[net.religion] Let us now praise famous gurus

mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (03/18/86)

[follow-ups to net.religion, for reasons that will become obvious]

[Warning: pyrotechnics ahead]

In the continuing saga of Eastern vs. Western consciousness, we've wandered
back to a spot on the conceptual plane where, unfortunately, I've been too
many times before.  It's the point a run into a pair of wrenching
inconsistencies in the popularized version of Eastern religions.  One is
this continual running-down of anything western (meaning Pakistan or further
west), while at the same time taking its fruits in with open arms.  Let us
take the automobile, for instance.  Mr. Riordan states that "just because
you can make a car doesn't mean you know the real meaning of the existence
of cars."  Well, of course not; moreover, this example is patently rigged
because even in the most rigidly western viewpoint, one can talk about the
social impact of cars, and other such things.  More to the point, without
knowledge about how a car is constructed and how it operates, one cannot
really understand cars fully.  So then Mr. Riordan replies:

>Wow, there you go, using your dogmatic Western mind to the exlusion of
>your deeper Eastern mind. When you talk about understanding how a car
>is built, your talking about physical knowledge about physical things.
>If you let your Eastern mind free, you can get deeper real knowledge
>about the real purpose cars were intended for by God.

Well, if he is going to run down physical knowledge so, I suggest he get used
to walking.  Without it, there would be no cars for some to claim to find a
deep meaning to.

Then we get to the heat of the matter:
>> Furthermore, only an ignoramus would claim that the Hindus and Buddhists
>> have a monopoly on meaning and purpose.

>Man, this hostility is getting too heavy for me. You Western scientist
>athiest types sure are nasty sometimes.

Mr. Riordan, in his haste, has jumped to a rather spectacularly wrong
conclusion about my religious persuasion.  As nearly everyone else on the
net seems to know, I am notoriously Christian.  I have profound objections to
"dogmatic atheism".  This isn't the last demonstration of Mr. Riordan's
misapprehensions of the situation, however.

>> Back here in good old Western
>> Christianity and Judaism, we've had are share of mystics too; we've also
>> learned to live with science, and not just with technology.

>Sure, man, your Western religions have been in league with science for
>thousands of years, working together to make peoples' minds muddled and
>oblivous to the truth since the dark ages. Until you drop the pretense of
>emphasis on dogmatic physical knowledge to the exlusion of deeper meanings,
>as you did when you talked about understanding how cars are built, you are
>missing the real picture.

Well, aside from the continuing misidentification of my religious beliefs,
this passage demonstrates a profound lack of familiarity with the history of
the semetic religions.  In Judaism, there is the Kabala; in Islam, the
sufis.  In Christianity, there have been many who strayed from the so-called
"Western" modes of thought.  Just for starters, I can name Bonaventura,
Meister Eckhart, Dame Julian of Norwich, Thomas a Kempis, Charles Williams,
and Evelyn Underhill; on the fringes there are also the occultists and
philosophers such as Martin Buber, Heidegger, Neitzche, and William James.

Mr. Riordan failed to understand that my point about deeper meanings was
that you have to understand the shallower, physical (if you like) meanings
and natures as well.  As far as dogmatic physical knowledge is concerned,
that sort of thinking, even with all the pejorative connotations removed,
still characterizes only one segment of western philosophy.  As the grossly
incomplete list I gave above shows, it is by no means the dominant one.

Finally we get to the smoke test, where Mr. Riordan starts to make his
seemingly absurd physical claims:
>>>The great Eastern mystics didn't NEED to build computer networks and
>>>cellular telephones out of inhuman plastic and metal. They communicated
>>>with their minds. We can do it too, if we learn to free ourselves from
>>>the shackels of our Western mind, to allow our Eastern mind to run free.

>>This is what they say.

>Hey, man, I am getting real bad vibes from you. You are being unecessarily
>hostile for no good reason. I don't like your arrogant boasting. Yes, man,
>that's what we say. If you don't like it, man, that's no reason to be so
>hostile towards it.

One feature of this argument, without fail, is the "arrogant boastings" of
the power of Eastern religion-- arrogant because they brook no doubts.  None
of these powers has ever been demonstrated to me; at least the christians
have the sense to be embarrassed by their failures.  The other feature is
demonstrated in the following exchange.

>> Peter saw Jesus transfigured, with Elijah and Moses beside him;
>> but I don't see the gurus flocking to the cathedral steps.  On
>> the contrary, they enter like a thief to steal His name but not his words,
>> just as they are so willing to take the fruits of a technology they cannot
>> produce.  I also have never heard of an eastern sage who could use
>> telepathy as easily as one picks up a phone, so it seems we will still
>> have use for the phones.  My cranky old Fiat seems to be a lot more
>> reliable than their teleportation, so I don't foresee trading it in
>> anytime soon.  And I don't see the mystics feeding the starving masses
>> of Bangladesh or Ethiopia, whereas the feeble western farming produces
>> in the USA alone enough to feed all of Ethiopia on our surplus, and then
>> some.

>You really are an uncool dude, man. You mock the things you just don't want
>to believe. I have come to know the truth of my beliefs. You overemphasize
>the physical and fail to recognize the spiritual, while offering lip service
>to Western religion. I wonder if you even have respect for Western religion,
>after seeing your overemphasis on physical knowledge to the exlusion of
>spiritual knowledge that you deny. Do you mock your Western religions with
>the same tone as you mock Eastern religion? Or are you a Western chauvinist?

My religious beliefs are a metter of public knowledge, and frequently public
misapprehension.

As far as the efficacy of physical knowledge is concerned, I see that Mr.
Riordan either will not cannot respond to the charge, which is that while
the Easterners are quite willing to live off the fruits of western
knowledge, they themselves cannot produce in kind.

>And the way that many Westerners seem to have recognized the futility
>of physical Western science-religion and embraced Eastern thought makes
>mute any argument that you might have. You're a real bummer, man.

Far more drink at the well of Western spirituality, as a refuge from the
desert of technology.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr. Riordan, like so many, seems to have forgotten that there was a Western
spirituality equally as old as Western science.  Hindus and Buddhists are
not the only ones who see depp structure to the world, and indeed, it was
the confidence that western spirituality has in the orderliness of the world
that allowed science to be fully realized.  One can argue ceaselessly about
what the two different spiritualities have to offer.  Technology, however,
is the West's great triumph, and one which the East both embraced in
practice and condemned as a matter of faith.  The western spirituality
learned to live with technology, while the Eastern spirituality never could.
One might therefore ask if it is not the Eastern spirituality which suffers
from the excess of dogmatism.

C. Wingate