Skip to main content

Christian and Buddhist hypocrisy — Bertrand Russell (1930)


“The Buddha was amiable and enlightened; on his death-bed he laughed at his disciples for supposing that he was immortal. But the Buddhist priesthood, as it exists, for example, in Tibet, has been obscurantist, tyrannous, and cruel in the highest degree. There is nothing accidental about this difference between a religion and its founder. As soon as absolute truth is supposed to be contained in the sayings of a certain man, there is a body of experts to interpret his sayings, and these experts infallibly acquire power, since they hold the key to truth. Like any other privileged caste, they use their power for their own advantage. They are, however, in one respect worse than any other privileged caste, since it is their business to expound an unchanging truth, revealed once for all in utter perfection, so that they become necessarily opponents of all intellectual and moral progress.

What is true of Buddhism is equally true of Christianity. Religions may owe their origin to teachers with strong individual convictions, but these teachers have seldom had much influence upon the Churches and Temples that they founded, whereas these organisations have had enormous influence upon the communities in which they flourished. To take the case that is of most interest to members of Western civilization: the teaching of Christ, as it appears in the Gospels, has had extraordinarily little to do with the ethics of Christians. The most important thing about Christianity, from a social and historical point of view, is not Christ, but the Church, and if we are to judge of Christianity as a social force, we must not go to the Gospels for our material. Christ taught that you should give your goods to the poor, that you should not fight, that you should not go to church, and that you should not punish adultery. Neither Catholics nor Protestants have shown any strong desire to follow his teaching in any of these respects.“

— Bertrand Russell, Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization? (1930)


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Helen Mirren once said: Before you argue with someone, ask yourself.......

Helen Mirren once said: Before you argue with someone, ask yourself, is that person even mentally mature enough to grasp the concept of a different perspective. Because if not, there's absolutely no point. Not every argument is worth your energy. Sometimes, no matter how clearly you express yourself, the other person isn’t listening to understand—they’re listening to react. They’re stuck in their own perspective, unwilling to consider another viewpoint, and engaging with them only drains you. There’s a difference between a healthy discussion and a pointless debate. A conversation with someone who is open-minded, who values growth and understanding, can be enlightening—even if you don’t agree. But trying to reason with someone who refuses to see beyond their own beliefs? That’s like talking to a wall. No matter how much logic or truth you present, they will twist, deflect, or dismiss your words, not because you’re wrong, but because they’re unwilling to see another side. Maturity is...
Post a Comment
Read more

The battle against caste: Phule and Periyar's indomitable legacy

In the annals of India's social reform, two luminaries stand preeminent: Jotirao Phule and E.V. Ramasamy, colloquially known as Periyar. Their endeavours, ensconced in the 19th and 20th centuries, continue to sculpt the contemporary struggle against the entrenched caste system. Phule's educational renaissance Phule, born in 1827, was an intellectual vanguard who perceived education as the ultimate equaliser. He inaugurated the inaugural school for girls from lower castes in Pune, subverting the Brahminical hegemony that had long monopolized erudition. His Satyashodhak Samaj endeavoured to obliterate caste hierarchies through radical social reform. His magnum opus, "Gulamgiri" (Slavery), delineated poignant parallels between India's caste system and the subjugation of African-Americans, igniting a discourse on caste as an apparatus of servitude. Periyar's rationalist odyssey Periyar, born in 1879, assumed the mantle of social reform through the Dravidian moveme...
Post a Comment
Read more

India needs a Second National Capital

Metta Ramarao, IRS (VRS) India needs a Second National Capital till a green field New National Capital is built in the geographical centre of India. Dr B R Ambedkar in his book "Thoughts on Linguistic States" published in 1955 has written a full Chaper on "Second Capital for India" While discussing at length justfying the need to go for a second capital has clearly preferred Hyderabad over Kolkata and Mumbai. He did not consider Nagpur. Main reason he brought out in his book is the need to bridge north and south of the country. He recommended Hyderabad as second capital of India. Why we should consider Dr Ambedkar's recommendation: Delhi was central to British India. After partition, Delhi is situated at one corner of India. People from South find it daunting to visit due to distance, weather, language, culture, etc. If Hyderabad is made second capital, it will embrace all southern states. People of South India can come for work easily. Further, if Supreme Court...
Post a Comment
Read more