Western religion vs eastern religion: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Western religion vs eastern religion » Western religion vs eastern religion

Western religion vs eastern religion

Western religion vs eastern religion

Cosmic Consciousness
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 01, 2006
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 51

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 12/01/06 - 02:26 PM: Subject: Western religion vs eastern religion	#1
Here I hope to reveal just a taste of an awareness that not only are the eastern religions our religious parents and teach all of the good stuff of the western traditions...they teach with incomprabaly more comprehension and clarity so as to make it appear like the western traditions are child imitators or parrots of the root spiritualty of civilized mankind. Western religions have in inherent "retardation" in their capacity to evolve beyond its innate clinging to arbitrary historical events. that word is a bit harsh but I mean in a more objective technical sense. Here, all one can do is follow the thou shalts set it rigid stone in an alien culture in the ever fading past and contemplate the great events that have already happened and can do nothing more than sit around and "theologize" about the prophecy's which are also tied to that ancient time. In contrast, the eastern religions are inherently more flexible because they are imbued with the second nature understanding of the relativity of time, but in a way where they could be described as "eternity" religions. In the sense that not one historical event is isolated and set apart as the one and only time and place where revelation can take place. In the west, it's all happened 2000, 3500 and 1000 years ago respectively, and everything inbetween is just intermission or wait time (in my opinion a wait time that can never come to an end) for the next big revelation or unfolding of gods plan. The eastern religions are timeless in that they recognise spiritual adepts, spiritual beings who are arising even today who have the same status as all the other sages and saints of its history. They are eternity religions in that god and the realization of god is not forever enclosed in phrophecy, rather are constantly revitalized by the spiritual adepts. This shows how little actuall freshness or revitalization visits western religions, and not by any other's fault but there own. Becasue they are stuck in the great theological merry go-round, things happened a long time ago to our ancestors and nothing else can happen until our scriptures revelation manifests itself with the return of Jesus, or the apocolyplse. This stagnation is that very stunted spiritual growth that is stuck to the very foundational core of those traditions. It's dangerous to assume there are beings alive today who are spiritually advanced enough so as to rival jesus, that goes against a fundmental given presumption, or belief which has tied itself in its own knot, its own stagnation. In the eastern traditions, "revelation," spiritual insight, refinements are constantly revitalizing those traditions in addition to making them actually evolve and grow, the western traditions own beliefs keep from the growth that could only improve its health. Because adepts, are those abundant sources of "god-realization" that are constantly creating new and adaptive practices, refinements and constantly fresh and creative literature. Another aspect that reveals the "eternalness" of the eastern traditions is that the conception of the divine isn't nearly as separated from nature, god is what your interacting with constantly, not just in prayer times, or communion times, god doesn't have narrow identifications that limit it to be just this good god of which you are lesser. Such as in the western traditions where man is "fallen" he is in a state of sin and god is this shadow that loomes over you making sure your keeping up with your P's and Q's. so you can expel your feelings of sinfulness and then feel clean and deserving for personal immortality when you die or after jesus returns...whenever thats supposed to be, its supposed to have been immanent for 6 years now, how long does one hold the faith until one realizes dads not coming home? Back to the east in comparison, the divine presense is always present, in Hinduism it is believed that god is not separate from reality, akin to some western philosophers, god is truth, truth is reality and that reality is perfection. An interesting comparison about what needs to be done to realize god, or as in the western tradition work for mercy from god comes up when you look at their salvation conceptions. In the west, as already indicated, we are fallen, we have lost something we used to have and we each need to aquire for ourselves that which we dont yet have. A kind of egoic salvation reveals itself, you must get your favor so you can get yours in your personal immortal afterlife. In the east, it is exactly the opposite, we are not "fallen," and we don't need to get something we don't yet have. God is like gravity, in that its everywhere and belongs to noone, and it has a kind indifference similar to that inherent self harmony infused into nature itself. Here, god is already the case, to awaken to it, you actually only merely need to lose something that you are already carrying around with you, your egoity and the ignorance that supports its belief. I find the eastern traditions much more realistic in their methods and goals, its as if their spirituality has more in common with western reason than with western religion. God is the truth, and that truth is none other than reality manifesting moment to moment and that reality and truth is completely at ease with itself, and that ease, is the very peace that passeth understanding which is the emancipation from misery born of the sense of sparatness you previously had with reality itself. All of this is very basic, to really get into the vast amounts of diversity and profound subtlty of all its inner technologies (meditation) and other methods for spiritual cultivation would require encyclipedic amounts of description, and probing penetration via subtle distinction making decernment . In the Hindu tradition of yoga, it is recognised that fundamentally there are as many paths to the divine realization as there are people in the world. Because of their clear comprehensivness and flexibilty to explore, they have developed 7 completely fleshed out and actual applicable practical spiritual methods for realizing god, off the top of my head: There is the path of intellectual understanding and love of god. The path of devotional love absorbstion, which is a focused cultivation of the state of feeling compassion and goodwill for others born of metta (lovingkindness) based meditation practices, usually catalysed by a "guru" or spiritual adept. Then there is the path of service, where the whole intricacy and focus of that technique is selfless service in some kind of non-profit work. Then there is the path of samadhi, which is the focused cultivation of deep states of concentration where one achieves nirvikalpa (which is also achieved in Buddhism), when sense of subject being a separate observer of object vanishes and one "merges" or becomes one with a reality where there is no precived "other" You become what you meditate on, and it becomes you. There is the method of Ramana Krishna, a very influential and important adept of the early 20's whos whole path to enlightenment was a constant inquiry asking "Who am I, what am I, what is this, what is here in this moment that is unconditional. Even this hardly scrapes the iceberg of the uninhibited creativity, flexibility and adaptability that all lead to the same self-awakening. The west has long lost the understanding of how important a life-teacher the guru is to helping one along his spiritual path, well thats not exactly true, you can have jesus as your object of teaching and devotion, but that guru can never been seen, heard, or directly interacted with, and will always have an inherent intangability. In addition, in the west, you are not permited to explore in those traditions outside of the prescription offered in that one single book the bible, no no no you don't need to realize or awaken to reality, the bible already says your a fallen child of god, thats what you are, and this is what you do and the only thing you can do to be redeemed. In eastern traditions, god is let out of the bag in all of his divine faces and manifestations, there is an affirmation of the polarising sway of opposites that is not separated and isolated as heaven and hell, but are celebrated as the very natural divine maddness itself going back and forth with the sway of shiva's eternal dance, a dance which is dancing all possible conditions into and out of existence to a divine song of pure uninhibited ecstasy. I could go on endlessly how much more vibrant, awake, comprehensive, all embracing and encompassing the eastern traditions are compared to the its western siblings. essentially, all of the experience and knowledge across all the worlds traditions I have gathered over the past 5 years has made something ridiculously obvious to me, Western religions, while I am not doubting that there is and has been true awakening in that tradition, and there is truth spoken, it is fatefully imbued inextricably with a method that is inherently restricted in growth potential. I am not saying what they are experiencing is not real or invalid, like they are not really experiencing profound synchronicity and miracles, not saying that, im pointed toward the issue of optimization of the paths, Western traditions are so tied up in their own legends that amazingly, like a frail vase, the practical transformative cultivation so easily breaks and looses the good vital spirituality. As soon as a traditional story or theological rationalization of something that happened long ago or will not happen in their lifetime opens a service (which is too often) it overwhelms and clutters any viable path that is present and becomes vitally inconsequenstial to a practical spiritual path and evolution. Its an endless waiting game for god to make the move, and that can only become more difficult to believe over time. And that dishearting question of, will it ever come anyway? will, on a long enough timeline become a self-recurring dreaded inquiry that will agitate for as long as there is waiting, until something finally happens from the other side, until god gives us a call or a bodily incarnation, which in any case, we are completely helpless to manifest. In the east, the divine really is at hand and the distance between you it makes it unconditionally accesibale. Fundamentally in the east, the basic realization from the very beggining all the way to the end of their religions is "all is well" and by god you can taste that wellness by simply unburdening yourself of your ego, your identification with your deeply clutched history right in this moment. In the west, which is diametrically opposite and quite frankly morbid and gloomy, "all is not well, and all we can do about it is wait for the revelation written in our book 2000 years ago to come to us from that heaven we can only imagine." In conclusion, it is this writers opinion that western religions are irrepably crippled, and there is noone it can blame but its own self-contracted core beliefs. Now when I say crippled, I mean even if the growth is allowed beyond that one interpretation and word, to do so would to completely void the core beliefs that keep it alive as a religion. Some more historical general info to follow, with more detail of Buddhism. Hinduism is by far the oldest religion in the world, its so old scholars are not sure exactly when it originated because it came about before recorded history. Interestingly enough, they also consider it the preeminate base religion; the root or fountainhead if you will, of all of the worlds religions. All others are merely fotenotes, or offspring of Hinduism that evolved their own unique interpretation over thousands of years; there is plenty of evidence supporting this in ancient trade routes that went from India to the middle east. Not surprisingly then, they were the origin of the notion of the one god, (Brahma) and also the originator of the notion of multiple gods. That being the case, Hinduism is actually not a particle of a single religion, but literally a community of religions all of which are tolerant of each other; even the polytheistic (multiple gods) and monotheistic sects get along better then western religions get along amongst themselves. They do this because Hindu's generally believe that there are as many paths to the divine as there are people. There are sects within Hinduism that are essentially the same as Buddhism, and some that are very similar to Christianity. -The genius of the Buddha, that profound physiologist and physician of the spirit The Buddha was not one and only. The Buddha is a type of being, he's not a 'special' singular divine prophet or manifestation of god; he's special only in the sense that he is a very rare kind of lifeform. The word means in sanskrit "awakened one." A Buddha is a rare being that arises in the world at sporadic points across eons of time. There are countless Buddha's stretching into the fog of the past and there will be countless more in the future. The most recent was a being (man) named Siddhartha Gautama who lived 2600 years ago on the boarder of nepal/India. A Buddha is considered a "world teacher," a person who discovers how beings create suffering for themselves and who fully penetrates and comprehends life's nature and thus knows precisely what "medicine" beings must take to be rid of suffering. Buddhism extracts the essence of all religions, of religion itself. It goes right to the heart of things because it cuts out unessential metaphysical beliefs, i.e. god, immortality and deals exclusively with what is causing one to feel miserable/ill at ease right in the present moment, which is the only time anything ever happens, the only time and place power exists. The only place we have the ability to be affectual on the world, is the present. Buddhism deals exclusively with that core which every religion essentially deals with, how to live in the world and be happy in it; it leaves out all the heresay and arbitrary beliefs. This is why Buddhism is skeptical and denies importance for belief in things not directly observable in the Present, such as a creator god entity and personal immortality. They don't say there is a god, nor do they say there isn't one, it simply has nothing to do with the path the buddhist is set too. In fact, they consider the preocupation with such hopeful beliefs to be a potential risk, a fundamentally misguided attention that can actually merely serve as a distraction and confusion of the essential goal of spiritual life; which is tangible emancipation from suffering in the present moment and the present moment alone. In fact, in some circles, notions such as god are considered inherently meaningless and futile; like believeing in Santa Clause. The Buddha was very much like a doctor, in fact the four noble truths (the first statement of Buddhism) is a progressive logical diagnosis to prognosis examination: 1. Life involves dissatisfactoriness. 2. the root cause of dissatisfactoriness is ignorace which leads to craving which leads to clinging which in turn leads around to more ignorance and so on... 3. there is a way to break the cyclical chain (second noble truth) and uproot the cause of disfastisfactoriness. 4. the noble eight-fold path (guide to living) is the therapy(medicine) that can lead to the end of disatisfactoriness. The Buddhist is not interested in being saved some other time...like after we die, the Buddha didn't consider this a strong and realistic solution, rather he wants the sure hearts release here, right in the midts of life.If one observes reality(the present) closely, if one see's "just what is actually there" in front of our eyes we will find nothing but impermanence, nothing but perpetually fluctuating sense/mind experiance. What the Buddha discovered was, we unconsciously grasp at and cling/identify with a separate particulate sense of self because we have the illusory, delusive (imagined) belief that there is actually something substantial and solid somwhere within the flux of experiance. There is a sense of solidified identity, a sense of self that is fundamentally untrue to begin with; it's like trying to grab a fist full of sand or water. True release, true peace and unconditional happiness arises naturally only when we don't superimpose our wishes and clinging onto reality, a reality that is fundamentally empty of solidity and is in constant flux. Holding desires for personal fulfillment like wishing god will get us rich is a manifestation of this, and only strengthens the tension of our bonds and thus makes suffering worse than it needs to be. Being the rational spiritual scientist he was, he was not interested in fabricating and covering reality in any pleasing consoling mental image, comforting belief, or metaphysical speculation. He perfered bare, unfiltered truth, no matter how unpleasant. This was the truth he discovered; the reason living beings suffer, is because they do not know their own real condition. Like a person who is sick but doesn't know that lots of bed rest and water would cure him. We think reality is one way, but actually it is another. I am sure one can think up numerous example of people doing things that harm themselves but are ignorant of it. Such as a person who is addicted to drugs/alcohol/ciggaretts. They start to feel the adverse effects such as caughing, weakness and cancer; yet they continue the habit blindly and thus are ignorant of the consequential harm that will befall them and when it does they are confused and don't know why they feel so miserable; like a person who wakes up feeling sick after a night of drinking but they can't remember what they did the night before and why they woke up feeling miserable. In other words, we don't do what we should to get happiness, and we continue doing things that bring us unhappiness and we are ignorant of this, (second noble truth). We are stuck in a self-perpetuating cycle where we keep dropping "bannana peels" so to speak, forget where we droped them and then slip and fall on them later; then we wonder what happened and why we hurt. The Buddha taught intelligible, experiential wisdom; not belief in things forever hidden and intangible. I am going to go to bed for now and will be back to describe more on Buddhim and other topics concerning this forum. "A cult is simply a religion with no political authority; likewise, a religion is simply a cult with political authority..." -english poet Edited by Cosmic Consciousness on 12/05/06 - 10:50 PM

James Spence
pilgrim to nowhere

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Canberra, Australia
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 379

Posted 12/04/06 - 05:21 PM:	#2
Cool, I'm always up for some discussion of non-western religion. It's rare on these boards. Though I have to say from the outset that I approach religion in a scholarly/philosophical way. I am a non-theist and non-religious in the true sense of the terms; I enjoy talking about religion but only on an intellectual level. I think whether or not they are "true" or "good" is unimportant. That said, you made a very long post! I'll comment on some bits I found interesting. Cosmic Consciousness wrote: Here I hope to reveal just a taste of an awareness that not only are the eastern religions our religious parents and teach all of the good stuff of the western traditions...they teach with incomprabaly more comprehension and clarity so as to make it appear like the western traditions are child imitators or parrots of the root spiritualty of civilized mankind. Western religions have in inherent "retardation" in their capacity to evolve beyond its innate clinging to arbitrary historical events. that word is a bit harsh but I mean in a more objective technical sense. Here, all one can do is follow the thou shalts set it rigid stone in an alien culture in the ever fading past and contemplate the great events that have already happened and can do nothing more than sit around and "theologize" about the prophecy's which are also tied to that ancient time. In contrast, the eastern religions are inherently more flexible because they are imbued with the second nature understanding of the relativity of time, but in a way where they could be described as "eternity" religions. In the sense that not one historical event is isolated and set apart as the one and only time and place where revelation can take place. In the west, it's all happened 2000, 3500 and 1000 years ago and everything inbetween is just intermission or wait time (in my opinion a wait time that can never come to an end) for the next big revelation or unfolding of gods plan. The eastern religions are timeless in that they recognise spiritual adepts, spiritual beings who are arising even today who have the same status as all the other sages and saints of its history. They are eternity religions in that god and the realization of god is not forever enclosed in phrophecy, rather are constantly revitalized by the spiritual adepts. I am not convinced by statements that one religion is "better" than another and am wary of them. By what criteria are you measuring them? If it is in their ability to provide spiritual solace, then I would suggest that all religions are equally capable of doing so. All major religions contain sects and practices allowing the full range of expression of human spirituality, that is why makes them major. It's just that in the Abrahamic religions the prophetic method is more mainstream, whereas in the east the contemplative method is that most commonly encountered. But there are Indian apocalyptic prophecies, and western contemplative mystics. Look at the sufi or kabbalah (er... not the one Madonna's in!) All you can ever really say is that one is better/more believable for you, though I am unsure how someone can abandon one religious tradition in favour of another. It seems to me that the ideas you must dismiss in order to abandon say, Christianity, also result in the dismissal of every other religion. But that's just me. Hinduism is by far the oldest religion in the world, its so old scholars are not sure exactly when it originated because it came about before recorded history. Interestingly enough, they also consider it the preeminate base religion; the root or fountainhead if you will, of all of the worlds religions. All others are merely fotenotes, or offspring of Hinduism that evolved their own unique interpretation over thousands of years; there is plenty of evidence supporting this in ancient trade routes that went from India to the middle east. Not surprisingly then, they were the origin of the notion of the one god, (Brahma) and also the originator of the notion of multiple gods. That being the case, Hinduism is actually not a particle of a single religion, but literally a community of religions all of which are tolerant of each other; even the polytheistic (multiple gods) and monotheistic sects get along better then western religions get along amongst themselves. They do this because Hindu's generally believe that there are as many paths to the divine as there are people. There are sects within Hinduism that are essentially the same as Buddhism, and some that are very similar to Christianity. I'm not sure about this. I was under the impression that hinduism as we know it today is a syncretism of southern Indian non-dualist traditions (exemplified by yoga and the Jaina) and the zoroastrian-influenced dualism of the "aryans" exemplified by the brahmanic and parsee traditions. While the orginal pre-vedic polytheism may indeed be older than zoroastrianism, so is tribal shamanism the world over. Does this mean the religion of an Australian Aboriginal tribe is better/more authentic than Indian religion because it is older? By the time the vedas were written Indian polytheism had already been well and truly transformed into the syncretism we know today as vedic hinduism. Thus if we are going to go by recorded history, the oldest religion still in existence today is zoroastrianism, a theistic religion from the middle east which influenced the growth of Indian religion AND western monotheism. So the eastern and western religions, as you define them, do share a common ancestor, but it is not Hinduism. Hinduism and Christianity are more like brothers, children of zoroastrianism, than they are father and son. The concept of Brahman is predated by zoroastrian thought, and only emerged in India after contact with the middle east. I think you have it backwards. A note about Buddhism too: the Buddha was a non-theist. He was not a brahmin, but a kshatriya (an aristocratic warrior). Early buddhist thought is thus extraordinarily simplistic in comparison with the baffling philosophy of the Brahmins. It is the thought of a soldier rather than a trained philosopher. The Buddha was entriely unconcerned with questions of deity, history, prophecy, all of the things with which religions are usually concerned, and when questioned about philosophical points usually remained silent or replied that the question was irrelevant to the achievement of freedom from suffering. He was an anomaly within the Indian tradition, a brilliant lay man in a world of highly educated preists and philosophers, and so you can't really include him as part of brahmanic or vedic hinduism, though he was certainly influenced by both. I would also like to point out that Bodhidarma (the monk who brought Buddhism to China) was regarded as being either a native of Persia or a "blue-eyed barbarian." In Japanese and Chinese art he is clearly represented as a thickly bearded westerner, NOT Indian. This shows that there was perhaps more interaction between the priestly classes of the ancient world than modern scholars sometimes credit. If there was a high-ranking buddhist abbot from the west in China in the 6th century, then how much philosophical influence was going both ways unrecorded? I don't think the eastern and western traditions as you call them grew up seperately in two vacuums. Edited by James Spence on 12/04/06 - 05:31 PM
Do not be assertive, but adjust to the object, and you shall find a way round or through it. If nothing within you stays rigid, outward things will disclose themselves - Bruce Lee

Cosmic Consciousness
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 01, 2006
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 51

Posted 12/04/06 - 09:53 PM:	#3
It is clear that you have a lot of knowledge of the minute details of the eastern traditions history, I could go in depth on that subject to a certain extent as well. But it already took lots of writing to expound what I think of as a vision, a vision that is not merely a purely bias subjective intuitive dicernmentand, but one that has been accumilating in countless hours of study, a vision that has been gestating in objective consideration for the past few years. Therefore, the minute details were considered a given that were already merely present at the foundation, but the specifics of which merely condensate or congeal into a larger final view. I believe though you can correct me if im off, the non-dulist schools didn't arise until history was post-AD, though the ancient Brahmins spoke of things that had a non-dulist "tinge" or essence to them, the notion was particulized or compartmentalized relatively recently. I am aware of tribal shamanism, but that is one of those given details relative to the vision I was describing. I was refering to Hindusim as the root "archetypal" form of modern world, or whole culture, or whole race religion that exemplify's and or indicates a certain maturity or ripening of human civilization. I know that the east/west paradigm is a raher crude over-simplefied distinction, as those two parts and cultures of the world have been exchanging ideas and technology, and or co-creating eachother for thousands of years. What I was pointing to are specific notions that just happened to end up presumed in all three of those religions which happened to take root in overwhelming influence in the "western" part of the world. These presumptions are inherent not just in the three masses, but are inherent in the great majority of the fragmented sects of which those masses consist of. This has resulted in growth limitation not just in the three broad religions, but all of there split-off fragmented sects as well. A testament of this is the fact that compared to the three eastern traditions, there are few "holy" books which are interpreted and revolved around, and in a way that makes it innately difficult to view outside of those books, let alone those religions. Not only does this inherently limit the number of interpretations that can be abstracted out of those writings, but because of a prior presumption of the absolute authority of those books makes it impossible to transcend the language itself. This results in an inability to even create new language or words, which in turn makes it so there can never even be an evolution in the optimisation of or approchableness of comprehension of the teaching contained within those books. Therefore they can never increase in complex subtley, or even become more simple, they will always be as simple as they are. There is the new testament, and the old testament split between Christianity and Judaism, and the Koran for Islam, and the common presumption across all three is that only these are referring to the truth or method of religion that their followers can interpret, as they are presumed to be an unshakable prophecy from god. In the east, the truth that their literature is trying to reveal is one that those three traditions are inatly aware of as being beyond language itself. Which is why you have the Veda's, the Abahvitgita (sorry for mispell), the laws of Manu and several other texts which are open for free interpretation. Not too mention Buddhism, which across its three surviving lineages, exist a huge amount of cannons, sutra's, books and writings. Not only that, but even today they would allow new books, testaments, revalations to be written and interpreted, without any hesitence born of attachment to older language and scriptures. Because there is an inherent awareness in these traditions that language is abstract and always only particular and relative, at least when it concerns the profound and timeless notions they are trying to get at. This makes the eastern traditions, compared to the western, much more capable of adapting to an ever mutating human culture, with minimal friction and struggle. As I stated in the post, I am aware that its not about what particular religion has it "right" against the other religions which are just plain wrong. All religions have the potential to awaken the heart, and manifest the good life, the issue is one of optimization. It is much more difficult to dicern a reliably comprehensive path in western traditions compared to eastern traditions. Which is why you often here of people losing their faith, and they pretty much have to rely on a miracle to get it back, as there is no reliable technique that transcends a purely hazy blind faith. In the east, you have actual techniques which transcend the mere uncontrolable rollorcoster sense of having faith and not having faith, these come in the form of very intricate, indepth and very well fleshed out meditation practices. What I mean here is that when you loose your faith in those traditions, you don't have to wait for a miracle for the sense of it to return too you, all you have to do is take a meditation course and your path will automatically be restored just as if you have taken a pill. In the sense that all you have to do is take it, and your body will naturally and reliably gestate the pill to manifest a desired result. Which in this case, restores you to faith in a good path. Now I don't have any objective evidense for this statement on reliability, but I know it from my own experience as well as the experience of people I know, and not just in an intellectual imagination. To understand that, it must be experienced, you must experience the reliabile effectivness of these techniques which when experienced are an obvious indication of profoundly penetrating insight into the human psyche, the deep mind; which resulted in the development of technologies that reliably influence the unconscious. Edited by Cosmic Consciousness on 12/04/06 - 10:33 PM

barguitar
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 04, 2006
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 12/04/06 - 10:03 PM:	#4
If I may respectfully point out, your post seems to imply that Christianity is a western religion. While there certainly is a prominent role of Christianity in the West, Christianity was birthed out of an eastern/oriental culture and mindset. If I may even go one step further, I believe this myth of Christianity as a "Western" religion is fueled by the western tendency to view our societies as the center of the world. The fact is looking at Christianity from a social and global viewpoint, the overwhelming majority of Christian activity and influence is in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. However, it got incestously and heretically tied to European governments and conquests...people have a hard time getting that out of their heads.

philosophy
Sapiens

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 01, 2005
Location: Ivory Tower
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 283

Posted 12/05/06 - 12:23 AM:	#5
I would also like to point out the slight problem with this thesis, which is that Christianity is an Eastern religion also.
There is no more pleasant food for the soul than the knowledge of truth. - Lactantius

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 5415

Posted 12/05/06 - 04:21 AM:	#6
The middle east has been the birth of a host of religions, perhaps more than any other comparable region of the world. Is that an isolated fact, or are there correlates that we should investigate to look for a pattern?
Leave no assumption unquestioned.

James Spence
pilgrim to nowhere

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Canberra, Australia
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 379

Posted 12/05/06 - 03:06 PM:	#7
Cosmic Consciousness wrote: I believe though you can correct me if im off, the non-dulist schools didn't arise until history was post-AD, though the ancient Brahmins spoke of things that had a non-dulist "tinge" or essence to them, the notion was particulized or compartmentalized relatively recently. I think you may be referring to ideas like Ramanuja's doctrine of Qualified Non-Dualism? I agree, this is a relatively recent development in Indian thought, but it's whole purpose was to make it possible to worship a personal saviour deity without abandoning the idea that Brahman was non-dualistic, an anceint concept which came from the pre-vedics. Ramnuja's doctrine actually operates in a very similar way to Aquinas' solution for the Trinity in Catholicism. If you read hymns to Krishna for example, they are strikingly similar in tone to Christian hymns. In fact there is even the theory that Jesus' life story is largely taken from the Krishna myth. While I'm not sure about that, there are certainly parallels. What I am getting at is that while I must agree with you that Indian religion has often been expressed in a contemplative fashion, there is a vast quantity of it that is not. In fact, the most popular expression of Hinduism is devotion to a personal saviour, and always has been. While various Brahmanic schools have and had various ideas throughout history, most of the population worship(ped) personal deities, just like in the west. I think perhaps that western scholars studying indian religion are more interested in areas of difference, which leads those in the west reading their works to get a slightly wrong idea about the practice of religion in India. In the east, the truth that their literature is trying to reveal is one that those three traditions are inatly aware of as being beyond language itself. Which is why you have the Veda's, the Abahvitgita (sorry for mispell), the laws of Manu and several other texts which are open for free interpretation. Not too mention Buddhism, which across its three surviving lineages, exist a huge amount of cannons, sutra's, books and writings. Not only that, but even today they would allow new books, testaments, revalations to be written and interpreted, without any hesitence born of attachment to older language and scriptures. Because there is an inherent awareness in these traditions that language is abstract and always only particular and relative, at least when it concerns the profound and timeless notions they are trying to get at. This makes the eastern traditions, compared to the western, much more capable of adapting to an ever mutating human culture, with minimal friction and struggle. I agree with you here, though I'm not sure that it is for the reason you suggest. The idea that true reality cannot be expressed is not universal in the east. It is most prevalent in the far east (China, Korea, Japan) which are not the birthplaces of the religions you are speaking of. This idea actually comes from Daoism. I think the reason that Indian religious movements are largely (though not entirely) able to live in harmony with one another is far simpler: There is a general idea that as the atman is non-dualistic, it can be approached in any way you can think of. You are right though, in the west religion is much more calcified. Essentially western culture has a lower tolerance for new religious movements, and I am not sure that it is the fault of our mainstream religions. After all, new religious movements do not emerge in a vaccuum. In India all the new gurus who emerge every day come from within the existing traditions. The same thing happens in the west. People like David Koresh and Pastor Ted are the spiritual analogues of Indian gurus like Sai Baba. They are attempts to change and revitalize the old tradition. The only difference is that in the west society is far more skeptical of self-proclaimed religious leaders, which leads them to be persecuted, which leads to them fighting back, which leads to justification of the society's suspicions that they are a maniac. I don't know why this is; For all I know it could be because, as you say, western religious texts claim to be enclosed systems. But that in itself could be a result of the dualistic western idea of the truth, which I think predates Christianity and comes from Aristotelian logic: "everything is either right or wrong." As I stated in the post, I am aware that its not about what particular religion has it "right" against the other religions which are just plain wrong. All religions have the potential to awaken the heart, and manifest the good life, the issue is one of optimization. It is much more difficult to dicern a reliably comprehensive path in western traditions compared to eastern traditions. Which is why you often here of people losing their faith, and they pretty much have to rely on a miracle to get it back, as there is no reliable technique that transcends a purely hazy blind faith. In the east, you have actual techniques which transcend the mere uncontrolable rollorcoster sense of having faith and not having faith, these come in the form of very intricate, indepth and very well fleshed out meditation practices. What I mean here is that when you loose your faith in those traditions, you don't have to wait for a miracle for the sense of it to return too you, all you have to do is take a meditation course and your path will automatically be restored just as if you have taken a pill. In the sense that all you have to do is take it, and your body will naturally and reliably gestate the pill to manifest a desired result. Which in this case, restores you to faith in a good path. Now I don't have any objective evidense for this statement on reliability, but I know it from my own experience as well as the experience of people I know, and not just in an intellectual imagination. To understand that, it must be experienced, you must experience the reliabile effectivness of these techniques which when experienced are an obvious indication of profoundly penetrating insight into the human psyche, the deep mind; which resulted in the development of technologies that reliably influence the unconscious. Yes, Indian religion in it's contemplative form follows a slow technical path to spiritual achievement (descended from pre-vedic yogic practice), whereas the religions of the west tend toward a more faith-based path to spirituality. For people who lack faith in anything there are plenty of spiritual paths in the east (Buddhism for example is pretty much an extreme form of eliminativism), whereas the west has not evolved similar patterns, rather developing a typical western dichotomy of Atheist/Theist.
Do not be assertive, but adjust to the object, and you shall find a way round or through it. If nothing within you stays rigid, outward things will disclose themselves - Bruce Lee

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004
Total Topics: 40
Total Posts: 1211

Posted 12/05/06 - 05:19 PM:	#8
philosophy wrote: I would also like to point out the slight problem with this thesis, which is that Christianity is an Eastern religion also. No, Chistianity isn't a Eastern religion. It is almost as non-Eastern as a religion can get. If you don't believe me do a search on google for eastern religion and try to find a site that claims that Christianity is one of the Eastern religions.. Western religions are just about any of the Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity,and Islam. However when people are talking about Western religion they usually are talking about Christianity. The Eastern religions are Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and a few others. The very reason that people label a religion "Eastern" and others "Western" is because of the differences between them. Out of all the different types of religions in the world the groups that fall under these two categories are more different than any other religious groups that exist. I could spell out the differences, but anyone that really cares can find out easily with very little research.
No, you don't get it, thats why I'm telling you. You think you get it, which isn't the same as actually getting it. Get it?-Kakashi Hatake Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied, And vice sometimes by action dignified-Friar Lawrence The state of mind that questions is much more important than the question itself.Any question may be asked by a slavish mind, and the answer it receives will still be be within the limitations of its own slavery...Freedom of desire for an answer is essential for the understanding of a problem-Krishnamurti

Cosmic Consciousness
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 01, 2006
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 51

Posted 12/05/06 - 10:18 PM:	#9
James Spence wrote: If you read hymns to Krishna for example, they are strikingly similar in tone to Christian hymns. In fact there is even the theory that Jesus' life story is largely taken from the Krishna myth. While I'm not sure about that, there are certainly parallels. What I am getting at is that while I must agree with you that Indian religion has often been expressed in a contemplative fashion, there is a vast quantity of it that is not. In fact, the most popular expression of Hinduism is devotion to a personal saviour, and always has been. While various Brahmanic schools have and had various ideas throughout history, most of the population worship(ped) personal deities, just like in the west. Thats new info to me, thank you, I didn't realize until reading your mere statement of the connection between Christ and Krinsha that the Krishna legend could theoretically be that closely associated with the historical Christ legend, can you reply with some more specific coralations made by the theory? You actually made me realize, despite what I do know of the legend, a similarity between them that hasn't struck me before now. I just recognized it where Krishna was said to be an incarnation of god consciousness who manifested in a bodily form so he could communicate to man the revelation of god-realization, a god-realization that is catalysed by the total devotional attention to him. Now that I think of it, that alone seems to allude to a parallel with Christ. That means there are two major spiritual figures in the eastern traditions that have parallels to Christ in their legends and character. Interestingly, as you may already know, There are striking parallels between Christ and the Buddha as well. This alludes to an earlier statement I made about Western religions being merely a historical reinterpretation of eastern theosophy, when it was filtered through cultural cross-fertilization. Because here, Buddhism is 2500 years old compared to Christianity's 2000 years. Here are some of the specific parallels that make the connection rediculously obvious: 1. In legend, the Buddha was said to be born of women alone, with no male insemination, like Jesus. In addition, His mother had a foretelling dream before his birth. 2. The Buddha was visited by three wise men after his birth who were to predict his future, just like Jesus. 3. The Buddha left his home to begin his spiritual quest at the age of 29, around the same age Jesus did. 4. The Buddha retreated for 40 days to meditate on wisdom in order to achieve liberating enlightenment; similar to Jesus's 40 days. 5. Near the end of his spiritual journey, (attainment of Liberating insight into the nature of reality) the Buddha was faced with 3 temptations by Mara, the manifestation of the forces of greed hatred and delusion; (the eastern concept of the devil): Lust, fear and power over the world. These are not exactly the same as the 3 temptations of christ, but they are 3 temptations nonetheless and presented to the Buddha in a surprisingly similar fashion. 6. The Buddha had supernormal powers similar to Jesus in that he could heal people, (but not because he believed in some god, rather because he penetrated and understood the the subtleties of the universe so intimately, he could willfully manipulate it.) 7.. Siddhartha officially became a Buddha (enlightened one) at the age of 35, around same age jesus was in his ministry (and end of). there are many more legends and story's that are practically identical, but I won't expound on them here; because you can find as many or more as I have found by in depth study and consideration of the vast literature and historical records contained not only in Buddhist texts, but modern western objective textbooks and intellectual literature. In any case, despite whether or not the legends of either traditions are making reference to events as they actually happened, because Buddhism is 500 years older than Christianity, who could honestly be said to be the more plausable and likely originator? the math of the well documented history speaks for itself, as one can quickly and easily access this information on google. once investigated, it requires mere minutes of study to realize that this is not merely a respectively esoteric and vague relative theory of historical corallations. You won't find merely a few sites that state this amongst a contrasting lot which argure against it. Rather, the overwhelming majority of websites contain this identical historical knowledge, knowledge which is an unargued given as much as the knowledge of the historical existence of Albert Einstein. James Spence wrote: I think perhaps that western scholars studying indian religion are more interested in areas of difference, which leads those in the west reading their works to get a slightly wrong idea about the practice of religion in India. Yeah thats a good sobering point for me, I get sucked into that view just as easily sometimes. However, that doesn't change the fact that at its most deeply penetrating and or educated level of interpretation, there is still the awareness of the freedom of interpretation, an awareness that transcends the specific language and history of it's tradition; which in turn innately safeguards those traditions growth potential. In contrast with western traditions, where it doesn't matter who interperates them, fundamental given presumptions, or core beliefs remain undebatable from the simplist to sutblist interpertations. P.S. James, It didn't strike me or, I guess it didn't matter to me before, but just to throw it out there; my birth-given middle name is Spencer, I am not even kidding. In fact that is what I went by for the first 13 or 14 years of my life, when I realized that I didn't like the sound of my name when it was audibly spoken. It is a most peculiar phenomena, I don't mind the word of the name itself, I literally mean that everytime I hear it with my ears it manifests an annoying cringing ringing in my ears, I am somehow auto-hypersensitive to it, almost like its annoying bell or squell that makes you sick. Of course, I recognize that this probably indicates a repressed childhood memory of something that happened when my name was spoken; even though the sound isn't embarrasing to me, the sound itself is literally almost nausiating. Perhaps it indicates a particular repression of an experience that is neccesarily serving to keep a particular shadow element of my subconscious in check...anyway, I reclaimed and remain as my original birth given first name, that is Steven. Heh nice to meet you. Edited by Cosmic Consciousness on 12/06/06 - 12:14 AM

philosophy
Sapiens

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 01, 2005
Location: Ivory Tower
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 283

Posted 12/06/06 - 01:12 AM:	#10
No, Chistianity isn't a Eastern religion. It is almost as non-Eastern as a religion can get. If you don't believe me do a search on google for eastern religion and try to find a site that claims that Christianity is one of the Eastern religions.. No I don't believe you. Christianity began in the East, and spread throughout the Eastern Roman Empire, including Greece, Turkey, Iraq, and even as far as India (to use modern place names). It was accepted in Russia in the ninth century. It has remained in all of these locations until today. The very reason that people label a religion "Eastern" and others "Western" is because of the differences between them. Out of all the different types of religions in the world the groups that fall under these two categories are more different than any other religious groups that exist. I assume you mean geographic differences. I wonder what Russian, Indian, Greek, or Persian Christians would think about this use of the term?
There is no more pleasant food for the soul than the knowledge of truth. - Lactantius

James Spence
pilgrim to nowhere

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Canberra, Australia
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 379

Posted 12/06/06 - 02:01 AM:	#11
Cosmic Consciousness wrote: I didn't realize until reading your mere statement of the connection between Christ and Krinsha that the Krishna legend could theoretically be that closely associated with the historical Christ legend, can you reply with some more specific coralations made by the theory? This website has it all set out in a nice neat table for cross-referencing: http://www.bobkwebsite.com/krishnajesusmyths.html You may be interested to know that many elements of the Buddha's life story also appear in the story of Mahavira, the Jain tirthankara, including the 40 days meditation, the kingly birth followed by the leaving the palace to become an ascetic, and the final temptations, as well as some you didn't mention, like the serpent king rising up to protect Mahavira/Buddha from temptation. This story is much older than Buddhism, as the Jain religion represents pre-vedic Indian tradition, so if such a person existed and these events tell a real story it is not the story of the Buddha, barring a series of bizarre coincidences or the Buddha intentionally trying to recreate an earlier sage's life. If I had to guess I'd say that all three (Mahavira, Buddha, and Jesus), as well as who knows how many before them, were figures whose hagiographies got confused. It is a common phenomenon that a culture's heroes are attributed with the feats of other heroes, eg. Celtic gods like Brigid becoming Christian Saints. Of course, all three of these figures also have parellels with Krishna and, I've also heard it pointed out, the Persian god Mithras. I am coming to the conclusion that the religious life of the ancient world was far more intertwined than most people realize. For example, it has been proven that the disciple Thomas (as in Doubting Thomas, the contemporary of Jesus) travelled to India and started a Christian movement called the Thomas Christians, dying there. This church has existed in India since the life of Thomas, so is older than the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Their rituals are conducted in aramaic, and they greatly surprised the European missionaries with their existence! This is pure speculation, but maybe there was a spiritual/sage class in the ancient world that shared knowledge and stories about their enlightened ones? Heh nice to meet you. Likewise
Do not be assertive, but adjust to the object, and you shall find a way round or through it. If nothing within you stays rigid, outward things will disclose themselves - Bruce Lee

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004
Total Topics: 40
Total Posts: 1211

Posted 12/06/06 - 03:12 AM:	#12
philosophy wrote: No I don't believe you. Christianity began in the East, and spread throughout the Eastern Roman Empire, including Greece, Turkey, Iraq, and even as far as India (to use modern place names). It was accepted in Russia in the ninth century. It has remained in all of these locations until today. I assume you mean geographic differences. I wonder what Russian, Indian, Greek, or Persian Christians would think about this use of the term? Believe whatever you want to believe ....however you will still not find wikipedia or other reliable sources agreeing with you. Christianity began in the Middle East, not the East, and although it has been in the Middle East for the last couple of centuries it has not been a major religion in the East. And no, it is not about geographic differences. It is about the history and how people think when the believe or understand certain religious beliefs. More than anything else it is how people view the world when then have certain beliefs. Christians and other Abrahamic religions view the world one way while those who are in a Eastern religion view the world in other way. As I said, do some research. Realize that there are other religions than Christianity and that have views that can be very different than it and the other Abrahamic religions. Read about Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, and Taoism and understand they are NOT the same as Chirstianity. And last but not least think about the differences between Eastern and Western religions and understand how Eastern religions are the alike to each other while different than Western (Abrahamic) religions. Then you will understand. To make things a little easier .. here is a link to wikipedia page on Eastern religions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_religion
No, you don't get it, thats why I'm telling you. You think you get it, which isn't the same as actually getting it. Get it?-Kakashi Hatake Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied, And vice sometimes by action dignified-Friar Lawrence The state of mind that questions is much more important than the question itself.Any question may be asked by a slavish mind, and the answer it receives will still be be within the limitations of its own slavery...Freedom of desire for an answer is essential for the understanding of a problem-Krishnamurti

philosophy
Sapiens

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 01, 2005
Location: Ivory Tower
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 283

Posted 12/06/06 - 06:40 AM:	#13
Christianity began in the Middle East, not the East If that makes sense to you, I applaud. although it has been in the Middle East for the last couple of centuries it has not been a major religion in the East. Christianity has been in the Middle East for a bit more than the "last couple of centuries" – try 2000 years. It has also been, and still is, the major religion of the Near East and Russia. You are fixated on the notion that anything not Far Eastern is somehow Western. Realize that there are other religions than Christianity and that have views that can be very different than it and the other Abrahamic religions. Read about Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, and Taoism and understand they are NOT the same as Chirstianity. In what way have I said anything like what you accuse me of. I known damn well that Christianity is different from the Far Eastern (Indian and Chinese, specifically) religions of Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism. But that doesn't mean that Christianity is "western" – Latin Christianity is, but there is an entire history of Christianity in the East that you wish to ignore; maybe you think the Near and Middle East are west of China and therefore Western. And last but not least think about the differences between Eastern and Western religions and understand how Eastern religions are the alike to each other while different than Western (Abrahamic) religions. So is Islam a "western" (Abrahamic) religion also now?
There is no more pleasant food for the soul than the knowledge of truth. - Lactantius

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004
Total Topics: 40
Total Posts: 1211

Posted 12/06/06 - 10:59 AM:	#14
philosophy wrote: Christianity has been in the Middle East for a bit more than the "last couple of centuries" – try 2000 years. It has also been, and still is, the major religion of the Near East and Russia. You are fixated on the notion that anything not Far Eastern is somehow Western. Ok, so I missed a typo and overlooked that century is one hundred years what millennium was what I was thinking of. If your really upset that I made a mistake while typing at a response at 6am in the morning you can sue me. philosophy wrote: In what way have I said anything like what you accuse me of. I known damn well that Christianity is different from the Far Eastern (Indian and Chinese, specifically) religions of Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism. But that doesn't mean that Christianity is "western" – Latin Christianity is, but there is an entire history of Christianity in the East that you wish to ignore; maybe you think the Near and Middle East are west of China and therefore Western. If I have to explain why Christianity isn't an Eastern religion, but is an Abrahamic religion then you do not understand the difference. All forms of Christianinity are just schisms or factions of Christinaity, not seperate or a major religion all by themselves. It really doesnt matter if it is in Russia, Japan, or Antarctica. Christianity is still a Abrahamic religion and not an Eastern one. As I said before it is NOT about geographic differences. It is about how people think and view the world. philosophy wrote: So is Islam a "western" (Abrahamic) religion also now? Islam and Christianity are both Abrahamic religions and are more alike than they are to any Eastern religion.
No, you don't get it, thats why I'm telling you. You think you get it, which isn't the same as actually getting it. Get it?-Kakashi Hatake Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied, And vice sometimes by action dignified-Friar Lawrence The state of mind that questions is much more important than the question itself.Any question may be asked by a slavish mind, and the answer it receives will still be be within the limitations of its own slavery...Freedom of desire for an answer is essential for the understanding of a problem-Krishnamurti

nash8
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 22, 2006
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 36

Posted 12/06/06 - 09:25 PM:	#15
But to say that Christianity is not a "eastern religion" could be incorrect, not saying it is, but it could be. I consider myself a Christian, but I also practice meditation, and believe in reincarnation, and many other things that are usually associated with eastern religion. So looking at this new evidence, I can make an argument that Christianity is very similar to eastern religion. And unless you have the audacity to tell me that I am not a Christian, I don't see how you can say that Christianity is that much different from eastern religion. After all, the Jews themselves did not believe that Jesus was there messiah and still don't, so I don't see how you can say christianity bears any resemblence to other abrahamic religions
Oh, one last thing, when you are speaking in english you say that men wear underpants, briefs, or boxers but not panties, they are only for females. Talk to your teacher about that, maybe he doesn't know english as well as he thinks.

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004
Total Topics: 40
Total Posts: 1211

Posted 12/07/06 - 06:43 AM:	#16
nash8 wrote: But to say that Christianity is not a "eastern religion" could be incorrect, not saying it is, but it could be. I consider myself a Christian, but I also practice meditation, and believe in reincarnation, and many other things that are usually associated with eastern religion. So looking at this new evidence, I can make an argument that Christianity is very similar to eastern religion. And unless you have the audacity to tell me that I am not a Christian, I don't see how you can say that Christianity is that much different from eastern religion. After all, the Jews themselves did not believe that Jesus was there messiah and still don't, so I don't see how you can say christianity bears any resemblence to other abrahamic religions I think you are missing the reason why people that study religions bother calling Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Taoism and others eastern religions. While it is true that anyone can believe a little of Hinduism, and little of Christianity, a little of Wiccan,ect, ect and make their own personal religion this does not mean that each of these beliefs are the same. While some may believe that trying to claim that other religions are not that different than there own is being tolerant, it can actually be seen as prejudice if own does not acknowlge that other religions are unique, can be equal to there own, and can be the actual source of ideas and views instead of that one's own religion is the originator of all creative ideas and views. While it is true that certain religions have the same ideas there are good reason to know which religions where the source of these ideas and how other religions borrowed them. Also you do not realize why certain religions are part of the group called Abrahamic religions, although it is extremely simple.To save time I'll just quote wikiopedia on this: wikipedia wrote: Abrahamic religion is any religion deriving from a common ancient Semitic tradition and traced by their adherents to Abraham ("Father/Leader of many" Hebrew אַבְרָהָם ("Avraham") Arabic ابراهيم ("Ibrahim"), a patriarch whose life is narrated in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, and as a prophet in the Qur'an and also called a prophet in Genesis 20:7. This forms a large group of largely monotheistic religions, including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Mandaeism and the Bahá'í Faith. Eastern religions are not part of the Abrahamic religions but are part of the Dharmic religions, which are a family of religions from India. If you are still confused read some of the following links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_religion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmic_religions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoism
No, you don't get it, thats why I'm telling you. You think you get it, which isn't the same as actually getting it. Get it?-Kakashi Hatake Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied, And vice sometimes by action dignified-Friar Lawrence The state of mind that questions is much more important than the question itself.Any question may be asked by a slavish mind, and the answer it receives will still be be within the limitations of its own slavery...Freedom of desire for an answer is essential for the understanding of a problem-Krishnamurti

jdrw
definitely ~d1

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 1529

Posted 12/07/06 - 08:22 AM:	#17
dclements wrote: If you are still confused read some of the following links: This is a great set of readable links that could keep us busy for a long time, and from which most of us could emerge much better informed. Thanks.
OTOH I might be exhaustively wrong about everything I've ever thought--with the possible exception of this sentence.

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004
Total Topics: 40
Total Posts: 1211

Posted 12/07/06 - 09:39 AM:	#18
jdrw wrote: This is a great set of readable links that could keep us busy for a long time, and from which most of us could emerge much better informed. Thanks. Your welcome. I would of added them earlier, but after studying comparative religions and studying Eastern religions I forgot that alot of this stuff it isn't common knowledge. What I like most about the eastern religions is that even though alot of their ideas are based on common sense there are other ideas that are very tricky to and require alot of thought to be able to understand. For example, people think that Nirvana is the same thing as heaven, but it has alot in common with the orignal concept of hell. The orginal concept was that hell was a dumping ground for human souls and that when sent there a persons soul would be destoryed. Nirvana is the place a person goes when after reaching the highest stage of enlightment where they are freeded from the cyle of reincarnation and the illusion of the self. When you read between the lines this sounds alot like the 2nd death, that of the spirt/soul, which we in the west are very afraid of. It is interesting to think that in a way their version of heaven is our hell.
No, you don't get it, thats why I'm telling you. You think you get it, which isn't the same as actually getting it. Get it?-Kakashi Hatake Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied, And vice sometimes by action dignified-Friar Lawrence The state of mind that questions is much more important than the question itself.Any question may be asked by a slavish mind, and the answer it receives will still be be within the limitations of its own slavery...Freedom of desire for an answer is essential for the understanding of a problem-Krishnamurti

jdrw
definitely ~d1

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 1529

Posted 12/07/06 - 10:39 AM:	#19
dclements wrote: For example, people think that Nirvana is the same thing as heaven, but it has alot in common with the orignal concept of hell. The orginal concept was that hell was a dumping ground for human souls and that when sent there a persons soul would be destoryed. Nirvana is the place a person goes when after reaching the highest stage of enlightment where they are freeded from the cyle of reincarnation and the illusion of the self. When you read between the lines this sounds alot like the 2nd death, that of the spirt/soul, which we in the west are very afraid of. It is interesting to think that in a way their version of heaven is our hell. Yes, I've long been fascinated by the irony of the Christian ideal being eternal life and the Hindu ideal being extinction. Besides unfamiliarity with comparative religion studies about the major world religions, another aspect of religious knowledge that few people seem to have any awareness of are the many, many patterns of beliefs common among "primitive" religions. There are analogues of these patterns evident in the major religions themselves, and familiarity with them in their more "primitive" versions can be very instructive. For instance, in another thread the very common pattern of eating something and thereby attaining some knowledge or power from that thing came up in the story of Adam and Eve eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and in the Catholic Eucharist ritual. It is my opinion that we can learn a great deal about contemporary religions via comparative analysis of other religions, especially by analysis of "primitive" versions of religions.
OTOH I might be exhaustively wrong about everything I've ever thought--with the possible exception of this sentence.

a mere disciple
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 02, 2006
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 89

Posted 12/07/06 - 11:18 AM:	#20
jdrw wrote: It is my opinion that we can learn a great deal about contemporary religions via comparative analysis of other religions, especially by analysis of "primitive" versions of religions. I would completely agree. Findings in the near east (or perhaps to avoid the conundrum directional references has begun on this thread I will say western most coast of the Mediterranean) at the buried city Ugarit have revealed a great deal about Baalism and other ancient Canaanite religion. A good deal of enlightenment has come from the stone tablets found when compared with the Hebrew Bible and Old Testament. For example it was my understanding that until recently, circa the 1950's, Baal was not known to be the Canaanite god of thunder. I also find the poetry originating from that era (circa 1000 BC) fantastic. Edited by a mere disciple on 12/07/06 - 11:25 AM

ragus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2006
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 1513

Posted 12/07/06 - 11:36 PM:	#21
James Spence wrote A note about Buddhism too: the Buddha was a non-theist. He was not a brahmin, but a kshatriya (an aristocratic warrior). This makes sense. The Buddha was a man of action who wished to change the world within man. He devised practices that he encouraged others to try. He said take nothing for granted - see if it works for you. I know this is a philosophy forum and the focus is on ideas about stuff. But imagine a music forum where none of the members had ever heard any music not because they couldn't but because they were so caught up in the technicalities of classifying genres that they didn't have the time for anything else. I think that would be sad but as my mother used to say "listen . . . so long as he's happy . . . ".
feeling cheerful

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004
Total Topics: 40
Total Posts: 1211

Posted 12/08/06 - 12:03 PM:	#22
jdrw wrote: Yes, I've long been fascinated by the irony of the Christian ideal being eternal life and the Hindu ideal being extinction. Besides unfamiliarity with comparative religion studies about the major world religions, another aspect of religious knowledge that few people seem to have any awareness of are the many, many patterns of beliefs common among "primitive" religions. There are analogues of these patterns evident in the major religions themselves, and familiarity with them in their more "primitive" versions can be very instructive. For instance, in another thread the very common pattern of eating something and thereby attaining some knowledge or power from that thing came up in the story of Adam and Eve eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and in the Catholic Eucharist ritual. It is my opinion that we can learn a great deal about contemporary religions via comparative analysis of other religions, especially by analysis of "primitive" versions of religions. It is hard for any religion to deny that they have origins in what are seen as primitive religions and are influenced by them even when they become a major religion. I think that Joseph Campbell's concept of the Hero's Journey and other works is pretty good at showing the meaning behind mythology and primitive religions/beliefs. It also explains that because modern cultures lack the initiation and other rituals that earlier cultures have, we do not have the benefits that such rituals provide them.
No, you don't get it, thats why I'm telling you. You think you get it, which isn't the same as actually getting it. Get it?-Kakashi Hatake Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied, And vice sometimes by action dignified-Friar Lawrence The state of mind that questions is much more important than the question itself.Any question may be asked by a slavish mind, and the answer it receives will still be be within the limitations of its own slavery...Freedom of desire for an answer is essential for the understanding of a problem-Krishnamurti

Broken Yogi
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2006
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 54

Posted 12/12/06 - 12:36 AM:	#23
Yes, Christianity is a middle eastern religion. As is Abrahamic Judaism, which is one of its sources. But it has many other sources as well, most of them eastern in nature. Let me offer a guiding distinction between eastern and western religions. Eastern religions are basically oriented towards an other-worldly reality. Western religions are oriented towards a this-worldly reality. Middle eastern religions tend to get stuck between the two. Abrahamic religion tends to be western, oriented towards this world, and interested in God's help in making this world a better, more comfortable place, a blessed place. However, it introduces the odd notion of monotheism, which is taken in part from the eastern notion of a non-dual God, the notion that God lives beond the world of dualities, that God is single, or as Exodus says, "I Am That I Am". But this notion of a single, non-dual God is mixed in with a highly dualistic orientation towards this world, resulting in the confusing mess known as monotheism. Purely western religions, such as Greek or Roman religion, are polytheisitic in nature and purely so. They don't get themselves confused by notions of God's singleness intruding upon the world of living duality. In fact, most western religions are like that, forms of uncomp0licated and philosophically unconflicted polytheism. Whereas monotheism is inherently conflicted, in that there are many other Gods that must be eliminated in order for the one God to prevail. That is an odd and even noxious combination of eastern and western thought that does not work well for anyone, and the present world is an example of just how screwed up things can get when fanatical monotheists try to assert the truth of their "one God". As we speak a conference of holocaust denialists is convening in Iran under the banner of Islam to set the record "straight". Christianity isn't just western, obviously. And it isn't just Judaism with Jesus added. It's a philosophy which stresses the reality of heaven over teh sinful delusions of the earth. It opposes the very flesh that its God incarnated through, seeing the flesh as a mere precurser to a heavenly life in the hereafter. But so much changed when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman EMpire. At that point much of its eastern orientation began to change and became heavily weighted towards this world, as the vehicle of worldy Empire rather than otherworldly heaven. So the Christianity we wind up with now in the west has really shorn most of its eastern roots and stands as a mere vehicle for worldly success and aspiration. Very few in the west become Christians in order to get to heaven. They become Christian to enjoy the good life here as God's beloved children. This was not Jesus' message, of course. But to most Christians here, it is. They simply assume that Jesus was speaking to their own desires and aspirations, when he was not. He was speaking to an aspiration towards a reality not of this world. Who has such aspirations here? Hardly anyone. But in Jesus' time they did. Jesus certainly did. And where did he get such notions? From the east, where the wise men came from.

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.