2010: Integration of East and West.
Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.
-
- Associate
- Posts: 3191
- Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
- Location: Earth
2010: Integration of East and West.
So...here we have an opportunity to explore the idea of integration of Eastern and Western ideas, philosophies, etc.
There are many problems and potentialities to be explored. There will be strong feelings and, at times, we will surely disagree. But it seems to me that if we attempt to invoke the spirit of Joseph Campbell (someone who explored plurality a great deal) we can be productive and find common ground on which to build upon.
There are many problems and potentialities to be explored. There will be strong feelings and, at times, we will surely disagree. But it seems to me that if we attempt to invoke the spirit of Joseph Campbell (someone who explored plurality a great deal) we can be productive and find common ground on which to build upon.
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams
-
- Working Associate
- Posts: 10645
- Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
- Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
- Contact:
Good idea, JJ. To this end, I think it is important to keep Campbell's good friend, Chungliang Al Huang, and his Living Tao Foundation, in mind.
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas
-
- Associate
- Posts: 3191
- Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
- Location: Earth
Thanks for the link Clemsy! I had not come across him yet...I am inspired to learn more about him.
An observation that really cuts to the frequently dogmatic nature of science. There are exceptions, like David Bohm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm who used their scientific intellect to probe the deeper, frequently spiritual issues, that all humans seek (Bohm engaged in many spiritual/psychological discussions with Jiddu Krishnamurti http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiddu_Krishnamurti). Most of my friends who work in science, or math, are non-spiritual. They are very much "black and white" thinkers. They are also, at least several that I know, pretty neurotic. One would think that if a person was certain as to the lack of separation between the mind and body (for example) they would be a bit more relaxed...but I do not wish to overgeneralize in that way.
So, science is a part of this, but I want to come back to some of the key differences that I have come across as I have read and thought about this East/West thing over the past few years.
While their are very real sociological differences between the cultures of India, China, Japan and The United States and Western Europe (much less so with Western Europe in recent years), these differences can to a large degree be boiled down to some core essences. In my mind, one key essential difference often boils down to what I have been calling "spiritual responsibility". Note: I am speaking in general terms here, these are not blanket statements.
Here in the west, we seem to need spiritual systems that are largely "closed". We need a particular god expressing a particular path to a particular destination. Perhaps more important that that, we need a particular messenger to guide us toward the experiencing of this system. This places the finer points of a path toward spiritual responsibility in a tidy handbook that can be followed in a particular way, as indicated by a particular messenger, with a particular end as a goal. There are many divisions (like the many Protestant sects, for example) that occur within these systems, but the basics remain essentially the same (ie; you cannot have Christianity without Christ!). The splinter groups break off because someone got a "thou" crossed up with a "not thou" or some such nuance in translations of a sacred text. The systems largely revolve around the impersonal (outside of the self) god.
The East, from our Western vantage point, seems chaotic. The systems allow for both personal and impersonal gods. The same god may wear many masks (ie; Brahman, Visnu, Siva, etc. in Hinduism). Each is a manifestation of the divine in a particular aspect (Creator, preserver, destroyer). There are also as many different paths to the divine as their are legs to carry the seekers. If you are inclined to seek via intellect, there is a path. If you are inclined to seek via adoration, there is a path. While gurus exist to help seekers on their path, the guru is not a necessary aspect. Their role is more frequently that of a "kick-starter" than a deliverer of a proper path. The spiritual responsibility falls upon the seeker. The path that will serve you best is based upon things like your personality type, sometimes your "station" in life (not such a good thing, although we have caste systems in the West...they are just not formalized), what you want from life, and many other individual factors. Ultimately, the responsibility for your life and your ultimate "arrival" is on you (ie; Dharma and Karma). So ironically, in countries where social systems are far more "communal" in nature, the paths to the divine are extremely individualistic and relative to your own personal needs.
The philosophy of existentialism, in my mind, was (and is) largely an expression of many of the Eastern ideas into Western terms. But many of the existentialists came to a rather pessimistic conclusion from these lines of thinking. It was as if many of the philosophers felt as if a rug had been pulled out from under their feet and the result was a sense of meaninglessness and malaise. Freedom to choose can be an overwhelming thing. Knowing that we are both free and ultimately responsible for our own lives (while acknowledging the reality of social factors) scares the hell out of many people. Ironically, mostly here in the West, where individual freedom is propped up as the ultimate benefit of our societies, many people cling to spiritual systems that ultimately deny them the freedom to be responsible for their ultimate journey. In many ways, this is what, in my view, is one of the key restrictions of finding a truly integrative East/West view of existence. It does not represent, however, an unbridgeable gap. But it is important that we try to recognize the aspects that cause the most difficulty in trying to understand a different world view.
Ultimately, science, philosophy, and religion are all seeking the same thing. Truth, or some satisfactory explanation of it. The problem is not with the goal, nor even the many paths toward the goal, but with our judging of how our fellow travelers choose to walk on their individual journeys. What can best serve us is to look for the common aspects of this quest. We can learn much from all systems if we choose to see the commonalities rather than the differences. This does not mean that the differences are insignificant, but rather that the commonalities are more significant. Anyone who has read Joseph Campbell should have "got this" within the first few pages of any of his books.
In the video, the gentleman says "The scientist finds everything but himself".Perhaps the bridge between east and west begins by knowing which techniques to apply to which sphere of our lives and to be able to move between them easily without rejecting anything - maybe to hold them both in one space.
This seem hard though. -honjaku
An observation that really cuts to the frequently dogmatic nature of science. There are exceptions, like David Bohm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm who used their scientific intellect to probe the deeper, frequently spiritual issues, that all humans seek (Bohm engaged in many spiritual/psychological discussions with Jiddu Krishnamurti http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiddu_Krishnamurti). Most of my friends who work in science, or math, are non-spiritual. They are very much "black and white" thinkers. They are also, at least several that I know, pretty neurotic. One would think that if a person was certain as to the lack of separation between the mind and body (for example) they would be a bit more relaxed...but I do not wish to overgeneralize in that way.
So, science is a part of this, but I want to come back to some of the key differences that I have come across as I have read and thought about this East/West thing over the past few years.
While their are very real sociological differences between the cultures of India, China, Japan and The United States and Western Europe (much less so with Western Europe in recent years), these differences can to a large degree be boiled down to some core essences. In my mind, one key essential difference often boils down to what I have been calling "spiritual responsibility". Note: I am speaking in general terms here, these are not blanket statements.
Here in the west, we seem to need spiritual systems that are largely "closed". We need a particular god expressing a particular path to a particular destination. Perhaps more important that that, we need a particular messenger to guide us toward the experiencing of this system. This places the finer points of a path toward spiritual responsibility in a tidy handbook that can be followed in a particular way, as indicated by a particular messenger, with a particular end as a goal. There are many divisions (like the many Protestant sects, for example) that occur within these systems, but the basics remain essentially the same (ie; you cannot have Christianity without Christ!). The splinter groups break off because someone got a "thou" crossed up with a "not thou" or some such nuance in translations of a sacred text. The systems largely revolve around the impersonal (outside of the self) god.
The East, from our Western vantage point, seems chaotic. The systems allow for both personal and impersonal gods. The same god may wear many masks (ie; Brahman, Visnu, Siva, etc. in Hinduism). Each is a manifestation of the divine in a particular aspect (Creator, preserver, destroyer). There are also as many different paths to the divine as their are legs to carry the seekers. If you are inclined to seek via intellect, there is a path. If you are inclined to seek via adoration, there is a path. While gurus exist to help seekers on their path, the guru is not a necessary aspect. Their role is more frequently that of a "kick-starter" than a deliverer of a proper path. The spiritual responsibility falls upon the seeker. The path that will serve you best is based upon things like your personality type, sometimes your "station" in life (not such a good thing, although we have caste systems in the West...they are just not formalized), what you want from life, and many other individual factors. Ultimately, the responsibility for your life and your ultimate "arrival" is on you (ie; Dharma and Karma). So ironically, in countries where social systems are far more "communal" in nature, the paths to the divine are extremely individualistic and relative to your own personal needs.
The philosophy of existentialism, in my mind, was (and is) largely an expression of many of the Eastern ideas into Western terms. But many of the existentialists came to a rather pessimistic conclusion from these lines of thinking. It was as if many of the philosophers felt as if a rug had been pulled out from under their feet and the result was a sense of meaninglessness and malaise. Freedom to choose can be an overwhelming thing. Knowing that we are both free and ultimately responsible for our own lives (while acknowledging the reality of social factors) scares the hell out of many people. Ironically, mostly here in the West, where individual freedom is propped up as the ultimate benefit of our societies, many people cling to spiritual systems that ultimately deny them the freedom to be responsible for their ultimate journey. In many ways, this is what, in my view, is one of the key restrictions of finding a truly integrative East/West view of existence. It does not represent, however, an unbridgeable gap. But it is important that we try to recognize the aspects that cause the most difficulty in trying to understand a different world view.
Ultimately, science, philosophy, and religion are all seeking the same thing. Truth, or some satisfactory explanation of it. The problem is not with the goal, nor even the many paths toward the goal, but with our judging of how our fellow travelers choose to walk on their individual journeys. What can best serve us is to look for the common aspects of this quest. We can learn much from all systems if we choose to see the commonalities rather than the differences. This does not mean that the differences are insignificant, but rather that the commonalities are more significant. Anyone who has read Joseph Campbell should have "got this" within the first few pages of any of his books.
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams
Hey,
Jons this is really an amazing post. It speaks to the heart. I am not sure how I can contribute to the thread since I don't have quite the knowledge yet to understand this whole thing but I wanna stick with one concept right now and share how I experienced it.
"Judge not because you shall be judged". I also now realize the tremendous psychological implications of what Christ said. By judging others you are projecting the values you wouldn't want to see in yourself and by doing that it is yourself that you are judging not the other. And when you judge you are always judged.
And something about the theme of this thread. There is this confusion in my mind that I can't understand what it means. Campbell often speaks of the east and their ways of teaching like some sort of submission has to be made thus eliminating the ego and creativity but at the same time the place which is beyond the garden of Eden is also the place where nature is most apparent and in my mind nature and creativity are identical. Where is creativity to be found then is it within harmony or within conflict? Maybe it is both not sure. Maybe I am missing something here.
Jons this is really an amazing post. It speaks to the heart. I am not sure how I can contribute to the thread since I don't have quite the knowledge yet to understand this whole thing but I wanna stick with one concept right now and share how I experienced it.
This rings true and I was always struggling to understand what it means to judge. I see that the judgment I put on to others is not a judgment really of the other but of myself. It all boils down to fear again, you seek to judge because you are afraid to acknowledge that indeed you might share some similarities with that which you are afraid. It is not a judgment really of a system or person but more like a judgment to yourself. And that judgment comes not because you want to, but because you have grown up in a certain society under certain rules that is so hard to let go.The problem is not with the goal, nor even the many paths toward the goal, but with our judging of how our fellow travelers choose to walk on their individual journeys. What can best serve us is to look for the common aspects of this quest.
"Judge not because you shall be judged". I also now realize the tremendous psychological implications of what Christ said. By judging others you are projecting the values you wouldn't want to see in yourself and by doing that it is yourself that you are judging not the other. And when you judge you are always judged.
And something about the theme of this thread. There is this confusion in my mind that I can't understand what it means. Campbell often speaks of the east and their ways of teaching like some sort of submission has to be made thus eliminating the ego and creativity but at the same time the place which is beyond the garden of Eden is also the place where nature is most apparent and in my mind nature and creativity are identical. Where is creativity to be found then is it within harmony or within conflict? Maybe it is both not sure. Maybe I am missing something here.
“To live is enough.” ― Shunryu Suzuki
-
- Associate
- Posts: 3191
- Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
- Location: Earth
Yes, I think that for all of us this represents one of the greatest struggles we will ever face, at least psychologically. For me, it is a constant battle. I have to be very mindful of judging. It is as if we are just wired to do it.This rings true and I was always struggling to understand what it means to judge. I see that the judgment I put on to others is not a judgment really of the other but of myself. It all boils down to fear again, you seek to judge because you are afraid to acknowledge that indeed you might share some similarities with that which you are afraid. It is not a judgment really of a system or person but more like a judgment to yourself. And that judgment comes not because you want to, but because you have grown up in a certain society under certain rules that is so hard to let go.
"Judge not because you shall be judged". I also now realize the tremendous psychological implications of what Christ said. By judging others you are projecting the values you wouldn't want to see in yourself and by doing that it is yourself that you are judging not the other. And when you judge you are always judged. -Andreas
Maybe it goes back to the importance of survival on a fundamental level. If another tribe represents a threat for resources, the cognitive tool of judging and evaluating the "other" would be very important in discerning threat potential. Somewhere along the way, we started coming together and living in city-states, so we were forced to commune closer. Later still, as the industrial revolution took hold, we came even closer together as we abandoned the farms and villages and came closer together to work in large cities and suburban areas. It is possible that millions of years of evolutionary adaptation that prized the ability to judge others became a hindrance in the progress of our ability to integrate as a culture.
Our current period represents a sort of "jump to light speed" to use a Star Wars metaphor. Less than 100 years ago, communication was severely limited in its scope. We are truly a global city/state now. On top of that, at least here in the United States, the 1960's (and in some cases earlier) represented a new cultural awakening. Whether this was good or bad has been subject of much contentious debate on these forums and in society in general. But the reality is that our views were shifted as we moved away from a more rigid modernistic and deterministic thinking toward increased pluralism. The thought "things were better back when..." is nothing new, but the information we use to integrate these thoughts is very much new. Eastern ideas have crept into our culture and this, for many, has represented a threat. In many cases, this threat is perceived in a very similar way that a tribe would perceive another tribe as a threat for precious resources. The human drive, often, is to protect the status quo. This requires that the people pass judgment on the ones who threaten their way of life. So often, unfortunately, the baby gets tossed out with the bathwater and opportunities are lost for productive integration. Fortunately, we are here on these forums with opportunities to communicate with a wider world and engage in dialogs that will ultimately lead to greater integration of ideas. Pretty cool, I think.
![Cool 8)](./images/smilies/icon_cool.gif)
I hope that some of the other contributors with extensive knowledge of Joe's work will contribute to answering this question. Here is my two bits...And something about the theme of this thread. There is this confusion in my mind that I can't understand what it means. Campbell often speaks of the east and their ways of teaching like some sort of submission has to be made thus eliminating the ego and creativity but at the same time the place which is beyond the garden of Eden is also the place where nature is most apparent and in my mind nature and creativity are identical. Where is creativity to be found then is it within harmony or within conflict? Maybe it is both not sure. Maybe I am missing something here. -Andreas
I think this question, in many ways, really gets to the heart of why integrating such apparent differences between East and West are so difficult for many. I think that a big part of this is the idea in the West that man is inherently imperfect and not yet worthy of entry into the garden until he/she comes to god (if even then?) is the key. In the East, from my understanding, we are all worthy of experiencing the divine! There is no forbidden fruit in the East. This does not mean that there are not endless rules and moral codes (Dharma) or consequences for our actions (Karma), but that the pre-qualification for worthiness does not exist. The hierarchical caste systems of India often cause us in the West to feel repulsion for their system (and this is certainly a "flaw" in my mind) but there is no hierarchy of worthiness to experience god. Whether one is a worker, or Brahman, everyone gets to play. The problem is usually more a practical matter. In other words, if you exist at the top of the caste system you have more time to contemplate such things as Life, The Universe, and Everything. If you are a worker, you do not have as much time for such things. But practical restrictions are not equal to "worthiness" distinctions, so the worker is equally worthy of enlightenment (moksha in India) as Brahman.
I see the differences in creativity stemming from an aspect of submission to discipline. The artist who is forced to create the same image has a standard to live up to, and to try to surpass in technical ability. The western artist is free to create in any way they choose. But this does not mean that the work is not judged against a standard. Some will never accept Dada as legitimate. Some see the ability of nothing more than a kindergarten child in a Jackson Pollock painting. So in the West, we as viewers are encouraged to bring our baggage, so to speak, to the work of art. It is a vessel for our own interpretation. Yet we still tend to judge its worthiness. The Eastern artist is often limited, but not always ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itchiku_Kubota
I saw Itchiku Kubota's "Kimono as Art" show when it came to Canton, Ohio. It was one of the most amazing works of art I have ever seen. I still get chills when I think back to the experience of walking into the room where the "4 Seasons" work was displayed. What is cool is that his work represented both aspects of art. It represented a continuity of a tradition of artistic skills done in a new and innovative way. So, even in the East, the effects of Western influence are felt. It works both ways. It is a shame that Kubota died before finishing his master work, but the work goes on. He trained, in very disciplined ways, artists who continue his work today. Someday in the not-too-distant future, his life's work will be completed by artists trained to replicate his style and we will have the opportunity to see his vision fulfilled.
So to come to the last question posed by Andreas, I think it is both. We exist, in reality, in both harmony and conflict. Fear and Desire. Yet...fear not, as the entry way to a Buddhist temple remains open, we are encouraged to come on in. The water is fine!
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams
This is very cool. But as usual, I'm going to challenge a few assumptions with some "Black Swans", principally the facts that:
1. "The East" is an essentially contestable concept (cf Edward Said's book "Orientalism"), and in more concrete terms,
2. The largest Asian country, China, is governed by nominal atheists (but are they really atheists?) who for the past 60 years have subscribed to the quintessentially Western philosophies of Marxism and more generally materialism, as well as the very Western ideology of nationalism.
As some of you know, I lived in "Communist" China for some years. (Coincidentally I'm going back to visit China next week.) And the following fact isn't a vain boast, but I'm good friends with prominent members of China's Communist Party. And they keep inviting me back as an honoured guest, yet they know I'm a professed Catholic and a self-described "conservative"! But they, and China's government, regard me as a "Friend of China". It's not about money, as I'm not a businessman; I'm an academic. So what's going on here? How does being a Western Catholic political conservative (although I'm economically part-socialist) , square up with being a friend of China's Communist Party?
The answers are multifarious, but one answer is that China's "Communist" leaders are more subtle and more diverse than their party's name implies. Many of them are actually Buddhists, and some of them are actually Christians although not in public, yet, but I predict that will change soon. Many of China's leaders want China to have religious freedom, simply because it's more practical than religious persecution. And religious tolerance and heterodoxy has been the norm through most of China's history.
Chesterton said, "The world does not progress, it wobbles", and I agree. Continuity is as strong as change, and in my estimation, China's brief flirtation with Western materialism ("Marxism") was just a wobble, and China is wobbling back to its normal state of religious tolerance and heterodoxy. Yet even Mao did not really personify the ideas of Marx; rather, he regarded himself as a symbolic reincarnation of China's First Emperor, Qin Shi Huang Ti, circa 220 BC, who burned all the Taoist and Confucian books and tortured and murdered all the scholars and philosophers, leaving China to begin again with a "tabula rasa" in 206 BC. But then somehow, almost miraculously, SOME of pre-Qin China's writings and ideas survived, to be reconstructed beautifully in the following centuries...
...the centuries of the Great Silk Road, the "information superhighway" of late antiquity, through which China ultimately became (circa 600-1200 AD, Tang and Song Dynasties) the greatest civilisation in the world, because China was so cosmopolitan, so truly international and multicultural and heterodox! For example, my favourite Chinese poet, Li Bai (aka Li Po), of the 7th century, was ethnically Persian! And in one coastal city in Fujian (the deep south), to this day there is a street named "Street of the Jews" for the Jewish merchants who lived there over 1,000 years ago, and a graveyard of Muslims, mostly Persians, with tombstones inscribed in Arabic.
So when and how did China go wrong and betray itself? The rot of self-satisfaction and cultural chauvinism began to set in during the Song Dynasty (c 1100s), but the main blow was the Mongol conquest in the 1200s, followed by the xenophobic Ming Dynasty in 1368. Just think of the Ming rulers as China's equivalents of America's Pat Buchanan and Sarah Palin. Get the picture?
China's cultural decay began when China's leaders became cultural chauvinists and xenophobes. Americans today should take a lesson from that.
But today I see the fine arts flourishing more in China than in any Western country. Chinese cinema still remains hobbled by the Department of Propaganda who censor all politically-incorrect symbols, but nonetheless some bursts of creative genius still shine through the censorship's permeable membrane. For example, this scene from the 2002 movie "Hero", is resonant of what Campbell wrote in his "Oriental Mythology" about the ancient Egyptian "Secret of the Two Partners": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTsKEgUJyUQ
1. "The East" is an essentially contestable concept (cf Edward Said's book "Orientalism"), and in more concrete terms,
2. The largest Asian country, China, is governed by nominal atheists (but are they really atheists?) who for the past 60 years have subscribed to the quintessentially Western philosophies of Marxism and more generally materialism, as well as the very Western ideology of nationalism.
As some of you know, I lived in "Communist" China for some years. (Coincidentally I'm going back to visit China next week.) And the following fact isn't a vain boast, but I'm good friends with prominent members of China's Communist Party. And they keep inviting me back as an honoured guest, yet they know I'm a professed Catholic and a self-described "conservative"! But they, and China's government, regard me as a "Friend of China". It's not about money, as I'm not a businessman; I'm an academic. So what's going on here? How does being a Western Catholic political conservative (although I'm economically part-socialist) , square up with being a friend of China's Communist Party?
The answers are multifarious, but one answer is that China's "Communist" leaders are more subtle and more diverse than their party's name implies. Many of them are actually Buddhists, and some of them are actually Christians although not in public, yet, but I predict that will change soon. Many of China's leaders want China to have religious freedom, simply because it's more practical than religious persecution. And religious tolerance and heterodoxy has been the norm through most of China's history.
Chesterton said, "The world does not progress, it wobbles", and I agree. Continuity is as strong as change, and in my estimation, China's brief flirtation with Western materialism ("Marxism") was just a wobble, and China is wobbling back to its normal state of religious tolerance and heterodoxy. Yet even Mao did not really personify the ideas of Marx; rather, he regarded himself as a symbolic reincarnation of China's First Emperor, Qin Shi Huang Ti, circa 220 BC, who burned all the Taoist and Confucian books and tortured and murdered all the scholars and philosophers, leaving China to begin again with a "tabula rasa" in 206 BC. But then somehow, almost miraculously, SOME of pre-Qin China's writings and ideas survived, to be reconstructed beautifully in the following centuries...
...the centuries of the Great Silk Road, the "information superhighway" of late antiquity, through which China ultimately became (circa 600-1200 AD, Tang and Song Dynasties) the greatest civilisation in the world, because China was so cosmopolitan, so truly international and multicultural and heterodox! For example, my favourite Chinese poet, Li Bai (aka Li Po), of the 7th century, was ethnically Persian! And in one coastal city in Fujian (the deep south), to this day there is a street named "Street of the Jews" for the Jewish merchants who lived there over 1,000 years ago, and a graveyard of Muslims, mostly Persians, with tombstones inscribed in Arabic.
So when and how did China go wrong and betray itself? The rot of self-satisfaction and cultural chauvinism began to set in during the Song Dynasty (c 1100s), but the main blow was the Mongol conquest in the 1200s, followed by the xenophobic Ming Dynasty in 1368. Just think of the Ming rulers as China's equivalents of America's Pat Buchanan and Sarah Palin. Get the picture?
China's cultural decay began when China's leaders became cultural chauvinists and xenophobes. Americans today should take a lesson from that.
But today I see the fine arts flourishing more in China than in any Western country. Chinese cinema still remains hobbled by the Department of Propaganda who censor all politically-incorrect symbols, but nonetheless some bursts of creative genius still shine through the censorship's permeable membrane. For example, this scene from the 2002 movie "Hero", is resonant of what Campbell wrote in his "Oriental Mythology" about the ancient Egyptian "Secret of the Two Partners": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTsKEgUJyUQ
The answers are multifarious, but one answer is that China's "Communist" leaders are more subtle and more diverse than their party's name implies. Many of them are actually Buddhists, and some of them are actually Christians although not in public, yet, but I predict that will change soon. Many of China's leaders want China to have religious freedom, simply because it's more practical than religious persecution. And religious tolerance and heterodoxy has been the norm through most of China's history.
So what explanation do you give to the reaction China had when Obama met with the Dalai Lama if I remember correctly a week ago or so?
The funny thing is that we are talking about integration but I doubt that there is any integration to be made on a sociopolitical and economical level, the integration is happening on a psychological and mythological level which is something that might be hardwired to us or at least goes really deep in the psyche.
“To live is enough.” ― Shunryu Suzuki
-
- Associate
- Posts: 3191
- Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
- Location: Earth
While I certainly acknowledge the place of China as an Eastern influence, in the realm of spiritual matters, particularly in terms of relevance for the concept of potential integration with Western philosophies of life, I find India and the Buddhist (primarily Tibetan and Mahayana) views more useful than Taoism or Confucianism. Japanese Zen philosophy and Japanese Buddhism is also cool, but has similar cultural nuances that some find extremely difficult to grasp, let alone integrate. Koans are great, but give many folks a massive headache!
Politics is politics, which can be debated in a forum that we could create to talk about East and West political systems and philosophies. I also understand that life philosophy is very much wrapped into politics and so they are very much related. But it seems that, here at least, we should at least try to see what sort of larger philosophical and spiritual aspects can help inform a larger world view of tolerance in the spirit of pluralism that Joe embraced.
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
Politics is politics, which can be debated in a forum that we could create to talk about East and West political systems and philosophies. I also understand that life philosophy is very much wrapped into politics and so they are very much related. But it seems that, here at least, we should at least try to see what sort of larger philosophical and spiritual aspects can help inform a larger world view of tolerance in the spirit of pluralism that Joe embraced.
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams
-
- Associate
- Posts: 3191
- Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
- Location: Earth
Again...this is a political statement and could probably be discussed in a forum that deals with political issues. I do not know, or really care, whether it is true or not. CIA support is fleeting and always driven by shifting U.S. interests.The fact that he was supported by the CIA might have something to do with it. -Watson
That being said, I tend to think that Obama meeting with the Dalai Lama is probably more about two people meeting who have an interest in integrating ideas rather than continuing the age-old systems of exploitation. But this is my interpretation. Obama has a history as a community organizer, the Dalai Lama has a history as a spiritual and a "Spirituality meets Science" organizer. I bet it was a deep and interesting conversation.
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams
But the Chinese care very much whether it's true or not, and the question posed to me was about China's reaction to the D. Lama meeting with the US President.I do not know, or really care, whether it is true or not.
I wonder, do you similarly "not care" whether the Pope is involved in international politics, including the politics of your own country?
-
- Working Associate
- Posts: 10645
- Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
- Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
- Contact:
I would say whether or not the Dalai Lama had contact with the CIA is beside the point. The point is whether such contact was necessarily a bad thing, which, Watson, you seem to be assuming.
I don't see that such 'contact' should have anything to do with anything anyway as I highly doubt anyone here can know the facts of the matter. Indeed, I've also heard him accused as having 'sold out to the Chinese.' There is no reason to believe the man is anything other than the compassionate person, who cares about his people, he appears to be. As I said in another thread, Chungliang Al Huang is a close friend of his and I would trust his opinion over your, which is demonstrably biased.
My brother met the man also during a video project on death and dying. He was impressed by the fact he was just a ...genuine, compassionate nice guy.
Cheers,
Clemsy
I don't see that such 'contact' should have anything to do with anything anyway as I highly doubt anyone here can know the facts of the matter. Indeed, I've also heard him accused as having 'sold out to the Chinese.' There is no reason to believe the man is anything other than the compassionate person, who cares about his people, he appears to be. As I said in another thread, Chungliang Al Huang is a close friend of his and I would trust his opinion over your, which is demonstrably biased.
My brother met the man also during a video project on death and dying. He was impressed by the fact he was just a ...genuine, compassionate nice guy.
Cheers,
Clemsy
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas
Pope versus Dalai Lama (2:18 minutes): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kstH-8jwa80