Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 5:22 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 1:35 am 
Offline
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am
Posts: 1140
jeeprs wrote:
I think the biggest problem in modern western theologies can be attributed to the influence of Calvinism and the core ideas of 'salvation by faith alone', the condemnation of human reason owing to the idea of 'total depravity', and the repugnant 'doctrine of the elect' which condemns the vast majority of mankind to eternal hellfire. It is an intrinsically authoritarian model in my view.

I read a fascinating book in 2009 called The Theological Origins of Modernity in which Michael Allen Gillespie argues 'that from the very beginning moderns sought not to eliminate religion but to support a new view of religion and its place in human life. He goes on to explore the ideas of such figures as William of Ockham, Petrarch, Erasmus, Luther, Descartes, and Hobbes, showing that modernity is best understood as a series of attempts to formulate a new and coherent metaphysics or theology.'

The key background factor in all of it was the influence of the nominalists and the overthrow of medieval scholasticism, which gave rise to today's scientific empiricism. The nominalists put great emphasis on the total unknowability of God, who was said not to be bound by any ideas of human rationality whatever. These he contrasted with the scholastics, who valued reason and saw the 'intelligible order of the Universe' as evidence of the divine intelligence. (I think that many of the mathematical physicists to this day have been much nearer to scholasticism and platonism.)

Of particular importance in that book were the debates between Luther and Erasmus - the latter seems far more humane, rational, and intelligent - and between Hobbes, the influential materialist, and Descartes. (Critical review here.)


Very interesting Jeeprs. I agree that the rise of nominalism was very influential in shaping the empirical branches of modern science. That the battles over that ground were so intense tells us much about just how orthodox Christian Aristotelianism was through the (long) medieval period. It wasn't 'a few adherents' - it was the undisputed normative cosmology, metaphysics, logic, morality and politics. I think that Hobbes in particular was the thinker to really break with this (his distaste for Christian Aristotelianism was unmistakable).....and so the seeds of modernity were laid.

:anjali:

:anjali:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 1:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 3:52 am
Posts: 421
Okay, I'll play.

The Roman Empire was chock full of what we might call "Eastern religions"--the cults of Isis, Mithras, Cybele, and even Judaism and Christianity can be seen in this light. One factor promoting this was the increased trade ties among various far-flung parts of the Empire. While many elements of ancient Greco-Roman religion were very localized, and limited to a particular city-state, some of the Mysteries had a trans-imperial presence. Insofar as we can reconstruct them, they seem to have had many elements in common (such as initiation, and particular social structure, and a sacred meal consisting of eating the god's "body" and/or drinking his "blood"). If Buddhism had somehow replaced Christianity as the religion of Justinian and Constantine, presumably it would have come to look very much like Christianity or Mithraism.

Another line of alternate-history speculation might involve a Mongol conquest of Europe, followed by a large-scale conversion to Buddhism. This poses problems, since the Mongol Empire was multi-religious at its height. Parts of it later converted to Islam, and several Yuan and Oirat emperors converted to Tibetan Buddhism. Perhaps, if Prince Vladimir of Kiev had been able to visit a Tibeto-Mongolian temple, he might have had much the same reaction that he did (according to legend) with respect to the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople!

Or Hitler could have become a Buddhist (what he did wasn't that far off), AND won WW2. Or the youth movement of the 1960's could have taken on Buddhist overtones. (Imagine Paris 1968 as a Buddhist protest, with immolations and such.)

Anyway, "science and rationalism" is not necessarily what you'd get from a Buddhist Europe. A number of scholars have credited Christianity, or certain forms of it, with creating the conditions where these could arise.

_________________
(no longer participating on this board)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 3:52 am
Posts: 421
PS. Roman Christianity tended to view pagan religions as demonic--they believed in the gods, they just thought they were demons. It was out of this conflict that our idea of "religion" (as a complex with beliefs, rituals, a social structure, and a group identity) arose. This would have been handled very differently in Buddhism. Just as Padmasambhava is said to have converted Bon deities, so might Buddhist missionaries have incorporated Jupiter and Minerva into their religion somehow! Also, "religion" as we know it (including inter-religious conflict) might never have arisen. Food for thought....

_________________
(no longer participating on this board)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Posts: 1934
Location: Sydney AU
Alfredo wrote:
Or Hitler could have become a Buddhist (what he did wasn't that far off), AND won WW2.


That is one of those statements that is called in Australia 'a BBQ stopper'. :twothumbsup:

Anyway you are helping me to realize that whenever 'a faith becomes dominant' then it tends towards authoritarianism. We mustn't forget that Guatama was a renunciate with no worldly power.

_________________
Learn to do good, refrain from evil, purify the mind ~ this is the teaching of the Buddhas


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 1:56 pm 
Online
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10289
Location: Greece
tobes wrote:
Sherab Dorje wrote:
tobes wrote:
The Abrahamic faiths produced science and rationalism.
I would have to disagree. I would say that some adherents of the Abrahamic faiths built on the rationalism of Ancient Greek and Roman philosophers, not produced it.


They certainly built on it, I grant you that. But they also produced it. For example, in the Talmudic tradition of Rabbinical debate over esoteric and legalistic doctrines. I think the point would be that rationalism permeates through these traditions in a very complex and dialectical fashion. It's very hard to separate where the rationalism is intrinsic to the particular tradition and where it is a dialectical response to the ancient philosophic tradition. All of this intertwines in rather a messy but interesting soup of reason.

:anjali:
Just because somebody uses rational method doesn't make them rational. Want to have a rational discussion over whether angels have belly buttons or not?

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:17 am
Posts: 171
Sherab Dorje wrote:
discussion over whether angels have belly buttons or not?


No, they don't, but they definitely have bottom bells .. :tongue:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 9:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
jeeprs wrote:

The key background factor in all of it was the influence of the nominalists and the overthrow of medieval scholasticism...


Buddhist pramāṇa is nominalist. But it did not help much at all in overthrowing Buddhist medieval scholasticism -- for example, rational people who insist that Meru cosmology is valid.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:01 pm 
Offline
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am
Posts: 1140
Sherab Dorje wrote:

Just because somebody uses rational method doesn't make them rational. Want to have a rational discussion over whether angels have belly buttons or not?


Does this critique also apply to Buddhists and Buddhism?

If it does - and it surely must - then where are we left?

With this conclusion: traditions which make use of rational methods are distinct from the crazy-irrational beings who adhere to them.

I'm fine with that. Note that it doesn't grant us a European Buddhist scientific utopia......

:anjali:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2014 12:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am
Posts: 2552
Heterodox Garden wrote:
This topic is intended to be an open, speculative discussion of what "might have been" if Buddhism had maded it westward and become the main faith of Europe, instead of Christianity.

One possible way this could have happened would be if so-called "Greco-Buddhism" had taken hold and flourished:


Quote:
Greco-Buddhism, sometimes spelled Graeco-Buddhism, refers to the cultural syncretism between Hellenistic culture and Buddhism, which developed between the 4th century BCE and the 5th century CE in the Indian sub-continent, especially in modern Afghanistan, Pakistan and north-western border regions of modern India. It was a cultural consequence of a long chain of interactions begun by Greek forays into India from the time of Alexander the Great, carried further by the establishment of Indo-Greek rule in the area for some centuries, and extended during flourishing of the Hellenized empire of the Kushans. Greco-Buddhism influenced the artistic, and perhaps the spiritual development of Buddhism, particularly Mahayana Buddhism, which represents one of the two main branches of Buddhism.

More at source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism

I submit to you that if this had happened, Greco-Roman scientific rationalism and science would never have experienced the crushing repression that it was subjected to in the Middle Ages under Christianity. In my personal opinion, the iron-age desert Abrahamic faiths tend to encourage a retrogressive, violent, and atavistic mindset, and one that is not compatible with science and rationalism. There is much more room for empirical thought in Buddhist mental frameworks, and I believe that Buddhism is ultimately more healthy for the human spirit. Without the dark ages stretching from the decline of Rome to the Renaissance, science would have developed much further, while at the same time a Buddhistic outlook could have Yobviated many of the more warlike events of European history. We'd probably be building our first interstellar star ships right about now, not to mention living in a much less oppressive and environmentally degraded world.

Thoughts?

it didn't.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group