What makes a myth?

[Azathoth]

New Age beliefs and spirituality, along with the embrace of "Eastern" PC religious beliefs all compensates for the loss of traditional, conventional Christian clientèle. I always had a rather unlikely, but possible hunch that we are about (in a couple of hundred years or less) witness a rise of a new religion. Christianity has been present for too long. It will either change into something entirely new (as the sect of Jesus over time departed from Judaism and became Christianity through the works of men) or lose its place to a new phenomenon.

Cult of Dagon.

[Adrian II]

Cult of Dagon.

No, the cult of Gaia. The Earth Goddess. Whilst the environmental hysteria reaches ever new heights, the earth is going to be revered and feared as if it were a deity.

Already quite few biologists, environmental activists and policy makers are seriously influenced by Lovelock´s hypothesis that the earth is a single organism and even regard it as a breathing, feeling and acting entity that takes ´revenge´ for mankind´s abusive behaviour.

I wouldn´t be surprised, let me put it that way.

[Aemilius Paulus]

No, the cult of Gaia. The Earth Goddess. Whilst the environmental hysteria reaches ever new heights, the earth is going to be revered and feared as if it were a deity.

Already quite few biologists, environmental activists and policy makers are seriously influenced by Lovelock´s hypothesis that the earth is a single organism and even regard it as a breathing, feeling and acting entity that takes ´revenge´ for mankind´s abusive behaviour.

Why am I not surprised?

[Mooks]

Probably because the person referring to it as something other then a myth is a follower of one of the monotheistic religions or someone trying to be a nice. Visit a atheist forum and your see Jesus listed up there with Apollo, Thor, and Baal.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Already quite few biologists, environmental activists and policy makers are seriously influenced by Lovelock´s hypothesis that the earth is a single organism and even regard it as a breathing, feeling and acting entity that takes ´revenge´ for mankind´s abusive behaviour.

That's not quite what Professor Lovelock has proposed. I will agree however, that it is what many environmental campaigners have manipulated his theory into. (The same people that also ignore his eloquent arguments for nuclear power).

Anyway, I always thought a myth was a female moth.

[Hax]

Hax has a grudge against religion.

That's pretty hard for a Buddhist.

[Megas Methuselah]

That's pretty hard for a Buddhist.

No, it's TCV. Don't ask how I got mixed up, my long-haired friend.

[Aemilius Paulus]

That's pretty hard for a Buddhist.

I am concerned that you do not quite understand the facets and tenets of your own religion. Or, to put it better, what you beleive in does not reflect what indigenous Buddhists beleive in. The Western perception of Buddhism is hefty with misconceptions and misunderstandings.

Buddhism was a reform movement which originated as a response to the overtly liberal Hinduism and excessively oppressive and radical Jainism. It is the "Middle Way" for numerous reasons, not simply because of its theology.

Now, are you a "Little Vessel" or a "Large vehicle" (Theravada and Mahayana) Buddhist? I would assume you are the latter, as almost all "export" Buddhism is of the Mahayana variety. The former is simply too conservative and restrictive, not to mention much less widespread form of Buddhism - definitely something that is not well-received in foreign cultures, and something that is not exported either. But still, I would rather not make assumptions and know what you are, despite the overwhelming probabilities. And who knows, the books I read on comparative religious studies are quite old, by Huston and Campbell.

Now, are you a Tibetan, Zen, "Original", or some other smaller sect Buddhist? Chances are you are the first one, as for some odd reason it is the first that became the most-exported-to-the-West one. Despite the fact that it is heavily burdened by superstition, rituals, unique animistic Tibetan traditions, and such. Peculiar, but their liberal stance on teaching to foreigners and spreading their missions did pay off. Even though Buddhism, at least originally, was definitely not a missionary religion - none of the Eastern religions are.

All of them have mainly one thing in common, and that is that they are meant for the natives, and the adherents of them do not beleive that converting individuals of different cultures makes any practical sense. A view which I share, despite myself rather inclined to side with Hinduism as my most favoured religion. Particularly when you apply the nirguna principle, which states there is but one God-entity - making Hinduism the oldest monotheistic religion, as the thousands-of-gods is the saguna concept, which is merely presented to make the religion more palatable for the uneducated, simply-minded masses. The ancient Vedas, the Upanishads particularly, always speak of only one God.

[Hax]

I am concerned that you do not quite understand the facets and tenets of your own religion. Or, to put it better, what you beleive in does not reflect what indigenous Buddhists beleive in. The Western perception of Buddhism is hefty with misconceptions and misunderstandings.

Perhaps, but this might very well be found in any religion, especially as you state, the eastern religions, who happen to be somewhat unclear on their ethical rules (especially found in the Shinto tradition of Japan and in Taoïsm and Confucianism as well, to a degree). I completely agree with your view that the western idea of Buddhism might very well be an incorrect one, and Buddhism is often broken down to this simple view of "Do what seems right and it'll be cool", as it's used in a lot of New-Age sects.

Now, are you a "Little Vessel" or a "Large vehicle" (Theravada and Mahayana) Buddhist? I would assume you are the latter, as almost all "export" Buddhism is of the Mahayana variety. The former is simply too conservative and restrictive, not to mention much less widespread form of Buddhism - definitely something that is not well-received in foreign cultures, and something that is not exported either. But still, I would rather not make assumptions and know what you are, despite the overwhelming probabilities. And who knows, the books I read on comparative religious studies are quite old, by Huston and Campbell.

Neither, Vajrayana. This would of course be the closest to the Large Vehicle (Mahayana) branch of Buddhism, as it kinda originated from that branch. Some people do not regard Vajrayana as a seperate branch of Buddhism, but mostly as an "extension" of Mahayana Buddhism. To move on to your next point:

Now, are you a Tibetan, Zen, "Original", or some other smaller sect Buddhist? Chances are you are the first one, as for some odd reason it is the first that became the most-exported-to-the-West one. Despite the fact that it is heavily burdened by superstition, rituals, unique animistic Tibetan traditions, and such. Peculiar, but their liberal stance on teaching to foreigners and spreading their missions did pay off. Even though Buddhism, at least originally, was definitely not a missionary religion - none of the Eastern religions are.

Once again, I'm afraid I must disappoint you . I adhere to the Shingon tradition which was founded in 811 by the Japanese monk Kukai (known posthumously as Kobo Daishi) and took a lot of elements from the Chinese "Zhen Yan" sect, which is a direct translation of the Sanskrit word "mantra". Therefore Vajrayana Buddhism is also known as Tantrayana, seeing how the numerous mantra and tantra play a central role in this form of Buddhism.

Chances are you are the first one, as for some odd reason it is the first that became the most-exported-to-the-West one.

Exactly right.

I've never taken a real look at Zen/Ch'an Buddhism, but as long as people find security in their beliefs I have no problems with it whatsoever.

Or, to put it better, what you beleive in does not reflect what indigenous Buddhists beleive in.

I'm afraid your first statement is somewhat of an overhasted generalization, but a justified one.

The former is simply too conservative and restrictive, not to mention much less widespread form of Buddhism

Exactly right, again. I'm impressed with your overall knowledge of the eastern religions, though.

[Hosakawa Tito]

That's not quite what Professor Lovelock has proposed. I will agree however, that it is what many environmental campaigners have manipulated his theory into. (The same people that also ignore his eloquent arguments for nuclear power).

Anyway, I always thought a myth was a female moth.

I thought he was a moderator here.