Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by Dan Rowden


1. We of little faith

Comment #49164 by Dan Rowden on June 10, 2007 at 6:21 pm

Great Teapot,

Well, given your wording it's obviously more than just a question, and that's part of the problem: you give no specific idea of what "mumbo jumbo" you're referring to. It would take a religious historian - and one with an understanding of the dynamics of the corruption of esoteric philosophical teachings by the exoteric religious impulse that is so strong a force in the human psyche - to unravel your question. But whatever the dynamic and time frame it doesn't constitute an argument against the content of those esoteric teachings; it's just that that religious impulse in stronger in most people then their instinct for reason. Plus, you have to take into consideration that in certain cultural, historical and environment circumstances, reason can be a bit of a psychological luxury. We moderns have it comparatively easy. We can afford to sit back and wallow in that comparative ease and "think" about things. We don't have the same depth of psychological need for comforting belief systems (and despite that they still thrive in our cultures). If a person does not have the knowledge or the understanding to sort the wheat from the chaff in terms of the manifestations of modern Buddhism and Taoism, then it behooves them to seek out that understanding before offering critiques (or critiques masquerading as questions).

A lot of people make the fatal mistake of presuming something like Tibetan Buddhism, for instance, to be representative of Buddhism more generally, and it simply isn't.

2. We of little faith

Comment #48959 by Dan Rowden on June 9, 2007 at 6:10 pm

Buddhism, much like Taoism, has two faces: a philosophical one and a religious one. The religious face of each can and should be criticised for its respective folly, but it's only part of the story and in my view the least interesting part. The esoteric always seems to manage to produce a mangled exoteric face; it's just part of human nature. As to a couple of the comments about Sue Blackmore, a more accurate view of her venture into paranormal beliefs and her slow march out of them can be found in this discussion:

http://geniusrealms.com/reasoningshow/show4.htm