[Buddha-l] it's not about belief

[Erik Hoogcarspel]

curt schreef:

> Stanley J. Ziobro II wrote:
>
>>
>> By these standards one could
>> doubt the existence of Socrates,  
>>
>
> Socrates would have encouraged and welcomed such doubt.
>
> - Curt
>
Undoubtedly and so would the Buddha. The point is, I think, that there 
wouldn't be a problem if we all always would maintain the principle that 
the meaning of a text doesn't come from the status of the author. But we 
cannot. We need to understand a text in its context and with its 
cotexts. We need to know who was writing for whom. This means we need 
historical research, archeology and philology.
So yes, if Jesus was a phantasy, God didn't have a son at all, which is 
pretty devastating for Christendom. In modernism this can be overcome by 
the idea of a universal truth that has partly been revealed by different 
religions. But if there is only the dialogue of texts and the will to 
power, if people are only playing according to rules that are taken for 
granted and try to win what's at stake, the truth just becomes a 
perspective.  So we cannot stop playing, we need rules and we need 
something to go for. What might make a difference is the way we play our 
games.
Another thing we might forget is that we are also conditioned by our 
bodily existence, which means we can get high by praying, meditating, 
doing puja, singing and dancing. So maybe it's not Jesus who makes us 
high, but our own body.


-- 

Erik


www.xs4all.nl/~jehms