Conclusion
As mentioned above, the Japanese case provides the best example of how Buddhism influenced printing. In China the religion was a populist one, which actively sought out those that were marginalized by Confucian society. Korea had a voracious appetite for Buddhist texts and the combination of the scarcity of resources for woodblock printing as well as the Mongol invasions stimulated the use of new printing technologies. As Mair writes, “There is little doubt that printing in East Asia, from its inception, was primarily a Buddhist phenomenon.”(736) Buddhism, being a universalistic and populist religion, as well as its zealous conversion of the common person to its faith, was able to utilize print technology like no other religion at the time was able to. The ostensibly oral origins of the religion allowed Buddhism to utilize vernacular language in the printed form to reach a much wider audience than Confucianism, Taoism, or other religions. So in this way Buddhism was able to wield an influence on print technology that was unknown before its introduction to East Asia.
Read more about this topic: Buddhist Influences On Print Technology
Famous quotes containing the word conclusion:
“We must not leap to the fatalistic conclusion that we are stuck with the conceptual scheme that we grew up in. We can change it, bit by bit, plank by plank, though meanwhile there is nothing to carry us along but the evolving conceptual scheme itself. The philosopher’s task was well compared by Neurath to that of a mariner who must rebuild his ship on the open sea.”
—Willard Van Orman Quine (b. 1908)
“No one can write a best seller by trying to. He must write with complete sincerity; the clichés that make you laugh, the hackneyed characters, the well-worn situations, the commonplace story that excites your derision, seem neither hackneyed, well worn nor commonplace to him.... The conclusion is obvious: you cannot write anything that will convince unless you are yourself convinced. The best seller sells because he writes with his heart’s blood.”
—W. Somerset Maugham (1874–1966)
“The conclusion suggested by these arguments might be called the paradox of theorizing. It asserts that if the terms and the general principles of a scientific theory serve their purpose, i. e., if they establish the definite connections among observable phenomena, then they can be dispensed with since any chain of laws and interpretive statements establishing such a connection should then be replaceable by a law which directly links observational antecedents to observational consequents.”
—C.G. (Carl Gustav)