XPost: alt.philosophy.zen, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.taoism   
   From: tanghuyen@gmail.com   
      
   On 8/25/2016 9:31 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
      
   > And you say the christianity adopts this in its adoption of stoic   
   > ideas.   
   >   
   > This adoption appears large from the stoic point of view I suspect.   
   > From the christian point of view, not so large.  Christians certainly   
   > don't have a world view that weaves the natural and supernatural   
   > independent of christ.   
   >   
   > In daoism and buddhism also not so large, I suspect even though you   
   > can point to ideas in each that would suggest a largeness.  Buddhists   
   > tend to world view their founder, for instance.  Maybe even more than   
   > he thought wise.   
      
   It is funny that in recent times, China has   
   been trying (quite half-heartedly) to move   
   away from a polity based on persons (e. g.,   
   Mao) to a polity based on abstract principles   
   (e. g., the constitution, rules and laws). The   
   three Religions of the Book are based on   
   persons, and do not admit any abstract   
   principles (e. g., morality) independent of   
   persons. Therefore all three certainly don't   
   have a world view that weaves the natural   
   and supernatural independent of their   
   founders, real or mythical, individual or   
   collective.   
      
   As to Buddhism, there is always the tension   
   between purity and reality, where the latter   
   requires going along with the world for the   
   survival of the religion, namely Buddhism.   
   Such accommodation of worldly ways   
   threatens to corrupt the presumed pristine   
   purity of the Law (Dharma), but the latter   
   would not survive beyond two or three   
   generations save for the former. One   
   famous example is the prohibition to   
   monks of handling money. It is beautiful   
   morality, but impractical in real life. After   
   all, the Law is to be lived in real life. This   
   friction between the ideal and the real is   
   never going to go away.   
      
   Regardless of the differences between the   
   two orientations, which to me are mental   
   orientations, my bias is that what works is   
   impersonal and natural, with the   
   supernatural serving as frill, for the   
   edification of the masses, even of the   
   sincere practitioners who can well forego   
   it in favour of the mere natural. Of course,   
   as I confess, my bias is not backed up by   
   any scientific evidence, even if it looks   
   self-evident to me, but here my excessive   
   universalisation can well mess with my   
   objectivity. (All proportions kept, excessive   
   universalisation can to me be easily   
   observed in Augustine, who reasons   
   mostly in Stoic patterns and tropes, whilst   
   covering them up with themes of Jewish   
   mythology for public consumption).   
      
   Tang Huyen   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)