Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Pious fraud
in Philosophy
Or noble lie. Is it possible?
Many intellectuals believe that Jesus, Buddha, and the like were only concerned with making people do good deeds, to create an equal and just society - in short, they were just secular humanists who cared about human welfare in the here and now. If at all they spoke of the afterlife or god or whatever, it was only because they had to speak the language of the masses, use religous metaphors because religion at that time pervaded every facet of life. Since religion was a dominant force, they had to express even secular ideas in such terms, if only to appeal to people. Pious fraud, if you will.
What do you think of this position? Buddha only cared about human welfare but ancient Indians were obsessed with liberation. So Buddha cleverly turned them into humanists by keeping 'liberation' as a carrot in front of their noses. Or something like that. The same goes for Jesus and the other blokes. Would this have been possible - that they were secular humanists disguising themselves as religious folks in order to do good?
Many intellectuals believe that Jesus, Buddha, and the like were only concerned with making people do good deeds, to create an equal and just society - in short, they were just secular humanists who cared about human welfare in the here and now. If at all they spoke of the afterlife or god or whatever, it was only because they had to speak the language of the masses, use religous metaphors because religion at that time pervaded every facet of life. Since religion was a dominant force, they had to express even secular ideas in such terms, if only to appeal to people. Pious fraud, if you will.
What do you think of this position? Buddha only cared about human welfare but ancient Indians were obsessed with liberation. So Buddha cleverly turned them into humanists by keeping 'liberation' as a carrot in front of their noses. Or something like that. The same goes for Jesus and the other blokes. Would this have been possible - that they were secular humanists disguising themselves as religious folks in order to do good?
0
Comments
Buddhadharma is only realised experientially.
Everyone has ( and should have ) lots of questions to start with. But eventually we have to take a position and act.
It's a little harder with Jesus because we don't have as clear a view of him and his teachings, in my opinion. The words attributed to him have not received the same exacting curation as far as we can tell; translations were looser, editing more haphazard, new material (and much material) definitively suppressed--all this not just by monastics or church scholars, but secular rulers as well who swooped in and had their say. Much of this wheeling and dealing is a matter of more careful record than the canon itself.
Even on the Buddhist canon, whose transmission appears--whatever texts we personally accept--to have been overall a more ordered and less-contentious process, there is strong disagreement on various texts' validity. How much more shaky, then, our knowledge of the early Christian teachings.
In general, the open-minded Christian examines the New Testament and sees the message of love shining through--that's a great thing. But I don't think we have enough to go on to guess at all of Jesus' motives. There is a strong case to be made for his working towards a secular throne; but that doesn't mean he wasn't striving for the throne out of desire to use it to spread the love message. I think we just can't tell from Christian scriptures, at least not until we are finally allowed to study and publish them rigorously, and free from interference by powerful religious institutions.
In Mahayana buddhism there's a concept called Upaya: "that even if a technique, view, etc., is not ultimately "true" in the highest sense, it may still be an expedient practice to perform or view to hold; i.e., it may bring the practitioner closer to true realization anyway."
You can have a read more about Upaya here at good old wikipedia.
In that wiki article is the Parable of the Burning House, where the Buddha says it's ok to lie for some reasons.
But Grrr, I don't like it. So I guess it is lucky then that I don't follow the Lotus Sutra!
He is not asking if " a noble lie " may at times be upaya.
He is asking if the whole of Buddhadharma is predicated on a " noble lie " and further he is asking if the Buddha was actually a secular humanist.
The question that strikes me as making some sense is, precisely what is spiritual (or intellectual or emotional) life lying ABOUT.
The transmutation of Buddhism into something resembling 'humanism" or G.J. Holyoake's "secularism" doesn't at all teach us anything about what Gautama actually taught or what Buddhism really is — it may even be a kind of fraud.
I think it is important to understand Buddhism by what Buddhism is not. It is not secularism, materialism, phenomenalism, rationalism, nor does it champion the physical sciences.
The stars of pop Buddhism are not really interested in Buddhism for its own sake. For them it is a kind of intellectual smorgasbord: take what you like from the Buddhist canon (one or two Suttas or Sutras) and forget the rest.
I am not talking about modern secularists interpreting Buddhism according to their preferences. Was the Buddha himself a humanist ... and 'Buddhism' just humanism in disguise? All this metaphysical stuff could have been added by Buddha to appeal to masses who are generally religious.
Cheers
There are many sutras, commentaries, explanations letting us know what the Buddha taught. And there are many GREAT Masters in the past and in the present day that continously and tireless trying to teach us and help to know what to do.
However, it's all up to you to believe. If your new and is abit skeptical, thats okay, you still have a good chance to be open minded and learn. But if your a grumpy old bugger that thinks your the smartest ZEN master out there. They people can only feel sad for you.
As I say, this is no biggie. It's just par for the verbal or intellectual or emotional course. Lies can have their uses and my question was, about what truth is spiritual encouragement lying?
So thats why everyone respect the WOrld Honoured so much and was touched in their heart to follow his teachings.
But we are more arrogant, deluded and narrowed in modern western culture to accept his teachings.
And what's "metaphysical" about suggesting that individual perspective is as much a part of "experience" as the matter being experienced?
The humanists and scientists of the 1600s would have (no doubt cheerfully and not particularly anxiously) labeled as metaphysical the suggestion that matter is composed of atoms, instead of the classically-accepted components fire, air, earth and water.
Imho it is either becoming increasingly difficult to accuse the Buddha of a fondness for metaphysics, or increasingly difficult to refrain from accusing modern science of the same.
I simply have no idea at all what point you are trying to make. I am reasonably intelligent. English is my first language, and I can't make head or tail of what you are saying.
Either I am less intelligent than I thought...quite possible. Or you have fallen into the trap of using a form of jargon which you think is readily understandable, but in fact is not.
I get the feeling that you have said the same thing many many times and have lost your way in responding to others who are not Zen followers.
Or of course your response might simply be too profound for the likes of me.
That leaves the question of whether Einstein disbelieved his own theories, but published them anyway for the sake of humanity.
As long as the theories prove useful, and humanity benefits, it's hard to see fraud in either man's actions. So we're asking if the Buddha told "loving lies" to benefit people. If many of the instructions he gave seem to work as he said they would, I'm not sure he could technically be counted as a fraud even if he disbelieved every word he was saying.