I love, Love, LOVED, your interview with Mayfair Yang. It gave me completely new insights into Chinese attitudes towards religion. I was especially fascinated by the irony of the Western culture's contribution to China's disdain of traditional religion, for which we now criticize them. I was also impressed by the practical use of religious ceremony to enable the young soldiers to cope with death and get on with the work they needed to do. That was a perfect example of religion filling a need which science cannot. This was particularly useful for me to understand because I am a secular humanist who probably undervalues the power of rituals. Thank you for a mind and heart expanding series of shows.

I'm not sure why Ms. Yang's assertion that the influence of the post-Enlightenment West was one strong factor leading to China's brutal anti-religious/anti-cultural/anti-tradition revolutions should be described as "provocative". It's quite obvious. China's secular revolution is more shocking than Europe's, certainly, but only because it was swift and televised. The emergence of Europe's Modern states was just as brutal and just as destructive and antagonistic toward traditional culture and (competing) religious/cultural authority.

I am very appreciative of your interview with Mayfair Yang, which has helped me understand so much more about how the past history and contact with other cultures has helped to form the Chinese policies and philosophies of the past, and of today.

But my heart sank to hear your guest's explanation that during the Revolution of the 1950's the Han might be understood to feel they were "liberating" the Tibetans from "their ignorance". I can understand that that line of thinking may have been, and still is, part of the equation, but one does not "liberate" a people by destroying their civilization and their culture, and systematically murdering their unarmed people.

As a Buddhist, my experiences with the the Dalai Lama has taught me that they, too, know their were imbalances and injustices in the way they 'ruled'. Their lack of anger or desire for revenge toward the Chinese is based mainly on the Buddhist philosophy and teachings of compassion, but also on their belief that it is their past negative karma that has led to their pain today.

I understand the neutrality that you maintain as host, Krista, but to accept that explanation with only a comment of "How interesting…" and move on without commenting or suggesting there were other reasons for the brutality that is still continuing today does not serve either side, or us all as a global culture.

Please allow me to preface with my disclosure: I was trained as a classicist, so my viewpoint is somewhat different than Dr. Yang's. I, too, came from Taiwan, and agree with her on every point in the program. But I think I can contribute a little more to the discussion.

I would argue that there is no word in the Chinese language that corresponds to hamartia in Greek, peccatum in Latin, or sin in English. The Chinese use the word "crime" to translate "sin," but it's obvious the two are not quite the same. I would say that "sin" is a dimension lacking in Chinese spirituality.

The Chinese view of spirituality and the metaphysical is best summarized by the following quotation from Confucius's Analects: "If we cannot know the matters in a man’s lifetime, how can we know about death and the matters thereafter? If we cannot serve men in the right manner, how can we serve the spirits?" (Analects, 11.12)

This passage, still learned by every Chinese to this day, best summarizes the Chinese religious view. One may compare the Chinese attitude to that of Greek Sophist Protagoras: "Concerning the gods, I do not know whether they exist or not. For many things impede knowledge: the obscurity of the subject and the brevity of human life." (Diogenes Laertius, 9.51)