P
PRmerger
Guest
Mistaken ideas…false ideas…that seems to suggest that there are true ideas, yes?
Is Christianity the FIRST religion that recognized that all human beings are of equal worth and should therefore be treated equally?
- Status
R
rossum
Guest
It is probably a case of baby and bathwater. Like any large idea there are better and worse aspects of it - the example of the less good aspects of French Revolution is a good one. Certainly the Enlightenment was used to support the superiority of the West, but if the West had still been Feudal than I have no doubt the the ‘superiority’ of Western feudalism over its Eastern equivalents would have been used as an excuse. Western Capitalism is big on change and tends to steamroller over anything that gets in its way. When it meets a more conservative force, such as Confucianism or other religions, it will usually criticise them. That perhaps explains why the Catholic Church has some problems with raw Capitalism.
The same applies to Chinese methods; there are useful parts and less useful parts. Confucianism can result in looking back to a ‘Golden Age’ when everything was harmonious and correct. All change can be seen as a falling away from that original perfection and so is to be resisted. Too much of that can result in a change of dynasty.
Much of Western Europe has moved away from raw Capitalism and now includes some amount of socialism in the form of higher taxes, social provision, healthcare etc. It seems to me that China is moving towards the same destination but from the opposite side. It is adding more Capitalism to an originally largely Communist economy. Undoubtedly the final result in China will be different from the final result in Europe because of different cultural traditions and assumptions. Obviously being European I am more used to the European assumptions but I can see the usefulness of the Chinese approach. Both have their uses, but in both cases flexibility is needed to ensure that those traditions are not applied inappropriately.
In all this, America seems to be the odd man out, retaining a much more Capitalist system.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
Good. I did not know that Buddhism had doctrines.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Oh, indeed it does.
R
rvilbig
Guest
Rossum, I’ve been reflecting on your signature line and wanted to share with you something Saint John of the Cross wrote that has some similarities to what you think. He wrote:
“Never take others for your example in the tasks you have to perform, however holy they may be, for the devil will set their imperfections before you. But imitate Christ, who is supremely perfect and supremely holy, and you will never err.” (Saying of Light and Love, #157).
Now here’s my question: should we follow Saint John of the Cross’ example to follow Christ, or does this contradict his advice to not take others as our example? How can we ever attempt to live our lives in a spirit of truth if we are perpetually skeptical about the existence of truth? It seems to me that, to avoid nihilism, you must have faith in someone, whether it be Jesus or the Buddha or Britney Spears. Why not choose the one who rose from the dead? What are your thoughts?
-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com
H
Hesychios
Guest
Micius (MoZi in China) taught a doctrine of Universal Love.
He was a contemporary of Socrates. Of course, it would more properly be a philosophy, not a religion.
He was a contemporary of Socrates. Of course, it would more properly be a philosophy, not a religion.
R
rossum
Guest
One of the points of my sig is to warn against wasting time looking for “ultimate truth” when there is plenty of perfectly good “ordinary truth” lying around waiting to be picked up for free. The problem with looking for “ultimate truth” is that you will never find it: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.
Perhaps Saint John is warning aginst looking for the “ultimate example” when you already have Christ. As the Zen proverb has it: “Before enlightenment; chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment; chop wood, carry water.” Chopping wood and carrying water is all there is; looking for subtle hidden depths is just a distraction.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I think that’s setting up a false dichotomy. All humans are searching for Truth.
God has come down and shown us where this Truth can be found, and to search elsewhere is futile and, as you say, a time waster.
R
roveau
Guest
Christianity has had a poor record of treating everyone equally. It’s a fairly modern concept, by the way.
An example of where the Church did not treat everyone equally is in regard to the Jews until well into the (19th.
An example of where the Church did not treat everyone equally is in regard to the Jews until well into the (19th.
- Status