[Buddha-l] Bertrand Russell

[libris]

Many who read Russell are probably aware of Russells; view on religion (most of which is porbably true anyway). Interestingly, he published "A History of Western Philosophy" in 1945, and "Why I am not a Christian" in 1957. The impression I get is that in the former he was referring to Buddhism as a teaching, while in the latter to Buddhist realities today. Anyway, I suppose, that's as far as pipe-smoking armchair criticism can go.

Perhaps we have a lot to learn from such remarks of Russell and also the works of Gregory Schopen & Seneviratne (The Work of Kings, 1999). I think there is a new breed of scholars who are more open about our dirty linens and skeletons in the cupboard. Which is good: we can learn to strengthen ourselves where we are weak.

We have also a lot to learn from the difficulties that avant gardes like Sangharakshita and their pupils face. Lotuses as we know need mud to spring from: but it has to be the mud at our own feet, not others. (It's best to learn from our own mistakes.)

Piya Tan

--- Richard Hayes <rhayes at unm.edu> wrote:

> On Thursday 10 August 2006 21:27, libris wrote:
> 
> > The quote is actually from "A History of Western Philosophy"
> > (1945), however, I'm not sure of the exact page:perhaps someone
> > can help.
> 
> While someone is looking through that 900-page book in search of 
> Russell's views on Buddhism, we might want to ponder some of what 
> he said in "Why I am Not a Christian."
> 
> \begin{quote}
> There has been a rumour in recent years to the effect that I have 
> become less opposed to religious orthodoxy that I formerly was. 
> This rumour is totally without foundation. I think all the great 
> religions of the world---Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, 
> and Communism---both untrue and harmful. (p. 9)
> \end{quote}
> 
> In light of all the suffering religious people have been inflicting
> 
> on each other and on totally innocent by-standers around the world 
> in the 21st century, it would be hard to disagree with Lord Russell
> 
> on that one. But how about this one:
> 
> \begin{quote}
> But what is true of Christianity is equally true of Buddhism. The 
> Buddha was amiable and enlightened; on his death-bed he laughed at 
> his disciples for supposing that he was immortal. But the Buddhist 
> priesthood---as it exists, for example, in Tibet---has been 
> obscurantist, tyrannous, and cruel in the highest degree.
> (p. 29)
> \end{quote}
> 
> Although Tibetan "priests" were the main focus of that broadside, 
> Lord Russell managed to have some scathing things to say about the 
> ability of Japanese Buddhists priests to think clearly and 
> rationally. All things considered, Buddhism does not come out 
> awfully well in Russell's depictions. The highest praise we find is
> 
> an acknowledgment that the Buddha was amiable and enlightened 
> enough to mock his own disciples.
> 
> Russell's assessment may not have been the most politely worded, and
> 
> one searches in vain for signs of political correctness. But was 
> Lord Russell's assessment of Lord Buddha really all that 
> inaccurate?
> 
> -- 
> Richard Hayes
> Department of Philosophy
> University of New Mexico
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
>