[Buddha-l] Bertrand Russell

[Barnaby Thieme]

Apologies for my inaccurate reference to Why I am Not Christian.

Amazon has a search feature for many of their books - I searched for the 
quote in "History of Western Philosophy" to no avail - it does not come from 
that book either.

I share Richard's suspicion that this quote does not come from Russell, and 
it is an artifact of the internet. When I search for the quote on Google I 
get several listings, but none of them give a citation. I used the book 
search feature on both Amazon and Google and looked through many of 
Russell's books, but to no avail. I suspect, like Baudrillard's simulation, 
this quote has no true origin, but is a copy of a copy of a copy.

re: Russel, his "History of Western Philosophy" is amusing, but notoriously 
unreliable. The philosophers he does not like are depicted in grotesque 
charicature.

Barnaby~


_________________________________

A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing
- Emo Philips




>From: Richard Hayes <rhayes at unm.edu>
>Reply-To: Buddhist discussion forum <buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com>
>To: Buddhist discussion forum <buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com>
>Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Bertrand Russell
>Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 10:05:43 -0600
>
>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