- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
“…1980s human beings are amongst the most intellectually promiscuous in the history of the species, and in general they find little difficulty with the notion of pursuing a great plurality of claims to the truth, even when those claims are radically incompatible with one another. Random eclecticism and pluralism is the form of sad and dangerous confusion that appeals to the tastes of modern humanity. Just as we will eat anything, whether or not it is nutritious, we will believe everything, whether or not it makes sense…” –
Buddhism in the New Dark Agesin Land of No Buddha: Reflections of a Sceptical Buddhist(1998) SamBee wrote:Quote:“…1980s human beings are amongst the most intellectually promiscuous in the history of the species, and in general they find little difficulty with the notion of pursuing a great plurality of claims to the truth, even when those claims are radically incompatible with one another.
Random eclecticism and pluralism is the form of sad and dangerous confusion that appeals to the tastes of modern humanity.Just as we will eat anything, whether or not it is nutritious, we will believe everything, whether or not it makes sense…” – Buddhism in the New Dark Agesin Land of No Buddha: Reflections of a Sceptical Buddhist(1998) One of the biggest popular myths of all in my opinion is the idea that everyone should believe the same thing (as us) and it’s not acceptable for people to believe things that are wrong (from our perspective). Being wrong is one thing, how important this really is in the grand scheme of things is something else entirely. To me it is fairly obvious to see that people can and do believe things that are almost certainly wrong without experiencing any negative consequences whatsoever as a direct result of their false beliefs. In fact, in some cases it could actually make them feel better than trying to force them to accept “the truth” before they are ready to ever will.
I don’t really see that as the problem. I think the writer was talking about New Age types who manage to get ideas from everywhere and believe them all, despite being contradictory. It’s not even doublethink, or triplethink, it’s all over the place think. Quote:it’s not acceptable for people to believe things that are wrong (from our perspective
it really depends what it is. From my perspective, I’m happy for people to believe certain things I disagree with, but other areas of life are non-negotiable.
* The creation of the world – people are entitled to think what they will, IMHO, and it doesn’t affect me that much.
* Someone has the divine right to conquer my country and enslave people. Well, that falls under non-negotiable.
Anyway, this quote came out of a notebook of mine which is practically ten years old… I thought it was worth sharing.
Interesting quote. It’s reassuring that other religious leaders also have a strong view on what’s appropriate in religious belief. I guess Buddhist leaders find ‘pop-buddhism’ quite frustrating.
Having said that… I don’t necessarily agree with the quote. It depends on the outcome. If the ‘new agers’ are adopting a buffet of beliefs and it leads to a life of more kindness, more charity, more caring for their neighbour and more virtue, then I think the canteen has done its job.
If, on the other hand it leads to a justification of indulgence, selfishness and apathy, then I would consider it to have been unproductive. Only the individual can work out which way it’s taking them and what they want to make of themselves.
I think you were saying as much in your second post.
I shouldn’t comment because I know nothing about Buddhism, but I looked at a couple Amazon reviews of this book. This (from a 3-star review) struck me as ironic: Quote:“It is also of interest for the ideas he stakes out on issues not widely addressed in many Buddhist communities, such as the over commercialization of Buddhist centers; the sterility of much of Buddhist ritual as practiced across the world; the proliferation of gurus, roshis, and rinpoches; the accretion of teachings that have complicated, rather than simplified, the Dharma; and the inability of Buddhist practitioners to let go of Buddh-ISM.”
I had an image flash through my mind: stressed-out, struggling Buddhists congregating online at “stayBuddhist.com.”
It’s actually an excellent book, a long while since I read it. Buddhism in the west has gone through fashionable cycles… early twentieth Indian, in the fifties Zen, later Thai, then Tibetan, then on to the next. The classic bird mind, pecks at something for a while, moves to the next without picking up much. Very much a New Age and post-modern affliction. Perhaps affected more by what’s fresh and exotic than whta’s useful. We have the same tendency with cuisine. I love TexMex but it’s hard to find TexMex restaurants here now because they’re out of fashion- fifteen years ago, you could barely move for them.
Ann, it’s enlightening to realize how universal things are that, in the moment of crisis, seem so unique. It’s good to remember that the need for a Stay______.com is not unique to the LDS Church.
SamBee wrote:I don’t really see that as the problem.
I think the writer was talking about New Age types who manage to get ideas from everywhere and believe them all, despite being contradictory. It’s not even doublethink, or triplethink, it’s all over the place think.Quote:it’s not acceptable for people to believe things that are wrong (from our perspective
it really depends what it is. From my perspective, I’m happy for people to believe certain things I disagree with, but other areas of life are non-negotiable…this quote came out of a notebook of mine which is practically ten years old… I thought it was worth sharing.
That’s the thing about highly questionable beliefs, what appears to be clearly wrong from the outside looking in often makes perfect sense to the people that actually believe it because they don’t really see the contradictions or reasons why they shouldn’t believe it. Sometimes there is compartmentalization going on where people are able to hold onto different beliefs that don’t really complement each other very well based on different roles they play at different times during the week.
For example, at work some Church members will be very skeptical and expect proven results but at home or at church it is often a whole different set of standards that end up being applied when evaluating beliefs. As far as how important it is to be right or not it definitely depends on the situation. I see most New Age ideas as the kind of thing that will typically not do much harm even if they are wrong. One thing that does bother me along these lines is how easily some people can be convinced that vaccinations are bad in general and could give their children autism or something like that because it doesn’t just affect them anymore.
The buffet idea of spirituality can work, but sometimes you need to stick with something to grow. It may not be the tastiest thing on offer, but it might be the most nutritious. Related… critics of the Book of Mormon can suffer from something similar… we’ve discussed this elsewhere… some of the accusations against JS contradict each other, and while they’re interesting they can’t be simultaneously true.
Sorry, Sambee, I only said “3-star” as a way of identifying it among the others when I couldn’t recall the reviewer’s online name after clicking away. My thoughts are off-OP, but just want to thank you for the post. It caught me in a teachable moment. Old-Timer wrote:Ann, it’s enlightening to realize how universal things are that, in the moment of crisis, seem so unique.
It’s good to remember that the need for a Stay______.com is not unique to the LDS Church.
Quote:Sorry, Sambee, I only said “3-star” as a way of identifying it among the others when I couldn’t recall the reviewer’s online name after clicking away.
That’s what I thought, don’t worry.
I’m glad the quote got a response it’s not just for Buddhists.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.