Is Christianity the FIRST religion that recognized that all human beings are of equal worth and should therefore be treated equally?

[PRmerger]

How does the salvation through childbearing work?

Well, Leela, here’s a few examples of how “salvation through childbearing” might work:
-it saved me from utter selfishness and self-absorption
-it saved me from being a party girl
-it probably has saved quite a few young women from addictions
-it probably has saved quite a few men from self-absorption, addictions and going down the wrong path.

Or, if we look at it another way:
-childbearing has produced our salvation through children who grow up to do good things…
Thus, Mama Sabin and Mama Salk produced our salvation through immunizations…
And Mama Bojaxhiu saved thousands of lives by giving birth to Mother Teresa…
And Mama Ratzinger produced our salvation through raising a son who would be Pope…
And…

 

[rvilbig]

In another thread, an atheist claimed that Buddhism recognized–500 years *before *Christ–that all humans were of the same worth and therefore should be treated equally.

Is this true?

I had read Christian thinker Dinesh D’Souza argue that it was *Christianity *that first promoted this revolutionary concept of the inherent dignity of the human creature.

I think Pope John Paul the Great had some good insights on the differences between the goals of Buddhism and Catholicism. This is from Crossing the Threshold of Hope, pages 85-87:

"The “enlightenment” experienced by Buddha comes down to the conviction that the world is bad, that it is the source of evil and of suffering for man. To liberate oneself from this evil, one must free oneself from this world, necessitating a break with the ties that join us to external reality - ties existing in our human nature, in our psyche, in our bodies. The more we are liberated from these ties, the more we become indifferent to what is in the world, and the more we are freed from suffering, from the evil that has its source in the world.

"Do we draw near to God in this way? This is not mentioned in the “enlightenment” conveyed by Buddha. Buddhism is in large measure an “atheistic” system. We do not free ourselves from evil through the good which comes from God; we liberate ourselves only through detachment from the world, which is bad. The fullness of such a detachment is not union with God, but what is called nirvana, a state of perfect indifference with regard to the world. To save oneself means, above all, to free oneself from evil by becoming indifferent to the world, which is the source of evil This is the culmination of the spiritual process

"At various times, attempts to link this method with the Christian mystics have been made-whether it is with those from northern Europe (Eckhardt, Tauler, Suso, Ruysbroeck) or the later Spanish mystics (Saint Teresa of Avila, Saint John of the Cross). But when Saint John of the Cross, in the Ascent of Mount Carmel and in the Dark Night of the Soul, speaks of the need for purification, for detachment from the world of the senses, he does not conceive of that detachment as an end in itself. “To arrive at what now you do not enjoy, you mus go where you do not enjoy. To reach what you do not know, you must go where you do not know. To come into possession of what you do not have, you must go where now you have nothing” (Ascent of Mount Carmel I.13.II). In Eastern Asia these classic texts of Saint John of the Cross have been, at times, interpreted as a confirmation of Eastern ascetic methods. But this Doctor of the Church does not merely propose detachment from the world. He proposes detachment from the world in order to unite oneself to that which is outside of the world- by this I do not mean nirvana, but a personal God. Union with Him comes about not only through purification, but through love.

“Carmelite mysticism begins at the point where the reflections of Buddha end together with his instructions for the spiritual life. In the active and passive purification of the human soul, in those specific nights of the senses and the spirit, Saint John of the Cross sees, above all, the preparation necessary for the human soul to be permeated with the living flame of love. And this is also the title of his major work- The Living Flame of Love” (Pope John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, page 85-87).

The point that I think can be made from these reflections is that since Buddhism’s goal is nothingness and indifference, it will not be successful in cultivating a love of neighbor, whereas Christianity, sustained by the love of God in the sacraments of the Church and prayer, readily equips its members to treat all members of society with equal respect and love.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[rossum]

I think Pope John Paul the Great had some good insights on the differences between the goals of Buddhism and Catholicism.

John Paul II is obviously a very good authority on Catholicism. He is not a good authority on Buddhism. If I wanted to learn about Catholicism would you suggest that I read a Buddhist book about Catholicism?

The “enlightenment” experienced by Buddha comes down to the conviction that the world is bad, that it is the source of evil and of suffering for man.

The source of suffering is desire. That is one of the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism which even a beginning student should be aware of. The world is seen as deceptive (it is not what it appears to be), it is not seen as bad.

We do not free ourselves from evil through the good which comes from God; we liberate ourselves only through detachment from the world, which is bad.

Again this is incorrect. We do not detach ourselves from the world, we detach ourselves from false ideas about the world. In particular we detach ourselves from the false ideas of finding permanence, lasting happiness or a soul in the world.

Our suffering is caused by our wanting these things and not finding them because they do not exist.

The fullness of such a detachment is not union with God, but what is called nirvana, a state of perfect indifference with regard to the world.

Again this is incorrect. The Buddha attained nirvana at age 35. He spent the next 45 years wandering round northern India preaching. That showed his compassion for his fellow men, not indifference. He was indeed detached from false and mistaken ideas about the world but he was not indifferent to the suffering of others.

The point that I think can be made from these reflections is that since Buddhism’s goal is nothingness and indifference, it will not be successful in cultivating a love of neighbor, whereas Christianity, sustained by the love of God in the sacraments of the Church and prayer, readily equips its members to treat all members of society with equal respect and love.

Firstly, you need to look at Buddhist scripture more closely:“Love others as you love yourself.” - Bhadramayakaravyakarana sutra, 91.

Secondly, Christianity does not “treat all members of society equally”. Buddhism has been against slavery from the start and the Buddha founded an order of nuns as well as an order of monks. Christianity allowed slavery in its early years and some Christian groups have never allowed women to be priests, Bishops or Popes.

rossum

 

[rvilbig]

John Paul II is obviously a very good authority on Catholicism. He is not a good authority on Buddhism. If I wanted to learn about Catholicism would you suggest that I read a Buddhist book about Catholicism?

I’m actually fairly familiar with Buddhism and have just never been impressed by what it has to offer. Here’s one example, the Parable of the Poison Dart Arrow, from the Majjhima-nikaya, Sutta, 63.:

“It is as if a man had been wounded by an arrow thickly smeared with poison, and his friends and kinsmen were to get a surgeon to heal him, and he were to say, I will not have this arrow pulled out until I know by what man I was wounded, whether he is of the warrior caste, or a brahmin, or of the agricultural, or the lowest caste. Or if he were to say, I will not have this arrow pulled out until I know of what name or family the man is – or whether he is tall, or short, or of middle height …Before knowing all this, that man would die. Similarly, it is not on the view that the world is eternal, that it is finite, that body and soul are distinct, or that the Buddha exists after death that a religious life depends. Whether these views or their opposites are held, there is still rebirth, there is old age, there is death, and grief, lamentation, suffering, sorrow, and despair…I have not spoken to these views because they do not conduce to an absence of passion, to tranquility, and Nirvana. And what have I explained? Suffering have I explained, the cause of suffering, the destruction of suffering, and the path that leads to the destruction of suffering have I explained. For this is useful.’”

As we all know, this Buddhist path is one of detachment, renouncement, etc. Now compare this to Saint John of the Cross’s Parable of the Poison Dart, from the Spiritual Canticle, Stanza 9.1:

“A stag wounded by a poison arrow neither rests now remains calm, but searches everywhere for remedies, plunging now into these waters, now into those, and the effect of the poison arrow ever increases in all circumstances and with all remedies taken until finally it seizes upon the heart and the stag dies. Similarly, the soul touched by the poison arrow of love, as is this soul we are discussing, never stops seeking remedies for her sorrow. Yet she not only fails to find them, but everything she thinks says, and does brings her greater sorrow. Conscious of this, and knowing she has no other remedy than to put herself in the hands of the one who wounder her, so that in relieving her he may slay her now entirely with the force of love, she turns to her Beloved …]” (Spiritual Canticle, 9.1)

In Christianity, suffering has meaning because we can unite our sufferings to those of our Savior who shares the fruits of his Passion with His members. In Buddhism, suffering has no meaning and ultimately leads its members to reject the world by following the “path” described by the Buddha.

Secondly, Christianity does not “treat all members of society equally”. Buddhism has been against slavery from the start and the Buddha founded an order of nuns as well as an order of monks. Christianity allowed slavery in its early years and some Christian groups have never allowed women to be priests, Bishops or Popes.

rossum

The Bible is actually very explicit that slavery was wrong:

Exodus 23:9 You shall not oppress an alien; you well know how it feels to be an alien, since you were once aliens yourselves in the land of Egypt.

Numbers 15:15-16: “…there shall be for you and the resident alien a single statute, a perpetual state throughout all generations; you and the alien shall be alike before the Lord. You and the alien who resides among you shall have the same law and the same ordinance.”

Deuteronomy 28:19 “Cursed be anyone who deprives the alien, the orphan, and the widow of justice.”

Moreover, apart from Revelation, as Catholics, we are obliged to follow our consciences and and work for justice. Cardinal Newman gave his opinion on this in *Grammar of Assent *in 1858: “The iniquity, for instance, of the slave-trade ought to have been acknowledged by all men from the first; it was acknowledged by many, but it needed an organized agitation, with tracts and speeches innumerable, so to affect the imagination of men as to make their acknowledgement of that iniquitousness operative” (page 77).

Hope this helps. I will continue to pray for the conversion of Buddhists (and all non-Catholics).

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[PRmerger]

Again this is incorrect. We do not detach ourselves from the world, we detach ourselves from** false ideas **about the world. In particular we detach ourselves from the false ideas of finding permanence, lasting happiness or a soul in the world.

But how can there be false ideas in your paradigm? Your signature seems to indicate that there is only ONE false idea: that there are false ideas…right?

 

[rossum]

In Christianity, suffering has meaning because we can unite our sufferings to those of our Savior who shares the fruits of his Passion with His members. In Buddhism, suffering has no meaning and ultimately leads its members to reject the world by following the “path” described by the Buddha.

In Buddhism suffering has a cause, not a meaning. By correctly recognising the cause we can eliminate suffering. As the Buddha said in the Cula-Malunkyovada sutta, which you quoted, “I have not spoken to these views because they do not conduce to an absence of passion, to tranquility, and Nirvana. And what have I explained? Suffering have I explained, the cause of suffering, the destruction of suffering, and the path that leads to the destruction of suffering have I explained. For this is useful.”
That list of what the Buddha has explained is the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism:* Suffering.

• The cause of suffering.
• The cessation of suffering.
• The path to the cessation of suffering.

The Buddha has explained the cause of suffering, and knowing the cause we are in a position to bring about the end of suffering.

The Bible is actually very explicit that slavery was wrong:

The Bible is also very explicit that slavery is allowed:However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

• Leviticus 25:44-46
  In Buddhism the Buddha said that five trades were forbidden to laymen: dealing in weapons, dealing in slaves, dealing in meat, dealing in poisons and dealing in intoxicants. Dealing in slaves has been forbidden from the start of Buddhism.

Jesus only chose male Apostles, which some Christians use to justify not allowing women to become priests or bishops. The Buddha founded both an order of monks and an order of nuns.

rossum

 

[rossum]

But how can there be false ideas in your paradigm? Your signature seems to indicate that there is only ONE false idea: that there are false ideas…right?

Reality is not what is appears to be, it is deceptive.The emptiness of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and in the end it is just the everydayness of the everyday. Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

• Jay Garfield, “Empty words, Buddhist philosophy and cross-cultural interpretation.” OUP 2002.
  We often think that there are hidden philosophical depths to reality. There aren’t; what you see is what you get, nothing more. One of the causes of suffering is that expectation of something more which is never satisfied.

rossum

 

[PRmerger]

Reality is not what is appears to be, it is deceptive.

I can’t tell what this statement above is…is it a true statement or a false statement?

 

[rossum]

I can’t tell what this statement above is…is it a true statement or a false statement?

Yes.

rossum

 

[PRmerger]

Yes.

rossum

Really, rossum, in the interest of Buddhist charity (don’t know if there’s such a thing in your theology ), could you please answer! I don’t understand Buddhism, and your answer as such is nonsensical.

 

[rossum]

Really, rossum, in the interest of Buddhist charity (don’t know if there’s such a thing in your theology ), could you please answer! I don’t understand Buddhism, and your answer as such is nonsensical.

My answer exactly answers the question you asked. You asked if my statement was true or false. Simple logic tells you that the answer has to be yes, my statement is indeed either true or false.

My statement was a statement about reality. Hence it is not self-referential as you seem to have taken it. “Reality is deceptive” is not reality, it is a statement about reality. Meta-reality if you will. Deceptiveness is a property of reality, not a property of meta-reality.

To a Buddhist the deceptive nature of reality is that it appears to offer us permanence, happiness and a soul. All of these are false. Everything is impermanent. Everything is suffering. Everything is soulless. By trying to grasp what is not there we are only letting ourselves in for a disappointment.

“Impermanent are all compound things.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

“Sorrowful are all compound things.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

“All the elements of reality are soulless.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

• Dhammapada 20:5-7

Charity (dana) is indeed one of the Buddhist perfections.

rossum

 

[PRmerger]

My answer exactly answers the question you asked. You asked if my statement was true or false. Simple logic tells you that the answer has to be yes, my statement is indeed either true or false.

If someone asks me, “Are you a man or a woman?” and I answer “yes”, I give no enlightenment whatsoever.

It’s a coy response which provides no intellectual insight.

To a Buddhist the deceptive nature of reality is that it appears to offer us permanence, happiness and a soul. All of these are false.

But how can there be false ideas in your paradigm? Your signature seems to indicate that there is only ONE false idea: that there are false ideas…right?

 

[Black_Rose]

The Bible is also very explicit that slavery is allowed:However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

• Leviticus 25:44-46

That scripture is one reason why the allegedly anti-Semitic Kevin MacDonald would accuse Jews of being ethnocentric, only caring about the welfare of their own group at the expense of others.

In Buddhism the Buddha said that five trades were forbidden to laymen: dealing in weapons, dealing in slaves, dealing in meat, dealing in poisons and dealing in intoxicants. Dealing in slaves has been forbidden from the start of Buddhism.

What does “dealing in poisons” mean? Of course, I am not asking that question to elicit a humiliating response, but could one be chemist since one would have to work with poisons as chemist?

Of course, I strongly respect Chinese culture and Buddhism over the Western values of the Enlightenment after reading about it from Henry Liu (who is not a Buddhist but harbors a deep respect for it despite being sympathetic to Maoism). I think the biggest mistake of the Cultural Revolution was its hostility towards Buddhism where the Maoist goal of eradicating foreign, invading bourgeois influence from China that turned proletarian into an autoimmune cytokine storm that attacked a fundamental element of it cultural identity. :

Modern Asia cannot be fully understood without a thorough awareness of Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism. Western influence, from Christianity to liberalism to Marxism, has only been an ill-fitted costume over an ancient culture deeply rooted in Confucian values, Buddhist enlightenment mercy and Taoist paradox. Feudal culture in China has aspects of what modern political science would label fascist, socialist, democratic and anarchist. As a socio-political system, feudalism is inherently authoritarian and totalitarian. However, since feudal cultural ideals have always been meticulously nurtured by Confucianism to be congruent with the political regime, social control, while pervasive, is seldom consciously felt as oppression by the general public. Or, more accurately, social oppression - both vertical, such as sovereign to subject, and horizontal, such as gender prejudice - is considered natural for lack of an accepted alternative vision. Concepts such as equality, individuality, privacy, personal freedom and democracy are deemed antisocial, and only longed for by the deranged-of-mind, such as radical Taoists. This was true in large measure up to modern times when radical Taoists were transformed into radical political and cultural dissidents.

…
The reasons for China’s popular embrace of Buddhism are complex and have been subject to constant reassessment. One commonly acknowledged reason is that Buddhism, while of foreign origin, shares commonality with both Taoist and Confucian concepts that are indigenous to Chinese culture. The passive side of Buddhism is Taoism, which practices contemplation and promotes self-awareness. And the active side of Buddhism is Confucianism, which advocates respect for authority and submission to propriety. Furthermore, Buddhism has provided, as it has evolved in China, elaborate, colorful ceremonies welcomed by one aspect of the collective Chinese character, hitherto suppressed through centuries of Confucian social restraint and Taoist self-denial.
…

Thus religion in China, before the arrival of Buddhism, had merely been a spiritual subsystem of the secular world. It was a spiritual extension of the rigid hierarchy of the ancient Chinese socio-political realm. Buddhism provided a previously unavailable outlet of direct religious expression for the common people. It introduced participatory religious experience into Chinese society. Whereas, in the context of the rigid Confucian social structure, Taoism (Dao Jia) provides the Chinese people with introverted individual spiritual freedom, Buddhism provides them with extroverted collective spiritual liberation, independent of communal hierarchy. Taoism allows the individual to contemplate privately, freeing him from the mental tyranny of an all-controlling culture, while Buddhism allows the people to worship independently, freeing them from the pervasive control of a rigid secular socio-political hierarchy.

atimes.com/atimes/China/EG11Ad01.html

 

[Black_Rose]

If someone asks me, “Are you a man or a woman?” and I answer “yes”, I give no enlightenment whatsoever.

It’s a coy response which provides no intellectual insight.

But how can there be false ideas in your paradigm? Your signature seems to indicate that there is only ONE false idea: that there are false ideas…right?

It is a paradox like this Taoist saying:

Only by not applying effort can one achieve that state in which nothing is not attainable effortlessly (wu-wei ze wu-suo-bu-wei). Every Taoist knows this famous Taoist assertion, although none can fully explain it. Translated, it reads literally: Only by avoiding effort can one achieve that state in which nothing is not attainable effortlessly. This well-known Taoist assertion, the inherent paradox of which defies logic, is still effortlessly driving modern students of Chinese philosophy insane.

atimes.com/atimes/China/EH01Ad01.html

 

[PRmerger]

It is a paradox like this Taoist saying:

Paradox? That means it’s seemingly self-contradictory, but actually isn’t.

It’s actually not paradoxical but nonsensical. How can someone find Truth in something that is not reasonable?

I can’t dialogue about something that violates the laws of reason. It’s like trying to talk to someone about Calculus but the other person doesn’t even understand that 2 + 2 = 4.

 

[Major_Tom]

Paradox? That means it’s seemingly self-contradictory, but actually isn’t.

It’s actually not paradoxical but nonsensical. How can someone find Truth in something that is not reasonable?

I can’t dialogue about something that violates the laws of reason. It’s like trying to talk to someone about Calculus but the other person doesn’t even understand that 2 + 2 = 4.

For what it’s worth, I don’t find Rossum to be intentionally obfuscating or baiting. I’ve enjoyed reading his posts.

I’m guessing that you’ve run into problems over the years trying to explain something like transubstantiation or the trinity to people. (Or the cathechism to me in deifferent posts ) “But how can that be. It’s one god or three, but it can’t be both. Which is it?” And you haven’t let the word parsing sway you from your faith, yes?

If ‘paradox’, isn’t correct by definition’s standard, how about plain ol’ “mystery”?

 

[PRmerger]

For what it’s worth, I don’t find Rossum to be intentionally obfuscating or baiting. I’ve enjoyed reading his posts.

I don’t think he’s intentionally obfuscating, either.

I’m guessing that you’ve run into problems over the years trying to explain something like transubstantiation or the trinity to people. (Or the cathechism to me in deifferent posts ) “But how can that be. It’s one god or three, but it can’t be both. Which is it?”?

It’s one God, not three.

*This *would be a violation of the principle of non-contradiction: Jesus is a human person and he’s not a human person. Something can’t be “A” and “not A” at the same time.

If ‘paradox’, isn’t correct by definition’s standard, how about plain ol’ “mystery”?

It depends. What’s your definition of “mystery”?

 

[rossum]

If someone asks me, “Are you a man or a woman?” and I answer “yes”, I give no enlightenment whatsoever.

You get an insight into the care needed when asking questions in a philosophical discussion.

But how can there be false ideas in your paradigm?

There are mistaken ideas. The idea that we can find permanence etc. in the world.

Your signature seems to indicate that there is only ONE false idea: that there are false ideas…right?

My sig is not about true or false ideas. It is about the human tendency to reify ordinary truth into Ultimate Truth. The reified Ultimate Truth accumulates those properties like permanence, absoluteness etc. that are not present; we just think that they are. The disconnect between how we think things are and how things actually are is a cause of suffering.

rossum

 

[rossum]

What does “dealing in poisons” mean? Of course, I am not asking that question to elicit a humiliating response, but could one be chemist since one would have to work with poisons as chemist?

As with most scriptures form most religions it needs interpretation. In Buddhism motivation is important, so the ban is generally taken as selling poisons to kill living things. Selling Rat Poison to kill rats would be a wrong livelihood for example, while selling arsenic to a chemistry lab would be fine.

Of course, I strongly respect Chinese culture and Buddhism over the Western values of the Enlightenment after reading about it from Henry Liu

Thank you for that, an interesting piece. From the Buddhist perspective Chinese Buddhism takes different approaches to Indian Buddhism; it takes some parts that Indian Buddhism did not develop and runs with them. Conversely there are parts that Indian Buddhism developed greatly and which Chinese Buddhism practically ignored.

The point about public religious expression is interesting.

I am not completely in agreement with his point about Enlightenment values, but he is right in that they will only be accepted in China after they have been adapted to fit into the situation in China. Culture does not usually transfer unchanged – it needs to be adapted to the host country if it is to succeed there. Give it a few hundred years.

Currently Buddhism is only beginning to adapt itself to the West. It will be interesting to see what emerges once the adaptation is complete.

rossum

 

[Black_Rose]

Thank you for that, an interesting piece. From the Buddhist perspective Chinese Buddhism takes different approaches to Indian Buddhism; it takes some parts that Indian Buddhism did not develop and runs with them. Conversely there are parts that Indian Buddhism developed greatly and which Chinese Buddhism practically ignored.

The point about public religious expression is interesting.

I am not completely in agreement with his point about Enlightenment values, but he is right in that they will only be accepted in China after they have been adapted to fit into the situation in China. Culture does not usually transfer unchanged – it needs to be adapted to the host country if it is to succeed there. Give it a few hundred years.

Currently Buddhism is only beginning to adapt itself to the West. It will be interesting to see what emerges once the adaptation is complete.

rossum

What are your disagreements with Liu on Enlightenment values?

The piece was part of a six part essay (“The Abduction of Modernity”) in which Liu argues against the notion that “modernity” is an exclusively Western concept. He argues that the hubris inherent in Western modernity gave the West an unmerited belief in its cultural supremacy which justified the exploitation of supposedly “primitive” cultures that have not yet embraced Western “modernity”. In other words, the consequences of the Enlightenment and the denouement of Western modernity is barbaric militarism and oppressive imperialism.

My comments on the Enlightenment centered around the political aspects of the Scottish Enlightenment whose classic liberal principles were pioneered by John Locke. I have lukewarm feeling concerning the French Enlightenment neither possessing strong antagonistic feelings or admiration for its ideals, but its consequences lead to a bourgeois coup that utilized the passionate discontent of the peasants and proletariat against the aristocracy who supported the absolute monarchy. The French Revolution ultimately replaced an aristocratic regime with a bourgeois regime that did not respect the interests of the proletariat and peasants.

The interests of the bourgeoisie (the economically prosperous merchant classes as opposed the gentrified land owners and nobility) were advanced with a rationalistic justification to displace the clergy and aristocracy. In epistemology, religious revelation and faith was to be replaced by the human faculties of reason (rationalism) and observation (empiricism). This did not kill the concept of God as the notion of God did survive as a disengaged creator. In the political realm, the property was emphasized as a fundamental natural right which the state should protect from absolute monarchs and the passion of the masses (pointed out by James Madison in Federalist 10). The propaganda of the Enlightenment claimed that its principles were based on universal human reason, not merely the expression of the interests of a particular class in the myopic context of historical period, geographical location, or political circumstances.