[Buddha-l] buddha-l Digest, Vol 103, Issue 6

[Sally McAra]

Looking at the wording of Dave/Ayracitta's email: rather than saying
"religion is an aspect of nationalism", anthropologists or sociologists
tend to argue that nationalists *appropriate* religious discourses for
their own purposes, to attempt to defend and legitimize their own position.
That's quite different from claiming that religion is an aspect of
nationalism.

People also use religion to further other ideological purposes. And people
get dogmatic and attached to their ideas, even to the idea of
non-attachment!


On 13 September 2013 04:14, Dan Lusthaus <vasubandhu at earthlink.net> wrote:

> Religion is ultimately an individual
>> choice.
>> Dave Living/Aryacitta Southend on Sea Essex UK
>>
>
> That's very Protestant of you. To impose that idea on other traditions
> would be imperialistic. "Choice" = will, so this is an expression of "free
> will", ergo the Protestant emphasis on "faith", "belief," etc. Most other
> religions stress actions over beliefs (e.g., you are a good Hindu based on
> what you do and don't do, not on what you believe; you can believe in one,
> many, or no gods, and still be a good Hindu, but you can't marry certain
> castes, etc.).
>
> In any case, history argues that shifting from an action-value tradition
> such as Hinduism to a faith-choice religion such as Islam does NOT infuse
> people or regions with peaceful intent. Central Asia (Afghanistan,
> Pakistan, etc.) used to be Buddhist. Look at it today.
>
> Dan
> ______________________________**_________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/**mailman/listinfo/buddha-l<http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l>
>



-- 
Sally