Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!laura
From: laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Response to Tim - what is a religion? (off the topic)
Message-ID: <5265@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 16-Mar-85 18:07:27 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.5265
Posted: Sat Mar 16 18:07:27 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 16-Mar-85 18:07:27 EST
References: <657@pyuxd.UUCP> <304@cmu-cs-k.ARPA>, <702@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 57

Wait a second. You started out saying that we should use a definition of
religion that everybody uses, and then claimed that the notion of
external creating deity was implied by the word religion as people
used it. *Now* you claim that even if people think that Buddhism is
a religion they should be taught otherwise, even if it is misfiled
in universities. Make up your mind!

People are very capable of believing 2 contradictory things at the
same time. Usually this means that the contradictions are not
apparant, but sometimes this means that the person has chosen not
to resolve contradictions -- for a variety of reasons. I meet lots
of people who think that Buddhists think that Siddhartha Gautama 
Sakayama is God. Excuse me. I meet people who think that Buddhists
think that ``Buddha'' or ``the Buddha'' is God. Anyone who knows
those three names already knows enough about Buddhism to know that
``buddha'' is a title, and in knowing what the title means know
that the Buddha is not God. You see, the whole title came about
because people kept asking Gautama ``are you a God?'' ``a Saint?''
``an Angel?''. No he kept answering. ``Then what are you?'' they
asked. ``I am awake.'' he answered. ``Buddha'' means ``The Awakened
One'' or ``The Enlightened One.''

Okay. So perhaps we have established that lots of people don't know
very much about Buddhism. Perhaps they need education. On the
other hand, perhaps they are happy unknowing, much as they are
happy unknowing that tomatoes are fruit and that computers do not
run amok and try to kill their programmers in the great hollywood
tradition. But are you seriously suggesting that because lots of people
are ignorant we should humour them and rearrange all the universities?

I don't think so. What I think you want to do is to focus precisely on
those religious believers who do not have a mystic tradition (this
is the esoteric/exoteric division again, Rich) and then nail them for
the lack of evidence for their beliefs. Too bad you weren't around
when Thomas Aquinas was -- the two of you would have had great times.
But, and this is the point, all of the mystics would conclude that
both the materialists and the theologians missed the whole point --
all you are doing is thinking, analysing and extrapolating...small
wonder mystics of different faiths get along better than some mystics
get along with some members of their own faith!

I have a definition of religion that I think is more accurate than the
ones found in either of your dictionaries. But I am not going to try to
get the universities restructured to suit my definition. Why is this
definition so important to you? I cannot be certain, but I suspect that
it is because you really want to argue with the people who are religious
(by your definition) and leave out those who are not (again by your
definition) and you expect that those who are not (abyd) will find that
what you are arguing for is of such importance that we will rush to
disassociate ourselves from the name ``religion''. Alas for you, it
is not going to work that way. I simply think that what you are
arguing about is irrelevant to what I consider essential to religion.

Laura Creighton
utzoo!laura
Laura Creighton
utzoo!laura