Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!gatech!prism!mailer.cc.fsu.edu!mayne From: mayne@nu.cs.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: DEBATE: Buddhism and Taoism "vs." Confucianism Message-ID: <1991Mar11.205951.13982@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> Date: 11 Mar 91 20:59:51 GMT References: <2491@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> <64263@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> Sender: mayne@mailer.cc.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne) Reply-To: mayne@nu.cs.fsu.edu Organization: Florida State Universiy Computer Science Department Lines: 91 Approved: mayne@nu.cs.fsu.edu In article <64263@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> fleming@acsu.buffalo.edu (christine m fleming) writes: >... >The thing that i found funny is that i doubt that many people in these >religions would be debating, considering that debating lends a value >judgement, and i don't think that that meshes with the beliefs too >well...:) This may be true of Taoism. I am not sure about Confucianism. But it is not generally true of Buddhism, in spite of the impression you could get from some who are heavily enfluenced by Western pop psychology and what one serious student of Zen I know called "California hot tub Zen". (I cast no aspersions on Zen, just some misinterpretations and distortions of it. Nor is such misinterpretation limited to Zen.) Debate plays a very interesting and important role in training scholarly Tibetan lamas. Eastern Zen tradition includes the "Dharma duel", not exactly debate in the Western or Tibetan sense, but definitely challenging and even competitive. The sutras/suttas of both Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism contain many accounts of debates between the Buddha and other teachers of the time and their followers. Debate isn't such a bad thing. It is one way we test our ideas. And the Buddha encouraged people to test ideas and believe only what stood the tests of reason and experience (including the experience of meditation). Western pop psychology has attached a negative value judgement to the label "value judgement", and some Western Buddhists have either been misled by this or misinterpreted to give the impression that Buddhism is value neutral. Confusion is natural, but Buddhists don't necessarily refrain from value judgements nor consider them a bad thing. We don't think all teachings equally true or all actions morally (or karmically) equal. That is nihilism, not Buddhism. To explain the last point better than I am able I quote the following excerpt from Francis Story's essay "Tolerance in Religion", published in "The Buddhist Outlook", Buddhist Publication Society, 1973. Please credit Francis Story, not me, in any quotations in follow ups. Bill Mayne --- BEGIN QUOTATION - Francis Story, "Tolerance in Religion" --- It is often said (and even more often written) that the Buddha never condemned. This idea originated with Western students of Buddhism who were at once struck by the difference between the condemnation of other faiths which was so marked a feature of their own religion, and the complete absence of such condemnation in Buddhism. To them this was a new, and very surprising idea. They were accustomed to the belief that if one had a proper faith in one's own religion one automatically condemned all others... They were rightly impressed by the liberal outlook of Buddhism, and made much of it. It is certainly true that the Buddha never condemned after this fashion. But unfortunately by careless handling the idea came to bear a wider and looser meaning, and one that is quite different from what was originally intended. It was taken to mean that the Buddha never, in any circumstances, condemned by criticism anything or anyone. This is demonstrably untrue. Among the things the Buddha condemned in precise and unmistakable terms were the superstition and animal sacrifices of the Brahmins [See note], and their pretensions to caste superiority; the erroneous doctrines of the Titthiyas, or dissident sects; all forms of cruelty and immoral behaviour, and last but not least the shortcomings of some of His own Bhikkus... Perhaps the strongest term of reproof the Buddha used was "Foolish man!" but it was enough... This is demonstrably untrue. Among the things the Buddha condemned in precise and unmistakable terms were the superstition and animal sacrifices of the Brahmins [See note], and their pretensions to caste superiority; the erroneous doctrines of the Titthiyas, or dissident sects; all forms of cruelty and immoral behaviour, and last but not least the shortcomings of some of His own Bhikkus... Perhaps the strongest term of reproof the Buddha used was "Foolish man!" but it was enough... True Buddhist tolerance, then, should as far as possible follow the pattern set by the Buddha Himself; that is to say, it should allow others to hold and to follow whatever they choose, so long as they are incapable of realizing any higher truth. But it does not insist that Buddhists should approve of what others believe or give their assent to it when it goes against the basic teachings of the Master... --- END QUOTATION --- Note: Story means the Brahmins of the Buddha's time, not to be confused with modern Hindus, whether or not of the Brahmin caste. I don't intend to insult or start an argument with Hindus, nor to go into the complex relations between Indian religions at the time of the Buddha, particularly the Brahmins, and modern Hinduism and Buddhism.