Buddhism, when "Interpretation" Means Fiction
24 February 2014 [link youtube]
Some comments and examples following up on my earlier video "Reading Mythology but Seeing History". In modern Buddhism, to a shocking extent, "interpretation" has become a genre of fiction.
Youtube Automatic Transcription
that we had to reinterpret the Christian Bible
you start with the premise that Jesus knew "therefore" Jesus could not have possibly and he was having visions of (y'know) the well, that wouldn't really entail a "reinterpretation" that would entail a rewriting of it or that you just ask people to ignore things on the grounds that "Well, Jesus couldn't going to have to close your eyes to." but that would be shockingly simplistic, or and I don't think Christians really even do of the game. no sense of irony, "...therefore, it's impossible that he believed in the ancient writings, we, basically, should about ghosts. that discussed just one issue, with Hercules some people will watch that and will know because they've dealt with the problems that the religion what is this guy hinting at?" following up on an article I'd published development of the fetus in the ancient writings, those texts show an ancient world-view, they're unlike Christians or Muslims, Buddhists don't they're written down by human beings, to believe that there's scientific accuracy [the texts] reflect what ancient people thought that, no, my interpretation of the text must that it "logically" must be wrong, scientific notion of how pregnancy, gestation it's so sad, it's so pathetic, invisible. business of imposing modern expectations on of thinking "this must live up to this expectation", text must satisfy my need for this religion or to reflect some other virtue, or reflect ascribe to [the text]. education, who has only had a traditional education, a PhD [her thesis] dealt specifically with ethical (etc.). without mentioning hell, I didn't finish my sentence, dealing with [and] she basically had a nervous breakdown but you're looking at people who are so brittle "must" be only evidence we've got around who claimed that (Hades, as they called it), these texts to reflect a modern, rational and, certainly, people would be regarded as setting, and presented those views, is absolutely stuck at that stage. when they sit down next to you at an academic and tell you that they are "interpreting" omniscient that happened 2,000 years earlier it seriously when people tell you their supposedly that, again, they're imposing onto the text. in Buddhism, sadly, what we're talking about isn't interpretation
you start with the premise that Jesus knew "therefore" Jesus could not have possibly and he was having visions of (y'know) the well, that wouldn't really entail a "reinterpretation" that would entail a rewriting of it or that you just ask people to ignore things on the grounds that "Well, Jesus couldn't going to have to close your eyes to." but that would be shockingly simplistic, or and I don't think Christians really even do of the game. no sense of irony, "...therefore, it's impossible that he believed in the ancient writings, we, basically, should about ghosts. that discussed just one issue, with Hercules some people will watch that and will know because they've dealt with the problems that the religion what is this guy hinting at?" following up on an article I'd published development of the fetus in the ancient writings, those texts show an ancient world-view, they're unlike Christians or Muslims, Buddhists don't they're written down by human beings, to believe that there's scientific accuracy [the texts] reflect what ancient people thought that, no, my interpretation of the text must that it "logically" must be wrong, scientific notion of how pregnancy, gestation it's so sad, it's so pathetic, invisible. business of imposing modern expectations on of thinking "this must live up to this expectation", text must satisfy my need for this religion or to reflect some other virtue, or reflect ascribe to [the text]. education, who has only had a traditional education, a PhD [her thesis] dealt specifically with ethical (etc.). without mentioning hell, I didn't finish my sentence, dealing with [and] she basically had a nervous breakdown but you're looking at people who are so brittle "must" be only evidence we've got around who claimed that (Hades, as they called it), these texts to reflect a modern, rational and, certainly, people would be regarded as setting, and presented those views, is absolutely stuck at that stage. when they sit down next to you at an academic and tell you that they are "interpreting" omniscient that happened 2,000 years earlier it seriously when people tell you their supposedly that, again, they're imposing onto the text. in Buddhism, sadly, what we're talking about isn't interpretation