Tim Romano <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Subject: Re: Justifications for Misinterpreting Buddhism,Taoism and
> Christianity
>
>Wei wrote:
>
> > I am sure you know that it
> > is ridiculous to characterize any religion with a several thousand year
> > tradition as a religion of "aceticism and renunciation".
>
>But the worldview of a religion as manifest in its scripture can indeed be
>abstracted, even though as an institution in time the religion resists this
>sort of characterization and may bear little resemblance to its doctrine.
>
>St Francis, following the teachings of Christ in a fundamentalist mode,
>urged men to give away their worldly possessions and become beggars.
I think it might be appropriate to add to this brief characterization of St.
Francis's teachings. The essence of the teaching is to WORK and SHARE all
that one has with others, and to do so trusting in the goodness of ones
fellows, and in the goodness of God. Here are two essential parts of their
credo, as set down in the founding documents:
IV. That the brothers should not accept money.
I strictly forbid the brothers to receive money in any form either
directly or through an
intermediary. Nevertheless, the ministers and custodians can work
through spiritual friends to care
for the sick and clothe the brothers, according to place, season and
climate, as necessity may
seem to demand. This must be done, however, in such a way that they
do not receive money.
V. On their manner of working.
Those brothers whom the Lord favors with the gift of working should
do so faithfully and devotedly,
so that idleness, the enemy of the soul, is excluded yet the spirit
of holy prayer and devotion,
which all other temporal things should serve, is not extinguished. As
payment for their labor let
them receive that which is necessary for themselves and their
brothers, but not money. Let them
receive it humbly as befits those who serve God and seek after the
holiest poverty.
Notice that the emphasis is on work, healing the sick, clothing the poor,
receiving temporal benefits as payment for their labor. To characterize the
followers of such teachings as "beggars" is hardly accurate.
>Or one may feel that there are better
>ways of reminding people of that truth than an institutionalized class of
>moochers. Didn't the mendicant movement get rather out of hand during the
>middle ages?
Clearly there are many ways of reminding people of TRUTH. And yes the
movement did get out of hand. I don't want to give you the impression that
I support or believe that ANY institutionalized form of religion as good in
and of itself. Confucianist, Christian, Taoist, and Buddhist ORGANIZATIONS
have all deviated from first principles to varying degrees during different
epochs, to the detriment of Truth and Justice. And the same is true of
political philosophies. It seems that Mussolini's fascist movement "got a
little out of hand" too. I am trying to examine the way Pound looks at
both first principles and at the practice of religion.
>
>
>
> > The Tao of heaven is to take from those who
> > have too much and give to those who do not have enough.
>
>If the Tao of heaven is about redistribution of wealth, it's clear to me
>why
>Pound would have approved of the confucian suppression of Taoists: Pound
>was adamantly anti-communist.
>
Well, this is a problem I think. Pound did approve of the suppression of so
many groups of people.
When you use the word communist, I assume you refer to Marxism-Leninism, or
Stalinism. But I did not use the word "communist." To "take from those
who have too much, and give to those who do not have enough," might not
imply Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism, or any other brutal totalitarian form of
social organization. It could simply mean the peaceable reorganization of
society so as to make the proceeds of labor go more equitably to all sectors
of society. It can also imply progressive forms of taxation, as exist in
Norway and Sweden. It could mean regulating salaries, so that the highest
managerial salary could not be more than three or five times that of the
lowest paid worker's wage. Pound flirts with Douglas, briefly, which could
be more consonant with an egalitarian view (remember, however, there are no
"Douglas Cantos," and Douglas is mentioned only once or twice in the entire
work). But ultimately, Confucian monarchs, and dictators set the tone.
> >
> > Taoism encourages active giving. Just acts of redistribution. I
>suggest
> > that Pound's aversion to Taoism and Protestant Christianity--- WHILE
> > JUSTIFIED on occasion by reference to alleged overemphasis on
> > "renunciation"--- really stems from his elitism, his anti-democratic,
>and
> > anti-egalitarian tendencies.
>
>If you would change "anti-egalitarian" to "anti-communist" I would agree.
>I
>think you need to address Pound's perceptions of communism in the 30s.
>You're skirting a major issue.
>
Pound was both anti-egalitarian and anti-communist, in practice and in
theory. Confucianism is thoroughly incompatible with any sort of
egalitarian philosophy. As far as Pound's anti-communism goes, I cannot see
how it is sustained on the basis of any comparative or normative value.
Fascism in Europe and Marxism Leninism, as practiced in Russia, differs very
little in their methods and goals, inspite of their ideological differences.
Both set up one-party states which ultimately put power in the hands of an
elite bureacracy, who operate under the command of an absolute ruler (either
the Duce, or the Great Helmsman, it makes little difference).
However, you say you would agree with me if I replaced "anti-egalitarian"
with "anti-communist."
So you would agree if I simply said,
>>Pound's aversion to Taoism and Protestant Christianity really stems from
>>his elitism and his anti-democratic tendencies.
If that is true, then we may differ very little on this issue after all.
Regards,
Wei
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
|
