P2P Foundation

The Foundation for Peer to Peer Alternatives

Will the Next Buddha be a collective: dialogue about p2p spirituality

I received a letter from Janos Mate, a Hungarian economics professor I met at a recent buddhist economics conference in Thailand. Janos also studied the different spiritual value orders that inform the political and economic choices that societies make.

My own essay is at http://p2pfoundation.net/Next_Buddha_Will_Be_a_Collective with more material at http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Spirituality

In the next entry. Janos Mate discusses our approach from the point of view of the primordial tradition. I will respond in the next few days.

Michel Bauwens

Views: 699

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Dr. Janos Mate has send me his second contribution. Unfortunately, I cannot add the important illustrations that he added to this original text, so I suggest you request the full original from the author at


Dear Colleagues,

I thank all those who took the trouble to comment on my first letter; they made this letter of mine even more compulsory for me to write. What is more, I thought it important to re-compose my view; because I cannot rule it out that I failed to express my thoughts properly. (That danger is looming constantly over my head as I have never lived in an English-speaking country.) I have misread some of your words perhaps, as our (semi)different cultures may credit the same words with slightly different meanings. Let me tell a few words about myself.

In a sense, I was exceptionally lucky to have a good spiritual start in life. Protestant was my father, Roman Catholic was my mother. My first boss was a communist, he truly believed in his ideas. The first master I chose was a high school teacher of mine; I made the first call to him after graduating, and went visiting him for the next twenty years. Five years of that master-&-disciple relation were already up when Emil first mentioned his having been educated to be a rabbi. (For some reason he had become a high school teacher.) After his pass-away in 1986 I idled away the following decade ― a period I may never rectify.

In my fifties I realized to have kept underground the talent Emil had given to me (cf.: Mt 25.18). Then I re-started the search to find my way. I spent a year and a half with Krishna-believers. I spent half a year with Muslims and then almost two years with monarchists. I have been with Buddhists for more than ten years now. I have become neither one of the Krishna-believers’, nor a formal member of the Muslim umma or any other parish. Not even today am I ready to declare myself to be a member of a particular community as it would equal to declaring myself to be a member of no other community. It may sound vanity, yet I echo Socrates’ words: “I am not one of the Athenians; I am not even Greek; my home region is the world.” The sangha I go to (for more than ten years now) is lead by Kapila Vimalakírti; he time to time points out that some declare themselves to be Buddhist (when in fact they are not) while others declare themselves not to be Buddhists (when in fact they are).

Soon after re-starting the search for my own way I was again lucky; I put my hand on Anthony de Mello’s AWARENESS. The author, a Christian, native of India, was born in a melting-pot of world views. Here are some of his words: “Agreement and disagreement have to do with words and concepts and theories. They don’t have anything to do with truth. Truth is never expressed in words. Truth is sighted suddenly, as a result of a certain attitude. So you could be disagreeing with me and still sight the truth. But there has to be an attitude of openness, of willingness to discover something new.” (cf. op. cit. pp. 17) I keep all that in my mind when I am now trying to re-compose my view.


Little Johnny is without an appetite, so his mother gets a recipe of an appetizer. She wants him to report every day that the appetizer has been taken, so she also buys a mobile phone and teaches Johnny of what keys to press to make a call to her. She gets and gives practical information. Practical information is useful though it says nothing about why the appetizer “heals” or how the mobile phone works. If one is to explain the former, he will start (so at least in my country, Hungary) by describing his knowledge of atoms, molecules, cells and body tissues etc. He will give structured knowledge of that kind. If one is to explain the latter, he will start by describing his knowledge of the inner structure of atoms, and then electrons, electricity and magnetism etc. He will give structured knowledge of that kind.

As early as in his boyhood, man is given practical information about God. “This is His house” he is told. And also: “This is how we pray to Him” etc. Most people never get further than that. However, practical information is not enough to talk about spirituality. Prophets talk about it through God’s grace. The non-prophets – most people, like me – must use the ladder of structured knowledge to get some faint idea of spirituality. Below I try to describe some most important principles which help us to a structured knowledge of spirituality.


It is widely accepted that our age is less suited to spirituality than ancient times used to be. Therefore it deserves our attention what ancient scripts say about the world and its start.

― The HOLY QUR-AN (2.117) says: “The Originator / Of the heavens and the earth / When He decreeth a matter, / He saith to it: ‘Be’, / And it is.”

― Close relation seems between that and BRIHADARANAKA UPANISHAD I. 2. “In the beginning there was nothing (to be perceived)… By Death indeed all this was concealed -by hunger; for death is hunger. Death (the first being) thought, ‘Let me have a body’.”

― In this sense talks THE TAO TEH KING of how one may experience the Tao beyond and within the material world. „The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal Name. The unnamable is the eternally real. Naming is the origin of all particular things.” (Op. cit. I. 1.)

― Also in this sense the KABBALAH talks of ●God the Transcendent (Ayin), Who/Which is the Absolute Nothing; and also of ●the Totality of What Is and Is Not (Ayin Sof); and then of ●a series of “body”-invoking actions started by a void (Ayin Sof Or).

― THE OLD TESTAMENT offers (see Genesis ) that very Kabbalistic approach in a coded form.

― Audible through THE GOSPEL BY THOMAS 22; 24; 61a; 96; 97 as well as Mt 6.22-23; 13.33; 24.40, Jesus talked metaphorically of Ayin Sof and Ayin Sof Or. He also spoke of Ayin Sof in THOMAS 10: “The living shan’t die.”

―That resembles to what THE GITA 2.11-12 had said a thousand years before Jesus: “The immutable, illimitable and indestructible Self lives on! I [Krishna] have ever lived and so have you and these kings. And we shall go on living for ever.”


“The Face did not gaze upon the Face” says the KABBALAH. By creating the world the Originator can discover His/Her/Its own nature. Such a discovery is only possible if characteristics manifest through ‘Profane’ and/or ‘Divine’ conflicts. The former include struggles for physical-biological survival. ‘If you take part in life – that is: in profane conflicts, wars against enemies outside – you will suffer sooner or later.’ Instead of that Buddha offers his disciples to fight Divine conflicts inside. That is just what other prophets suggest to those who wish to return (to God) by walking along the “way” (Tao).


‘Divine conflicts’ are classified either as minor war or as major war.

― Legend says that on returning from an armed conflict Prophet Muhammad called out to his men: “We have returned from a minor war to continue our struggle in the major war.” The former, the minor war, is fought by means of arms against other people. That is the war of men who respect God, but not as yet capable of dealing with higher levels of divine conflicts. In metaphorical words: that is the war of men who are not as yet capable of climbing a steep hill straight towards the peak. So they go on a roundabout (a “serpentine road”); they make themselves better by struggling with other persons. Muslims will consider a “Jihad” (el-ğihād al-akbar) an opportunity to develop the characteristics without which they cannot start fighting the “major war” (el-ğihād al-āşġhar). (Something like that motive may explain why the samurais had their spiritual roots in Zen.)

Notice that in a “minor war” emphasis is not on destroying the enemy. It is on fighting and subduing those human weaknesses (vanity, self-importance, hedonism, fear of death, or desire to stay with beloved ones etc.) that prevent a man from fighting the major war.

―Confucius talks of that too: “An archer follows the direction of the sages by keeping it in mind that [in a competition] the main task is not to hit the target... Struggle not with others but with your own weaknesses. That is – is it not? – the way to eliminate undiscovered deficiencies.” (KÍNAI FILOZÓFIA I. [CHINESE PHILOSOPHY] Lunyü III.16; XII.20)


Those who have already subdued (most of) their human weaknesses may wage the major war. No major war is easy to fight. If it was, it would not be a stunt to win. For the most dedicated ones (who are determined to walk all the way to the Heavenly Kingdom or Nirvana) the task is made all the more difficult by God. Deeds and ideas form one of the two „sides”; the other is formed by comments that God sends through the mind. This is how He provokes some exchange of views between the Ego and the Superego (Conscience).

―In the KABBALA the first Sefirah (on the right) calls out “Hokmah” (“Judgment Prior to Practice”), while the second Sefirah (on the left) calls out “Binah” (“Practical Judgment”).

―MUNDAKA UPANISAD III. (First Khanda 1) says: „Two birds, inseparable friends, cling to the same tree. One of them cats the sweet fruit, the other looks on without eating.”

Other sacred scripts focus on the struggle (or struggle-like conversation).

―The message of THE GITA is given in a dramatized conversation between Arjuna (the ‘Self’) and Khrisna (the ‘Divine Conscience’). “Arjuna says: Take my chariot, Krishna, between the two camps; let me know my enemy before I fight him… [Later, when he was between the two armies] Arjuna saw his kinsmen assembled for war; pity stirred in him… [He said:] In killing my brothers, Krishna, I cannot see anything noble… I had rather they killed me…I will not kill my kinsmen… [Krishna replied:] Do not be a coward, Arjuna! … Shake off your weakness and rise! … You mourn those, who do not deserve mourning… The immutable, illimitable and indestructible Self lives on!” (THE BHAGAVAD-GITA 1.21-22; 1.31; 2.9; 2.11-12) Notice that “the struggle inside” can help us to a better understanding of the Universe. Also notice that exoteric-minded people may interpret THE GITA as a description of a minor war while the esoteric-minded consider it a major war.


Different parables and teachings prove that the following advice is from masters of old times: “Twin ideas are to be rejected as being but mind-created tricks.”

― “All in the world know the beauty of the beautiful, and in doing this they have the idea of what ugliness is; / they all know the skill of the skilful, and in doing this they have the idea of what the want of skill is… / Difficulty and ease produce the… idea of the other; / length and shortness fashion out… the figure of the other; / the ideas of height and lowness arise from the contrast of the one with the other; / the musical notes and tones become harmonious through the relation of one with the other…” (THE TAO TEH KING I.1.2).

― “Buddha said: You know, Magandiya, the eye views forms with delight… However, [I have] subdued… the eye and teach others to do the same…The ear listens to music with delight… However, [I have] subdued… the ear and teach others to do the same.” (BUDDHA BESZÉDEI; MN 75. [THE TEACHINGS OF BUDDHA] pp. 146). So Buddha suggested us to recover from the temptation of twin ideas.

― Jesus urged his disciples to avoid such temptations: „Do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil.” (Mt 6. 13)


There is a widely known story of a man, who (out of hunger for spiritual teachings) walked for several days to see a master. The master received him, offered him a seat and poured him some tea. However, the visitor was impatient, and instead of drinking he said: “Master! I have heard a lot about spirituality, but I need more! Please, let me know some of your wisdom!” The master remained silent, grabbed the teapot again, and poured tea in the cup. As it was still full of tea, all what he was pouring now spilled on the carpet. “What are you doing?!” ― the visitor cried out. The master replied: “I cannot give you more, because you have no room to receive it. You must do away with some of what you have before asking for something new.”

To receive new thoughts one has to sacrifice something first, like a bird gives up his safety when he first eases his grasp on the branch. Neither birds nor dedicated men have any other choice. If one cannot un-grasp, he will never fly. If you reject to drop some of your profane ideas, you shall not receive the Divine. Put aside ideas and concepts you are already attached to. As soon as you try to do that, one of the superior divine conflicts will be started inside.

―Genesis 32.22-28 says: “That night Jacob… took his two wives… and his eleven children… and sent them across [the river] and he also sent across all that he owned, but he stayed behind, alone. Then a man came and wrestled with him until just before daybreak. When the man saw that he was not winning the struggle, he… [asked] Jacob: ‘What is your name?’ …’Jacob’ he answered. The man said: Your name will no longer be Jacob. You have struggled with God and with men, and you have won; so your name will be Israel.” (This name sounds like the Hebrew for “he struggles with God” or “God struggles”.)

I interpret these words as follows: That night Jacob decided to sort out his thoughts. He separated himself from all others so as to get rid of all the “outside” influences. Then, in his mind, thoughts, explanations, ideas, world views, value systems etc. started struggling with other, different, contradicting, yet also convincing thoughts, explanations, ideas, world views, value systems etc. This is the way one can ‘touch and feel’ the unutterable, the Divine Entity. All our thoughts, all the “Pros” and the “Contras” come from the same source (God). Jacob is Jacob, and he is also the man who struggles with Jacob. Whenever an old standpoint is given up, there is a triumph without a winner, as both “sides” are his. Therefore, neither Jacob, nor the ‘man’ was winning. The man declared Jacob to be the winner, because Jacob was capable of such a struggle, and by that he glorified God.

―The most stubborn of all our (mis-)concepts is that man has an ego. Buddhism focuses on the importance of getting rid of that concept. That is why Buddha refers to a Jacob-like divine conflict: “Young Brahman Upaka asked: What makes your eyes seem full of tranquility? Buddha replied: I have a relief as I have vanquished my [ego-]personality.” (Hetényi Ernő: BUDDHA, DHARMA, SANGHA [BUDDHA, DHARMA, SANGHA] pp. 36.)

―Confucius says: “One gets the most perfect virtue by vanquishing himself.” (KÍNAI FILOZÓFIA I. [CHINESE PHILOSOPHY] Lunyü XII.1)

One’s given knowledge is not valid for all scenes and times. One may not walk his way to complexity unless he gives up something first. Students of mathematics first learn that squaring always results a positive number. That is said to be a ‘general rule’. And vice versa: the root extracted of such a number shall be positive too. “That is also a general rule”. Then, one day, it becomes obvious that certain problems may only be solved by the use of complex numbers; a new field on which the previous knowledge is invalid, inoperative. The once general rule remains a rule, but it is no more general. If one rejects to give up such a “general rule”, he shall not step forward. “All I can do for you is help you to unlearn. That’s what learning is all about where spirituality is concerned: unlearning, unlearning almost everything you’ve been taught… As one man said, ‘I got a pretty good education. It took me years to get over it’.” (Anthony de Mello: AWARENESS pp. 17; 79)

One must honestly intend to give up, to get rid of this or that favorite relationship, idea, concept etc. That applies to desired destinations. It is a type of mock sacrifice when you say: “Any method, way, side, etc. is good if it takes me to the destination of my fixed idea.” You have not yet started if you insist on getting to a definite destination. The question is not where we get (for that is the business of Divine Inspiration). The real question is: how to zoom out, how to unlearn. A Jacob-style struggle prerequisites some maturity. The moment you start such a struggle, Divine Inspiration shall lead you! “When you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go. Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death [of twin ideas] by which Peter would glorify God." (Jn 21.18-19)

There is another type of major war. You win it by dismissing the idea as if certain persons (for example: your children and your relatives) and/ or sides were more important than others.

― Plato dismisses that idea: “[Some] children of prominent fathers are short in virtue… God commands [such parents] to downgrade those children [socially] without having merci on them.” (“THE STATE-Book 3”. PLATÓN Ö.M. [COLLECTED WORKS] I. pp. 203; II. pp. 223)

― Confucius also dismisses that idea: “An enlightened man keeps everyone, even his son, at a distance”. (KÍNAI FILOZÓFIA I. [CHINESE PHILOSOPHY] Lunyü XVI.13)

―In THE GITA Krishna encourages Arjuna to wage war against his relatives.

―Buddha no sooner was able to set out for enlightenment than he left his son and family.

―The Bible says more: “God tested Abraham; he called to him: Take your son… you love much, go to the… mountain… and offer him as a sacrifice to me! Early the next morning Abraham… took Isaac …When they came to the place which God had told him about, Abraham… picked up the knife to kill Isaac. But an angel of the Lord called to him… Do not hurt the boy… Now I know that you have obedient reverence for God” (Genesis 22.1-12).

The struggle against attachment to persons and/or sides is one of the superior divine conflicts in which man subdues human weaknesses. One can only make a step forward by integrating the two sides, the ‘Mine’ and ‘Not mine’, the “Pros” and “Contras”, the “For” and the “Against”, the “harmless” and the “harmful”, the “antelope” and the “lion”. The spiritual aspect of any such situation shall only change if you zoom out and work for equilibrium. In that case you temporarily appear to be in for one side and then for the other. For example: you appear to be a pacifist and other times a non-pacifist. Jesus says: “If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, let him slap your left cheek too… Love your enemies and pray those who persecute you, so that you may become the sons of your Father in heaven.” (Mt 5.39; 5.44) He appears to be a pacifist, but in fact he is not. You should credit him of having received the Divine to realize his real message: if you manage to get rid of the temptation to fight back, then and only then you may put an end to peace, because in that case you will do that from a spiritually higher position. That is why Jesus says: “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the world.” (Mt 10.34)

The struggle against attachment to persons and/or sides has nothing to do with “choosing love, not ferocity” or “refusing the right side, not wrong side”. Zoom out! Zoom out!

―Our ancestors migrated from Central Asia to the heart of Europe, where they settled 1100 years ago. After a hundred years our first Christian king used foreign troops to force Hungarians to convert to Christianity. Out of love for Jesus, conquering emperors of the Holy Roman Empire had ambitions, and intended to erase pagan Hungary from the maps. Christianity – in its interpretation of being the only true approach to God’s Kingdom – proved to be a tool. On pain of the sword Hungarians were forced to the nearest church every Sunday. Our historians were prohibited from writing until after two hundred years. In the 13th century they set out to write down our history in retrospect.

―Influenced by the Church, Christian kings felt sure they knew the ‘only true way’ to God. So they laid a claim to stamp out of the world all non-Christian peoples. Christian warriors loved Jesus so much that they started a crusade to capture Jerusalem from the Muslims. “The siege ended when [the crusaders] overran the ramparts from a tower and stormed the city. The defenders and their wives and children were massacred with such ferocity that the victors ‘waded in blood up to their ankles’.” (NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, September 1989)

―Muslims also felt confident about knowing the only true approach to God’s Kingdom. That fuelled Ottoman sultans’ ambitions some three hundred years later. Their faith was so dynamic and convincing that a considerable number of Serbs converted from Christianity to Islam. Many of their descendants – known today as Bosnians – were later killed for that.

―In the 20th century Fascists felt sure about knowing the only true approach to saving the health of society. First they killed many religious people. Then many of them got killed.

―In the 20th century Communists felt sure about knowing the only true approach to securing the order and progress of mankind. First they killed many religious people. Then many of them got killed. Notice that changing sides belongs to the realm of profane wars.


Some two years ago I recorded a Hungarian Radio Newsreel about SCIENCE having reported new discoveries on infants being born with a priori knowledge. That supports the “Hokmah” (“Judgment Prior to Practice”) / “Binah” (“Practical Judgment”) concept of the KABBALAH (see CONSCIENCE-CREATED DILEMMAS above). That a priori knowledge implies, among other things, that infants sympathize with those whom they see walk slopes upward. John Lennon is right at singing: “Imagine, there is no Heaven / I wonder if you can”. It is perhaps the most important of all our a priori knowledge that man feels it his duty to walk upwards; a symbol of that is to look Heavenward. The following figures illustrate its significance.


Notice the indentation Figure 18 shows. That is the opposite of the usual hierarchy; a negative of that; it does not stick out. “In our new society there is a growing dislike of original… men. The manipulated do not understand them; the manipulators fear them. The tidy committee men regard them with horror, knowing that no pigeonholes can be found for them. We could do with a few original, creative men in our political life… but where are they? We are asked to choose between various shades of the negative… Sometimes you might think the machines we worship make all the chief appointments, promoting the human beings who seem closest to them… I often have a nightmare vision of a future world in which there are billions of people, all numbered and registered, with not a gleam of genius anywhere… The twin ideas of… organization & quantity will have won for ever.” (J. B. Priestley: THOUGHTS IN THE WILDERNESS)


Unlike practical information, (most) ancient scripts give structured knowledge to present a coherent world view. What they say about the world must be in accordance with the nature or purpose of the Originator.
With few exceptions all sacred scripts drop hints about the Originator having created the world in order to discover His/Her/Its own nature. Such a discovery is only possible if characteristics manifest through ‘Profane’ and/or ‘Divine’ conflicts. Profane Conflicts include the struggles for physical-biological survival, while the ‘Divine Conflicts’ are for those who wish to walk along the “way” (Tao) and so return (to God). There are two levels of Divine Conflicts: the lower one is named minor war while the upper levels are named major war. In a “minor war” emphasis is not on destroying the enemy. It is on fighting and subduing those human weaknesses that prevent a man from fighting the “major war”. The latter has different types according to the purpose of the war (conscience-created dilemmas, twin ideas, attachment to persons and/or sides, attachment to destinations and/or concepts).

Now we should find an answer to the question of whether or not to debate the nature of spirituality. Legend says that on leaving a country Lao-tse arrived to the frontier, where he was requested to put down his knowledge so as not to leave the locals in darkness. He wrote THE TAO TEH KING, and then left. However, he had hidden a warning in Verse 56.1-2: “He who knows (the Tao) does not (care to) speak (about it); he who is (ever ready to) speak about it does not know it. He (who knows it) will keep his mouth shut and… bring himself into agreement with the obscurity (of others).” That much resembles to Jesus’ words “I talk [straight] to nobody but the worthy.” (Thomas 62) “You have been given the secret of the Kingdom of God… But the others, who are on the outside, hear all things by means of parables, so that they may look and look, yet not see; they may listen and listen, yet not understand.” (Mk 4.11) That was not the only occasion Jesus said such things: “Do not give what is holy to dogs―they will only turn to attack you. Do not throw your pearls in front of pigs―they will only trample them underfoot.” (Mt 7.6) Buddha says something similar in Mahávagga: “This thesis is difficult to comprehend… It is beyond of easy grasp; therefore it is secret, rendered to no one but the sages. If I talk about it publicly, the audience will fail to understand, and I may get into trouble.” (BUDDHA BESZÉDEI [THE TEACHINGS OF THE BUDDHA] pp. 19) Notice what BRIHADÁRANYAKA UPANISAD 3.2 says: “The dead man’s word joins to fire; his breath joins to wind. What is left of him? Yádnyavalkya replied:… Let us talk about it in private, not in front of the crowd.” Plato says in EUTHÜMÉDOS: “These subjects are for a handful of people like you… So it is unwise to talk about them publicly… Omit that, if you are to avoid the anger of the crowd”. (PLATÓN Ö.M. [COLLECTED WORKS] I. pp. 911)

Definitely, all of them talk about keeping a distance from the crowd for people being unequal. Of them all, Jesus was perhaps the closest (still very far) to the idea “equality”, for he talked by means of parables and let members of his audience differ by their maturity. Human authority may give people equal rights, but it is not within the grasp of human authorities to intimate people of how to walk along the way (to the Heavenly Kingdom or Nirvana).

Enlightenment never comes from outside. Notice that in Mk 4.11 Jesus says: ”The others, who are on the outside, hear all things by means of parables, so that they may look and look, yet not see…” Those who are “outside” look yet not see? How can one get “inside”? Well, in my opinion, one must come out of the bunker of “his own religion” (be it fascism or communism or democracy or anarchy, hierarchy or equality, Catholicism or Protestantism etc, etc.). Changing sides shall not help. What is more: one may not start his major war if he has zoomed out of all particularities but one; all such attachments must be given up.

Can we, then, debate how to achieve spirituality? My impression is that Anthony de Mello found perhaps the best wording to that dilemma: “Don’t try to make them happy, you’ll only get in trouble… Give up – I say to myself –, say your thing and get out of here. And if they profit, that’s fine, and if they don’t, too bad!” (AWARENESS pp. 8-9) It is a kind of Crusaders’ undertaking to convince people (on pain of either the sword or the word) of what you think to be the truth. Just tell them your results and then leave. Put emphasis on waging – inside yourself – different kinds of the major war. Make room for the ideas of spiritualism by getting rid of fixed ideas. Let a voiceless voice – not people from a fixed culture – lead you Remember that the Israelis became God’s chosen people after having had ancestors like Abraham and Jacob.

Budapest, May 21st, 2009
Dr. Janos Mate's commentary on the figures that are not included in the previous message are here.

This text belongs to the section above marked with: "18 Figures Here"

- Figure 1: a Christian church: the Dome in Cologne. Figure 2: an orthodox church on the banks of the river Volga (Russia). Figure 3: a synagogue in Budapest, Hungary.

Figure 4: Muslims’ Abu-Dhabi Jami. Figure 5: the Temple of Heaven (Tian Tan) in Peking. Buddhists have this temple (Figure 6) in Bangkok and this stupa (Figure 7) in Nepal.

Figure 8: a temple in Kharnataki Hampi (South India). Figure 9: Corkscrew minaret (Samarra, Iraq). Figure 10: Etemenanki, the ziggurat at Babylon (reconstruction).

Figure 11: the Step-pyramid built by ancient Egyptians. Figure 12: A pyramid in Tikal, Guatemala, built by the Mayas. Figure 13: a step-pyramid (in Mexico) built by Teotihuacan culture. All these buildings, even communists’ Red Star (Figure 14) direct eyes heavenward.

So does a Christmas-tree (Figure 15). The plant shown on Figure 16 cannot be a Christmas-tree for it does not direct eyes to Heaven. Neither does Figure 17 (the building of the Stock Exchange, London). Figure 18 shows a scene without any hierarchical social message.




© 2024   Created by Josef Davies-Coates.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service