fleming@acsu.buffalo.edu (christine m fleming) (03/10/91)
I have been assigned to debate the issues of Taoism, Buddhism and Confucianism in a class. I got the ANTI-Confucianist stance. I have read up on the life of the Buddha, the life of Confucias, and have read the "Tao of Pooh". I know something of Hinduism so i am not too unfamiliar with Eastern religions in general. I started reading the writings of Buddah and Confucias, but i got swamped! Does anyone have any good ideas for such a debate? Like: What main points can i focus on, how to "judge" the teachings of Confucias as "bad", etc. The thing that i found funny is that i doubt that many people in these religions would be debating, considering that debating lends a value judgement, and i don't think that that meshes with the beliefs too well...:) If the group wants, you can post, but, probably mail would be best. Thanks a LOT! ...jones (fleming@sun.acsu.buffalo.edu) --
tilley@ssd.Kodak.Com (David Tilley) (03/12/91)
In article <64263@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> fleming@acsu.buffalo.edu (christine m fleming) writes: >I have been assigned to debate the issues of Taoism, Buddhism and >Confucianism in a class. I got the ANTI-Confucianist stance. I have >read up on the life of the Buddha, the life of Confucias, and have >read the "Tao of Pooh". I know something of Hinduism so i am not too >unfamiliar with Eastern religions in general. I started reading the >writings of Buddah and Confucias, but i got swamped! > >Does anyone have any good ideas for such a debate? Like: What main >points can i focus on, how to "judge" the teachings of Confucias as >"bad", etc. > >The thing that i found funny is that i doubt that many people in these >religions would be debating, considering that debating lends a value >judgement, and i don't think that that meshes with the beliefs too >well...:) > >If the group wants, you can post, but, probably mail would be best. > >Thanks a LOT! >...jones > >(fleming@sun.acsu.buffalo.edu) > >-- I am posting because my mail is out of order. First, >The thing that i found funny is that i doubt that many people in these >religions would be debating, considering that debating lends a value >judgement, and i don't think that that meshes with the beliefs too >well...:) is probably the best point I can think of. What Taoist would debate? But it seems that you are not given the Taoist part but rather some "ANTI-Confucianist" part. Whatever that is. If you feel like taking a risk, play the Zen part and when asked a question, SLAP the inquisitor. Or hold up a staff. Or say somehting like MU! Of course knowing the WAY of professors, this will either be accepted or get an F. This debate seems a tad problematic. For a good study book, see "A Sourcebook of Chinese Philosophy" By Chan. It starts with confucius goes through TAO and then Budhism. I see very little reason for these groups to debate. And I find that the thought that there is A-BUDDHIST-POSITION very wierd. Or at least impossible for me to find one. dave
mayne@nu.cs.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne) (03/12/91)
In article <64263@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> fleming@acsu.buffalo.edu (christine m fleming) writes: >... >The thing that i found funny is that i doubt that many people in these >religions would be debating, considering that debating lends a value >judgement, and i don't think that that meshes with the beliefs too >well...:) This may be true of Taoism. I am not sure about Confucianism. But it is not generally true of Buddhism, in spite of the impression you could get from some who are heavily enfluenced by Western pop psychology and what one serious student of Zen I know called "California hot tub Zen". (I cast no aspersions on Zen, just some misinterpretations and distortions of it. Nor is such misinterpretation limited to Zen.) Debate plays a very interesting and important role in training scholarly Tibetan lamas. Eastern Zen tradition includes the "Dharma duel", not exactly debate in the Western or Tibetan sense, but definitely challenging and even competitive. The sutras/suttas of both Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism contain many accounts of debates between the Buddha and other teachers of the time and their followers. Debate isn't such a bad thing. It is one way we test our ideas. And the Buddha encouraged people to test ideas and believe only what stood the tests of reason and experience (including the experience of meditation). Western pop psychology has attached a negative value judgement to the label "value judgement", and some Western Buddhists have either been misled by this or misinterpreted to give the impression that Buddhism is value neutral. Confusion is natural, but Buddhists don't necessarily refrain from value judgements nor consider them a bad thing. We don't think all teachings equally true or all actions morally (or karmically) equal. That is nihilism, not Buddhism. To explain the last point better than I am able I quote the following excerpt from Francis Story's essay "Tolerance in Religion", published in "The Buddhist Outlook", Buddhist Publication Society, 1973. Please credit Francis Story, not me, in any quotations in follow ups. Bill Mayne --- BEGIN QUOTATION - Francis Story, "Tolerance in Religion" --- It is often said (and even more often written) that the Buddha never condemned. This idea originated with Western students of Buddhism who were at once struck by the difference between the condemnation of other faiths which was so marked a feature of their own religion, and the complete absence of such condemnation in Buddhism. To them this was a new, and very surprising idea. They were accustomed to the belief that if one had a proper faith in one's own religion one automatically condemned all others... They were rightly impressed by the liberal outlook of Buddhism, and made much of it. It is certainly true that the Buddha never condemned after this fashion. But unfortunately by careless handling the idea came to bear a wider and looser meaning, and one that is quite different from what was originally intended. It was taken to mean that the Buddha never, in any circumstances, condemned by criticism anything or anyone. This is demonstrably untrue. Among the things the Buddha condemned in precise and unmistakable terms were the superstition and animal sacrifices of the Brahmins [See note], and their pretensions to caste superiority; the erroneous doctrines of the Titthiyas, or dissident sects; all forms of cruelty and immoral behaviour, and last but not least the shortcomings of some of His own Bhikkus... Perhaps the strongest term of reproof the Buddha used was "Foolish man!" but it was enough... This is demonstrably untrue. Among the things the Buddha condemned in precise and unmistakable terms were the superstition and animal sacrifices of the Brahmins [See note], and their pretensions to caste superiority; the erroneous doctrines of the Titthiyas, or dissident sects; all forms of cruelty and immoral behaviour, and last but not least the shortcomings of some of His own Bhikkus... Perhaps the strongest term of reproof the Buddha used was "Foolish man!" but it was enough... True Buddhist tolerance, then, should as far as possible follow the pattern set by the Buddha Himself; that is to say, it should allow others to hold and to follow whatever they choose, so long as they are incapable of realizing any higher truth. But it does not insist that Buddhists should approve of what others believe or give their assent to it when it goes against the basic teachings of the Master... --- END QUOTATION --- Note: Story means the Brahmins of the Buddha's time, not to be confused with modern Hindus, whether or not of the Brahmin caste. I don't intend to insult or start an argument with Hindus, nor to go into the complex relations between Indian religions at the time of the Buddha, particularly the Brahmins, and modern Hinduism and Buddhism.
esot@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Sotnak) (03/12/91)
You have been assigned to debate against confucianism. Your strategy,
it seems to me, is relatively straightforward.
1. Determine the most fundamental claims of confucianism. Here you would
be advised to stick to the writings of (and about) Confucious. Many
different philosophies go under the name of confucianism. Stick to Confucious
himself as much as possible. For example, what sorts of claims does
confucianism (per se) make about human nature, about the doctrine of
rectificaiton of names, about the nature and qualities of the sage?
2. Your complaint about making a value judgment may be misplaced. Debate
and rational discussion were far from alien to confucians, buddhists, and
taoists (though Taoists and Buddhists (esp. Ch'an/Zen Buddhists) often
had unorthodox approaches to such things, and were critical of the
scope of the accomplishments such debate and discussion were thought to
have). Thinking critically about religions, "Eastern" or otherwise, does
not automatically amount to adopting a misguided or mistaken approach.
Rather, it is the claim that thinking alone, in isolation from practice
or first-hand insight, etc., is all there is to it.
3. Good luck.
4. I apologize for the inconsistent capitalization of names/terms.
--
********************************************************************
Eric Sotnak | "Sagehood is nothing
esot@uhura.cc.rochester.edu | but sincerity"
| - Chou Tun-I