scholarly journals Har en hund Buddha-natur?

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Jørn Borup

ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Ecologization of Buddhism makes sense in both a mod-ern and posthuman perspective. Initiatives and institutions based on socially engaged Buddhism with sustainability, biodiversity and ecology as ideals have spread in recent decades in both East and West. There are arguments from both classical Pali Buddhist literature and East Asian Mahayana philosophy to justify Buddhist nature symbiosis from both ontological, ethical, and soteriological perspectives. Critical analysis can easily deconstruct such ideals as anachronistically constructed, primarily based on modern naturalism, reform Buddhism and con-temporary philosophy of nature. Such an ‘invented Buddhism’ is, however, genuinely authentic, and it is argued that an ecological perspective on both historical and contemporary Buddhism can legitimize other possibilities of interpretation, including the view of an ontological continuum with room for also animistic and posthuman 'nature religion', in which a dog on several levels can be said to possess Buddha nature. DANSK RESUMÉ: Økologisering af buddhismen giver mening i både et moderne og posthumant perspektiv. Initiativer og institutioner baseret på socialt engageret buddhisme med bæredygtighed, biodiversitet og økologi som idealer har de sidste årtier bredt sig i både Øst og Vest. Der er argumenter fra både klassisk pali-buddhistisk litteratur og østasiatisk mahayana-filosofi til at godtgøre buddhistisk natur-symbiose ud fra både ontologisk, etisk og soteriologisk perspektiv. Kritisk analyse kan sagtens dekonstruere sådanne som anakronistisk konstruerede idealer, primært med afsæt i moderne naturalisme, reformbuddhisme og nutidig naturfilosofi. En sådan ’opfundet buddhisme’ er dog helt autentisk, og der argumenteres for, at netop et økologisk perspektiv på både historisk og nutidig buddhisme kan legitimere andre fortolkningsmuligheder, herunder anskuelsen af et ontologisk kontinuum med plads til også animistisk og posthuman ‘natur-religion’, i hvilken en hund på flere planer kan siges at besidde buddha-natur.  

1970 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 573-591 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. B. Smith

The religion of Cao-Dai is fundamentally, and deliberately, syncretic. Since it includes Christ and Moses (but for some reason, not Muhammad) in its pantheon, the Western student might be tempted to see it as essentially an attempt to bridge the gulf between East and West by finding a sort of middle way between Christianity and Buddhism. It is possible that some Caodaists who have acquired a thorough Western education in France but maintained their religious belief do in fact see it in those terms, but most of the Caodaist literature indicates that the real basis of the syncretism is an attempt to bring together the three religions of the Sino-Vietnamese tradition. In this attempt, Christianity has only a peripheral position, and nothing has been adopted from Christian teachings that would seriously clash with the underlying doctrinal tolerance of East Asian religions. The most important feature of Caodaist syncretism is that it brings together elements of Taoist spirit-mediumship with a concept of salvation that was originally Buddhist. If any one of the three Sino-Vietnamese religions may be said to be dominant in Caodaism it is religious Taoism; but since the Caodaists themselves frequently refer to their religion as ‘reformed Buddhism’, that is a point which must be demonstrated rather than taken for granted. I propose to analyse some of the most obvious elements of Caodaism under four headings: spirit-mediumship; the Cao-Dai and other spirits; salvation and the apocalyptic aspect; and hierarchy and organization. A concluding section will deal briefly with the possible relationship between Caodaism and certain religious sects in China.


2002 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-44
Author(s):  
Paul Bacon ◽  
Edward Newman

Mainstream International Relations teaching and scholarship is often argued to be social scientific and therefore able to generate propositions about international life that have general (even universal) explanatory value. However, the methods and research questions of IR can in part be explained by the nature of the national academies in which they develop and by a range of national and regional sociological and political circumstances. Thus, following Ole Waever, the “American approach to the study of IR” and its predominance can be explained by reference to certain cultural and structural factors. Yet if the sociological underpinnings of teaching and researching in IR are inevitable and readily apparent, why is there no distinct ‘East Asian tradition’? Why is the East Asian IR community relatively weak? In fact, the relative weakness of indigenous national and regional East Asian IR approaches can be understood as an extension of national academic environments, historical circumstances, and national political traditions.


Author(s):  
M. Lajčiak

Although the current globalization eliminates and blurs the differences between cultures in different regions of the world, different inclinations and preferences in thinking between East and West, historically grounded cultural specificities and different hierarchy of values play an important role in the approach to solving current problems of our time. Differences in perception of the world in relation to its surroundings, organization of human relations, emphasis on socio-economic aspects and models of management of public affairs between East and West are so great that we can talk about different geography of thought. This is particularly the comparison of Western culture and Confucian East Asian societies. It is reflected not only at the individual positions, but at system approaches that are a kind of form of identification of the collective consciousness of these cultures. In some cases these approaches and perception are contradictory and can be compared in terms of «versus» oppositions. It includes topics such as individuality vs. community, holistic vs. reductionist solutions, social order vs. revolt, responsibilities vs. rights, pragmatism vs. ontological beliefs, conflicting vs. complementary perception of the world and other concepts. The work seeks to contribute to the understanding of these divergent concepts and help bridging model approaches between the two spheres of civilization.


2017 ◽  
pp. 8-17
Author(s):  
Emilio Carlo Corriero

[full article, abstract in English; abstract in Lithuanian] It is starting from the role recognized and attributed to nature by Schelling and Nietzsche that one understands the renewed relationship between being and time at the basis of the possibility for the new beginning of Western philosophy, prophesized by Heidegger in 1936. For both, the possibility of the very future passes by the necessary redemption of the past (that is an extreme liberation from its conceptual hypostatization) through a form of love for the All, which is possible to recognize only with a philosophy of nature that is able to show the “unprethinkable” ground of being and its eternal dynamics as potential potentiae. Only on the basis of this potentia potentiae of the “unprethinkable” past, the “coming event” of the future becomes possible, as well as that renewed relation between time and being, which permits a new beginning for Western philosophy.


Author(s):  
Damien Keown

To what extent does Buddhism resemble or differ from Western ethics, and does it constitute an ethical system in itself? ‘Ethics East and West’ looks at Buddhism through the lens of three influential Western theories of ethics: deontology, utilitarianism, and virtue ethics. Some thinkers have classified Buddhism as a form of ‘ethical particularism’, or a pluralist system in which the agent is guided by the demands of each unique situation. Others again see it as a form of ‘perfectionism’ because self-development is an overarching theme in Buddhist teachings. There may also be parallels between Buddhism and classical Western philosophical schools such as Stoicism. In modern times we have seen the emergence of ‘socially engaged Buddhism’ as a movement campaigning for social justice and human rights. But does the idea of individual rights contradict the Buddhist doctrine of ‘no-self’?


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document