask this questions of ourselves: "Would our combined understandings and ignorances be a dharmically positive thing if condensed into interconnected document like an online dictionary or forum discussion?"
So what say we?:)
Namaste
Imagine that, Lincoln, who has kept the forum going and growing, added a new category, "New Buddhist Dictionary," where any of us could post.
Imagine each thread was a discussion of a single term with the aim of coming up with a good set of definitions for the term as well as the full history of the discussion that has lead to those definitions.
When a definition was agreed one of the opp could make it sticky, and so over time we and anyone would be able to see the condensed definitions and the full discussion.
I think we should do this, I think we spend lots of time here, and its great (if not a little dukka at times) but all of our efforts and ideas and insights could be put into something really helpful to us, we new Buddhists and those who are just curious.
I would imagine the ops here should have the final editorial say on the content and that nobody would have ownership of the content (Creative Commons Share Alike?)
There are so many different opinions here when it comes to dharma. And many different ways of practicing dharma, but most of us on most things agree on the things that are important to dharma practice and understanding. There are many different areas of interest and focus too, from those with encyclopedia understanding of the scriptures and those who can meditate into nothingness to the dizzy dharma airheads like me and jeffry. It would be good to do for everyone of us I think, in openness.
So if we can all really nuke our imaginary egos, as much as possible, while we ask this questions of ourselves: "Would our combined understandings and ignorances be a dharmically positive thing if condensed into interconnected document like an online dictionary or forum discussion?"
So what say we?:)
Namaste
0
Comments
Also, there are many sites which have glossary pages. We could just be re-inventing the wheel.
Other than that, it would be great.
Sorry to be such a stick-in-the-mud, but that's not new for me.
Also, rywiki.tadra.org & rigpawiki.org Would pretty much be way further along than us
namaste
Anyway, I was saying that there might need to be several definitions because not everybody is going to agree on a single definition. In fact, the majority opinion might actually be misleading.
Either way, I do think it's a good idea, so don't take any of that to mean that there's something wrong with it. It would be a great way to study and learn.
Yep, I agree. I would hope we wouldn't be attached to any of the definitions! That would be a strange irony:p
namaste
namste
Berzin says: Fortunately he already has a glossary.
namaste
Yes, though I am not sure of there would be "correct" definitions, hopefully we would be happy with"clear".
>>Cloud>>GOOD LUCK on that!
It is nothing to do with me, I imagine nothing will come of it, as is often the way. I guess it would take the Mods to make the new forum section first.
>>Cloud>>If there's one thing I've learned it's that people have differing views even on the very basics;
I haven't noticed that here. We all seem to agree on the 4NT's and there is no basic answer to, say "Rebirth."
namaste
It always gets me when people clump karma and rebirth as supernatural teachings, when karma is a basic and fundamental teaching that shows how conditionality works and how we can create wholesome conditions for awakening... but it's the view of rebirth that colors karma as supernatural. It all depends.
Anyway, it makes my head hurt. If I can help with anything let me know.
Where there is disagreement there would not need to be argument or debate, just stating the views.
>>>>>This is why basic definitions are troublesome.
It is very easy to find problems and troubles in all we do.
>>>Anyway, it makes my head hurt. If I can help with anything let me know.
This isn't my project:)
A long reply to you! Please can you read it with positive eyes;)
>>VALOIS>>I know I didn't show an active interest in my post above
I dont think that is what is important. As soon as you have a bipartite relationship ("you" interested in "this") you have something that is nondharmic.
I realised this recently talking to my cousin about a relatioship issue she is having with another family member. She was talking about this "forgiveness" that needed to exist between them. It struck me that even forgiveness is nondharmic, it needs something to forgive something else, its a position of dominance at the moment of its creation - by an act of forgiving.
I digress:P But my point is, that if we were to do this dharmically, then there would be no issues of "interest" or "boredom" or "ownership" or "content value" or "popularity" or "need". These are all bipartite relationships that may not necessarily be negative relationships but they are all nondharmic, I believe.
--because I do believe Berzin has already done an amazing job
Again, you are thinking of this in terms of something else, that instantly creates relationships, most of them will be negitavising.
>>> but now that I'm focusing on what you mean by 'beginner' vocabulary then I think it could be interesting.
Me too:)
>>>>> I don't think it will catch on solely on the basis that one would have to eventually switch vocabulary
Then it won’t catch on. That doesn't mean those who have made it wouldn't have been Right to do it (I mean Right in the Noble sense, of course.) We should do it assuming only we will ever read it, when it comes to giving it any of time.
>>>>it's also very idealistic
That may be how you see it, it is not how I see it. I think if you sought the dharnic reasons to do this, rather than those more suited to the worlds of ego and commerce and the media, you might see it.
>>>>Also the nature of English isn't nuanced....
Problems problems. Valois, problems are easy to find in anything conditioned, isnt that an expression of Dukka?
When you find a problem, you make more Dukka.
Think about this, is it true? If it is not true, then why not? I think if you believe in how negativity is propagated by Karma, then it is clear to see why some problems are dukka in their very creation in thought..
But some problems are essential, they need to be solved. Like the problems of a life of Dharma and love or government.
So how do we tell which are the problems to mention, announce, highlight or claim and which are those we should be silent on?
I think the right dharmic answer would be to only spend time on the problems you can solve? Do you agree?
Assuming you do, then stating problems such as “The Enlish Language lacks the linguistic elements to express dharma therefore we should not use English.” (which is I think similar to what you were saying), this cannot be changed. You cant make English more nuanced, nobody can, it is what it is. So stating the problem could only negitavise. So you think this is true?
If you don’t then what kind of positive thing do you expect to come from stating a problem which cant be solved? English isn’t very neauced. And is very hard to spell.
There is only one problem which is unsolvable that I think is dharmically right to state, and that is the one captured by the Buddha’s analogy of the house on fire: “It is a problem that we are all are going to die soon.”
But about yetanotherattempttoexpressdharma, like the hundreds or more before, it’s dukka stating a problem about that.
Does that seem right to you? (It is well meant)
>>>On the other hand I think at the least it will serve to help more intermediate people like myself in figuring out exactly what a word means.
Yes Me too. The dharnmic language has loads of rich and deep concepts, like dukka, it is good to try and see it clearly.
>>>>Like emptiness vs. voidness vs. someone's new proposed word;
No we could have definitions all for a term. Or at least all that the impartyial moderators agreed on. We wouldn’t want stupid or slanderous etc definitions.
>>>>we would have to get to the core of the definition in the midst of all the debating, so the forum would certainly have a secondary purpose.
Yes. Though all definitions should be equall. I think you wilol be surprised how little disagreement theren is here.
Most of the things people disagree about are the problems we cannot solve anyways, and the things we cannot know, either.
>>>>Like I was saying, I didn't show an active interest on the above bases, but nevertheless, I can vouch that it'd be fun as hell.
Yea, there are many posiotive reasons to do it, what negative ones? That we don’t have a word for Nibanna:P?
Positvize not negitavize, that’s about the simplest expression of dharma I know. I think here it is a simple answer to many decisions that become our problems. Should I do this or that? The right dharnmic answer is to do that which is Dharmic, that which positivises.
This forum would be a better place, dharmically, if there was less pointless problem spotting. I would very much like this thread from now on to be an example of that:)
We should not criticize unless we can positavise.
Peace!
That's fair enough, few people criticize what I say on these forums constructively, but I enjoy it, I remember the very first post I ever submitted, as answered by @seeker242, was constructively critiqued and it slapped me in the face and woke me up to reality a bit. I will say, however, that the 'you' vs. 'this' bit might be a little supercilious, I mean the very nature of language is dualistic so it's hard to be avoided. My critique for you is that if your critique was even a bit supercilious then it must consequently possess even a drop of negativity--which is hard to say, and I am not asserting a fact or opinion, simply a hypothetical as food for thought--which would make you an object of your own speculations. I didn't say or intend that. The entire point was that it simply lacks a lot of the tools necessary for such a project and therefore, with only a handful of words and some clever inflections/affixes at best to combine with them, the tremendous efforts of people like Berzin will probably certainly have surpassed any expectations, except in the context of vocabulary for 'beginners'. In fact the notion of using non-English words, especially in a newbie context seems silly to me. I'm sorry but I can't really make sense of this, can you help me out? If you were inferring from my proposition that we ought to have some smorgasbord of definitions that's not what I meant. I was intending to say something two-fold:
1. To figure out another possible word for the concept of emptiness/voidness, as I said, we'd simply have to make sure all participants have mastered the kernel of the idea, and
2. I literally can't personally think of a better word, and I've read why Berzin thinks voidness is greatly superior to emptiness. A little manipulative of my part, certainly, but an example of the limitations of English. You keep speaking of me 'negativizing' the thread. I'm very sorry to have done so--it was not my conscious and deliberate intention. Here is a good example of what we could do: Nibbana, like other Pali words such as Upadana, has connotations of the old Hindu perspective of fire--that it is desperately clinging to objects as fuel to perpetuate itself, and like this your mind fuels itself with ignorance enslaving itself to samsara until you 'extinguish' the fire. Like this any newbie who didn't know this was just schooled on the proper etymology and connotation of the word only to discover the flawed denotation of 'enlightenment'. From here we could commence seeking alternatives for 'enlightenment' and 'liberation'.
>>>My critique for you is that if your critique was even a bit supercilious then it must consequently possess even a drop of negativity
Life is negativity. It is hardly surprising:)
>>>>I didn't say or intend that. The entire point was that it simply lacks a lot of the tools necessary for such a project
It wasn't a project, there were no tools.
>>>In fact the notion of using non-English words, especially in a newbie context seems silly to me.
I agree apart from with Dukka, and maybe some others. These words can be understood as a single term, but not explained in one.
>>>But about yetanotherattempttoexpressdharma, like the hundreds or more before, it’s dukka stating a problem about that.
>>>I'm sorry but I can't really make sense of this, can you help me out?
All schools and ideas and paths of dharma, be they therevada or zen or what one Buddhist Num believes, all of these are merely expressions and presentations of dharma. They are not dharma, they are, as described, merely the vehicle for dharma.
There have been hundreds of these as orghanised attempts, all will have inevitable unanswerable problems, and it is dukka to point out that those problems are.
>>>>If you were inferring from my proposition that we ought to have some smorgasbord of definitions that's not what I meant. I was intending to say something two-fold:
1. To figure out another possible word for the concept of emptiness/voidness, as I said, we'd simply have to make sure all participants have mastered the kernel of the idea, and
2. I literally can't personally think of a better word, and I've read why Berzin thinks voidness is greatly superior to emptiness. A little manipulative of my part, certainly, but an example of the limitations of English.
And I would say to that two things, firstly as a general point, i have no idea what this would be, I am just saying I think it is dharmically right to try if interested and not if not.
Secondly, as a specific personal point, I thin k that voidness doesnt work at all to capture anataman, because this isnt void, it's not that there is nothing, its that there are no THINGS. All parts, no wholes, no void. Maybe that could be our first term: Anataman
>>>You keep speaking of me 'negativizing' the thread. I'm very sorry to have done so--it was not my conscious and deliberate intention.
Actually it was a general point to the replies to my OP, the replies to many threads I have nothing to do with, and life in general.
If we are mindful of our actions then we should for each one be asking in full inner openess, is this action positivising or negativasing?
And then, as a perchance rule of thumb I would say that spending time on questions we cannot answer or problems we cannot solve is not wise dharnma practice. I hardly think I say something scandalous here:)
>>>Here is a good example of what we could do: Nibbana, like other Pali words such as Upadana, has connotations of the old Hindu perspective of fire--that it is desperately clinging to objects as fuel to perpetuate itself, and like this your mind fuels itself with ignorance enslaving itself to samsara until you 'extinguish' the fire. Like this any newbie who didn't know this was just schooled on the proper etymology and connotation of the word only to discover the flawed denotation of 'enlightenment'. From here we could commence seeking alternatives for 'enlightenment' and 'liberation'.
Who knows! It needs impetus to start, not ideas to run with.
nice chatting
namaste
I'd like, again, to say something like you have my full support if such impetus is found, you or shall I say the mods, can count on me to contribute what I can, but I'm afraid you might accuse me of creating dukkha here on account of fueling my dualistic existence (if I understand you, regrettably your train of thought is sometimes over my head). So on that note, I figure your advice is that I ought to say nothing at all? Then on that note I've also failed. And I'll take that too. But, again, I lend my support.