|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: "Secular" As A Synonym for "Non-Christian"
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
From the Pope thread.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is mildly fascinating to see a pope being compared with the Dalai Lama, that favourite secular saint.
Is there any sense in which the supposedly continuously reincarnated head of Yellow Hat Tibetan Buddhism can be considered "secular"? I guess he's "worldly" in the sense that he supposedly remains voluntarily within the cycle of reincarnation (i.e. in the world) to help others achieve enlightenment, but that's not a typical understanding of the term "secular".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
No, what was probably meant is that the Dalai Lama, beyond his obvious and undisputed role as a spiritual leader, has become something of a pop icon with the chattering classes.
Many "secular" people who consider themselves too cool for church start drooling when they see the Dalai Lama.
It's a sociocultural phenomenon of the Westerners' search for enchantment.
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
No, what was probably meant is that the Dalai Lama, beyond his obvious and undisputed role as a spiritual leader, has become something of a pop icon with the chattering classes.
This. "Secular" and variations seem to be abused and misunderstood more often than they're used correctly, but this seems a fairly unremarkable statement.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
To give IngoB credit, perhaps he was referring to the Dalai Lama's popularity amoungst the non-religious? The DL certainly seems to garner more respect from the secular world than the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Though, to be fair, there are certainly those here who have the viewpoint you outline.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
I thought "secular" was a synonym for non-Muslim.
Seriously, I don't want to live in a theocracy where mullahs or ayatollahs call the shots. Is there someone here who does? And how doesn't that make us secularists?
[ 18. March 2013, 17:02: Message edited by: Alogon ]
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Major x-post, but I see it differently.
Unlike the leaders of most of the world religions, the current Dalai Lama is accessible and addresses everyone, not merely adherents.
Edited for inflammatory rhetoric.
[ 18. March 2013, 17:05: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Unlike the leaders of most of the world religions, the current Dalai Lama is accessible and addresses everyone, not merely adherents.
True, but a Tibetan friend tells me that there is a considerable difference between the way he addresses "the wider world" and his western public, and the way he talks and teaches in Tibetan. Much sterner in both style and content.
From what I gather the "real" inner tenets of Tibetan Buddhism are not for the faint-hearted either.
That being said, I am grateful for the Dalai Lama's role as a public figure, beyond his primary spiritual role.
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
If other religious leaders would understand the why of the difference in address, they might enjoy a wider audience as well.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
No, what was probably meant is that the Dalai Lama, beyond his obvious and undisputed role as a spiritual leader, has become something of a pop icon with the chattering classes. Many "secular" people who consider themselves too cool for church start drooling when they see the Dalai Lama. It's a sociocultural phenomenon of the Westerners' search for enchantment.
FWIW, this is on the money. "Secular saint" somewhat like calling Moses a Christian saint, even though Moses obviously wasn't a Christian. (There is of course an additional, rhetorically significant element of incongruity insofar as that "secular" and "saint" do not mix.)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If other religious leaders would understand the why of the difference in address, they might enjoy a wider audience as well.
Assuming that they share the questionable Buddhist opinion that the end of conversion justifies all manner of expedient means. Bait and switch is of course an efficient sales tactic, but that doesn't mean that one has to approve of it.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
FWIW, this is on the money. "Secular saint" somewhat like calling Moses a Christian saint, even though Moses obviously wasn't a Christian. (There is of course an additional, rhetorically significant element of incongruity insofar as that "secular" and "saint" do not mix.)
Ummm, Jews don't have saints either. Though going back to the Dalai Lama, it could be argued that his status as a reincarnated bodhisattva is probably the closest analog to sainthood in Buddhism.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
it could be argued that his status as a reincarnated bodhisattva is probably the closest analog to sainthood in Buddhism.
As far as I know Saints in Christianity are created by the Church to allow the faithful to venerate a person of exemplary life and/or deeds. In other words, a Christian Saint is "created".
Whereas a Boddhisattva is a person (I know, I know, the notion of "Person" is problematic with Buddhism, but that's besides the point here) who, although "qualifying" for nirvana, vows to be reincarnate until the last sentient being is freed from suffering.
Which means that the state of a Boddhisattva -hood (my apologies to all Buddhists...) is something beyond human intervention and certainly any "church".
I think within Buddhism the Theravadin have the notion of "Arhat" which might come closer, but I'm no expert on Theravada Buddhism and I am too lazy right now to get up and look it up. I am sure more energetic and better informed shipmates can correct me...
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If other religious leaders would understand the why of the difference in address, they might enjoy a wider audience as well.
Assuming that they share the questionable Buddhist opinion that the end of conversion justifies all manner of expedient means. Bait and switch is of course an efficient sales tactic, but that doesn't mean that one has to approve of it.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) It is not "bait and switch." It might help if some Christians could understand "You are going to Hell!" is not a spectacular opening statement.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
It seems a euphemism for "someone who is thought exceedingly well of."
In this country, it is very safe to say that for many Fred Rogers is a secular saint. Even though he's a Christian. (Or was; he's dead now.)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
As far as I know Saints in Christianity are created by the Church to allow the faithful to venerate a person of exemplary life and/or deeds. In other words, a Christian Saint is "created".
AIUI in Roman Catholic theology a saint is a Christian who the Church is able to definitely declare is in heaven. And therefore the Church can be sure that the Christian in question is available to intercede with God on our behalf. So there's an element of objective status to it as well.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is not "bait and switch."
Well, what would you like to call it then? Helpful lies? I assume you know your Lotus Sutra (scroll to page 56 and read the parable and the discussion thereof)?
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It might help if some Christians could understand "You are going to Hell!" is not a spectacular opening statement.
This is really quite ironic. As it happens "You are going to Hell!" used to be a common Christian version of expedient means. It was supposed to make people adopt Christianity simply to avoid Hell. Whereupon one could slowly start to teach them "real Christianity", which among other things contains a more differentiated picture of who goes to hell and who doesn't. This represents the same kind of dishonest move for good purposes, except here working the negative (fear) instead fo the positive (desire) angle. The difference is that a Christian can critique this as contrary to the spirit of Christianity, whereas expedient means are explicitly recommended by all major branches of Buddhism.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is not "bait and switch."
Well, what would you like to call it then? Helpful lies? I assume you know your Lotus Sutra (scroll to page 56 and read the parable and the discussion thereof)?
LOL, this is indeed amusing. I see it more as framing an issue in a manner in which the recipient can understand.
Perhaps I should phrase differently this so that you may understand my meaning.
If you invite the friends of your children into your house, you may have a certain level of respectful behaviour you might expect from them. However your expectations of your own children will be higher as they know the house rules.
It is not that you find the friends behaviour acceptable, but you understand that they do not know. So you might not admonish them until they have had the opportunity to learn.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is not "bait and switch."
Well, what would you like to call it then? Helpful lies? I assume you know your Lotus Sutra (scroll to page 56 and read the parable and the discussion thereof)?
LOL, this is indeed amusing. I see it more as framing an issue in a manner in which the recipient can understand....
Um. Yeah. That's the way I see it too. Actually, I'm at a loss to fathom why IngoB is pull-quoting the parable of the burning house, unless in some sort of retaliation for all the eye rolling that Christians have to do when antitheistic oiks chucks great globs of undigested OT at them. The real doozie of the Lotus Sutra doesn't kick in until Chapter 16. Surely that doesn't leave you feeling short changed, Ingo?
--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues
Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
No, what was probably meant is that the Dalai Lama, beyond his obvious and undisputed role as a spiritual leader, has become something of a pop icon with the chattering classes.
Many "secular" people who consider themselves too cool for church start drooling when they see the Dalai Lama.
It's a sociocultural phenomenon of the Westerners' search for enchantment.
This is part of a broader unrealistic view of Buddhism in general by secularists, for whom it represents the 'good', non-violent religion.
Buddhists, like Christians, come in all shapes, sizes and 'denominations' and, like Christians, have much in their history of which to be ashamed, including Buddhist violence or support for violence in Sri Lanka, Thailand, Cambodia, Korea and Japan.
It is possible to oppose the Chinese invasion, occupation and subjugation of Tibet without idealising or romanticising the Buddhist theocracy which preceded it.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The difference is that a Christian can critique this as contrary to the spirit of Christianity, whereas expedient means are explicitly recommended by all major branches of Buddhism.
I foresee a promising line of 'no true Scotsman' discussions, which we normally reserve for Christianity/Islam comparisons. Doing it for Christianity vs Buddhism will make a refreshing change.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
No, what was probably meant is that the Dalai Lama, beyond his obvious and undisputed role as a spiritual leader, has become something of a pop icon with the chattering classes.
Many "secular" people who consider themselves too cool for church start drooling when they see the Dalai Lama.
It's a sociocultural phenomenon of the Westerners' search for enchantment.
I agree. He's safely a long way away, and doesn't make any demands on ex- or sub-Christians.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Very interesting. I'd like to pick up on the term 'spiritual leaders'. This is a separate topic, I suppose, which I'll think about while my computer has to go away again, having been returned with a fault it didn't have before.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I see it more as framing an issue in a manner in which the recipient can understand.
That would be in line with the traditional argument for expedient means. Your analogy (that follows), not so much...
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If you invite the friends of your children into your house, you may have a certain level of respectful behaviour you might expect from them. However your expectations of your own children will be higher as they know the house rules.
It is not that you find the friends behaviour acceptable, but you understand that they do not know. So you might not admonish them until they have had the opportunity to learn.
Except that this analogy does not work. The friends of my children do not get a break because their cognitive abilities are lower than those of my children. They could understand the house rules full well if I explained them, but I do not. They will have no opportunity to learn, unless their parents happen to have similar house rules (which they apparently do not have, given that these children have not learned these rules, but mine have). The truth there is that I actually have house rules for "children not of my household", and they are considerably laxer than those for "children of my household". And that's not going to change.
You could fix your analogy by talking about how your own three year old has to behave vs. how your own eight year old has to behave. There different cognitive abilities lead to different house rules (or perhaps different approximations of the same house rules). But I'm not sure whether you need the "of my household" and "not of my household" contrast for whatever you are trying to say.
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
Um. Yeah. That's the way I see it too. Actually, I'm at a loss to fathom why IngoB is pull-quoting the parable of the burning house, unless in some sort of retaliation for all the eye rolling that Christians have to do when antitheistic oiks chucks great globs of undigested OT at them.
It's always a particular displeasure to talk to those dissing their own tradition. But I was quoting the Lotus Sutra not as a "proof text", but as a typical expression of the expedient means principle. I'm not aware that it is a contentious principle in any major Buddhist sect, or for Buddhists of a certain bias (say traditional vs. liberal or whatever). If I am mistaken, and your sect rejects expedient means, please feel free to correct. Otherwise we can perhaps cut through the nebulous bullshit by you giving us a summary of how you see expedient means.
I will say this though: Buddhist expedient means are not merely a synonym for didactic structure. It is not just that truths are being taught in a sequence that makes their comprehension easier (or possible). It is not just that truths first are provided in a vague manner, and then clarified as understanding sharpens. It is the idea that falsehoods are allowable if they ultimately guide to truth. If one gets to a higher standard of understanding, one's concept do not merely need updating, but correcting. To pick a harmless example, it is like first teaching that there is a Santa Claus and that he does award good behavior with gifts, and then later revealing that there is no Santa Claus and moral behavior is its own reward.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If I am mistaken, and your sect rejects expedient means, please feel free to correct. Otherwise we can perhaps cut through the nebulous bullshit by you giving us a summary of how you see expedient means.
My sect is entirely focused on the essential Lotus Sutra, and discards* expedient means – in accordance with the Buddha's intention expressed in the previous LS chapter to the one you've just cited...
quote:
Now I, joyful and fearless,
in the midst of the bodhisattvas,
honestly discarding expedient means,
will preach only the unsurpassed Way.
* 'Reject' is too strong a word. As the Burning House parable analogises, expedient means appeal to the acknowledged desires and delusions of their intended recipients (and let he who is without desires and delusions cast the first stone!). The Lotus Sutra puts them in their intended context – like the denouement at the end of a well-constructed whodunit, with the partial observations and suppositions of the previous chapters being ultimately illuminated by the reveal.
--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues
Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Alright, my analogy was crap. My basic point, and not a judgement or condemnation, was that most religious leaders are not accessible to those outside their faith. The Dalai Lama is.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
I will say this though: Buddhist expedient means are not merely a synonym for didactic structure. It is not just that truths are being taught in a sequence that makes their comprehension easier (or possible). It is not just that truths first are provided in a vague manner, and then clarified as understanding sharpens. It is the idea that falsehoods are allowable if they ultimately guide to truth. If one gets to a higher standard of understanding, one's concept do not merely need updating, but correcting.
I think that is a very narrow/legalistic definition of truth vs. falsehood. And, as kankucho shows, the method you descibe is not universally applied.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
My sect is entirely focused on the essential Lotus Sutra, and discards* expedient means – in accordance with the Buddha's intention expressed in the previous LS chapter to the one you've just cited...
quote:
Now I, joyful and fearless,
in the midst of the bodhisattvas,
honestly discarding expedient means,
will preach only the unsurpassed Way.
Well, the Lotus sutra itself (rather than perhaps your sect) is making a classical Buddhist move there: one declares all that has gone before as mere expedient means, whereas one is now teaching the undiluted truth of the Buddha. However, it may well be that your sect states all it has to say up-front, without any "expedient means". If so, then I have no beef with you. But that is definitely not the regular state of Buddhist affairs. (By the way, "sect" merely as the equivalent to "denomination", no insult intended.)
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
My basic point, and not a judgement or condemnation, was that most religious leaders are not accessible to those outside their faith. The Dalai Lama is.
Indeed, the current Dalai Lama is a great communicator, in a way that BXVI very much was not. My point is that with the Dalai Lama I'm much less convinced than with a pope, any pope, that I'm really getting the "straight dope". And I find that that is a serious consideration as well...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
