[quote]kamui wrote:
I meant to write outside of the quotes above "i agree with all of this. Have we seen the same thing with Buddhist, Taoist, or Confusionist missionaries?
they never had the opportunity. I already explained why earlier in this thread.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Most cultures managed in some way shape or form, to develop ‘Christian’ tenets for themselves. However, if you argue the direct link between eastern thought and Christianity “ripping it off” I am going to have to demand proof.[/quote]
I’m not knocking christianity here but most, if not all of the tenets existed in many cultures long before there was a christian religion.
[/quote]
Yup. Even the rituals. [/quote]
Buddhism, Christianism, Taoism and Confucianism have one essential thing in common :
They tried to replace the neolithic law of violent retribution with a new law : a law of universal love.
Christianity did it in a very unique way : its founder sacrified himself.
One “scapegoat” to abolish the need of scapegoating forever.
I’m often quite surprised to see how few people actually understand this. Even amongst christians.
[/quote]
I am not quite convinced that Daoism is promoting universal love.[/quote]
really ?
“Act without expectation.” is probably one the best definition of universal love i have ever read.
or this :
“Embracing Tao, you become embraced.
Supple, breathing gently, you become reborn.
Clearing your vision, you become clear.
Nurturing your beloved, you become impartial.
Opening your heart, you become accepted.
Accepting the World, you embrace Tao.
Bearing and nurturing,
Creating but not owning,
Giving without demanding,
Controlling without authority,
This is love.”
the new-age version of Daoism which is currently sold in the West, especially in the martial arts world, do not empashize Love… probably because it would make it sound too much christian. [/quote]
Excuse me, but to me that does not talk about love.
It talks about acting when it bears fruit and abstaining when it would not make a difference to resist.
It means living according to the way, whether there is “love” or not.
[quote]kamui wrote:
they never had the opportunity. I already explained why earlier in this thread.
[/quote]
I’m slow. Can you repeat it?
Atheist.
An agnostic doesn’t answer the question. I don’t ask it, since i reject the idea of a personnal God.
i explained why here : http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/atheismophobia?pageNo=15#4036993
I think it was my very first post on this board.
[quote]
I’m slow. Can you repeat it?[/quote]
the Mings were busy rebuilding China after the end of the mongolian era. They had tribes to pacify.
[quote]kamui wrote:
let’s try a less romanticized version :
While the West was not content until every other place on earth was named after them and followed their ways, the East tried to rebuild itself after the mongolian invasions.
If the East has been more peaceful than the West, it may not be because of Buddha, Kung Fuzi or Laozi or the feminine virtues of the Mings but because of Genghis. It’s pretty hard to be a successful imperialist when you are a victim of imperialism yourself.[/quote]
This is not the full story. After Genghis, Chinese empire put together a much larger expedition than Columbus, with which they planned to explore and set up trade relationships with the rest of the world. This expedition was haulted. Why? At this point they were easily the largest empire in existance; they could have been far more successful than the west. Nothing was stopping them (certainly not Genghis).
The mongolian invasions have had lasting consequences. The Mings had to deal with these consequences during at least two centuries and an half. It didn’t ended before the late 16th century.
During this period China expanded to the north, the West and the South West, (re)conquering Tibet, securing its borders and re-assuring its cultural domination. As a result, it didn’t expanded oversee.
Btw, in this case, we shouldn’t be comparing Eastern and Western philosophies, but two rulers. Yongle and Ferdinand of Aragon. One may have been more “visionary” than the other, but in itself, that doesn’t say anything about their civilizations.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Pat, please don’t put words in my mouth. You talked about “lesser men”, not me.
[/quote]
Doh! You’re right I misread what you said earlier, my bad. All this time I thought you used the term ‘lesser men’ but I some how misconstrued it. I am sorry.
Correct, they are not called to drop out of society and hide away to seek enlightenment. Most orders are called out to give up all possessions and serve people. I do not know any order that is called to drop out of society all together. There are retreats and monasteries, but the people who work there serve those who serve others. Nobody is called to meditate and pray and do nothing else. That’s called rest and they do rest, but not as a life.
I didn’t feel like I was lashing out, just cursing. I like to cuss, they are fun words. I was just expressing my thoughts with the f-bomb, but I was not lashing out.
[quote]
Sitting in silence allows for all things to be as they are, and when this happens all there is is happiness.
The only thing required is that you move out of the way. [/quote]
You think so? I do like silence and I do enjoy being by myself, but I am usually doing something. I may be reading, which I enjoy a lot and wish I had more time to do. Or I pray and read scripture, but I actually am completely entertained by that process. I don’t find it boring or burdensome at all. Or sometimes I enjoy sitting outside with a good whiskey, cigar and music in my ears. I do a lot of thinking that way but it’s not sitting in silence doing nothing. I like doing shit with my quiet time.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
Galileo was put under house arrest by the Catholic Church because his findings contradicted religious beliefs at the time[/quote]
Careful…
I know of even two prominent atheists on PWI who will be happy to tell you that your statement here is rather, um, wrong. [/quote]
I have hundreds of history books that say my statement is right. Even a quick google search, under regular or scholar, will verify this.[/quote]
You have hundreds of history books? I like history, but your really, really like history. Damn.
He was under house arrest for publishing a book and being to “Copernican” in his writing, when he said he wouldn’t be. The church has retracted and apologized for the mistake. Man you hold a grudge, that was 500 years ago.
Just like people, churches run by people make mistakes. But it was learned from and corrected. Further, if it weren’t for this mistake, the church would not have opened it’s heart to science and the revelation that science is non-contradictory to religion. Truth is truth no matter where is comes from. [/quote]
Why is it the Church is alleged to be divinely inspired on matters such as scripture, dogma, doctrine, etc., yet is allowed the crutch of “run by men” when they incontrovertibly run afoul?
[quote]kamui wrote:
-i will agree that the missionaries of Christianity played a complex role in the spread of Western Culture.
But I will disagree (as would any serious historian) that this role was entirely negative.
Acculturation is a destructive process that occured each time an isolated culture is contacted by a more technologically advanced culture.
Even without religious missionarism and military imperialism, the contact between the West and the rest of the world would have been devastating.
In some areas, the works of the missionaries actually preserved some local languages, stories, knowledge that would have been lost forever.
[/quote]
The resolution to the earlier mischaracterization of “Western philosophy” (metonymized as the Catholic Church) is, yet again by you, my friend, perfectly and succinctly contained in a few lines of text.
Certain of our “non-Christian” posters here would benefit from taking a step back from their desperate need to assure themselves and everyone they can get the message out to that Christianity has been nothing but a culture consuming juggernaut. A little perspective goes a long way.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
I meant to write outside of the quotes above "i agree with all of this. Have we seen the same thing with Buddhist, Taoist, or Confusionist missionaries?[/quote]
You agree?
[quote]ironcross wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
Galileo was put under house arrest by the Catholic Church because his findings contradicted religious beliefs at the time[/quote]
Careful…
I know of even two prominent atheists on PWI who will be happy to tell you that your statement here is rather, um, wrong. [/quote]
I have hundreds of history books that say my statement is right. Even a quick google search, under regular or scholar, will verify this.
http://www.enotes.com/topics/galileo-galilei
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node52.html
“Galileo lay down the chief elements of his mechanics in Dialog on the Two Chief Systems of the World (1632), which was supposed to be an objective debate between the Copernican and Ptolemaic system. Unfortunately, Galileo put the Pope’s favorite argument in the mouth of one of the characters, then proceeded to ridicule it. Galileo suddenly lost favor with the church, and was forced to recant his Copernican views and put under house arrest. Misner et al. (1973 p. 38)”
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Galileo.html
Or here, this is easier:
I love it. From the very quote you pasted into your response:
“Galileo lay down the chief elements of his mechanics in Dialog on the Two Chief Systems of the World (1632), which was supposed to be an objective debate between the Copernican and Ptolemaic system. Unfortunately, Galileo put the Pope’s favorite argument in the mouth of one of the characters, then proceeded to ridicule it. Galileo suddenly lost favor with the church, and was forced to recant his Copernican views and put under house arrest. Misner et al. (1973 p. 38)”
Ask yourself this:
-
Why was no significant action taken against Copernicus?
-
Considering the bolded text above, was it possible that Galileo’s arrest for “heresy” was perhaps at least in part a convenient and legal way for a certain powerful person to let him and everyone else know that you do not fuck with il Papa?
[quote]pat wrote:
(…)
Correct, they are not called to drop out of society and hide away to seek enlightenment. Most orders are called out to give up all possessions and serve people. I do not know any order that is called to drop out of society all together. There are retreats and monasteries, but the people who work there serve those who serve others. Nobody is called to meditate and pray and do nothing else. That’s called rest and they do rest, but not as a life.
(…)
You think so? I do like silence and I do enjoy being by myself, but I am usually doing something. I may be reading, which I enjoy a lot and wish I had more time to do. Or I pray and read scripture, but I actually am completely entertained by that process. I don’t find it boring or burdensome at all. Or sometimes I enjoy sitting outside with a good whiskey, cigar and music in my ears. I do a lot of thinking that way but it’s not sitting in silence doing nothing. I like doing shit with my quiet time.[/quote]
Perhaps the life in a monestary is different in your part of the world, I don’t know. The few active monestaries in the Netherlands require you to withdraw from everyday life and focus on your relationship with god through prayer, silence and solitude.
Your last paragraph apty describes the differences in approach and attitude between western and eastern philosophy. Whereas in the west you’d focus on “doing” without investigating what is doing “the doing”, in the east [or least in buddhism but it’s a general vain in eastern philosophy] the focus lies on the self and how the self is the cause of suffering.
The idea is that you can’t have lasting happiness if that happiness is conditional; when happiness requires an action or prerequisite. Whatever the external means of happiness it can be taken away from you, or it can change and no longer make you happy.
These external causes of happiness are fleeting, fickle and will ultimately cause suffering. One thing makes you happy; one thing changes; you’re no longer happy.
It’s a seesaw that swings back and forth between happy and unhappy with you on either side throwing things on the ends just to feel something.
Eastern philosophy focusses on the pivot in the middle where everything is in rest. Buddhist teachings point the way, but it is you who has to do the work, the hard work to be able to rest in between happiness and the absence of happiness.
When the appearance of both sides have fallen away what is apparent manifests as being.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
(…)
Correct, they are not called to drop out of society and hide away to seek enlightenment. Most orders are called out to give up all possessions and serve people. I do not know any order that is called to drop out of society all together. There are retreats and monasteries, but the people who work there serve those who serve others. Nobody is called to meditate and pray and do nothing else. That’s called rest and they do rest, but not as a life.
(…)
You think so? I do like silence and I do enjoy being by myself, but I am usually doing something. I may be reading, which I enjoy a lot and wish I had more time to do. Or I pray and read scripture, but I actually am completely entertained by that process. I don’t find it boring or burdensome at all. Or sometimes I enjoy sitting outside with a good whiskey, cigar and music in my ears. I do a lot of thinking that way but it’s not sitting in silence doing nothing. I like doing shit with my quiet time.[/quote]
Perhaps the life in a monestary is different in your part of the world, I don’t know. The few active monestaries in the Netherlands require you to withdraw from everyday life and focus on your relationship with god through prayer, silence and solitude.
Your last paragraph apty describes the differences in approach and attitude between western and eastern philosophy. Whereas in the west you’d focus on “doing” without investigating what is doing “the doing”, in the east [or least in buddhism but it’s a general vain in eastern philosophy] the focus lies on the self and how the self is the cause of suffering.
The idea is that you can’t have lasting happiness if that happiness is conditional; when happiness requires an action or prerequisite. Whatever the external means of happiness it can be taken away from you, or it can change and no longer make you happy.
These external causes of happiness are fleeting, fickle and will ultimately cause suffering. One thing makes you happy; one thing changes; you’re no longer happy.
It’s a seesaw that swings back and forth between happy and unhappy with you on either side throwing things on the ends just to feel something.
Eastern philosophy focusses on the pivot in the middle where everything is in rest. Buddhist teachings point the way, but it is you who has to do the work, the hard work to be able to rest in between happiness and the absence of happiness.
When the appearance of both sides have fallen away what is apparent manifests as being.
[/quote]
There is a ton of wisdom here and if forms the basic attitude I have toward relationships. Some people cling to this idea of “forever” with a mate, girlfriend, wife, etc. And I always say, things change, people change and you cannot control the outcome when it comes to a third person (lover, et als.). There is also much wisdom in your commentary about external sources of happiness, and how fickle life is with it’s “fortune”.
I have a question; how does Eastern thought treat the loss of a family member or loved one? I’m at that point in my life where I am much better separating myself from an outcome, and letting my happiness be subject to the whimsical nature of life’s ebb and flow, but I can’t imagine doing that with the death of a loved one.
I’d appreciate your insights. Thanks.
Sorry for hijack.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Perhaps the life in a monestary is different in your part of the world, I don’t know. The few active monestaries in the Netherlands require you to withdraw from everyday life and focus on your relationship with god through prayer, silence and solitude.
Your last paragraph apty describes the differences in approach and attitude between western and eastern philosophy. Whereas in the west you’d focus on “doing” without investigating what is doing “the doing”, in the east [or least in buddhism but it’s a general vain in eastern philosophy] the focus lies on the self and how the self is the cause of suffering.
The idea is that you can’t have lasting happiness if that happiness is conditional; when happiness requires an action or prerequisite. Whatever the external means of happiness it can be taken away from you, or it can change and no longer make you happy.
These external causes of happiness are fleeting, fickle and will ultimately cause suffering. One thing makes you happy; one thing changes; you’re no longer happy.
It’s a seesaw that swings back and forth between happy and unhappy with you on either side throwing things on the ends just to feel something.
Eastern philosophy focusses on the pivot in the middle where everything is in rest. Buddhist teachings point the way, but it is you who has to do the work, the hard work to be able to rest in between happiness and the absence of happiness.
When the appearance of both sides have fallen away what is apparent manifests as being.
[/quote]
There is a ton of wisdom here and if forms the basic attitude I have toward relationships. Some people cling to this idea of “forever” with a mate, girlfriend, wife, etc. And I always say, things change, people change and you cannot control the outcome when it comes to a third person (lover, et als.). There is also much wisdom in your commentary about external sources of happiness, and how fickle life is with it’s “fortune”.
I have a question; how does Eastern thought treat the loss of a family member or loved one? I’m at that point in my life where I am much better separating myself from an outcome, and letting my happiness be subject to the whimsical nature of life’s ebb and flow, but I can’t imagine doing that with the death of a loved one.
I’d appreciate your insights. Thanks.
Sorry for hijack.
[/quote]
Deep seated attachments like the bond you might have with a loved one or a family member, they are part of you and therefore part of life. Clinging to those attachments results in having a harder time accepting the fact of death.
People die, you will grieve, accept death and move on living. The difference might be that the phases of sorrow, grief and acceptance follow each other in quick succession instead of it being drawn out over a long period of time.
In any case, emotions, feelings, anything that arises as a result of simply being alive, that’s not the problem. Believing that they have intrinsic value beyond the moment, including love, that is when trouble start.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Perhaps the life in a monestary is different in your part of the world, I don’t know. The few active monestaries in the Netherlands require you to withdraw from everyday life and focus on your relationship with god through prayer, silence and solitude.
Your last paragraph apty describes the differences in approach and attitude between western and eastern philosophy. Whereas in the west you’d focus on “doing” without investigating what is doing “the doing”, in the east [or least in buddhism but it’s a general vain in eastern philosophy] the focus lies on the self and how the self is the cause of suffering.
The idea is that you can’t have lasting happiness if that happiness is conditional; when happiness requires an action or prerequisite. Whatever the external means of happiness it can be taken away from you, or it can change and no longer make you happy.
These external causes of happiness are fleeting, fickle and will ultimately cause suffering. One thing makes you happy; one thing changes; you’re no longer happy.
It’s a seesaw that swings back and forth between happy and unhappy with you on either side throwing things on the ends just to feel something.
Eastern philosophy focusses on the pivot in the middle where everything is in rest. Buddhist teachings point the way, but it is you who has to do the work, the hard work to be able to rest in between happiness and the absence of happiness.
When the appearance of both sides have fallen away what is apparent manifests as being.
[/quote]
There is a ton of wisdom here and if forms the basic attitude I have toward relationships. Some people cling to this idea of “forever” with a mate, girlfriend, wife, etc. And I always say, things change, people change and you cannot control the outcome when it comes to a third person (lover, et als.). There is also much wisdom in your commentary about external sources of happiness, and how fickle life is with it’s “fortune”.
I have a question; how does Eastern thought treat the loss of a family member or loved one? I’m at that point in my life where I am much better separating myself from an outcome, and letting my happiness be subject to the whimsical nature of life’s ebb and flow, but I can’t imagine doing that with the death of a loved one.
I’d appreciate your insights. Thanks.
Sorry for hijack.
[/quote]
Deep seated attachments like the bond you might have with a loved one or a family member, they are part of you and therefore part of life. Clinging to those attachments results in having a harder time accepting the fact of death.
People die, you will grieve, accept death and move on living. The difference might be that the phases of sorrow, grief and acceptance follow each other in quick succession instead of it being drawn out over a long period of time.
In any case, emotions, feelings, anything that arises as a result of simply being alive, that’s not the problem. Believing that they have intrinsic value beyond the moment, including love, that is when trouble start.
[/quote]
So are you saying that ephemeral things have no intrinsic value? That is a bold road to be taking eastern philosophy down. Or simply are you saying emotions have no value outside of a particular moment in time also a premise I don’t think you are going to get universal acceptance on.
I also would say that it is going to be very very difficult for someone that has been raised in a western pedagogy to be able to accurately think in a different way. It would require unlearning one’s view of the world.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Perhaps the life in a monestary is different in your part of the world, I don’t know. The few active monestaries in the Netherlands require you to withdraw from everyday life and focus on your relationship with god through prayer, silence and solitude.
Your last paragraph apty describes the differences in approach and attitude between western and eastern philosophy. Whereas in the west you’d focus on “doing” without investigating what is doing “the doing”, in the east [or least in buddhism but it’s a general vain in eastern philosophy] the focus lies on the self and how the self is the cause of suffering.
The idea is that you can’t have lasting happiness if that happiness is conditional; when happiness requires an action or prerequisite. Whatever the external means of happiness it can be taken away from you, or it can change and no longer make you happy.
These external causes of happiness are fleeting, fickle and will ultimately cause suffering. One thing makes you happy; one thing changes; you’re no longer happy.
It’s a seesaw that swings back and forth between happy and unhappy with you on either side throwing things on the ends just to feel something.
Eastern philosophy focusses on the pivot in the middle where everything is in rest. Buddhist teachings point the way, but it is you who has to do the work, the hard work to be able to rest in between happiness and the absence of happiness.
When the appearance of both sides have fallen away what is apparent manifests as being.
[/quote]
There is a ton of wisdom here and if forms the basic attitude I have toward relationships. Some people cling to this idea of “forever” with a mate, girlfriend, wife, etc. And I always say, things change, people change and you cannot control the outcome when it comes to a third person (lover, et als.). There is also much wisdom in your commentary about external sources of happiness, and how fickle life is with it’s “fortune”.
I have a question; how does Eastern thought treat the loss of a family member or loved one? I’m at that point in my life where I am much better separating myself from an outcome, and letting my happiness be subject to the whimsical nature of life’s ebb and flow, but I can’t imagine doing that with the death of a loved one.
I’d appreciate your insights. Thanks.
Sorry for hijack.
[/quote]
Deep seated attachments like the bond you might have with a loved one or a family member, they are part of you and therefore part of life. Clinging to those attachments results in having a harder time accepting the fact of death.
People die, you will grieve, accept death and move on living. The difference might be that the phases of sorrow, grief and acceptance follow each other in quick succession instead of it being drawn out over a long period of time.
In any case, emotions, feelings, anything that arises as a result of simply being alive, that’s not the problem. Believing that they have intrinsic value beyond the moment, including love, that is when trouble start.
[/quote]
Agreed.
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Perhaps the life in a monestary is different in your part of the world, I don’t know. The few active monestaries in the Netherlands require you to withdraw from everyday life and focus on your relationship with god through prayer, silence and solitude.
Your last paragraph apty describes the differences in approach and attitude between western and eastern philosophy. Whereas in the west you’d focus on “doing” without investigating what is doing “the doing”, in the east [or least in buddhism but it’s a general vain in eastern philosophy] the focus lies on the self and how the self is the cause of suffering.
The idea is that you can’t have lasting happiness if that happiness is conditional; when happiness requires an action or prerequisite. Whatever the external means of happiness it can be taken away from you, or it can change and no longer make you happy.
These external causes of happiness are fleeting, fickle and will ultimately cause suffering. One thing makes you happy; one thing changes; you’re no longer happy.
It’s a seesaw that swings back and forth between happy and unhappy with you on either side throwing things on the ends just to feel something.
Eastern philosophy focusses on the pivot in the middle where everything is in rest. Buddhist teachings point the way, but it is you who has to do the work, the hard work to be able to rest in between happiness and the absence of happiness.
When the appearance of both sides have fallen away what is apparent manifests as being.
[/quote]
There is a ton of wisdom here and if forms the basic attitude I have toward relationships. Some people cling to this idea of “forever” with a mate, girlfriend, wife, etc. And I always say, things change, people change and you cannot control the outcome when it comes to a third person (lover, et als.). There is also much wisdom in your commentary about external sources of happiness, and how fickle life is with it’s “fortune”.
I have a question; how does Eastern thought treat the loss of a family member or loved one? I’m at that point in my life where I am much better separating myself from an outcome, and letting my happiness be subject to the whimsical nature of life’s ebb and flow, but I can’t imagine doing that with the death of a loved one.
I’d appreciate your insights. Thanks.
Sorry for hijack.
[/quote]
Deep seated attachments like the bond you might have with a loved one or a family member, they are part of you and therefore part of life. Clinging to those attachments results in having a harder time accepting the fact of death.
People die, you will grieve, accept death and move on living. The difference might be that the phases of sorrow, grief and acceptance follow each other in quick succession instead of it being drawn out over a long period of time.
In any case, emotions, feelings, anything that arises as a result of simply being alive, that’s not the problem. Believing that they have intrinsic value beyond the moment, including love, that is when trouble start.
[/quote]
So are you saying that ephemeral things have no intrinsic value? That is a bold road to be taking eastern philosophy down. Or simply are you saying emotions have no value outside of a particular moment in time also a premise I don’t think you are going to get universal acceptance on.
I also would say that it is going to be very very difficult for someone that has been raised in a western pedagogy to be able to accurately think in a different way. It would require unlearning one’s view of the world.
[/quote]
A detachment to the “material world” occurred for me in a very personal way when my grandmother died. I can share the story if you’d like. The lesson was life changing, and it had nothing to do with the actual death.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
-There is no need to “save others” in Christianity.
Christ already saved them. Once for all.
You just have to tell people the good news. And testify.
It’s what “Evangil” means.
-Not all Eastern philosophies are focused on individual salvation. Collective (or even universal) salvation are core tenets of some versions of Buddhism.
This is not something the East solved long ago. It’s an open question, and an hard one. The main reason of the schism between Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism.
[/quote]
Do you disagree that the missionaries of Judeo-Christian religion played a part in the spread of Western culture throughout areas that the West eventually attempted to colonize?[/quote]
I disagree with the inflection that the intentions were inherently evil. It’s more complicated than just sending missionaries ahead of the army to soften up the enemy. That’s not what they are about.