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

[Joy Vriens]

If a nation is a group of men, whose members are united through a real 
or presumed common origin and which has been primitively organised on a 
territory, then one can bet that the "common origin" has its roots in 
religion, and religion in mythology (cosmogony, theogony, genealogy). 
Which came first the chicken or the egg, the "nation" or the "religion"? 
>From immemorial times, the king and the priest have always walked hand 
in hand, the one consolidating and spinning the power of the other. And 
of course like any other couple they had their ups and downs.

Kings and Queens have always been buried in cathedrals, but the first 
time I walked into an English cathedral, I was struck by the even more 
outspoken presence of the military: generals and admirals, or other 
officers fallen in one or the other corner of the empire were honoured 
there, and the subjects of her Majesty and God were reminded "who dies 
if England live?". I sometimes have the impression that England is a 
cult, in which loyalty plays a major role. A cult that spread to its 
former colonies in the new world. And somehow those former colonies, 
although independent, still seem to be aware of their common origin (and 
thereby of their shared religion: rebuilding Jersusalem) and stick 
together. If you're not one of them, you can't be trusted and deserve to 
be spied on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

If it's complete nonsense I write here, then what is the nature of that 
link ?

Joy Vriens

Le 15/09/2013 12:04, James A Stroble a écrit :
> On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 23:23:38 -0400
> "Dan Lusthaus" <vasubandhu at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> That was not the issue.
> I have been thinking back to an earlier discussion, where the "right
> speech" of the eight-fold path came up.  Unfortunately, I don't know
> how to apply it in this situation.
>
> I would repeat my earlier reference to the move "The Matrix" and point
> out that Morpheus and Neo are fighting, again, but this did not seem to
> resonate the first time.
>
> But the nationalism and religion question intrigues me.  I am of the
> opinion that religion gets co-opted by nationalist interests in most
> cases, but I get the feeling Dan is of the contrary opinion.  But in
> the case of Buddhism, it seems that the assertion of Buddhism as a part
> of a national identity is what is at stake, not Buddhism per se.  Maybe
> I am not very aware of any such trans-national Buddhist identity, but
> it does not seem that the Sinhalese are all that concerned about the
> Tibetan struggle, or the Burmese about the Thais. This suggests to me,
> at least, that nationalism is the prime mover in such struggles, and
> religion only a convenient prop.
>
>