Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwawayacc2 | Hacker News Reader

Reading the comments, one argument I keep seeing in different form is essentially “corporations/the west are hollowing out/perverting/distorting/using only some parts of buddhist teachings, and this is bad”.

Why? Why is modifying an idea, even by twisting it to be the very opposite of it’s “original meaning” ( I don’t believe that exists, everything is a modified version of something else) an intrinsically bad thing?

If it’s not, what’s the problem with corporations twisting buddhism to suit their needs?

View on HN

I came here to say something similar: Do the rules of religion prohibit molding any religion to serve any purpose? What rules? Your religion can be anything you want it to be. Moreover, nobody can interpret the doctrines or traditions of your religion for you, unless they actually believe in precisely the same religion.

> Do the rules of religion prohibit molding any religion to serve any purpose? What rules?

Quite obviously yes. The purpose of Christianity is to serve God or something like that. You cannot change it to serve God and Elon Musk as you cannot have other gods.

>Your religion can be anything you want it to be.

Well yes but it will be your own personal religion, not a religion that is shared by anybody.

Agreed, to be a "religion" it should have more than one follower. I don't think they have to all believe exactly the same things, as there are variations and divisions of belief even within mainstream religions. But there should at least be some commonality of belief, or a shared administrative structure.

The idea that Christians should serve God and the poor was popular in my day.

But a religion could be molded gradually by a series of tiny steps, especially if given time to develop apologetic explanations to cover for what seem like contradictions. I remember reading that a prominent Christian leader proclaimed Donald Trump to be sent by God to rule us, and his idea gained some popularity. I prefer to let the religious sort out for themselves what's consistent with their doctrines.

It is not intrinsically bad to modify an idea, it is bad to take an idea that is meant to improve people lives, then twist it so that instead its concepts are used so that corporations can make more money, while pretending it still improves the people lives.

Every idea can be interpreted in this light. In fact, a modified version of this argument is often used by conservatives opposing women in the workforce.

“Well sure, womens rights might be good, but you see, the feminists twisted a good message and now they use it to push women away from motherhood and into corporations so the corporations make more profit and sell them more things”

Is it also bad when feminists encourage womens participation in the workforce?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com