“Christ” means “Messiah” in Greek. It’s the same word. There are no measurable years before or after the Christ if you think the Christ hasn’t come yet. For Jews, it’s still “BC.”
Your Anno Domini comment makes no sense to me. It refers to Jesus and nobody else. Some people don’t want to call Jesus “Lord.” Why should they have to? He’s not their Lord, “the” Lord or any Lord. Some people think there’s only one Lord and he ain’t it.
Like I keep saying, though, they’re not trying to stop anyone else from saying it, nor are they offended if they do. They just don’t want to say it themselves. Why is that such an outrage?
I’d say that depends on the brand of Protestantism, wouldn’t you? Anglicans are much more similar to Roman Catholics than they are to Pentecostals.
My father’s pastor (a fucking moron I have had to resist the urge to punch twice this year) would say and has said that yoga is even more spiritually dangerous than atheism. It’s an invitation to allowing demons access to your mind and heart; he likens it to deliberately leaving all the doors in your house open and unlocked and posting a sign saying “Burglars welcome.” :rolleyes:
This sort of thing is why I virtually never discuss religion with people.
Because it gives other people ideas. That’s the outrage. I don’t mind Jewish (or Muslim, or Hindu, or other Non-Western) scholars using BCE/CE. What I mind are Western Scholars trying to be politically correct and using it, muddying the waters of acceptable standardisation even further and giving traditionalists one more thing to be heckled about.
It has nothing to do with “political correctness” (which is mostly an imaginary standard all by itself). Scholars who use it these days tend to do so in the interest of religious neutrality, but it’s still a personal choice. There is no pressure on anyone to do it. You are the one trying to tell people what it’s acceptable to say, not them.
Even Buddha himself talks about reincarnation. From the page on Samsara in Buddhism
So, basically, it seems that the cycle of rebirth (i.e. reincarnation) is an essential part of Buddhism, and you are full of shit.
And since the cycle of rebirth goes against Christian and Jewish religious doctrines, there is a conflict in Christians and Jews labeling someone the Buddha.
Man…let’s see. the term buddha may be religiuos-free in itself, my Pali ain’t that good to argue that.
HOWEVER, what I say is that that “dictionary” meaning of the word is not importnt, but what people actually use it for, and, regardless of how correct those view may be, most people in the western world regard buddha as a religious word and S. Gautama as a religious leader.
If buddha means “lefty” in Pali, still people connect it with religion (Mahayana buddhists are very close to deifying him)
DtC: Is it your contention that if we, say, counted years from the birth of Buddha BB/AB we wouldn’t have to use two options?
Sorry, but youy’re still misinformed. None of what you’re citing is neccessary Buddhist belief. There IS no neccessary religious belief in Buddhism. Enlightenment is a mental state, not a supernatural phenomenon, or a religious one or a unique one to Siddhartha.
Secondly, the “transmigration of souls” referred to in the Pali canon is not the same as reincarnation (it’s not really the same soul, but Siddhartha was obscure about it, saying it was neither the same sould nor a different soul, but likened it to one candle lighting another. He also said it wasn’t important to think about and compared wasting any thought on to worrying about the exact construction of an arrow that’s been shot through you instead of just pulling it out. In other words, he did NOT present it as any kind of necessary doctrine and actually discouraged discussion of.
Having said that, even if you still want to insist on this exercise of extropoalting a necessary acceptance of a belief in reincarnation for anyone who uses the non-religious title of “Buddha” (which anyone can become, and without any neccesary religious doctrine), guess what? Nothing about reincarnation is contrary to Jewish belief anyway. As a matter of fact, IS a common Jewish belief, so suck on that. The Jewish conception of transmigration of souls, even the metaphor of one candle lighting another, is virtually identical to what Siddhartha allegedly said. It’s possible to be Jewish and to believe in reincarnation, and to believe that Siddhartha Gautma was an “awakened” individual.
Now that we’ve put that nonsense to bed, it’s all irrelevant anyway, since it’s not your place to dictate what words Jews, or any other non-Christians, or any Christians for that matter, need to feel comfortable using or not using. How about they say whatver the hell they want, and you say whatever the hell you want? How about that? They’re not asking anything from you, so why do you care? Who put you in charge of policing what language they need to be comfortable with?
So what if they do? Does that mean everybody has to understand it that way just because some do?
Nobody has to do anything now. It’s purely a matter of personal choice. If used a dating system that counted from the birth of Buddha, it would be such a different world that I can’t speculate whether anybody would want to personally avoid the use of the title or not. I do know that the title does not have an analog in another religion similar to what “Messiah” has in Judaism.
I missed the edit window. This should have said, "It’s not the same “individual”. There is no continuation of awareness or consciousness. Every iteration is a different “person,” not a continuation of the last one.
As a Texan, I try to oppose those racist, sexist old farts as much as possible.
Generally, I’d just say use the terms you prefer; neither option offends me. However, I realize that you are upset because you may be “forced” to use the newer nomenclature in your professional writing. You’re also upset about Bombay/Mumbai & Calcutta/Kolkata, aren’t you?
Things change. If you can’t handle these changes at your age, look forward to a life full of impotent anger.
I don’t see how this has anything to do with ‘PC’ or ‘offending non-Christians.’ Why assume that people are using CE and BCE for those reasons? Couldn’t it just possibly be because they personally prefer not to refer to Christ when giving a date? If I say BCE, do you automatically assume I’m doing it to be overly PC, rather than for the reasons I’ve given in this thread?
Usually when people see a change they dislike and label it as ‘PC gone mad’ it’s not actually anything PC at all.
Can you cite an example of “Buddha” used in a non-religious context in English? Because as far as I know, it’s always used with a religious meaning.
I’m a descriptivist, not prescriptivist. My only concern is communicability; as long as there’s no confusion, I don’t care. I’ll use whatever term suits the setting.
It’s not religious. Don’t believe everything you read on Wikipedia.
Let’s put it another way. There is nothing inherent in the concept of Buddhist “enlightenment” or the title of “Buddha” which as any necessary conflict with Jewish theology, or any other theology, because it involves no theistic beliefs or necessary metaphysical doctrine.
This is also kind of a pointless digression. People are allowed to decide for themselves what kind of language they feel religiously comfortable using. Just because someone doesn’t want to call Jesus “Messiah” or “Lord” doesn’t mean they have to feel equally uncomfortable saying “Buddha.” They don’t have to justify what words they want to use.
In this case the Wikipedia matches my understanding and the usage of those I frequently communicate with. The fact that Wikipedia agrees means these are common usages. Which means you need to support your views better if you hope to convince anyone.
What does conflicting (or not) have to do with whether or not the terms are religious? A religion does not need to be exclusive or theistic or dogmatic. From the Wikipedia, “a religion is an organized approach to human spirituality”. “Buddha” is used to refer to someone has reached spiritual enlightenment. Thus, it’s a religious term.
I agree with you on this, but that doesn’t mean you’re not wrong elsewhere.
The word “spiritual” in these sentences has no meaning. Nor does it have any meaning in Buddhism. “Enlightenment” is not a metaphysical concept. There is nothing “religious” about it except in the most metaphorical sense.
