Post by Roaming IblisPost by Ned LuddHe and his cronies tried to get the Buddhist religious leaders
barred from the 1995 centenary celebration of the Council of
World Religions. I.e. Because there is no God, it can't be a
religion. Likewise attempts were made to bar Wiccans.
Yutang Lin fixes this very well when he says, "In the Buddhist
Sutras there are many conventional references to heavenly beings;
therefore, if the subject of atheism is not limited to the God but
to gods, Buddhism cannot be considered atheistic." Nicely said!
Yeah, I bet that warmed the Pope's heart.
Post by Roaming IblisThe problem for the Pope and for Christians, Jews, and Moslems
generally is that if you are not arguing about "God or gods,"
they either don't know what you're talking about, or you must
be an atheist.
In which case you are damned.
Post by Roaming IblisPost by Ned LuddBtw, that Yutang Lin's reply to the Pope's criticisms of Buddhism
was exceptional. (For a scholar, ha.) I'm thinking of posting
the whole section here, just for good measure. And you're right,
Iblis, there was misunderstanding on both sides. But the Pope's
was the size of Mount Sumaru, and Lin's was the size of a mustard
seed.
From a closer reading of the John Paul II quotes, I would say the
late Pope misunderstood Buddhism and did a disservice in publishing
his misunderstandings. As you say, Yutang Lin does an exceptional
job of explaining Buddhism in light of the Pope's criticisms and
misunderstandings.
But they inevitably talk past each other. John Paul II is quoted as
saying ". . . the doctrines of salvation in Buddhism and Christianity
are opposed," and that is right on target. Yutang Lin cannot escape
by saying that in Buddhism we don't have any subject/object
distinctions therefore there can be no opposition. Buddhism's mode
of salvation may not be in opposition to Christianity's, but
Christianity's mode is certainly in opposition to Buddhism's, and
the Pope merely pointed that out.
Yes, defense was not required on this point. And I don't think
Lin WAS defending. The mixed blessing of having a scholar answer
the Pope's assertions was that you get scholarly answers when
something more abrupt would be to my liking, but by the same token
you get a politeness and consideration that readers might appreciate,
but which I think is inappropriate to the person being debated. Lin
is saying you've got the wrong words and you are asking the wrong
questions, but he says it so politely that the point gets obscured,
e.g. here:
Comment: The Buddhist teachings aim at resolving problems at the
onset of formation of problems, while the Christian approach is
within a given context prescribed by the revelations. Consequently,
the Buddhist teachings emphasize the artificial nature of conceptual
distinctions and how to attain freedom from such prejudices, while
the Christian teachings center around infusing faith in and the
defending of fundamental tenets.
Post by Roaming IblisMeanwhile, John Paul II sounds a little strange from a Christian
perspective when he criticizes Buddhism for allegedly having "the
conviction that the world is bad, that it is the source of evil and
suffering for man." Not only does this severely misunderstand
Buddhism, it sounds more like a critique of Christianity! Catholic
or Protestant, Christian talk about the evil of the world and the
worthlessness of the world fills volumes. (To be fair, you can find
Christians who will say that the world is really OK despite the Fall
of Adam and Eve because the world is still God's creation, etc., etc.,
but you won't hear this on most days.)
--Roaming Iblis
It thought the same thing about that. And Nietzsche says that
the two religions (Christianity and Buddhism) are identical in one
sense: that they are both religions of RESENTMENT.
What was most interesting to me is the way the Pope's comments
were 'kind of' correct descriptions of Buddhism at the beginnings
of most of his assertions, but then they all went too far and
pushed the assertion beyond anything that Buddhism or Buddha
proposes, by the end of his comment.
Ned