Good morrow to thee once more.
Perhaps I should seize this opportunity to give a lecture on human nature; we are fascinated by the unknown, the new, that which is out of the mundane. We are always inspired and enchanted by anything straying from ordinary life; we subconsciously assume that anywhere and anything has to be better than our own lives.
So, since we are easily seduced by anything new to us, it is little wonder that this enchanting new philosophy from the Far-East makes us dream not only is it conveniently exotic, but it is also advanced and deep enough to enchant those members of our community with a brain.
Those who know almost nothing of Buddhism are quite ready to believe that anyone leading a Buddhist life is wise and peaceful and whatnot, while someone who studies the subject is enchanted by the finesse of Buddhist thinking- the 'Way of the Middle' or the 'Noble Truths' are 'deep' enough to captivate the philosopher who views them with the eye of a Westerner.
This fascination for the unknown also works the other way; Christianity has been in Europe too long, and people have lost interest in it. The press dramatically emphasizes anything which is wrong with the church, knowing that the people will just go with what they say, and thousands of unbalanced arguments are hauled against the Pope each day.
There is also the matter of the Crusades; people often say that the Church is evil, because it ordered that war. People then turn, dewy-eyed, to Buddhism, seeing the facade of peaceful meditation.
Yet what do we uncover, if the shroud of mysticism is taken off? We find that Buddhism slaughtered its way into Mongolia; we find that its arrival in Japan caused several decades of civil war, and bereaved the Emperor of most of his power; we find that many Chinese and Japanese emperors and leaders were assassinated or executed because they did not follow Buddhism to the letter; we find that, contrary to popular belief, Buddhist meditation is no more or less mystical than Christian prayer. Nay, Buddhism is not an innocent as some would have us think.
Having said this, it is true that certain Buddhist ideas are 'deep' indeed; yet they are not one-of-a-kind. Most Buddhist principles-like "Desire is the cause of all suffering", for example- have also been discovered by Greek philosophers. The aforementioned statement is the fundamental truth of Stoicism as well as Buddhism; if one is going to become engrossed with such ideas, why go any further than Greece? Germany has also produced a recent spout of excellent philosophers, and so, for that matter, has France. And Jesus himself is quite a match for Buddha, and I may go so far as to say that they have much in common. Both supported charity, both taught their followers how to reach a peaceful light after death- whether Nirvana or Heaven- and both went through periods of starvation, self-denial and other sufferings. Christianity and Buddhism also have much in common.
My point is, we have much wisdom on our own turf, there is no
need to go snatching some off others.
I would finish off by telling you the sad anecdote which brought me to write this; I met a very odd fellow, who sometimes used the names of different religions as adjectives. According to him, 'Muslim' means good, 'Jewish' means isolated... refraining myself from commenting, I asked him what 'Christian' meant; he said it meant 'Bad'. I had already guessed what Buddhism meant, but I asked him anyway; guess what? 'Deep'. I asked him what Taoism meant; he said he didn't know what it was, but as soon as I told him it was Chinese, he told me it also meant 'Deep'. If he'd known anything about Taoism, he'd know that Lao Tzeu would have wished him to abide by the religion of his country.
I have published the conversation which ensued, as it seems essential to include opposing opinions.
PWN- This is one of the most poorly considered and biased posts I have ever seen. You are arguing against a viewpoint which is not held by any anymore. Your allegations against the press are completely unfounded, as is what you say about the Pope. You said that Christianity has been around for too long, with people no longer taking an interest. Buddhasim has been around for hundreds more years, and all your criticisms of it are from at least half a millennium ago. Christianity is far more likely to have stolen frm Buddhist Philosphy rather than the other way round and Christianity and Islam cause more violence today than Buddhism. What makes Buddhism important is its appeal to people who would otherwise be atheist or agnostic. It gives people who cannot believe in a god a spiritual side and you're acting as if it's a bad thing. Christianity is not comparable to Budhisim, they both compliment each other; rather than stealing or contradicting as you imply. There is no need to choose between them, their philosophies are fundamentally based on the same principles of morality and altruism. What is the point of criticizing a religion in this way? Budhisim has reached a higher level of
My apologies for not finishing my post, my iPad glitched out. Perhaps it's for the best; I would never have finished otherwise.
JAFHR- Poorly considered? Look at your own arguments; for example, who said anything about stealing ideas? And your understanding of Asian beliefs seems rather crude, perhaps because you only know of Buddhism through teachers. The most interesting thing about them is that many and most Asians find a way to follow more than one religion. Take Japan for instance- Shintoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism, all melted into one culture! When Christianity reached Asia, the priests used Buddhist principles, and compared them to Christian ideas; all those in China and Japan who followed Christianity treated it just as they had once treated Buddhism- they called heaven 'Nirvana', and called God 'The Tao', or 'The Great Mandarin', or 'The Hidden Kami'. The two religions are compatible.
I do NOT imply anything like stealing or contradicting. I take my philosophical sources from all over the world, as you should know by now; I find that Buddhist philosophy sometimes helps to understand Christian ideas, just as science does sometimes. There is much wisdom in the orient, of that I have no doubt; what I am criticizing is the fact that people forget the wisdom on our home turf. I stand by my point about Asian philosophers wanting people to follow the religion of their home land- an idea of tradition which I have echoed in my Summary, which you have obviously not read.
People who study the inner workings of Buddhism will find that the notion of a God is prominent indeed; Taoism, a philosophy adopted by Buddhism, worships the essence of the universe itself (this, in European, is called a 'God') as a deity. Beyond that, there are many types of Buddhism, most of which recognize the existence of Gods, but class them as 'lesser beings' or incarnations,compared to the greater being- some call it the Tao, some call it Death, and some (me included, sort of) call it God. If you read my Summary you will see that I agree with all of the above.
Christianity causes more suffering than Buddhism, you say? Let me remove the ridiculous 'Time' argument out of the way; how about the invasion of China by Japan, in WW2? Granted, that was not an entirely Buddhist action, but more sparked by Shinto-nationalism. Well then, Shimabara? Guiyang? Mitoshima? Each a massacre of Christians, each in the past three-or-four hundred years. Buddhism has no hold of any country right now- officially, China is strictly atheist; Japan emphasizes its Shintoist side; and Buddhism has left India. It is hardly fair to say that Buddhism is more peaceful. I might add that the Chinese revolution was sparked when a dangerous branch of Tao-Buddhism met Communism. Then we see that Buddhism was actually banned from Communist China; didn't you say that China was not bored of Buddhism? I am sure that banning Christianity in England would provoke a wave of fervour.
I shall publish two posts following this, to deal with your last points. I look forward to batting down more.
Today, I shall be discussing a train of thought which holds much sway on modern Western philosophers; I am talking, of course, about Buddhism.
It has come to my attention that those in my immediate vicinity know little or nothing about Buddhism, and so resort to the crude stereotype of the sage, nature-loving Tibetan monk. People tend to throw around the word 'deep', not really knowing what it means themselves.
Perhaps I should seize this opportunity to give a lecture on human nature; we are fascinated by the unknown, the new, that which is out of the mundane. We are always inspired and enchanted by anything straying from ordinary life; we subconsciously assume that anywhere and anything has to be better than our own lives.
So, since we are easily seduced by anything new to us, it is little wonder that this enchanting new philosophy from the Far-East makes us dream not only is it conveniently exotic, but it is also advanced and deep enough to enchant those members of our community with a brain.
Those who know almost nothing of Buddhism are quite ready to believe that anyone leading a Buddhist life is wise and peaceful and whatnot, while someone who studies the subject is enchanted by the finesse of Buddhist thinking- the 'Way of the Middle' or the 'Noble Truths' are 'deep' enough to captivate the philosopher who views them with the eye of a Westerner.
This fascination for the unknown also works the other way; Christianity has been in Europe too long, and people have lost interest in it. The press dramatically emphasizes anything which is wrong with the church, knowing that the people will just go with what they say, and thousands of unbalanced arguments are hauled against the Pope each day.
There is also the matter of the Crusades; people often say that the Church is evil, because it ordered that war. People then turn, dewy-eyed, to Buddhism, seeing the facade of peaceful meditation.
Yet what do we uncover, if the shroud of mysticism is taken off? We find that Buddhism slaughtered its way into Mongolia; we find that its arrival in Japan caused several decades of civil war, and bereaved the Emperor of most of his power; we find that many Chinese and Japanese emperors and leaders were assassinated or executed because they did not follow Buddhism to the letter; we find that, contrary to popular belief, Buddhist meditation is no more or less mystical than Christian prayer. Nay, Buddhism is not an innocent as some would have us think.
Having said this, it is true that certain Buddhist ideas are 'deep' indeed; yet they are not one-of-a-kind. Most Buddhist principles-like "Desire is the cause of all suffering", for example- have also been discovered by Greek philosophers. The aforementioned statement is the fundamental truth of Stoicism as well as Buddhism; if one is going to become engrossed with such ideas, why go any further than Greece? Germany has also produced a recent spout of excellent philosophers, and so, for that matter, has France. And Jesus himself is quite a match for Buddha, and I may go so far as to say that they have much in common. Both supported charity, both taught their followers how to reach a peaceful light after death- whether Nirvana or Heaven- and both went through periods of starvation, self-denial and other sufferings. Christianity and Buddhism also have much in common.
My point is, we have much wisdom on our own turf, there is no
need to go snatching some off others.
I would finish off by telling you the sad anecdote which brought me to write this; I met a very odd fellow, who sometimes used the names of different religions as adjectives. According to him, 'Muslim' means good, 'Jewish' means isolated... refraining myself from commenting, I asked him what 'Christian' meant; he said it meant 'Bad'. I had already guessed what Buddhism meant, but I asked him anyway; guess what? 'Deep'. I asked him what Taoism meant; he said he didn't know what it was, but as soon as I told him it was Chinese, he told me it also meant 'Deep'. If he'd known anything about Taoism, he'd know that Lao Tzeu would have wished him to abide by the religion of his country.
I have published the conversation which ensued, as it seems essential to include opposing opinions.
PWN- This is one of the most poorly considered and biased posts I have ever seen. You are arguing against a viewpoint which is not held by any anymore. Your allegations against the press are completely unfounded, as is what you say about the Pope. You said that Christianity has been around for too long, with people no longer taking an interest. Buddhasim has been around for hundreds more years, and all your criticisms of it are from at least half a millennium ago. Christianity is far more likely to have stolen frm Buddhist Philosphy rather than the other way round and Christianity and Islam cause more violence today than Buddhism. What makes Buddhism important is its appeal to people who would otherwise be atheist or agnostic. It gives people who cannot believe in a god a spiritual side and you're acting as if it's a bad thing. Christianity is not comparable to Budhisim, they both compliment each other; rather than stealing or contradicting as you imply. There is no need to choose between them, their philosophies are fundamentally based on the same principles of morality and altruism. What is the point of criticizing a religion in this way? Budhisim has reached a higher level of
My apologies for not finishing my post, my iPad glitched out. Perhaps it's for the best; I would never have finished otherwise.
JAFHR- Poorly considered? Look at your own arguments; for example, who said anything about stealing ideas? And your understanding of Asian beliefs seems rather crude, perhaps because you only know of Buddhism through teachers. The most interesting thing about them is that many and most Asians find a way to follow more than one religion. Take Japan for instance- Shintoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism, all melted into one culture! When Christianity reached Asia, the priests used Buddhist principles, and compared them to Christian ideas; all those in China and Japan who followed Christianity treated it just as they had once treated Buddhism- they called heaven 'Nirvana', and called God 'The Tao', or 'The Great Mandarin', or 'The Hidden Kami'. The two religions are compatible.
I do NOT imply anything like stealing or contradicting. I take my philosophical sources from all over the world, as you should know by now; I find that Buddhist philosophy sometimes helps to understand Christian ideas, just as science does sometimes. There is much wisdom in the orient, of that I have no doubt; what I am criticizing is the fact that people forget the wisdom on our home turf. I stand by my point about Asian philosophers wanting people to follow the religion of their home land- an idea of tradition which I have echoed in my Summary, which you have obviously not read.
People who study the inner workings of Buddhism will find that the notion of a God is prominent indeed; Taoism, a philosophy adopted by Buddhism, worships the essence of the universe itself (this, in European, is called a 'God') as a deity. Beyond that, there are many types of Buddhism, most of which recognize the existence of Gods, but class them as 'lesser beings' or incarnations,compared to the greater being- some call it the Tao, some call it Death, and some (me included, sort of) call it God. If you read my Summary you will see that I agree with all of the above.
Christianity causes more suffering than Buddhism, you say? Let me remove the ridiculous 'Time' argument out of the way; how about the invasion of China by Japan, in WW2? Granted, that was not an entirely Buddhist action, but more sparked by Shinto-nationalism. Well then, Shimabara? Guiyang? Mitoshima? Each a massacre of Christians, each in the past three-or-four hundred years. Buddhism has no hold of any country right now- officially, China is strictly atheist; Japan emphasizes its Shintoist side; and Buddhism has left India. It is hardly fair to say that Buddhism is more peaceful. I might add that the Chinese revolution was sparked when a dangerous branch of Tao-Buddhism met Communism. Then we see that Buddhism was actually banned from Communist China; didn't you say that China was not bored of Buddhism? I am sure that banning Christianity in England would provoke a wave of fervour.
I shall publish two posts following this, to deal with your last points. I look forward to batting down more.
Hoping you understand,
Your good friend,
| JAFHR |
This is one of the most poorly considered and biased posts I have ever seen. You are arguing against a viewpoint which is not held by any anymore. Your allegations against the press are completely unfounded, as is what you say about the Pope. You said that Christianity has been around for too long, with people no longer taking an interest. Buddhasim has been around for hundreds more years, and all your criticisms of it are from at least half a millennium ago. Christianity is far more likely to have stolen frm Buddhist Philosphy rather than the other way round and Christianity and Islam cause more violence today than Buddhism. What makes Buddhism important is its appeal to people who would otherwise be atheist or agnostic. It gives people who cannot believe in a god a spiritual side and you're acting as if it's a bad thing. Christianity is not compatible to Budhisim, they both compliment each other; rather than stealing or contradicting as you imply. There is no need to choose between them, their philosophies are fundamentally based on the same principles of morality and altruism. What is the point of critisizing a religion in this way? Budhisim has reached a higher level of
ReplyDeleteMy apologies for not finishing my post, my iPad glitched out. Perhaps it's for the best; I would never have finished otherwise.
DeletePoorly considered? Look at your own arguments; for example, who said anything about stealing ideas? And your understanding of Asian beliefs seems rather crude, perhaps because you only know of Buddhism through teachers. The most interesting thing about them is that many and most Asians find a way to follow more than one religion. Take Japan for instance- Shintoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism, all melted into one culture! When Christianity reached Asia, the priests used Buddhist principles, and compared them to Christian ideas; all those in China and Japan who followed Christianity treated it just as they had once treated Buddhism- they called heaven 'Nirvana', and called God 'The Tao', or 'The Great Mandarin', or 'The Hidden Kami'. The two religions are compatible, I am sorry to break to you.
ReplyDeleteI do NOT imply anything like stealing or contradicting. I take my philosophical sources from all over the world, as you should know by now; I find that Buddhist philosophy sometimes helps to understand Christian ideas, just as science does sometimes. There is much wisdom in the orient, of that I have no doubt; what I am criticizing is the fact that people forget the wisdom on our home turf. I stand by my point about Asian philosophers wanting people to follow the religion of their home land- an idea of tradition which I have echoed in my Summary, which you have obviously not read.
People who study the inner workings of Buddhism will find that the notion of a God is prominent indeed; Taoism, a philosophy adopted by Buddhism, worships the essence of the universe itself (this, in European, is called a 'God') as a deity. Beyond that, there are many types of Buddhism, most of which recognize the existence of Gods, but class them as 'lesser beings' or incarnations,compared to the greater being- some call it the Tao, some call it Death, and some (me included, sort of) call it God. If you read my Summary you will see that I agree with all of the above.
Christianity causes more suffering than Buddhism, you say? Let me remove the ridiculous 'Time' argument out of the way; how about the invasion of China by Japan, in WW2? Granted, that was not an entirely Buddhist action, but more sparked by Shinto-nationalism. Well then, Shimabara? Guiyang? Mitoshima? Each a massacre of Christians, each in the past three-or-four hundred years. Buddhism has no hold of any country right now- officially, China is strictly atheist; Japan emphasizes its Shintoist side; and Buddhism has left India. It is hardly air to say that Buddhism is more peaceful. (I might add that the Chinese revolution was sparked when a dangerous branch of Tao-Buddhism met Communism.)
I shall publish two posts following this, to deal with your last points. I look forward to batting down more.