[Buddha-l] Re: Will new the pope verify Buddhist doctrine?

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Sun, 2005-04-24 at 16:38 -0400, curt wrote:


> Hmmm - the Catholic Church wouldn't exactly be the first place I would 
> look for examples of "positive change" in the Religions of the 20th century. 

The official renunciation of triumphalism, the doctrine of preferential
option for the poor, the relinquishing of the two-millennium-old
doctrine that Jews were to blame for the death of Christ, the
acknowledgement that there is legitimacy in other religions, and the
focus on dialogue with other religions were all features of Second
Vatican Council. Those seem positive steps of a magnitude almost
unparalleled in the history of world religions.
 
> If you ask me, they should have kept the Latin mass and allowed women priests -  
> instead of the other way around - and its been pretty much downhill ever since.

Not being a Catholic myself, I do not care at all about liturgical
matters. As a Buddhist I am less indifferent. I abominate the affected
practice of chanting in languages that the congregation does not
understand. (Mind you, I chant in Sanskrit and Pali, but then I teach
those languages for a living. I would never recommend that anyone else
chant in those languages unless they knew the grammar and vocabulary.)
As for women priests, I could never take any religion seriously that did
not give full equality to women. That could be why I can't take any
religion seriously.

> Except maybe for Liberation Theology - maybe. I'm not convinced that
> it plays a net positive role, since it can also be seen as a fig leaf
> covering the otherwise fairly naked support the Catholic Church gives
> to the economic elites of the world.

If your information were not forty years out of date, I would agree with
you. Things have, however, changed pretty significantly.

> I would question both of these assumptions: (1) that Socialism's 
> moorings are Religious, and (2) that Religions have in general been
> founded by people who advocate for the poor and oppressed.

You should read The Communist Manifesto someday. Never was a more
obviously religious text written. Socialism is rooted firmly in the
values of the European Enlightenment, and that is religious to the very
bottom. If you can find a single religion that was not founded by people
who advocated for the poor and the oppressed, name it.

>  But I see both of those as side issues.

Yes, because you know you are wrong. Whne people are wrong about
something, they always regard what they were wrong about as trivial.

> I hope this isn't putting words in your mouth - but I absolutely agree
> that Socialism is the only conceivable result of an analysis of human
> society that is both rational and compassionate. The fact that it is
> so easy to see - but so hard to actually do anything about is
> something that I think has yet to be adequately explained.

Those are close to the very words I would have put into my mouth. As for
why it is hard to implement socialism, the reason for that is fairly
simple, I think. Billions of dollars have been spent to discredit it in
every way and to link it with unpopular causes. The history of the
incessant campaign against socialism is the richest harvest of red
herrings in the universe. You could feed every man, woman and child for
a millennium on all those red herrings. (And since red herrings, unlike
fishy herrings, are a pure vegetable product, even vegans can eat them.)

> Well, comrade, as far as I am concerned, all indoctrination is not 
> created equal. Socialist "propaganda", if you will, is absolutely
> necessary to counter the "manufactured consent" of the masses in their
> own exploitation.

Here we part company. I take the Buddhist path of fighting lies with
truth, not with further lies. Alas, one of the failures of socialism has
been its fondness for fighting lies with even bigger lies and to
suppress all truths that do no serve the Revolution. That policy is,
well, revolting. 

-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico