Isn't that a bit arrogant?
I don't know who any of those guys are or what they professed. Buddhism does not have a monopoly on truth. But, from what I understand, it is the only philosophy that regards belief in an ultimate self as the actual cause of suffering. This is different from any philosophy based on any notion of a god, such as Hinduism, because such a notion necessitates a belief in an ultimate self.Vidyaraja wrote:As some may know from my earlier posts, I consider myself a Traditionalist in the same way as figures like Rene Guenon, Julius Evola, Ananda Coomaraswamy, Frithjof Schuon, and so forth.
Johnny Dangerous wrote:Asserting that all religions definitively contain the same truth is exclusivity also, isn't it?
PadmaVonSamba wrote:Buddha did not invent the truth.
He did not make up a philosophy, as you suggest.
he just pointed out the obvious.
Johnny Dangerous wrote:I'm not 100% familiar with other guys, but Julius Evola was a nasty piece of work. A big influence on the "cultural" side of fascism, which of course loves to say it's not actually fascist but "apolitical".
Can you cite some examples, please?Vidyaraja wrote: Buddhism and later Buddhists most certainly have philosophical doctrines by which they (generally) tend to dismiss all others as inferior, much like most religious traditions.
f one is honest with oneself, we can see that indeed liberal democracy and Communism in all of its form HAVE been largely destructive toward a spiritual and traditional view of reality and man, which Evola considered to be of prime importance. As to the apolitical aspect, this is true. Evola believed that no meaningful action could be taken to rectify the present situation which he viewed essentially as a state of dissolution, and therefore stressed the importance of an attitude of "apoliteia."
Evola had critiques of fascism and he wasn't a fascist, he simply saw more hope in the fascistic movements of his day at reviving his true ideals over that of the other major political forces of liberal democracy and Communism.
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Can you cite some examples, please?
Johnny Dangerous wrote:
The "spiritual and traditional view of reality and man" has also been destructive to itself, and is responsible in part for the creation of things like liberal democracy, it's not like all these ideas sprung up in their own vacuum.
As far as apolitic..he claimed to be apolitical for exactly the same reason third positionists of today claim to be apolitical, they want to sway others to their 'culture war', anti-egalitarian notions while still being able to claim impartiality...one can't read Julius Evola from an apoltical standpoint unless you are just actively deciding to listen to adopt his biases, and purposely avoid political critique..as if you engage in it, it's obvious what you find, and his own political leanings were well known.
Johnny Dangerous wrote:Yeah, that's quite the distinction.
Vidyaraja wrote:Personally, I think it is true that these different traditions may have more accurate philosophical or theological expositions of what this "ultimate reality" or Truth may be, but does that really negate all the others? Can we really say that the Taoists or Sufis or various Hindus are having lesser experiences or are in contact with lesser truths than the Buddhists, who are the only possessors of the right way or the Truth? Isn't that a bit arrogant? Is there really any way of verifying that these examples of gnosis in other traditions are not the same as those of the Buddhists? I don't think so, but I'd like to hear what everyone else thinks.
...there are "levels of being" such that the more real is also the more valuable; these levels appear in both the "external" and the "internal" worlds, "higher" levels of reality without corresponding to "deeper" levels of reality within. On the very lowest level is the material/physical world, which depends for its existence on the higher levels. On the very highest/deepest level is the Infinite or Absolute -- that is, God.
Basically this volume is an attempt to recover this view of reality from materialism, scientism, and "postmodernism." It does not attempt to adjudicate among religions (or philosophies), it does not spell out any of the important differencesbetween world faiths, and it is not intended to substitute a "new" religion for the specific faiths which already exist.
Nor should any such project be expected from a work that expressly focuses on what religions have in common. Far from showing that all religions are somehow "the same," Smith in fact shows that religions have a "common" core only at a sufficiently general level. What he shows, therefore, is not that there is really just one religion, but that the various religions of the world are actually agreeing and disagreeing about something real, something about which there is an objective matter of fact, on the fundamentals of which most religions tend to concur while differing in numerous points of detail (including practice).
Of course any two religions therefore have much more in common than any single religion has with "materialism". In fact one way to state the "common core" of the world's religions is simply to say that they agree about the falsehood of "materialism."
Vidyaraja wrote:PadmaVonSamba wrote: Can you cite some examples, please?
From what I've seen it is stating that other sacred tradition's mystical experiences have notions of self or an eternal metaphysical principle and are therefore wrong or inferior realizations. Of course according to Buddhist doctrine that would be true, but what I am getting at is that these mystical or transformative experiences are ineffable, and therefore all attempts to explain them intellectually are limited and that there is no way of verifying whether the Brahman of Advaitins or the Dharmakaya of the Buddhists are actually different on an experiential level. In my opinion they are the same liberating experience/knowledge of the one and only Truth simply expressed in different ways through the limited medium of language/philosophy. As the Vedas say, "Truth is One. Sages call it by many names."
jeeprs wrote: I think there are real and important differences between the various cultural traditions, which ought not to be glossed over too easily.
jeeprs wrote:All that said, as far as the various traditions are concerned, I still maintain the superiority of the Buddhist teaching in particular. But that doesn't mean that I therefore think all the other teachings are without merit or even 'wrong'. After all, the Buddhist teaching itself recognizes that it is a 'raft' or a 'vehicle' to 'the other shore' which is beyond the scope of religion as such. Which is one of the main reasons I think it is superior!
PadmaVonSamba wrote:What does it mean, in your opening post when you say you are a traditionalist?.
PadmaVonSamba wrote:Where the Buddha Dharma differs, as I said before,
is taking this to the next logical step:
Ultimately, nothing exists which can be called a self.
None of the other traditions, as far as I know, go this far.
PadmaVonSamba wrote:So, simply claiming that all experiences are identical is inaccurate.
PadmaVonSamba wrote:But, I request for a second time,
please cite your source of Buddhist texts claiming that this path is superior.
Yes, but this notion of "non-self" is a philosophical conception of a higher experience.
Johnny Dangerous wrote:really it's a refutation of ontology itself
jeeprs wrote:Johnny Dangerous wrote:really it's a refutation of ontology itself
As 'ontology' means 'the nature of being' this falls into the trap of nihilism. (Oh no, not that argument again....)