wrote:
Kohlfurz wrote:
hayesmstw@hotmail.com (Steve Hayes) wrote in message
news:<4179da07.2592947@news.saix.net>...
On 21 Oct 2004 13:16:33 -0700,
(Kohlfurz)
wrote:
During my recent visit to the USA, I met people in academia from
many
parts of the world. A problem I had quite a few times was in
defining
Western Civilization to others in the discussions we were
having.
Defining it by the Greek miracle, Roman Empire, Renaissance,
Industrial Revolution, the Arts (Mozart, Bach, Goethe etc) did
not
prove easy to hold.
Can we find a clearer definition?
Check Samuel Huntington: "The cvlash of civilizations and the
remaking of the
world order".
He defines it as the civilization that was shaped primarily by
Western
Christianity, thogh I think he fails to take sufficiently into
account that it
is nowe largely secular, and the strongholds of Christianity are
now
sub-saharan Africa and Latin America.
In California, I met a alarming number of German Buddhists. They
told
me:
Einstein said: The religion of the future will be cosmic, covering
both natural and spiritual. Buddhism answers this description.
Buddhism is the only religion that is scientific.
I dont buy the claim that Buddhism is "scientific". Buddha held that
what is behind phenomena is nothingness. He also held that there is
no
soul. According to his teachings the existence of God is irrelevant,
and if he exists, well, she has to face the void, just like any
ordinary being. The Buddha's teaching were too advanced, and have
been
confused by many (if not most) of his most ardent followers... Give
up
the ego and the fact that there is no soul will become entirely
acceptable and welcomed. The Buddha's teachings were very logical,
but
scientific they were not. Ultimately all phenomena is a form of
delusion and must be transcended. I dare say that almost nothing more
antiscientific can be stated, given that science is a method seeking
to explain via systematic observations and the deployment of
theories
the past properties, present properties, and future properties of
phenomena.
I dont know how much of your inderstanding is correct but some of what
your claims of Buddhism sound very startling and true. Other claims are
doubtful.
The idea that all matter comes from what he called "void", which is a
form of energy and not emptiness I understand, seems to have alot of
merit. This alone and his concepts of what we call entropy are striking
scientific truths.
He believed greatly in compassion, something many Germans embraced
after WW II, so I think it doubtful that he did not believe in the
soul.
He states that all matter is a delusion, being a form of something
deeper. Again this
.
