3 ms·

First of all, I see that you are in no position and in 'mindfulness' to ask someone to get-out. As it doesn't matter for you, where the word comes from, why no

First of all, I see that you are in no position and in 'mindfulness' to ask someone to get-out. As it doesn't matter for you, where the word comes from, why not acknowledge it? In fact why not acknowledge that it is really "vipAsanA" when someone has already taken effort to show that it is? This shows that YOU are perceiving people's ignorance to the origins of English words as some sort of cultural superiority/respect which is kind-of linguistic racism.

ajkjk 11y ago
"get out" is just an expression. Short for "get out of here", meaning "that's ridiculous". I regret using it. I'll happily acknowledge where words come from. No one is denying the origin of these words. I just don't see how it matters. It's okay for something to have a different word in another language. I object to your use of the phrase "it is really 'vipAsanA'". "It is really" implies there must be one true name for a thing, which isn't true. It can have different names to different people. That's fine. I mean - Certainly we do not use the Chinese word for "firework" just because they invented fireworks first. There is no moral obligation to pay homage to the inventor of something in its name.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - ajkjk 11y ago
    But it is mine. Well, that's ambiguous. It depends on what 'it' and 'mine' mean. Of course I don't think that the cultural tradition of meditation is mine (or 'ours', or whatever, for whatever group I'm pretending to speak for. 'Western' if you will.) But the behavior of meditating, or doing yoga, is mine if I'm doing it. It can be yours too. I don't have to cite anything for it to be mine. That book in your link doesn't mention meditation because: 1) CBT is quote-unquote 'slightly different' (I don't know if this is true, but a commenter says it is) and 2) meditation, especially with all historical terminology you seem to be advocating for, has a non-scientific connotation to some people, so they deemed it beneficial to avoid talking about it. (I'm not saying it should have an unscientific connotation, I'm saying that it has ended up that way. I think you would agree? I also think this is lessening over time.) I think there's no denying that it is unnecessary to bring any sort of religion, or a complicated and foreign naming scheme, into meditation in order to make it useful as a medical suggestion. A medical book on a medical therapy does not need to cite the historical details of the therapy. It should cite other medical books. A history book should cite history.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

ajkjk 11y ago

"get out" is just an expression. Short for "get out of here", meaning "that's ridiculous". I regret using it. I'll happily acknowledge where words come from. No one is denying the origin of these words. I just don't see how it matters. It's okay for something to have a different word in another language. I object to your use of the phrase "it is really 'vipAsanA'". "It is really" implies there must be one true name for a thing, which isn't true. It can have different names to different people. That's fine. I mean - Certainly we do not use the Chinese word for "firework" just because they invented fireworks first. There is no moral obligation to pay homage to the inventor of something in its name.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- ajkjk 11y ago
  But it is mine. Well, that's ambiguous. It depends on what 'it' and 'mine' mean. Of course I don't think that the cultural tradition of meditation is mine (or 'ours', or whatever, for whatever group I'm pretending to speak for. 'Western' if you will.) But the behavior of meditating, or doing yoga, is mine if I'm doing it. It can be yours too. I don't have to cite anything for it to be mine. That book in your link doesn't mention meditation because: 1) CBT is quote-unquote 'slightly different' (I don't know if this is true, but a commenter says it is) and 2) meditation, especially with all historical terminology you seem to be advocating for, has a non-scientific connotation to some people, so they deemed it beneficial to avoid talking about it. (I'm not saying it should have an unscientific connotation, I'm saying that it has ended up that way. I think you would agree? I also think this is lessening over time.) I think there's no denying that it is unnecessary to bring any sort of religion, or a complicated and foreign naming scheme, into meditation in order to make it useful as a medical suggestion. A medical book on a medical therapy does not need to cite the historical details of the therapy. It should cite other medical books. A history book should cite history.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]