« From the pedagogy of the discourses to the koan | Main | Millions are wrong: the Buddha wasn’t a brahmin-hater or an atman-hater »

June 02, 2016

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

You're arguing for the opposite solution though. Why did Christianity get so weak? Because it lost any need for monasticism by declaring the layman equal to the monk with the faith alone interpretation of salvation. If the striving of the monastic is not necessary for salvation, or if the monk's salvation is not HIGHER than a layman's salvation, then monasticism is unnecessary, leaving the religion in the hands of laymen, who (borrowing your words) "lack philosophical precision," and who will destroy the religion BY trying to make it "socially relevant to the values of multiculturalism." That's what killed Christianity. Only by strictly sticking to the view that only monastics/celibates can get to Nirvana can Buddhism survive. To layify the religion will turn it into another failed NGO like Christianity has become. In fact, in the West Buddhism has already done this. That's what you're complaining about every day on your blog. And yet the solution you are offering to the problem is the very thing that caused the problem.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/05/31/dalai-lama-eu-taking-many-migrants-germany-cannot-become-arab-country/

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo