tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7154359965221795553.post8272453307165944626..comments2024-03-01T14:27:35.794-08:00Comments on Albion Awakening: Homeless Inside YourselfBruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7154359965221795553.post-85799857649813839402018-12-02T04:45:20.294-08:002018-12-02T04:45:20.294-08:00Don, I'm not a Catholic so I can't really ...<br />Don, I'm not a Catholic so I can't really comment on doctrines such as the infallibility of the Pope other than to say that anything human can err even if there is divine inspiration involved too. But it seems clear that the Catholic Church has recently been subject to sustained demonic attack which has worked out in various ways. I believe it had to evolve in some respects but evolution should not mean abandonment of core truths. On the one hand, Catholicism is one of the few branches of Christianity which has held firm to traditional teachings on sexuality and that in the face of massive provocation. It must be strongly commended for that. It also retains far more of a mystical sense than any of the Protestant forms of Christianity. However it has also, starting with Vatican 2, modernised itself in many ways that have caused it to lose touch with spiritual depth. <br /><br />It's probably in an impossible position in the modern world but perhaps the changes you refer to can be used by people to go behind outer teachings and reliance on authority and start to follow an inner path in which dependence on the Church can be, I won't say replaced, but supplemented and deepened by internal contact with God or the Holy Spirit. <br /><br />I would say you might try to see the Church existing in two forms. One, an ideal heavenly form and two, how it is on this Earth which is not ideal but generally struggles to be true to the original vision. Nothing is ever perfect in this world and everything nowadays is a long way from perfect. I think that if Catholics could really accept that they might be reconciled to the current problems in their Church. Not accepting them but seeing them as inevitable at the present time. The Church is going to be attacked, both from outside and from within, and some of its problems are of its own making but you have to decide what is more important to you, your church or your God? Sometimes, in this fallen world, a choice will have to be made. That doesn't have to mean leaving the church but it may mean becoming more firmly rooted in your own spiritual being and not depending on anything external, even the church.<br />William Wildbloodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13231219533755925897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7154359965221795553.post-47748045771890935542018-12-01T17:15:13.028-08:002018-12-01T17:15:13.028-08:00I'm feeling adrift with the changes in the Cat...I'm feeling adrift with the changes in the Catholic church. Not just the problems with the current pontiff, the changes in the Apostle's Creed and the Mass bother me. I wanted to be a priest as a boy and was discouraged by that by an honest and perceptive priest. I was meant to be a father and grandfather and he saw that as much as I did. Now, I feel like an outsider just entering the church I was baptized in.Donnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7154359965221795553.post-996919548880741252018-11-15T18:53:59.596-08:002018-11-15T18:53:59.596-08:00Makes sense, thanks for the clarification.Makes sense, thanks for the clarification.Moose Thompsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7154359965221795553.post-21650385670619556072018-11-15T08:04:48.608-08:002018-11-15T08:04:48.608-08:00I already explained this. "Authoritative&quo...I already explained this. "Authoritative" means "from the author". Authoritative sources are those that proceed from God the Creator.<br /><br />You start by looking for messengers from God. You discern that they are messengers from God by witness of the Holy Spirit. There is no other way to discern (or properly <i>understand</i>) them, except for being yourself in the direct presence and glory of God.<br /><br />If your genuine intention is to seek God, then you will distinguish the witness of the Holy Spirit from any carnal or devilish feeling easily, even without knowing of such things.<br /><br />If you are asking for a complete list of people of whose <i>words</i> the Holy Spirit will always bear witness (and enlighten your understanding), there isn't one and it would do you no good if there were, you would then be substituting a list for the witness of the Holy Spirit and the list can't tell you what the message from God really <i>meant</i> (making it rather pointless to 'know' that they were speaking truth from God). Anyone may speak truth by the Spirit, but the Holy Spirit will only testify of that truth to those ready to accept it. And no one has spoken solely truth that all were prepared to hear.<br /><br />The Catholic Church is not monolithic on the importance of the witness of the Holy Spirit, some great teachers have insisted on it, the institution as a whole rejects it utterly. Protestantism is nominally based on the importance of the witness of the Holy Spirit, but many significant leaders deride it in practice. Because the witness of the Holy Spirit is the only means by which doctrine can be understood by men, this would make meaningful agreement on doctrine impossible even if there were no serious disputes about even the wording of rote assent, but given that such disputes are the main <i>religious</i> function of the hierarchy, it is hard to see how they could be so monolithic.Chiu ChunLinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03519192610708043962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7154359965221795553.post-73518566640957387522018-11-14T09:06:55.541-08:002018-11-14T09:06:55.541-08:00@CCL
"Your questions seem to suppose that it ...@CCL<br />"Your questions seem to suppose that it is impossible that God really exists in any sense independent of the concepts of men"<br /><br />No I don't think this at all and I don't know how you gathered that. Perhaps we are talking passed each other. You claimed, echoing words of Jesus (and Western Christianity in general) that what one chooses to believe is of extreme import. This begs the question, how does one know what to believe? It seems you are saying now, that knowing what to believe is a matter of the leading of the Holy Spirit/God, which I understand and agree with.<br /><br />However you imply earnest seeking as a requirement which then begs the question of where does one start looking assuming pure intentions? Surely men have been inspired in the past and God communicates to us through them, no? But which ones? Your original comment mentioned authoritative sources, which I didn't take to mean simply God, but sounds more like past inspired souls or existing traditions/institutions. However we run into a problem when looking at such institutions and looking back in the past for such souls in that there is a great deal of inconsistency regarding doctrine in Christianity and its history. So I'm more or less inquiring how do you make sense of that? <br /><br />Also my understanding is that the Catholic Church is pretty monolithic regarding doctrine, but there are many things it has not determined doctrine on.<br />Moose Thompsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7154359965221795553.post-58722404537319158062018-11-13T17:02:35.497-08:002018-11-13T17:02:35.497-08:00The authoritative source is God.
We (including th...The authoritative source is God.<br /><br />We (including the average reader) are not ourselves God, God is therefore external to us. We must be pointed to God and rely on God, at no further remove than the Holy Spirit, which is available to all who earnestly seek, be they average and literate or not.<br /><br />By "Holy Spirit", I do not mean our own intuitions or feelings, I mean something that is recognizable as being distinct from our own thoughts and emotions, something that will of itself testify of that difference. Of course, there are other spirits that men may choose to heed, they differ qualitatively and people will heed those which they prefer.<br /><br />If one prefers the evil spirit to the Holy Spirit, well then that is decisive, nothing much can be done about it.<br /><br />Scripture alone is nothing without the witness of the Holy Spirit, for what the scriptures teach can only be understood properly through the instruction of the Holy Spirit. Human language cannot and thus does not properly express <i>any</i> saving doctrine, though it <i>can</i> be used to contradict and deny sound doctrine.<br /><br />But sound doctrine is only understood by the witness of the Holy Spirit or in the direct glory and presence of God (which the mortal body cannot endure).<br /><br />Anyone who claims to provide sound doctrine outside of the witness of the Holy Spirit is beginning with an utterly false claim of authority. Catholicism is not monolithic, nor Protestantism. Luther's phrase does not mean that the individual is an authority to themselves, but that they must submit to and believe on the authority of God.<br /><br />Your questions seem to suppose that it is impossible that God really exists in any sense independent of the concepts of men, whether of humans generally or of some particular individuals expressed through human language. If this were the case then that should be the same as saying that God doesn't really exist, or rather, that whatever existence God has is purely within human imagination.<br /><br />On such a presumption the entire project of religion must be abandoned.Chiu ChunLinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03519192610708043962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7154359965221795553.post-38122631075261656582018-11-12T18:07:01.448-08:002018-11-12T18:07:01.448-08:00@CCL
I'm still a bit confused on your viewpoin...@CCL<br />I'm still a bit confused on your viewpoint. So scripture and personal revelation as authority, in a way that makes sense. But I take "sound doctrine available from authoritative sources" to mean some external person/institution/entity that we could point your average seeker to and say "listen to him/it" regarding this or that doctrine, or more apropo, that we can test our beliefs/intuitions against. <br /><br />You might respond that that simply scripture is such a thing, but looking at the history of Christian theology, clearly scripture is open to interpretation as far as doctrine is concerned, which really begs the question of authority with respect to interpreting scripture. The Catholic church has always claimed such authority and you can believe that or not, but if you don't (i.e. you are not Catholic), then you have to look elsewhere for authority on doctrine. Luther taught the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, which would suggest that the individual in a sense becomes an authority for himself. But in Protestantism there is still a reverence for tradition (e.g. the Nicene Creed), which suggests perhaps a weakened external authority. Where do you stand? <br /><br /><br /><br />Moose Thompsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7154359965221795553.post-83867326475024549952018-11-12T09:17:29.018-08:002018-11-12T09:17:29.018-08:00"Authoritative" means "from the aut..."Authoritative" means "from the author", so of course the ultimate source is God, through direct revelation whether received while transfigured to endure the full glory of God or through the Holy Spirit of God.<br /><br />Those with such revelation may teach or write, and the scripture thus recorded and passed down ought be the occasion for revelation confirming and expanding the meaning of the scripture.<br /><br />The traditional doctrinal 'authorities' are heretical and damn themselves insofar as they claim to have authority of themselves rather than through revelation and as confirmed by the Holy Spirit. That is, any person who does not acknowledge that their own testimony is nothing without the confirming witness of the Holy Spirit is a <i>false</i> authority by denying the truth author of salvation.<br /><br />There are few men in any age that have stood transfigured in the presence of the full glory and power of God Almighty, but the modern age is not particularly or specifically bereft. Nor has the Holy Spirit of God ceased to reveal truth to those who seek it with an earnest mind and a willing heart. Nor have all the scriptures been lost to history. Dr. Charlton does not, to my understanding, teach that God cannot reveal His divine truth to men in our day.<br /><br />What he does seem to teach, and with which I often disagree, is that those who taught that they should be believed <i>without</i> the witness of the Holy Spirit were in time past adequate authorities for some benefit or other they offered to many prior to the present day. I think that he may mean merely that it was possible to live well enough without calling them out as false teachers...I'm not sure whether that is significant enough to disagree that it may be the case.Chiu ChunLinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03519192610708043962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7154359965221795553.post-81269025202696554172018-11-11T07:50:12.470-08:002018-11-11T07:50:12.470-08:00@CCL
"Those who adopt incorrect beliefs in c...@CCL<br /><br />"Those who adopt incorrect beliefs in clear contradiction of sound doctrine available from authoritative sources will not be saved. There is no more serious problem than that."<br /><br />What do you regard as authoritative sources that one can get sound doctrine from? Bruce and WW clearly hold heretical beliefs from the viewpoint traditional doctrinal authorities. Indeed, it seems to me one of Bruce's theses is that there are no such authorities for modern man. Care to clarify? Thanks<br /><br />Moose Thompsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7154359965221795553.post-2956111059238737342018-11-10T02:14:43.206-08:002018-11-10T02:14:43.206-08:00Man against nature/supernature, man against other ...Man against nature/supernature, man against other man/men, or man against himself.<br /><br />To be reconciled to anything is to be in conflict with something else. But the reverse does not follow.<br /><br />There is no "healthy state" of not being in conflict, nor can be. The desire for such is merely another conflict, rejection of the existence of conflict, which is rejection of the universe (and of the true nature of the self).<br /><br />You can't have it both ways, let alone the infinite number of ways necessary to avoid all conflicts...that just puts you at odds with logic and reason, as well as pragmatic effectiveness.<br /><br />Instead, we simply have to sort out which conflicts we're willing to accept (or at least endure) and which we are under a necessity of reconciling.Chiu ChunLinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03519192610708043962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7154359965221795553.post-28727650849337100052018-11-10T01:24:18.865-08:002018-11-10T01:24:18.865-08:00@Unknown - Christianity must always be a positive ...@Unknown - Christianity must always be a positive choice - it is an opt-in religion. <br /><br />But you don't seem to understand it except at a very superficial, pick and mix, kind of level where you notice it is similar to this or that other religion. <br /><br />Since you are re/reading, but simply not getting, what Christianity is at root - it seems that something would first have to change in *you*: a willingness to probe at metaphysical aspects, to learn before evaluating. <br /><br />Once you know what Christianity is, you will then need to decide whether it is true; and then whether you want-in. <br /><br />But you haven't reached that point.Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7154359965221795553.post-62857345708952618472018-11-09T17:32:58.051-08:002018-11-09T17:32:58.051-08:00CCL
Touché ;)CCL<br /><br />Touché ;)Adilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12458942641355740167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7154359965221795553.post-45487487051490449062018-11-09T08:25:15.180-08:002018-11-09T08:25:15.180-08:00CCL -
I think that is an unfortunate way of putt...CCL - <br /><br />I think that is an unfortunate way of putting it, although I get your point.<br /><br />I feel one of the unfortunate things about Christianity is its separation between nature and God and even a sense of opposition between the two. I think this is really the precursor to modern alienation.<br /><br />I think Bruce's Romantic Christianity is meant to overcome this error and reestablish mans harmony with nature and God within a Christian framework.<br /><br />As to your point, there does seem a tendency in man to split himself off from the cosmos and rebel against it - but the desire to heal this split is just as 'natural", as evidenced by the existence of religion everywhere.<br /><br />So perhaps we can envision it as two different natural states - one diseased, and one healthy. The split state is diseased and the state of unity - going along with and cooperating with nature - is healthy.<br /><br />But disease is as natural as health and perhaps necessary viewed from the totality of the system - as God said to Job, and as the mystics have perceived it.<br /><br />So in a sense Christianity is as natural to man as rejecting it - one is nature in its positive aspect and the other in its negative aspect, one is a natural symptom of balance and health and the other of the forces of decline that precede regeneration - perhaps necessarily.<br /><br />After all, nature is Gods good and wonderful creation, and nature as bad and in opposition to God seems to me an unfortunate misunderstanding of the relationship.<br /><br />Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13667917314028595187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7154359965221795553.post-71863215438349863922018-11-09T05:55:25.555-08:002018-11-09T05:55:25.555-08:00Christianity isn't natural to anyone.
That...Christianity isn't natural to <i>anyone</i>.<br /><br />That's kinda the whole point.<br /><br /><i>Every</i> race of man on the Earth, from the beginning, has by nature tended towards rebellion against God and consequent damnation. <i>No</i> race is "naturally Christian".<br /><br />Christianity is about avoiding the natural fate of every human, of every race.<br /><br />And not about much else, really.Chiu ChunLinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03519192610708043962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7154359965221795553.post-61430974215086434522018-11-08T17:39:07.487-08:002018-11-08T17:39:07.487-08:00@Faculty X
Christians can learn something importa...@Faculty X<br /><br />Christians can learn something important from Buddhism. In fact there are some who say that without Buddha's teachings of the Noble Eightfold Path - that certain teachings of Christ could not have been understood 500 years later. Additionally, the primary doctrine of the East - Reincarnation - in my view, will play a fundamental role in the future of Christianity.<br /><br />But the problem with many Buddhists in my experience - is their absolute certainty that there is nothing they can learn from Christianity.Moonspherehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02015070450886972955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7154359965221795553.post-20963749086481576462018-11-08T14:57:26.193-08:002018-11-08T14:57:26.193-08:00Not sure you're right Faculty X. Yoga comes fr...Not sure you're right Faculty X. Yoga comes from well before the Aryan invasion of India, and in the West it's not predominantly a spiritual path anyway. <br /><br />Christ did not just come for the Jews but for all mankind. Christianity may not appeal to you but it is a religion that was evolved for and by Westerners who may not come back to Christianity in its most modern degenerate forms but who do need to come back to Christ.William Wildbloodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13231219533755925897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7154359965221795553.post-34496516467390088322018-11-08T14:51:06.260-08:002018-11-08T14:51:06.260-08:00Faculty X
That depends on what you mean by Christ...Faculty X<br /><br />That depends on what you mean by Christianity and the West. I'd say modern Christianity, post reformation, is definitely a Western phenomenon, in so far as being a very literalist approach that resembles the Judeo-abrahamic mentality, in turn overlapping with western rationalism. The reason westerners are jumping of that train is actually that they are yearning to renew their pagan souls from the East. Indeed paganism and the Indo-Aryan traditions strike a chord in the European spirit, that modern Christianity lacks. That's why I'm fond of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, which captures the ancient Greek in us all better than any of the newer branches. <br /><br />There is a paradoxical phenomenon here meaning the East representing the Indo-European spirit more authentically than modern Western Civilization. So there are two Christianities - one is the Christian ideology and the other one is the way of Christ - which we have lost. And even if, as you imply, paganistic and even yogic traditions come more natural to us, our God-image rests upon Christ.<br /><br />Christianity's Jewish backround doesn't bother me personally since humanity is interlinked, and Jews/levantines are a much older branch on the tree of humanity than modern Europeans which means we are a continuation of them - while they in turn have much influence from Old Europe and Indo-Iranians. So there is no "us" and "them" in the wider scheme of things. I think the task of serious spiritual westerners is capturing the sunlight rising from the East and renewing our calcified religion rather than abandoning it. We neither have time for spiritual tourism nor tribalism. Adilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12458942641355740167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7154359965221795553.post-90629453175199063182018-11-08T12:51:27.924-08:002018-11-08T12:51:27.924-08:00This concept that somehow Christianity is a natura...This concept that somehow Christianity is a natural home for Westerners doesn't fit my experience nor the reality that vast numbers of people left that religion so quickly. <br /><br />If one wants to have a religious home to match the people then it must come from the ethno-cultural group itself, not be an import.<br /><br />Historically Christianity was given by Jews to Jews for conversion.<br /><br />I think a lot of people are raised Christian and then try to fit it in to modern reality due to their early influences. <br /><br />I grew up in the secular West, am of European descent, and despite years of exploring Mormonism and Catholicism have never felt it to be natural to the West or Westerners as your post claims. Most Westerners have left and are not coming back.<br /><br />Becoming a Hindu may be a cultural stretch depending on what parts you get into.<br />Yet Yoga has grown massively in the West and is part of the European exploration into new states of being, a process that accelerated in the 60s and found minor fruition in the New Age.<br /><br />Yoga is from a people who would be closer to modern Europeans than say, Middle Easterners, if you want to fit beliefs and culture to biology. Faculty Xnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7154359965221795553.post-79963794195357177192018-11-08T09:08:32.065-08:002018-11-08T09:08:32.065-08:00The "misunderstanding" of what a choice ...The "misunderstanding" of what a choice to be Buddhist <i>instead of</i> Christian is a matter of evidence and sound reason. The Dali Lama is merely noting what anyone who <i>looks</i> at Western Buddhists can clearly see, but which they would prefer not to admit themselves.<br /><br />As a non-Christian, his theory of <i>why</i> Western Buddhists have the peculiar spiritual malaise they do is not deeply informed by any real spiritual experience as a devout Christian. So obviously it would differ from the view of those who have really engaged Christianity. But his observation of the effect is what it is.Chiu ChunLinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03519192610708043962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7154359965221795553.post-60814362450459281262018-11-08T08:06:22.434-08:002018-11-08T08:06:22.434-08:00For me it boils down to this. Buddhism, for all it...For me it boils down to this. Buddhism, for all its many virtues, lacks the sense of God and one of the results of that is that it must therefore deny the integrity of the individual. Consequently, for all its quite sincere talk of compassion, it cannot know real love. The Buddhist goes beyond suffering by going beyond desire but the Christian, by accepting suffering through Christ, eventually finds the complete fulfilment of desire in the living God.<br /><br />Christianity, when it is lived as it should be, really does take the spiritual quest to a higher place than Buddhism which is to be expected since it was a revelation from above whereas Buddhism represents the highest the unaided human being can go without the input of divine grace.<br />William Wildbloodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13231219533755925897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7154359965221795553.post-71918944221530494262018-11-08T07:59:18.475-08:002018-11-08T07:59:18.475-08:00Bruce -
D.T Suzuki was a Zen Buddhist who wrote ...Bruce - <br /><br />D.T Suzuki was a Zen Buddhist who wrote almost exclusively on that topic (although frequently discussing Christianity in relation to Zen), although Watts was not a Buddhist and did not categorize himself.<br /><br />I suppose opinions must differ - I regard Watts as one of the most profound philosophers of the last century. I ignored him for ages because everyone regards him as frivolous, and was shocked to discover the depth of his insight. Hiding in plain sight, as it were, and beneath a cloak of frivolity.<br /><br />But he is too radical for mainstream society and I certainly understand why you don't wish to uphold him as an example.<br /><br />As for his personal life, by the terms if his own philosophy, he did not do so bad. <br /><br />Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13667917314028595187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7154359965221795553.post-12504869517277876342018-11-08T07:45:41.327-08:002018-11-08T07:45:41.327-08:00@U - Alan Watts (in his person and life) demonstra...@U - Alan Watts (in his person and life) demonstrates exactly what is *wrong* with supposedly Western Zen; <br /><br />https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2018/02/spoiled-priests-and-nuns-any-other.html<br /><br />but surely neither he nor Suzuki were Buddhists? Suzuki was a Theosophist. <br /><br />Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7154359965221795553.post-71550599065896114222018-11-08T07:08:37.332-08:002018-11-08T07:08:37.332-08:00"induced by the rigid, imposed, impersonal so..."induced by the rigid, imposed, impersonal social system; by training oneself to indifference."<br /><br />This also strikes me as a misconception of Japanese culture in its traditional aspect. While it has its rigid and formal side, it's actually a very warm and emotional culture that's accepting of human nature, favorable to humor and eccentricity, and very free in many ways. <br /><br />Its amusing because the Japanese see themselves as a "wet" culture - warm and emotional and flexible - and the West as a "dry" culture - overly rational and rigid - yet the West sees it as exactly the opposite :) <br /><br />East and West shall never meet I guess.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13667917314028595187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7154359965221795553.post-1682624774574062982018-11-08T06:55:06.990-08:002018-11-08T06:55:06.990-08:00I would say CCL and Bruce have a mistaken understa...I would say CCL and Bruce have a mistaken understanding of Buddhism, albeit one that is common in the West.<br /><br />D.T Suzuki wrote some excellent books that would clear up these misconceptions, and Alan Watts wrote an accessible and really profound work on Zen.<br /><br />I suppose it doesn't really matter at this point and you guys have found another path you're happy with, but I am just pointing that out.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13667917314028595187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7154359965221795553.post-2118811010643110652018-11-08T06:46:43.447-08:002018-11-08T06:46:43.447-08:00Let's explore some convenient parallels betwee...Let's explore some convenient parallels between Buddhism and our modern spiritual tourists:<br /><br />* Buddhism emerged during a transition period in India's religious history? Check.<br />* It was a time of social unrest and dissolution? Check.<br />* People no longer could communicate with the gods and began to mistrust them? Check.<br />* The early buddhists were vegetarians? Check.<br />* The early buddhists rejected their social setting and had no permanent home? Check.<br />* They rejected family and kin as highest value? Check.<br />* They lived off of subsidies? Check.<br />* They were individualists from the cities who rejected vedic priesthood? Check.<br /><br />Do you see a pattern?Adilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12458942641355740167noreply@blogger.com