2 ms·

"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. N

by ajkjk 12y 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 12y ago
[deleted]
- ajkjk 12y 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 12y ago
    [deleted]

by ajkjk 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

ajkjk 12y 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 12y ago
  [deleted]