tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817911217098974229.post1852241004176445558..comments2023-11-05T04:09:26.194-05:00Comments on e g r e g o r e s: What Kind of Religion is Buddhism?Apuleius Platonicushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11761230673724504084noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817911217098974229.post-79751414378853757302014-11-08T09:42:12.779-05:002014-11-08T09:42:12.779-05:00The ancient, indigenous religious traditions of Ti...The ancient, indigenous religious traditions of Tibet, usually referred to as "Bon", were not "prohibited" by the Buddhists. In fact, Shamanism/Bon continued to evolve alongside Buddhism throughout central Asia, so that today it is often difficult to tell who is influencing who.<br /><br />Buddhism has never acted as a "secondary religion", which seeks to wipe out all other religions, and in particular, to displace all previously existing primary religions. In every predominantly Buddhist nation, ancient traditions continue to exist and to be practiced. Apuleius Platonicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11761230673724504084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817911217098974229.post-14862296000175447572014-11-07T05:50:41.623-05:002014-11-07T05:50:41.623-05:00Lamaist Buddhism seems to have some aspects of sec...Lamaist Buddhism seems to have some aspects of secondary religions, especially in Mongolia, where it appropriated practices from Shamanism and at the same time attacked and prohibited Shamanism.AFDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09538082733262070821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817911217098974229.post-35845514619587847712009-11-19T22:00:01.079-05:002009-11-19T22:00:01.079-05:00Hi Mary! Thanks for the comment. I think that trul...Hi Mary! Thanks for the comment. I think that truly is the beauty of Hinduism! Well said.Apuleius Platonicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11761230673724504084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817911217098974229.post-90733584809905760492009-11-19T21:49:18.857-05:002009-11-19T21:49:18.857-05:00re: Buddhism: 'Hinduism's' resilency a...re: Buddhism: 'Hinduism's' resilency and doctrinal complexity stems in part from its ability to respond to differing points of view, and its structure (or lack of it) that respects the individual's particular path. If a philosopher or priest didn't agree with a particular tenet of orthodoxy, he argued against it and perhaps set up his own sangam. <br /><br />Buddhism emerged as a response to aspects of Hinduism that were reformulated with a different focus. Tibetian Buddhism is a repository of Sanskrit texts and practices, including a dizzying array of deities. The different Yoga practices and Tantras are themselves a particular community's focus on their preferred system. The beauty of Hindusm is that they all exist side by side without any attempt to dominate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817911217098974229.post-53451027496381490982009-11-19T09:34:03.667-05:002009-11-19T09:34:03.667-05:00Bruhinb, thank you very much for your insightful a...Bruhinb, thank you very much for your insightful and thoughtful comment. You go straight to the heart of the matter!<br /><br />I hope to show more clearly in future posts that the "platypus hypothesis" also will not work.<br /><br />A key question is: in what sense is Buddhism a "founded" religion? Another is: in what sense is Buddhism a "religion of the book"?<br /><br />I believe that the role of both "revelation" and "scripture" in Buddhism is completely unlike the role played by those concepts in secondary religions. <br /><br />More importantly I hope to show that clear-cut cases of primary religions, especially in classical Greco-Roman culture, also have "revelation" and "sacred texts", but without loosing, in any way, their character as primary religions.Apuleius Platonicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11761230673724504084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7817911217098974229.post-84055570300806379382009-11-19T09:13:19.906-05:002009-11-19T09:13:19.906-05:00Thanks for the interesting discussion of Assmann&#...Thanks for the interesting discussion of Assmann's work. The distinction between what he terms "primary" and "secondary" religions does expose the entire monotheism / polytheism dichotomy in a brighter, somewhat clearer, light.<br /><br />It was also very inspirational to see this work used as a jumping-off point for a discussion of exactly which attributes of this division Buddahism does and does not exhibit. As you clearly demonstrate, Buddahism does not truly qualify as a secondary religion, <i>as defined by Assmann.</i><br /><br />Nevertheless, I find it somewhat difficult to accept your assertion that, "Buddhism must be categorized as a primary religion." Rather than question his placement of Buddhism, I would be far more likely to question some of Assmann's more categorical assertions that:<br />1. secondary religions must be inherently intolerant<br />2. these labels correspond to distinct groups of religions that do not overlap<br /><br />If we consider Assmann arguments from this angle, Buddhism is revealed as the platypus reminding us of the mixed benefit and peril of applying taxonomic models of any kind to naturally evolving systems. We are particularly reminded of the ultimate difficulty of defending absolutist, Western, almost Aristotelian statements such as tbe two highlighted above.<br /><br />Ultimately Buddhism does fit neatly into either of Assmann's categories. Of course, to anybody who has studied the Kōans, this realization comes with very little surprise.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com