(i) an inference;
(ii) mistaken;
(iii) no ground for violence.
When I was at University in Dublin, some students tried to make a film of demonstrators outside a church being attacked by people coming out of the church. They started to shoot the film outside a church. People coming out of the church mistook the enacted demonstration for a real demonstration - and attacked it.
At Lancaster University, a drama group performed a play called "Sid Arthur." This was possibly disrespectful of Buddhism. The Senior Lay Minister in our meditation group, also called Paul, thought that he might go and tell the drama group that he thought that they were being blasphemous. Someone else in the group pointed out that maybe the play was intended as a modernization of Buddhism... In any case, Paul's approach was preferable to that of a fanatic threatening to bomb the theater.
The Betelgeusean Captain Zalat, who knows Anglic, is puzzled by the offensive word painted on the Tower: "Mayday!" A Terrestrial month and a diurnal period? Flandry needed to get a call for help off planet without anyone on planet realizing that that was what he was doing. Zalat and his crew will tell the story when they return to Betelgeuse...
12 comments:
People tend to get very upset when the symbols of their collective identity are disrespected; it's a psychic assault. The idea that you shouldn't kill someone who does that is sort of modern.
Kaor, Paul!
I'm puzzled over how there can be blasphemy within Buddhism. I still think of it as more a philosophy than a religion. Buddha himself seems to have had little interest in questions asbout God or the "gods."
Sean
Sean,
Some other word, then. Disrespect?
Paul.
Sean,
We think of Buddhism as a nontheistic religion because it addresses transcendence but does not personify it.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, "disrespect" seems a better, more accurate term.
It seems logically implausible to call Buddhism a religion if it doesn't believe the Transcendent is a Person. I would argue that a religion believes in God or gods.
Sean
Sean,
I argue that religion is response to transcendence and that theism is one kind of religion, personification of transcendence.
Non-theistic religions:
Jainsim;
Buddhism;
Taoism;
the Hindu Samkhya philosophical system.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Apologies, but I still sense an implausibility in your argument. If God does not exist, how is it possible for anything to be "Transcendent"? Also, what do you mean by "Transcendent"? It seems to me that anyone contemplating or meditating on the glory, majesty, omnipotence, beneficence, etc., of God is starting to come closer to truly know what is "transcendent."
I've at least heard of all the non-theistic religions you listed (except the Hindu Samkhya philosophy. But I don't know enough to comment on the non-Buddhist systems.
Sean
Sean,
To transcend is to go beyond. Human consciousness transcends animal consciousness which transcends unconsciousness.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
That is true. The human mind transcends animal consciousness. All that an animal can do is seek food, avoid being eaten by predators, and mate.
Sean
Some varieties of Buddhism are non-theistic, but others most flamboyantly -are-. And some varieties have sharp discontinuities between how most participates perceive it and how its most rarefied thinkers interpret the theologies.
It's an older religion than Christianity or Islam, and one should expect more variation. It's also spread over a wider area with more varied cultures.
Dear Mr. Stirling,
And it's precisely this kind of variety within Buddhism which helps to puzzle me. Because of how I read that Buddha himself had little interest in questions about God/gods. Tibetan Buddhism seems to be the most "flamboyantly" theistic.
Well, Judaism is older than Buddhism. And Christianity if you include how it sprang from Judaism. But that's just me being finicky!
And I do have more respect for Buddhism than I ever will for Islam.
Sean
Sean,
I have found a basic teaching and practice in Buddhism that I think make sense. The variety is (a) colorful background and (b) what makes sense to other people. We do not need a single unified Buddhism.
Paul.
Post a Comment