Re: 2+2 = 2+2
AntiUtopia (AntiUtopia@aol.com)
Thu, 12 Mar 1998 15:30:18 -0500 (EST)
In a message dated 98-03-12 07:41:40 EST, you write:
<< Can somebody please describe, in one concise sentence, exactly what
Buddhism is, what it's relevance is to Zen, and how Salingers' Buddhism
differs from them (as Jim said). If it is absoloutely necessary to present
me with koans or stories about dead cats, so be it, but I would prefer a
'conventional' Brittanica encyclopaedia definiton. Thanks.
>>
HA! :) I'll let the list's resident buddhists answer that one :).
But from where I was coming from, it's an expression of negative
theology--found both in buddhism, Christian Eastern Orthodoxy, and other
religions in which the mystical is stressed as much or more so than the
cognitive facets of a religion.
While it is true that textual symbols of numbers, ideas, or objects are a
matter of human social convention, that "thing" which the textual symbols
represent are not. God would be the ultimate "thing" that we human represent
by textual symbols, and negative theology emphasizes the inadequacy of human
textual referents and/or ideas to communicate truth. I think Buddhism takes
this to an extreme end in which everything, existence itself, is negated.
Christian Eastern Orthodoxy balances its negative theology with the doctrine
of God being incarnate in Christ.
As for Salinger's Buddhism vs. Buddhism as it is experienced in the
East....just a theory of mine. I think American Buddhism is a unique bird
entirely. This would take a lot more study and discussion off topic to prove,
however...
Jim