Quote:
Originally Posted by smallpox
Maybe it's all this censorship in China that makes you believe having a religion impoverishes people, but nothing is further from the truth. Jews are extremely orthodox to their religious believes and they are overtly rich. Luther's social ideologies are often credited for the habits of the hard working English men and women that began capitalism, and he was a religious leader.
It's more like the opposite. When people are poor they have more faith into their religion, because they have little else, they need something to believe in. Let them. I was a lot more religious when I was homeless then I am now.
This is all a case of mis-guided causation.
|
Yes, I saw this post smallpox and I was unsure whether or how to reply to it because you seemed to be saying first that societies can benefit from religion even if they are wealthy and then that people are more likely to be interested in religion if they are poor or suffering. (the suffering being poor homeless you!!
)
Tibet has for so long had religion as central to it's culture. When Buddhism arrived it incorporated the Bon religion which was there in Tibet before - and where I think all the extra spirits of Tibetan Buddhism inside Tibet come from.
I think it is difficult to know where Tibet would go if it gained autonomy. Things are made more complicated by the issue this thread began with but my hope would be that it would become 'a center of excellence' (in the very best possible way) for Buddhism.
I suspect they would be well able to provide a living for the Monesteries with all the people who would flood over!! I know I'm a dreamer on this, but heck what is the world without dreams!
Linear Mode
