h~log: Godwin's Law

Gagdad Bob aka Robert Godwin, admirer of Schuon and Aurobindo, author of "One Cosmos under God(win)", shares his confusion in "Is the World a Symballa' Coonfusion?" After swiftly concluding that anyone in his/her right mind would prefer living in United States to any Buddhist country (as if there really was such a thing), he gives quick arguments as to why and how-

"...As we have discussed before, true science only developed in one place and in one time in human history, and no place else: in the Christian west. There are well understood reasons why science didn't develop in Buddhist cultures -- for example, the belief that reality is ultimately "empty," or that the phenomenal world is (only) illusory, or that the key to life is to detach from thought rather than pursue it. In general, I find that there is too much of an emphasis on the internal world in Buddhism, which is why it often attracts people in the west that we would call schizoid or narcissistic. The intense focus on their own navel department is conducive to their pre-existing personality style, so they don't really grow with practice, they contract..."

And then, further on,

"...Again, in contrast to the implicit nihilism of Buddhism, "To say, out of a concern for transcendence, that the Absolute is 'beyond good and evil, beauty and ugliness,' can only mean one thing, namely that It is the Good in itself, Beauty in itself; it cannot mean that It is deprived of goodness or beauty..."

According to Godwin, only a Westernized Islam is tolerant and tolerable, and just so only an unconsciously Westernized interpretation of Buddhism may have any real merit, or otherwise simply attract men and women who already prefer to think of themselves most of the time. As opposed to Christian, Schuonian, Aurobindian, and especially Godwinian approach, which only attracts genuinely spiritual, authentic souls. This sort of thinking is reminiscent of another Godwin's Law, but in this case Godwin speaks like a bona fide Nazi himself, prior to any discussion, clearly unwilling to make the basic distinction between politics and religion, culture and spirituality, belief systems and mysticism etc., all those fundamental distinctions he relishes making in other occassions (I know, clarity in such distinctions make you wanna endorse Wilber, and we can't have that with Godwin, can we).

At any rate, Godwin takes what he does not like in Buddhism (or "Buddhist countries") to make general assumptions about Buddhism, then compares that to something he happens to like in Christianity (or generally "Christian West"), and infelicitously shares his confusion with his readers. Let us recapture some of that unique profoundity-