Surprisingly, the Esperancians' pacifism is not based on any sense of oneness with nature. On the contrary:
"Joyce shivered. 'This is a cruel cosmos. That's what we believe in on Esperance - fighting back against the universe, all beings together.'" (p. 37)
Pacifists usually avoid talk of "fighting." We have encountered this view of nature as an enemy before. See here. Van Rijn, like Dominic Flandry's mentor, Max Abrams, points out that not all beings are built for togetherness.
In the Buddha dharma (the Buddha's teaching), the three marks of existence (see here) are:
impermanence (anicca);
unsatisfactoriness or suffering (dukkha);
no soul (anatta) -
- but the solution is understanding and acceptance of the three marks - which need not entail fatalistic rejection of the benefits of technology.
Impermanence + no soul = the Buddhist "emptiness" teaching. However, contrary to what I sometimes hear in our meditation group, I think that compassion is an attribute of human beings, not of existence.
31 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And of course Christians cannot agree with some Buddhist ideas, such as the "anatta"/no soul teaching. And I don't think a fatalistic turn of mind necessarily precludes one from using advanced technology. But a society with SUCH a mindset dominant within it seems unlikely to be technologically creative.
Sean
Sean,
It does. Cultural interaction is what we need.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But I also think it's possible some cultures will not want "cultural interaction." Because it may be feared that the ideas and beliefs of one culture will undermine those of another culture. The real world example I'm thinking of right now is how slowly, reluctantly, and with HOSTILITY many (not all) in the "world" of Islam react to contact with non-Muslim cultures.
I've also thought of Anderson's IS THERE LIFE ON OTHER WORLDS? and "Delenda Est" because of the suggestions made in those works on what kind of cultures are needed before a true science can arise.
Sean
Sean,
Some people don't want interaction but they get it. Ninian Smart suggested that, with religions, 1+1=7! He meant: A and B originate independently, then meet. Each influences the other slightly, thus: Ab and Ba. Then some people on both sides react against interaction and intensify their idea of their original belief, thus AA and BB. Then some, however few, say, "Let's fully synthesize A and B," thus: AB. So, over time -
A
B
Ab
Ba
AA
BB
AB
But the original A and B get lost in all the changes. They still exist as historical beliefs to be studied but they are not around any more in the present.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But that is too complicated and abstract to mean much to most people. And my point was that if A exists and is "contacted" by B, and if A has ideas and beliefs many in B believe will undermine their faith or philosophy, they will then react with hostility to A. Which is what I believe is largely the situation we see today in Islam's "contacting" with Christianity and the West.
Sean
Sean,
There is sectarianism in all traditions, even, unfortunately, in Buddhism. I see secular power conflicts as more problematic than religious intolerance, e.g., it is governments, not religious traditions, that control the resources that enable them to stockpile instruments of mass destruction.
Paul.
@ Paul: currently correct. However, think of crusades, religious wars, inquisitions, witch burnings, campaigns against heretics/gays/lesbians, pogroms, jihads, religious genocides, forced conversions, enslavement of natives, etc. I am not a Buddhist, but to my knowledge, while largely Buddhist societies have committed atrocities against non Muslims (Myanmar vs. Rohingya), no wars have been fought in the name of Buddhism, unlike the great number fought in the name of their faiths by the practitioners of Abrahamic religions (Judaism, included).
-kh
Kaor, Paul!
But I disagree that conflicts are solely or mostly caused by "secular" reasons. I argue that many, many conflicts of all kinds has been caused by people with passionately held ideas, beliefs, faiths, ideologies, etc. The Muslim jihads provoked the Crusades, the Soviets and Nazis had their gulags and extermination camps, Buddhists in Sri Lanka have recently been persecuting Christians and Muslims (Keith, take note, Buddhists are NOT excepted).
But I was more interested in pointing out how ISLAM has been having great difficulty coming to terms with the challenge of the West for the past four or five centuries. For a discussion of that see Bernard Lewis' ISLAM AND THE WEST. E.g., why did a true science arise in the West, but not from within Islam or in China?
Sean
Sean
Not solely.
Kaor, Paul!
Not solely? I agree, if you mean innovations can be found among non-Western peoples. The compass and gunpowder both seemed to have originated in China. But the MINDSET needed for a true, experimental science first arose in a Christian and Western civilization. Again, I refer to Anderson's comments about that in IS THERE LIFE ON OTHER WORLDS? and "Delenda Est."
Sean
I meant conflicts not solely caused by secular reasons.
Kaor, Paul!
Then I think we agree. Really MAJOR "conflicts," such as wars, jihads, persecutions, etc., comes from human beings having altruistic feelings for things larger than their immediate families. Granted, of course, these types of altruism can be, and often has been abused.
Sean
@ Paul: I stand corrected (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence)- sometimes violence HAS been done in the name of w Buddhism, though I still don't see any full-blown religios wars (that may be merely a mateer of degree and not of kind).
“When I find new information I change my mind; What do you do?”
-Quote (and similar) attributed to Keynes,Churchill, Samuelson, but not provable to any.
-kh
Keith,
My take on Buddhism:
I do not accept all its teachings;
I do find its meditation beneficial;
I do understand that people can use any ideas, even including Buddhist ones, to rationalize violence;
I have changed my mind a lot since birth, having been indoctrinated in one tradition from an early age;
we have access to all the traditions through good bookshops, the internet and local groups, places of worship etc.
Paul.
Thanks, Paul. I should have addressed my comments to Sean.
I think holding on to almost ANY belief too dogmatically is harmful, as is the saying that their belief system has a monopoly on "truth", and in both cases: "sincerity of belief" is no defense.
A question on Buddhist beliefs, Paul:
In any of the forms of Buddhism that you've studied/practiced, do beliefs/thoughts/intentions "matter," are actions only what "matters", or is there a different conception (e.g. perhaps intent/actions are inseparable)?
-kh
Keith,
Beliefs, thought and intentions matter very much. The 8 fold path is right knowledge, right intention, right speech, right action, right means of livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right contemplation although, of course, there are different translations for these words. I have just googled and found no. 8 as "concentration" but I don't think that that's the right English word for this 8th step.
Paul.
Kaor, Keith!
When it comes to Buddhism, you have better consult Paul. He is the expert on Buddhism, not me! (Smiles)
I don't quite understand what you mean by saying it's harmful to hold almost any belief too "dogmatically." As a Catholic I firmly and LITERALLY believe to be both Man and God incarnate. Everything else follows from that.
Sean
Sean,
Some people's strength of belief makes them incapable of dialogue. Street Evangelicals assume the truth of their belief even when addressing unbelievers instead of finding some common ground for discussion. Thus, someone who says that he does not believe in God is regarded as willfully rejecting God's offer of salvation whereas, to do this, he would have to believe that there was a God offering salvation. Evangelicals do not seem to understand this point. They just continue to speak in the same way.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I have seen that kind of attitude with Evangelical Protestants myself. And I don't agree with it. I have tried to tell "Evangelicals" they would do better to FIRST try finding some kind of common ground with unbelievers. I don't think all of them even understood what I was trying to say. But St. Paul would have!
Sean
@ Sean:
I maintain that people are entitled to maintain any belief whatsoever (to any degree of certainty) that does not affect others. However, if someone is absolutely convinced their beliefs are the only true ones (and those not professing those beliefs are at best ignorant or misguided) and they are willing to impose those beliefs on me, then (based on thousands of years of persecution, violence, and death and my own personal experience) I regard that person as dangerous, irrespective of the beliefs that they hold, i.e. I regard as dangerous anyone not willing to admit that their beliefs might be wrong, that others’ beliefs might be right, and are also willing to impose those beliefs on me.
-kh
Kaor, Keith!
I don't really understand why you wrote these comments. They are not applicable to anything I said to Paul. I was commenting on how my personal observations of how "Evangelical" Protestants debate with unbelievers led me to conclude their methods were futile. Evangelicals and atheists often "talk past" one another. Which is why I stressed the need to first find some COMMON ground.
Sean
Sean, my point is that ANY belief system which requires "firm and literal acceptance" of its beliefs based on faith, declares that it has a monopoly on "truth", AND is willing to enforce these beliefs upon others against their wills is dangerous/harmful. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? If you do/do not, could you please elaborate?
"Evangelicals and atheists often "talk past" one another. Which is why I stressed the need to first find some COMMON ground."
Paul, what common ground can YOU find with devout Evangelicals, Latter Day Saints, Muslims, Hindus (or other polytheists), or atheists to engage in a peaceful, mutually beneficial conversation about beliefs?
Cheers,
-kh
About the psychology of beliefs:
https://www.npr.org/series/423302056/hidden-brain
Facts Aren't Enough: The Psychology Of False Beliefs
Sometimes, when we believe something, no amount of data can change our minds. This week, why we cling to our beliefs — even when they're wrong.
Kaor, Keith!
I have NEVER personally seen any Evangelical Protestant advocate FORCING their beliefs on atheists and other unbelievers. All I was saying was that "Evangelicals" are not very good at debating with atheists and so on. So your comments or fears were still NOT relevant to anything I said.
I am a Catholic, which means I also believe in reason and logic as well as the revealed truths of Christianity. One means of finding common with unbelievers is by using reasoning to work out some common agreements on matters like robbery, rape, murder, etc., are alway intrinsically wrongful acts.
Too many "Evangelical" Protestants seem to believe that all they have to do is proclaim their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and quote the relevant parts of the New Testament and unbelievers like atheists should at once realize their error. Not gonna happen that easily, as I've tried to tell such Evangelicals. Find a common ground first, and then go on to the next step!
Sean
Thanks, Sean.
I grew up in a small town in Eastern New Mexico,with 10k people and 35 churches, largely Southern Baptist and Church of Christ. (It was said that at one point in the past, somebody burned down St. Helens' the Catholic church.)
The Southern Baptists do not believe in the consumption of alcohol nor in dancing, (I can't speak for the Church of Christ.)
In my town the purchase of alcohol was illegal until 1975, I believe until about that time there weren't school dances, and many events began with a Christian (probably Protestant) prayer. This was forcing their beliefs on others!
If I hear you correctly, you can can reach common ground with those of on a variety of negative-ethical issues, i.e. "doing these things is wrong", correct?
It sounds as if you occasionally have theological discussions with Evangelicals. Is that correct? Do they try to convert you?
Cheers,
Kaor, Keith!
I am sorry to know some bigot burned down the Catholic church in your old home town. Not the first time that has happened, alas, in the US.
What I meant by "forcing" would have been if a Southern Baptist gang threatened you with you with death unless you became a Baptist. And the bit about opening many public events with a prayer would have been best handled by using a prayer Jews would not object to.
Not all Baptists are so unreasonable about alcohol! I've known of Baptists who don't object to the MODERATE use of beer or wine.
Yes, I believe it should be possible to have reasoned discussions with persons on ethical and philosophical issues using reason or logic alone.
I have had discussions with Baptists, mostly in a now long defunct message board, and in AOL chat rooms. With some I can have reasonable discussions, others not so.
Sean
Keith,
You asked me what common ground I can find with 5 different groups! Street Evangelicals just talk as if, by not believing in God, I was willfully rejecting God. No common ground. Young Mormon missionaries at least listen because they have not heard alternative views before. A couple of them have told me to seek religious truth by asking God in the name of his Son so I have done this. The next time I meet any of them, they can ask me what I learned by doing this. My Muslim neighbors do not seek debate. In Birmingham, Muslims do street propaganda but I have not been there very often yet. Most Hindus that I have met are tolerant but Hindu devotees are sectarian. British polytheists and atheists are easy to talk to.
Paul.
Sean,
Apparently there are some "Dominionists" in the US who want a theocracy where only Christians can vote or hold office. Sounds like Heinlein's Angels of the Lord.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Of the different kinds of people you might have had theological/philosophical discussions with, I noticed Catholics were not mentioned. I sincerely MOST of my co-religionists would TRY to have reasoned discussions with you.
I have VAGUELY heard of such "Dominionists," but they seem to be so few and insignificant that I'm barely aware they exist. And I strongly suspect they would be very hostile to Catholics.
Sean
Sean,
I responded on the groups that Keith asked about.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I've also thought of the Protectorate we see in "The Bitter Bread," by Anderson. A state which succeeded the US after its fall in a nuclear war. It seems to have been founded by Protestants who remind me of the Baptists. But, it's not a theocracy, but more a hereditary monarchy with an established church. And, it seems, a fairly mild, not too bad a regime. I remember the Protectorate described as being not much more than a policeman trying to keep the peace and bargaining with different peoples and faiths.
Sean
Post a Comment