Buddhism A Form Of Radical Empiricism - 2329 Words

The KÄ lÄ ma Sutta is being used as a means by many skeptics and rationalist to denounce hearing, tradition, scripture, and faith. They support their arguments by citing the passage that the Buddha given to the perplexed KÄ lÄ mas. â€Å"Come, KÄ lÄ mas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing, †¦tradition, †¦rumor, †¦scripture, ...surmise, †¦axiom, †¦specious reasoning, †¦bias towards a notion pondered over, †¦another’s seeming ability, nor upon the consideration ‘The monk is our teacher.’ When you yourselves know†¦Ã¢â‚¬  In the book Encountering Buddhism edited by Seth Robert Segal is found to only cited this passage and having stated that, â€Å"Buddhism is a form of radical empiricism. The Buddha taught that one should not to take his word on†¦show more content†¦However, he insisted that: The KÄ lÄ ma Sutta explicitly rejected the transmitted tradition. Instead, Buddhists are exhorted â€Å"to know for themselves,† that is, to derive authority from their own experiences. In other words, experiential authority based on the individual is privileged over and against scriptural or textual authority. The KÄ lÄ ma Sutta was really criticizing heretical beliefs as false sources of religious authority deriving from â€Å"hearsay† and charismatic authority, and further highlights the problems of relying solely on â€Å"repeated hearing,† â€Å"tradition,† and â€Å"scripture,† all of which must be understood as references to Vedic and Brahmanical understanding of religious authority. On counter wise, Zhiru claims this discourse â€Å"argues for the authority of individual experience and realization of truth over transmitted teachings.† And it is â€Å"explicit prioritization of personal experience over transmitted text as the source of religious authority†¦Ã¢â‚¬  Is this true? Because the Buddha never seem says thus in the

The Differences Between Architects Le Corbusier And Laurie...

How Do Concerns Such As Sustainability And Climate Change Relate To A Contemporary Visual Culture? Formally Analyse The Difference Between Architects Le Corbusier And Laurie Baker In Conjunction With The Required Readings. Jason Mikha Student Number: 27004791 Art and design theory C December 2015 This essay will discuss the differences between the two architects, Le Corbusier and Laurie Baker and how concerns such as sustainability and climate change relates to contemporary visual culture. Le Corbusier was born in Switzerland on October 6th, 1887 and died in France on August 27th, 1965. Corbusier was known for his minimalist designs and theoretical implementations to his designs. Corbusier uses what he titles it to be the â€Å"five points of a new architecture† and in these points, it is clear to see that Corbusier prioritises aesthetics over function. Laurie Baker was born in England on March 2nd, 1917 and died in India on April 1st, 2007. Baker looked at both technical and aesthetic qualities equally and did not prioritise in one. Baker constantly considers the way to provide an eco-friendly way to produce something whereas Corbusier’s designs involved heavy machinery which produces negative contributions to the environment. This essay mainly use the recour ses, Architecture of rural housing: some issues in India by Romi Khosla, Le Corbusier’s Ruins: The Changing Face of Chandigarh’s Capitol by Vinayak Bharne, and A contemporary city by Le Corbusier. Baker’s

Duties of a Citizen Free Essays

Recently you wonaâ‚ ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t be seeing an American citizen care much about anything other than them selves. Their main priority is to ensure the perfection of their own lives. That is not being a good citizen though. We will write a custom essay sample on Duties of a Citizen or any similar topic only for you Order Now Making sure your needs are met before you look up and see what you can help with is corrupt and selfish. We need to care more about how we can help our country and what we need to do to be a good citizen. Having clear goals, consistent ideals, and unity is what makes a country powerful; so when any of these components are lacking, a country and its citizens will weaken, which is happening in America. Being a citizen of America has become virtually insignificant to our people, and is now crippling us. These three components depend upon one another to ensure the strength of a country. We must value all these elements to check our loyalty for our countries endeavors. Specifically the ideals should be based on the standards your country wants, since it is the structure to your countryaâ‚ ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s government. But ideals consist of what you and your country should value in your beliefs, ethics, and principals so the people can jointly support their country. Our ideals (especially American) have been accepted by each subsequent generation until recently. Unity is a common understanding and belief within a group of people; it is joining together for an ultimate cause. Goals are the start of our countries ambition to aim for our desired result and produce the product of our efforts. The ideals however establish a consensus on what we value or believe in as a country, it creates boundaries on our moral standard. We have to stay true to our constitution and the morals that were founded with it. To stray off and feel superior to your own ideals is no exception. That is what breaks the core and ruins our countries long lasting policies. Being a country of the people, for everything from the military to the government to the public should be equally united in the same goals. The government however is the power that should listen then voice the verdict of our decisions. They should act upon the publicaâ‚ ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s best interests, and not single out any party or group whose stance on a matter should be determined as any less significant. If a decision is detrimental to anyoneaâ‚ ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s life in the general public, then it is likely there will be more than one person affected by the same things. The government should act upon their doings with precision and a conscious understanding of their impact on everyone. Dependant on the necessity of their actions an act should not be passed if it is going to exclude even a minority in the populations opinions. With this we can determine clear goal sets and be unified. When going through with anything you should always check your tracks to see if you stomped on any bugs. Through out the Vietnam War these ingredients were missing for the American position. It doesnaâ‚ ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t matter if the opponent is right or wrong, but if you are following these tactics, you will be successful. Ho Chi Minh and his communist following was ensuing power through authority and fear. Due to the fear he was possessing in many of the Vietnamese civilians, he was able to create unity for the goal sets he was trying to reach. His methods consisted of using fear over his people to squeeze out the product he desired. Once the people saw the product he achieved by communist ideals, Minh created a massive following of communist believers to ensure the continuation of reaching their goals and his regime. He established groups such as the NLF to spread his ideals and expand his following, but also to support all sections of his military. They believed that aâ‚ ¬? as long as they did not lose, they won. aâ‚ ¬? Americans on the other hand should have seen their defeat coming. Constantly reflecting on the Korean War as aâ‚ ¬? learning our lesson,aâ‚ ¬? we should have taken the French defeat in Dien Bien Phu as a warning. Americans entered the war, head first with no structure of unity, goal sets, or ideals. Events such as the Tet Offensive had not only initiated a new phase of the war but also showed us that our unity was weak. The US, if unified would have been smarter to not abandon all their cities and create opportunity for the NLF and Vietcong to strike. We would have communicated and sorted our priorities to know our goals before separating into remote areas. Other battles like Ia Drang showed the issues with unity and goals that have become noticed because of the failure to succeed in communication during them. The Pentagon Papers along with some accumulating underground news articles revealed much of what went wrong to the public in 1971. When the Americans had already initiated Vietnamization it was to late to change our strategy for the war effort. The papers caused discourse within our own country and distrust of our government. They were one of the large breaking points to all the built up distress over the war. In the papers we lied about the Gulf of Tokin aâ‚ ¬? attackaâ‚ ¬? and covered up our faults to our own people. Events such as My Lai concerning Lieutenant William Calley posed even more issues on the moral justification we had in Vietnam, for such things as our aâ‚ ¬? Free Fire Policyaâ‚ ¬? or aâ‚ ¬? Search and Destroy Campaign. aâ‚ ¬? It showed that Americans went against their own ideals when in Vietnam by not treating the Vietnamese with equal liberties, as we would give ourselves. It seemed as though we held a higher standing for ourselves when in Vietnam so we did not follow our own belief of treating all humans as equals. Killing innocent civilians without trial, not accepting the cultural difference of nations, using the threat of arms as a bribe to follow our beliefs, treating foreigners with out equality, ect. It was all that went wrong in our approach to try and gain the Vietnamese trust. When we went over to Vietnam we showed, a third world country in despair, a country that does not constitute itself by the ideals we arrived there with. In fact we did the exact things we were fighting against and did what we originally founded ourselves to not become, in Vietnam. It was a hypocritical scenario where we couldnaâ‚ ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t learn from our mistakes until we were gone and had already lost. In present day Afghan/ Iraq with many of those mistakes from Vietnam still hanging over our heads, we are now pushing to fix. Since Vietnam we have initiated the Special Operations Unit, and founded many other sections of the Military to ensure we donaâ‚ ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t make those same mistakes. Although many things are still missing from our strategy, such as going against our ideals again in the case of Abu Ghraib, we have come a long way. A friend of mine, Richard Bennett, currently serving in the US Special Opps. Group, and waiting to be deported to Afghan/ Iraq is anxious to utilize his training. His job will be to train civilians on how to protect and sustain their own government, so they can stand on their own. He has gone through rigorous training to ensure his capability in every situation but as his mother said to me in her interview, aâ‚ ¬? Richie is anxious to be deported and utilize his trainingaâ‚ ¬Ã‚ ¦ but he has expressed his frustrations with the politics concerning the waraâ‚ ¬Ã‚ ¦ like I said, it is the Age of Information, so you can see multiple sides to every story now. aâ‚ ¬? Essentially her point was to express that even if there is corruption in Afghan/ Iraq there is practically nothing the public cant obtain information on. The publicaâ‚ ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s judgment on the issues should be heard and taken into consideration by the government to change what they feel is not right based on our ideals. Finally, when analyzing the trends and mistakes we made in Vietnam there is significant improvement of our structure in Afghanistan/ Iraq now. Even though we still have our defects as citizens, we should always remember the three components to being successful as a country and as a citizen of that country. The unity, goals, and ideals of a country found their infrastructure. So to be a good citizen you have to work to maintain that, for your country, and for the future of your country. How to cite Duties of a Citizen, Essay examples