Likes Likes:  0
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 66

Thread: Discussion on Dokun/kyoten

  1. #16
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Brixton, London, UK.
    Posts
    1,153
    Likes (received)
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ewok View Post
    Ok, Dokun would be interesting to translate. First you cannot go halfway like kenseikai has done and use Japanese - thats cheating.
    But we do this already: "we are grateful that we are endowed with our souls from Dharma"

    To say that "we are grateful that we are endowed with our souls from the organising principle" would sound silly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ewok View Post
    I'm making an assumption when I say that Kongo Zen sticks to the main Buddist idea that there is no "Creator God" like you find in Christianity, but how does Dharma come into that?
    This would be very problematic, since it would put Kongo Zen into conflict with Christianity, Islam, and the other mainstream religions. I would prefer to agree with Colin that Buddhism doesn't take a position on this. This would mean that Christians and Muslims can practise ShorinjiKempo without compromising their beliefs.
    Indar Picton-Howell
    印打
    Abujavol

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Harrogate, North Yorkshire, UK
    Posts
    4,232
    Likes (received)
    97

    Default

    Is this one of those threads where every Tom, Dick and Harry with an opinion thinks it is time to re-translate the texts? I do hope not. The discussions of what the texts mean and what they mean to us is always interesting and without discussion they cease to have any meaning at all, but why is it always necessary to try and offer an alternative translation? This implies that existing translations are somehow inadequate and fall short of what they should be, when in fact the written words should only ever be the starting point for the journey of understanding. I feel sorry for all the various people who have spent so much of their time struggling with the various translations, whose efforts are dismissed so easily. I say, stick with the words as they are (wherever you are), and enjoy the discovery of what they can mean.

    So back to the Dokun (and the Dokun), what does "Dokun" mean? Is it short for Dojo-kun? What do Seigan, Shinjo and Raihashi mean then?
    David Noble
    Shorinji Kempo (1983 - 1988)
    I'll think of a proper sig when I get a minute...

    For now, I'm just waiting for the smack of the Bo against a hard wooden floor....

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Bedford, England
    Posts
    1,201
    Likes (received)
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Indar View Post
    But we do this already: "we are grateful that we are endowed with our souls from Dharma"

    To say that "we are grateful that we are endowed with our souls from the organising principle" would sound silly.



    This would be very problematic, since it would put Kongo Zen into conflict with Christianity, Islam, and the other mainstream religions. I would prefer to agree with Colin that Buddhism doesn't take a position on this. This would mean that Christians and Muslims can practise ShorinjiKempo without compromising their beliefs.
    While Buddha did not deny the existence of Gods, he did deny the existence of any permanent essence or 'soul' in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic sense. So Buddhism is already in serious conflict with almost all religions, and has been for thousands of years. See the Diamond Sutra.

    Dirk

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Bedford, England
    Posts
    1,201
    Likes (received)
    2

    Default

    If we are going to argue over translations, why not go the whole way and translate from the Pali or Sanskrit rather than Japanese? That's obviously where it all originates. It seems strange to try and translate from Japanese to English something that has already been translated from Pali to Japanese (assuming no excursions through additional languages). Are we interested in what the Buddha said or what the Japanese think he said? [Rhetorical question - obviously the latter]

    Dirk

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Sapporo
    Posts
    29
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dirk.bruere View Post
    If we are going to argue over translations, why not go the whole way and translate from the Pali or Sanskrit rather than Japanese? That's obviously where it all originates. It seems strange to try and translate from Japanese to English something that has already been translated from Pali to Japanese (assuming no excursions through additional languages). Are we interested in what the Buddha said or what the Japanese think he said? [Rhetorical question - obviously the latter]
    Sorry to differ, but that's not as clear-cut as you suggest. Kaiso made his own Japanese translations of some scriptures, and within Kongo Zen Sohonzan Shorinji the prevailing belief is that we should pay attention to the words that he chose to use - on the basis that those words reflect what Kaiso wanted to emphasise for Shorinji Kempo. Studying a number of other translations (into various languages) is of course still valuable in helping us understand what it was he decided not to emphasise.

    Aran Lunzer

  6. #21
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Brixton, London, UK.
    Posts
    1,153
    Likes (received)
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dirk.bruere View Post
    While Buddha did not deny the existence of Gods, he did deny the existence of any permanent essence or 'soul' in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic sense. So Buddhism is already in serious conflict with almost all religions, and has been for thousands of years. See the Diamond Sutra.

    Dirk
    Why would an enlightened person seek to promote conflict ?
    Indar Picton-Howell
    印打
    Abujavol

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    2,047
    Likes (received)
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dirk.bruere View Post
    If we are going to argue over translations, why not go the whole way and translate from the Pali or Sanskrit...
    That would also be difficult. Seiku is from dhammapada (verses 160 and 165 - http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthre...ghlight=buddha - can't find the original thread). Google for those, and you'll se that even from the original there are many translations.
    David Dunn
    Cambridge Dojo
    BSKF

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Bedford, England
    Posts
    1,201
    Likes (received)
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Indar View Post
    Why would an enlightened person seek to promote conflict ?
    An enlightened person would tell the truth, which by its very nature conflicts with false belief.

    Now this could be quite an interesting starting point for a discussion concerning the nature of duality in Buddhist thought.

    Dirk

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Glasgow, Scotland
    Posts
    859
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default re the foregoing

    From Indar

    But we do this already: "we are grateful that we are endowed with our souls from Dharma"

    To say that "we are grateful that we are endowed with our souls from the organising principle" would sound silly.
    Less felicitous perhaps, but not I think actually wrong in principle. I remember once seeing a translated version of part 1 of 'Shinjo' * which got into such hideous contortions trying to avoid using the word 'Dharma' that it produced a sentence without a subject, clear object or even active verb - it seemed that gratitude was called for but managed to avoid specifying to whom or even what for.

    *(BSKF version - 'we are grateful that we are endowed with our souls from Dharma and our bodies from our parents. We determine to make every effort to return their blessings')

    Colin - I would submit that if Kongo Zen is true to the authentic teachings of Buddhism then the words that we use are probably a damned sight less important that say the lived reality of training or SK as gyo. Meaningless pieties were something that Kaiso was pretty categorically hostile towards.

    I believe you'll find that Buddhism doesn't even address the question of the/a Creator. The origin of the universe is not its concern; recognizing the nature of the universe, coming to terms with it, and transcending suffering are.
    er, yup, I'd have to concur. I would regard Buddhism as properly agnostic in the sense that Huxley originally meant the term, i.e. if a question doesn't really admit of an answer, why bother posing it?

    From Dirk
    While Buddha did not deny the existence of Gods, he did deny the existence of any permanent essence or 'soul' in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic sense. So Buddhism is already in serious conflict with almost all religions, and has been for thousands of years. See the Diamond Sutra.
    And interestingly, I think it's at least debateable whether Judaism, Islam and Christianity in all times and places have actually averred that there is a permanent 'soul' in the sense of an individual ego which survives physical death. I once read a really interesting book which compared early - i.e. pre catholic Christian thought with Buddhism, and found surprising affinities (can't remember author and title, but have just googled a website which puts across similar ideas in capsule form -www.frimmin.com/faith/lotuscross.html)

    On the other hand, I wouldn't want to duck Dirk's contention that there is a basic ideological conflict between more traditional conceptions of monotheism and Buddhism. I think the notion that there is inevitably a meeting point between all people of goodwill is pretty nonsensical. If your ideology tells you that the Allmighty created the world in seven days flat, demands that you stone adulterers, homosexuals and apostates, and that your particular holy book contains pretty much the sum total of everything anybody would ever need to know about anything, I for one am going to have a pretty damn hard time meeting your mind.

    Tony leith

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Aesch near Basel, Switzerland
    Posts
    93
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    If your ideology tells you that the Allmighty created the world in seven days flat, demands that you stone adulterers, homosexuals and apostates, and that your particular holy book contains pretty much the sum total of everything anybody would ever need to know about anything, I for one am going to have a pretty damn hard time meeting your mind.
    I don't think many christians actually believe this. We just have to remind us that this book was written thousands of years ago, when people had very different views than today.But I still think the Bible has some value to offer.
    "The universe is change; our life is what our thoughts make it."-Marcus Aurelius
    Fabian Känzig

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Bedford, England
    Posts
    1,201
    Likes (received)
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tony leith View Post

    And interestingly, I think it's at least debateable whether Judaism, Islam and Christianity in all times and places have actually averred that there is a permanent 'soul' in the sense of an individual ego which survives physical death. I once read a really interesting book which compared early - i.e. pre catholic Christian thought with Buddhism, and found surprising affinities (can't remember author and title, but have just googled a website which puts across similar ideas in capsule form -www.frimmin.com/faith/lotuscross.html)
    ...
    Tony leith
    The problem with the notion of soul, at least in the West, is that it cannot be defined as a non-composite, non-changing entity. And if it is composite and changeable it falls prey to what the Buddhist claim - that all composite things are subject to decay and/or dissolution.

    I think the (an) origin of religion is of the form:
    mystical experience + interpretation = religion.

    The experience is common across Humanity, but its (culturally conditioned) interpretation is what leads to all kinds of problems. At least Zen tries to get around this by deliberately *not* interpreting. When the interpretation aspect of other religions loosens up there is a convergence. It's the literalists and dogmatists that cause the problem, especially within hierarchical structures.

    Dirk

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Glasgow, Scotland
    Posts
    859
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default re last couple of posts

    I don't think many christians actually believe this. We just have to remind us that this book was written thousands of years ago, when people had very different views than today.But I still think the Bible has some value to offer.
    Re believing in the literal truth of the Bible, this may not be so prevalent in Western Europe, but it still emphatically has a following in the United States for example. The 'theory' of evolution - a theory in much the same sense as gravity or thermodynamics - is heavily contested even in the allegedly non religious state school system.

    Re. the ethical merits of the Bible, I would say that these have emerged almost in spite of its original tenets rather than because of them. The God of the early books of the Old testament is a vengeful sociopathic tribal totem, licensing what would now be called ethnic cleansing if not genocide in the land of Canaan. I would agree with Richard Dawkins that the observable evolution of a more palatable understanding of ethics in later parts of the Bible can be more plausibly be seen in terms of the development of society as a whole than divine revelation.

    Speaking of Dawkins, Dirk's
    I think the (an) origin of religion is of the form:
    mystical experience + interpretation = religion.
    probably underestimates the seriousness of the problem. Dawkins has argued that the evolutionary origins of religion may arise from the very powerful incentives in terms of reproductive success for humans to identify purpose in the phenomena they observe. Put it this way, if you fail to successfully indentify that something presents a purposive threat to you in the human social world, your chances of passing on your genes to the next generation are much dimished. If on the other hand, you also see purposes that aren't there, the consequences could be less disastrous (as long as you aren't missing the wood for the trees).

    You could say much the same for conspiracy theories of course.

    Tony leith

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Aesch near Basel, Switzerland
    Posts
    93
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default Re: the last post

    Altough I totally and absolutely detest Dawkins' "burn them all" attitude towards religious people and his arrogance (as it seems to me) towards them I must acknowledge that some of his points seem interesting and notable.

    But I don't believe that all actions of human beings rely upon their wish to pass on their genes.
    "The universe is change; our life is what our thoughts make it."-Marcus Aurelius
    Fabian Känzig

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Bedford, England
    Posts
    1,201
    Likes (received)
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaenzig View Post
    Altough I totally and absolutely detest Dawkins' "burn them all" attitude towards religious people and his arrogance (as it seems to me) towards them I must acknowledge that some of his points seem interesting and notable.
    The problem with Dawkins is that he likes to set up straw men. For example, he'll sneer at the concept of "God" by defining it as if it were some version promulgated by an illiterate MidWestern Fundamentalist American (named Billybob?). And as for mystical experience, well, that's just aberrant brain chemistry in the temporal lobes, demonstrated by the fact that if you stimulate those areas you get "mystical visions" - QED. Except... if you stimulate other areas of the brain you can (for example) get phantom smells. So by the previous argument the sense of smell is debunked as well. Ditto all the senses.

    The root core of the problem lies in the nature of consciousness and while amenable to scientific exploration there is currently no explanation for what it is nor how or why it arises. On the one hand you have reductionists like Dawkins (the "nothing but..." faction) and on the other side people like Penrose and Chalmers who argue that it is as fundamental a property of the universe as matter and energy. On the far side there is the view that the brain is simply Mind's theory for explaining its own existence.

    Despite what Dawkins would like, it's far from wrapped up and tidied away.

    Dirk

  15. #30
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Brixton, London, UK.
    Posts
    1,153
    Likes (received)
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tony leith View Post
    On the other hand, I wouldn't want to duck Dirk's contention that there is a basic ideological conflict between more traditional conceptions of monotheism and Buddhism. I think the notion that there is inevitably a meeting point between all people of goodwill is pretty nonsensical. If your ideology tells you that the Allmighty created the world in seven days flat, demands that you stone adulterers, homosexuals and apostates, and that your particular holy book contains pretty much the sum total of everything anybody would ever need to know about anything, I for one am going to have a pretty damn hard time meeting your mind.
    I concur; but, as Kaiso told us, ultimately it all depends on the individual, not the idelology.

    A few years ago I joined some other BSKF kenshi to visit a satellite TV station based in London and broadcasting to the Middle East in Arabic. We had been invited to do a short display of SK.

    We were discussing philosophy, and gave the example of "live half for yourself and half for others". The station manager said "Yes, we have the same idea in Islam; live half the day for Allah and half for yourself".
    Indar Picton-Howell
    印打
    Abujavol

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •