Although I agree with what you're saying, I personally find it a little irksome beacuse we're calling some kind of lending/contract/whatever system 'dharma', no

Although I agree with what you're saying, I personally find it a little irksome beacuse we're calling some kind of lending/contract/whatever system 'dharma', not that it's adharmic, but it's like when you see someone wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt, or buying soap embossed with "Fight Cub". Instead of focusing on the impermanence of phenomena, dispassion and the attainment of peace, we're... making contracts or borrowing or something? Yes, I'm being facetious, but I think GP has a point. It seems as though a cool sounding word was chosen and used for the fun of it. And this is what words become, it just feels somewhat irresponsible to start a potential change in culture to favour your hot new tech over sage advice to better the human condition. So while the original word isn't gone, it is always at risk, and with the loss of words comes blunted ability to explain concepts. So while I would not describe it as 'yanking', I would more describe it as 'eroding', which doesn't have to be a good thing or a bad thing, but it's happening. I'm hardly one to talk about "cultural appropriation", as nobody in particular really has claim to ownership of culture, but the naming does sit somewhat off with me, though it's just a personal preference of course. Adorno wrote about the commodification of art in The Culture Industry. Can the same be said about our ideas? Gramsci wrote about cultural hegemony, can the same be observed in our replacement of the meaning of words in this way?