03.29.09
Atheism, and Buddhists
If Tibetan Buddhists are that bad, imagine what we are like in the American Buddhist chaos! Too bad, marked down for extermination by the atheist fanatics.
My point was the narrowness of the Feuerbachian/Marxist atheism (one of the unspoken sources of the current New Atheism, next to Darwinism, etc,…)
I am actually severely critical of Tibetan Buddhism, but I am wary of the issue now, since everyone is ganging up on them, the Chinese set to destroy them.
James said,
March 29, 2009 at 3:23 pm ·
My feelings here are a bit mixed. Tibetan culture is certainly interesting and I deplore the actions of the Chinese, but the Vajrayana is problematic in terms of being representative of Buddhism in its genuine forms or giving us any insight into an ancient form of “atheism” (my intention is to speak in terms of history and not from the perspective of conservative dogmatism). Even though TB is presented in the West as being the only form of Buddhism, it is such a late entrant into Buddhist history that this perception is rather misguided. It is not my intention to be impolite, but TB shows all of the signs of being a product of the chaotification and egregious mysticism that characterized the medieval period (it seems to be some eclectic mixture of Upanishadism, indigenous Tibetan shamanism, Nath tantra, and Buddhism).
Samuel Skinner said,
March 29, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Hey- ideologies compete and crush each other all the time. Libertarianism should be coming into the sights soon…
James comment is moronic though. I wasn’t aware it was our job to preserve whole other cultures for our enjoyment. Or decide wheter they are “real” enough. All that matters is if they are helpful or harmful- not wheter they are unique or interesting.
Also the reason the Chinese crack down on it is they have an crazy fear of seperatism due to watching what happened to the USSR.
James said,
March 30, 2009 at 7:07 pm
I will ignore your comment since you don’t have the slightest idea about what John and I are talking about.
Samuel Skinner said,
April 1, 2009 at 1:57 am
‘I will ignore your comment since you don’t have the slightest idea about what John and I are talking about.”
“It is not my intention to be impolite, but TB shows all of the signs of being a product of the chaotification and egregious mysticism that characterized the medieval period (it seems to be some eclectic mixture of Upanishadism, indigenous Tibetan shamanism, Nath tantra, and Buddhism).”
Here he appears to be complaining that the culture is a synthsis of several different threads. Which is bizarre because that applies to just about every culture on Earth and is irrelevant to the value of its culture. I’d say my mockery is spot on.
James said,
April 1, 2009 at 3:58 pm
The point I am making is that the central issue is the nature of skill, action, and intentionality. Early Buddhism makes this the central issue in contrast to later forms of Buddhism. Current “secularists” and the New Atheists are completely ignorant of the history of religion and so they only attack the most degenerated forms of religion without understanding the central point. To be fair, current religionists and New Agers aren’t any better and they just spew up all kinds of incoherent nonsense (i.e. oneness with the universe, religion is about feeling, emotion, etc.)
James said,
April 1, 2009 at 4:10 pm
“The point I am making is that the central issue is the nature of skill, action, and intentionality.”
As John has pointed out on this blog many times, Kant completely grasped this point. It is troubling to think that “secularism” could’ve been taken in a far more robust and recondite direction before the onset of scientism and positivism.