Tangentially related, there is a Greek influence on Buddhism in East Asia because Buddhism arrived in China via the Greek Bactrian kingdom. The Buddha as depicted in East Asia is wearing Greek robes and there are elements of Greek philosophy in Buddhism as practiced in East Asia.
Indeed, before the Greeks The Buddha would most commonly only be depicted by his absence, an empty chair or foot prints most famously. It's amazing that the iconography of a religion so ancient and "exotic" is so significantly shaped by European culture.
> It's amazing that the iconography of a religion so ancient and "exotic" is so significantly shaped by European culture.
It's more an instance of convergence and mutual influence. Hellenistic philosophy (read: immediately after Socrates) went down a few different lines. The one with the largest influence in the West was the Academic line, concerned with empirical observations and theory making.
But another major line was about how to live well, and focused primarily on ethics and the virtues. Today, the most well known school in this line is Stoicism, and this approach to philosophy really has a lot of overlap with Buddhism. The Bactrians were extremely well primed to be receptive of some "wisdom from the East" (like the type Pythagoras was supposed to have received) that covered a lot of the same topics as Hellenistic philosophy.
By the time Buddhism was meaningfully re-introduced to European academics (starting around the 17th century, but culminating with Schopenhaur in the 19th), several writers once again remarked on the similarities between the Hellenistic and Buddhist traditions.
Even the "live well" philosophies were heavily influenced by India. Democritus, the father of antique materialism which lead to Epicurus and Lucretius was heavily influenced by gymnosophists when he traveled to India.
Realized this when I was talking about it with an Indian Colleague and when I mention the principals of materialism she immediately recognized elements of her own religion.
Hellenism is not a strictly European culture. Most of the hellenic world population lived in Africa or the middle east. These were much larger population centers than cities greece, italy, or anywhere else in the European Mediterranean at the time.
Maybe not European by a strict modern geographic interpretation, but ancient Greek culture laid down so many ideas fundamental to the modern West it would be disingenuous to say it isn't European.
Maybe, in the same way all adults are just big toddlers. But it discounts the pretty major effect other cultures have had, in the same way describing an adult as a grown-up toddler discounts all the experiences they’ve had in between.
Surprised this is the top thread and unchallenged.
Buddhism arrived in China via the Greek Bactrian kingdom
{{citation-needed}}. Buddhism arrived in the geographic region currently encompassed by the modern Chinese state via multiple routes over more than a thousand years including innumerable exchanges through the overall Tarim Basin (Xinjiang) or "silk road" area via modern Tajikistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan but also via Tibet and by sea through Southeast Asia (Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, and probably some sporadic oceanic contact with South Asia and Buddhist kingdoms in Indonesia). Tajikistan in particular is only slightly archaeologically investigated to date owing to its remote location, poor infrastructure, geopolitical challenges and IIRC the use of mines during 20th century military conflicts. In short, like any other set of ideas it probably arrived in waves of migration, monkly pilgrimages, exchanges, and instances of official diplomacy. There are records of Buddhism being preached to China by the geographically proximal Yuezhi people as early as 2BCE. Classical Chinese history teaches that Buddhism "came to China" in 67CE. Hellenistic artistic styles are, to my knowledge, never mentioned.
Buddha as depicted in East Asia is wearing Greek robes
The robes are not Greek, they are Buddhist. Buddhism was established in the sixth century BCE. We can read that in Buddhist tradition monks are only allowed a robe and a begging bowl, and that the historical Buddha also set forth a tradition that discouraged iconography as improper worship of likeness (idolatry). This may be because Buddha composed his philosophy in reaction to the prevailing religious environment, where he had previously partaken in such habits which were and remain deeply culturally entrenched.
In short, Greco-Buddhist art is influential because it is, in a sense, the first major period with any voluminous production of "Buddhist art" (a notion decidedly not Buddhist), and in any event, the Hellenistic style robes primarily only affects Mahayana art, and the modern geographical scope of China also encompasses an endemic Vajrayana philosophy, Theravada, and Tibetan. Even within Mahayana artistic tradition in China, I don't see how a cursory inspection of - for example - robes depicted at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Buddhist_sculpture or https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Buddhist_sculptu... could conclude they're all Greek-influenced. Such a claim is tenuous at best.
there are elements of Greek philosophy in Buddhism as practiced in East Asia.
I have never heard anyone make this claim. If we flip the claim, as Buddhist jataka tales are known to Christianity, the reverse could also be said: "elements of Indian philosophy in Christianity as practiced in Europe". Such a statement, outside of tangential academic arguments, is broadly untrue.
My apologies for the mistakes in my statement. You seen to know much, much about this topic than me; thank you for adding the nuances this complex topic. My comment was based on my recollection of what I saw at the San Francisco Museum of Asian Arts and some of the descriptions I read there about the various pieces. In all likelihood, my recollection was either incorrect and/or incomplete. I cited the Wikipedia article because it seems to reflect similar ideas as my recollection and also in case anyone else found the topic as fascinating as I did.
I'm past the window for editing my original comment but if the mods don't mind, it would be great to qualify my original comment with the response.
No worries happy to share. FYI I spent most of my 20s and early 30s traveling with an interest in this topic so have visited most museums out there (including SF) as well as many historic sites (including the white horse temple, most major Buddhist sculptural sites in China, remote border areas, various ancient sites in SEA, etc.). It is a true shame that the historic depth of cultural exchange that evidently occurred in these regions is seemingly being systemically oppressed from the popular and academic record due to modern-day geopolitical concerns.
Also of interest is the Mari Native Religion which is practiced in the Mari El Republic of Russia[0]. I believe this is the only example of an indigenous religion surviving with continued practice into the modern day. RT made a documentary about it[1].
Perhaps in Europe, but globally, I can think of plenty of others off the top of my head: the various religions of Native Americans/First Nations peoples, the beliefs of Aboriginal people in Australia, even Japanese Shinto probably qualifies.
Shinto was in Japan before Buddhism. Zen took on a little bit of Shinto when it came over as Cha’an from China. In most Zen temples, there are a few statues of Shinto deities, but neither is an offshoot of the other.
Has that been continuously practiced? Other wikipedia pages [0][1] on the Sami suggest that they were all converted to Christianity by the end of the 18th century. There are people who practice Norse paganism today but that is a reconstructed faith based on old writings rather than a surviving religion.
It's unclear to me. The wikipedia article doesn't say, but it seems to refer to it in the present tense as though it is still practiced. I would hope if it died out and was then reconstructed, the entry would mention as much. Here's an article linked to in the entry, which I don't have time to read, but sounds promising:
The Sami Religion was influenced by but not identical with Norse mythology. It appears to have been extinct for the last couple hundred yeats after facing a significant ongoing persecution and conversion.
Is Hinduism indigenous? Wasn’t that a product of Aryan migrations from the north? (genuine question: what constitutes “indigenous”? if one native american tribe drives out another in a particular region, is the conquering tribe still indigenous? What about cases where people mix to become a new people? Is it correct to say that the Irish, British, Germans, Italians, etc are indigenous Europeans?)
> Wasn’t that a product of Aryan migrations from the north?
I know this isn't a great answer, but "yes and no" -- it is certainly true that the Proto-Indo-Europeans brought with them Rigvedic religion. But that religion itself was syncretized with other beliefs across Central Asia and South Asia over quite a long period of time. While it is often dramatized as a "violent" invasion (no doubt reminiscent of later "violent" "Aryan" invasions), the truth is more bland, which is that the nomadic Indo-Aryans and their ancestors had a rich level of cultural exchange with more settled civilizations. Some of it by the sword, but some of it otherwise.
Yeah, which I guess beckons my other question: what makes something indigenous considering how frequently changes are produced gradually by cultural exchange, gradual migrations, etc?
It's a great question, and I'm inclined to ask the same one. My answer is that indigeneity is somewhat of a red herring. Empires have existed for as long as changes have been produced gradually by cultural exchange and gradual migrations as you point out, so the boundary between indigenous and not seems porous to me.
On thing that really surprised me watching his channel is just how empty all these periphery russian republics appear to be.
I understand that there is economic struggle as in many other parts of the world. But I was really surprised by the general lack of actual people against the large swaths of land.
Afaik it's either due to climate (too cold or not enough rainfall) or soil not very conducive for farming (which is the case for Siberia). Populations explode in arable areas, which in Russia means mostly the European side.
Just a friendly heads up: I used to be a huge fan of this YT channel until I saw some pretty damning evidence that the guy is a predatory sex tourist/pick up artist. I really enjoyed the content (the editing is a breath of fresh air on YT), but ultimately unsubbed and stopped watching. I'd encourage others to look into it and make your own judgement, of course.
Whenever I see this man mentioned, I always see a comment saying, "This man travels AND has sex!"
It's about as surprising as someone visiting Amsterdam and having the audacity to smoke weed or single guys doing what single guys do when they visit SE Asia.
Gross, man -- he actually brags about raping/coercing girls.
"Oh, you'd like a taster? Well how about the time when Vorkuta boasts of forcing a young hitchhiker to give him a blowjob in exchange for $6. On the threat that if she did not comply he might leave her in the middle of nowhere as they were travelling alone in a car on some deserted highway somewhere in the FSU. You can only imagine how scared she must have been."
People post a lot of wild stories on forums and places like reddit. Oftentimes they exaggerate or make up crazy events. It's not enough to push me to go after them.
(1) He’s a proud rapist who is actively legitimizing and normalizing rape.
(2) He thinks its cool to pretend to be a rapist and normalize rape, even though he isn’t himself a rapist.
While there’s a big difference if you are, say, prosecuting rape, both are reasonable grounds on which someone might decide not to support a creator’s output.
I have a different definition of “rape” seeing it thrown around so often. If a man can talk a woman into sex without blackmail, that’s fair game and to be honest I respect him for it. It’s the main thing I want o do in life, sleep with as many women as possible.
I know many pick up artists that are in a long-term relationship. The group that call themselves pick up artist is too heterogeneous to describe them as people that have ill intentions.
People that don’t know about hackers assign similar ill intentions to hackers, much in the same way as pick up artists.
But at HN we know that a hacker (criminal) is not a hacker (curious techie). The same goes for pick up artists (womanizers that are systematic about it with questionable ethics). You have a lot more pick up artists (men not being able to find relationships for years and deciding to fix that problem).
Both groups have members in them that do stupid and/or criminal things which is unfortunate.
No dude they are not the same. PUA stuff came out of a deeply misogynist internet subculture with close ties and many overlaps with far right activists, "red pill" violence, and ethnonationalism.
Plus it's just inherently manipulative and gross. I know no one on HN likes to hear a value judgement but seriously go take a look. And I'm sure someone will jump in with like "but it's not manipulation just acknowledging reality/it's empowering for shy nerds/whatever" and ok sure sure sure but no.
> I know no one on HN likes to hear a value judgement
I get it. When identity, sex and romance are concerned then emotions in oneself can run high. I definitely see it in my own comments. I feel closely to 3 groups which are: pick up artists, hackers and feminists. I am not alone in this, though definitely not a "majority". Whenever any of them are blanket statement attacked without any nuance, I offer a different perspective. I mostly have this with feminism since the idea of a pick up artist isn't used that often in Europe.
> Go take a look.
I did:
* Double Your Dating (the page on humor is cool, "attraction is not a choice", don't remember anything else)
* Juggler Method (learned about disqualification -- aka not taking things too seriously but then more methodically -- and statement of intent -- aka answering "why are you talking to me?" <-- and answering that truthfully and respectfully)
* Mystery Method (high level overview, peacocking and getting yourself in a sociable mood, discarded the rest -- no negging, no routines, Mystery Method is tricky, I had to read this very critically since he seems a bit deluded and IMO most people that read this book read it in the wrong way and start to become negging routine people. IMO, not a good thing. When I read this book I followed a course on ethics because being sharp on that subject is required.)
* Pickup 101 (lots of playfulness and improv)
* RSD (mostly Tim's stuff, which is high energy optimistic positivity, didn't connect with the rest, Tyler seems too "Cartman-like" to me)
Communities I've been part of:
* Almost all Dutch communities (had friendships with some of the members, mostly spiritual or super down to earth types)
* I've been to the 21 Convention in Stockholm (in 2008, which was the time where this was an active thing in my life)
That's the stuff I connected with. I read much more stuff that I didn't connect with. Some companies are deeply misogynist, but the participants aren't (well some are). The participants are the majority of the whole culture, a culture that's mostly silent (and a few loud people that then goes on to have all the media portrayals).
I've seen a few things happen in people their development path:
* Some people become misogynistic while they weren't at first
* Some people came in misogynistic and "sharpen their ways"
* Some people become spiritual (a subset even celibate), because they realize it's not about finding love and so on
* Some people develop a lot of hobbies and start to learn how to enjoy life (I love this group, you can tell they get a lot out of it)
* Some people find a relationship
* And finally there are some people that are still stuck with their old problem after years
I have no numbers, but to insinuate that most pick up artists are misogynistic requires that you've been in the seduction community and spoke to all kinds of people from all walks of life that did not take the center stage and did not appear in the media. Because it's those people that make up the 99% of the culture.
> many overlaps with far right activists, "red pill" violence, and ethnonationalism.
Another thing: US and EU differ. My perspective is EU, I make no claims about the US since I only know the "media side" from there. And yea, that's not a great side to see.
> Plus it's just inherently manipulative and gross.
No it's not. Before I did this, I was too serious with people. I still am. Now I am aware of it and can account for that. This means that people have more positive experiences with me. Moreover, it taught me more about empathy from an emotional point of view (through meditation, the most life changing thing I've experienced). Being optimistic, being positive, empathetic and doing meditation all came because I took a few pages from the pick up artist playbook. There's a lot in their playbook, these were the most important things that I took from it. I do agree that there are gross/manipulative ideas in there. I did my best to filter those out. I see a lot of men do that (and unfortunately also a sizeable group that didn't and straight up got culted into some pickup company's philosophy).
In other words: it depends, it's more nuanced, it's not inherently anything because reality is more complex than that.
Regardless of all that, the allegations (a rape trial, getting a hitchhiker to perform sex acts on him for $6 under the threat of being left in the middle of nowhere, among so many others) are pretty horrendous, no?
Yes they are. I wish no one would have to experience that. It scars people for life.
Slightly off topic, but this is even more so the case when children have to watch the abuse (due to living in a small house). Some kids will never be able to develop normally.
Source: I knew a lot of broken kids when I was their age.
also worth noting that some people go _well_ out of their way to express this point of view. There's even a subreddit dedicated to it (and at least once upon it was 'busy'). My issue is that it gives the impression that someone has a lot of free time and a serious axe to grind.
Nothing he is accused of is illegal, it may be reprehensible but I don't demand moral consistency of those that entertain me, just adherence to the social contract of law.
I'm not too surprised people spend time to express this point of view. I loved his channel but there was always something that felt a little off for me. One evening I launched a Google search wondering if I was the only one and found the subreddit. I stopped watching afterwards.
Do you realise if you want to be morally consistent like that then the only limiting factor is your ignorance? By that I mean its likely A LOT of the content you currently consume or products you use/buy are unethical in some way but you just don't know they are.
I'd like to suggest that if you're not trying to fog-bust your ignorance by personally auditing all your supply chains actively then that is also ethically inconsistent. To permit your own ignorance suggests that its more about how people perceive you to be supporting unethical brands (once the lack of ethics becomes clear) as opposed to one actually caring about the ethics.
I'd suggest your phrasing here backs that up.
Idk, that's just too exhausting a mentality for me to handle tbh. I don't think its my job to force everyone in the world to conform to my precise standards, I think there's value in being able to trade with those I wouldn't consider friend.
I mean lets spin it another way, you think the people Bald meets in his videos are all "good people"? A lot of them likely have issues in one way or another but we can celebrate that they're friendly and hospitable and that Bald is going out there and showing us that part of the world which we typically wouldn't see. Lets not forget that its likely that Bald is probably one of the more progressive individuals in his videos. I think that context matters a bit.
It doesn't sorry, I rather mean that one is forcing a personal sense of morality on one's supply chain, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. But what is bad is that one only drops what is advertised to them as being bad which makes one think it was never about the sense of morality in the first place.
The implication being that every single supply chain is bad (e.g. cobalt mining in DRC) but we conveniently just don't uncover everything because we'd have to drop too much. We're terrified (to an extent) to accept the negative impact our existence has in this world so pursue a dream of moral purity to escape that harrowing reality.
Bald is a sex tourist so we'll never watch his channel but where is our cobalt mined from? As long as we don't know (our ignorance gives us plausible deniability) we can keep buying products that indirectly kill children while still showing everyone how good we are by not watching Bald's content. I think there's a hypocrisy here because I think relatively speaking Bald is acceptable but to purge him and just permit the rest (because the subjects are more boring or more distant) I think is bullshit.
I readily accept that the reality is harrowing, but I don't agree that just sharing information about some potentially immoral thing is anything like the pursuit of some state of moral purity. Is it not better that individuals try to make supposed moral decisions where possible, even if they ultimately fall short?
It seems that in order to function one must come to terms with the fact that existence is a moral balancing act and that we all do immoral things. I accept that I own many things that likely caused others suffering. I have had a fascination with the DRC for a number of years and am acutely aware of what goes on there, yet I bought a new phone last year and a laptop the year before that. I accept the hypocrisy. But I am still glad people share information about what happens there. Whilst most of us will ignore it, some person or people better than me may be able to use that information to enact some positive change. At least the conversation can occur.
It is also a harsh reality that the less abstracted the situation, the easier it is for humans to face up to their own sense of morality. For whatever reason having intimate knowledge of a person is more impactful than hearing that an item you purchased was manufactured using some material that was mined by a nameless individual thousands of miles away. Right or wrong, we attach more weight to our judgements of others when a more direct connection can be made. It seems to me unrealistic to ignore that humans operate in this way.
Ultimately the intention of my original comment was not to tell people what to do, nor to judge, nor to demonstrate virtue. I was just sharing information so others could also make an informed decision. I chose not to watch his channel based on my own personal moral compass and my own boundaries of inconvenience.
I'm with you there, I just wish people had this level of energy in regards to things like having Saudi Arabia as an ally. We take the zero effort to stop watching this Youtuber but when we're at the pump we're mostly not thinking about the suffering of women in Saudi Arabia. You're right that there's this metric of distance that appears to matter in these calculations.
Sex in which “consent” is derived through a combination of cash payment and coercive threats is illegal on at least one and often two independent bases in most jurisdictions.
well that's new. When I was reading the subreddit it was only about questionable posts he (allegedly) made in some pick up forum like a decade prior about offering women money for sex.
I dunno, but I was hoping the comments on the story would offer some insight into the region. But half of them are gossip about some random youtuber who went there once.
Yes, it would be more helpful, if they would not talk about these Youtuber's as they'd be our next door buddies but be a more explicit: The Guy's channel is named "Bald and Bankrupt", he is from the UK and travels a lot, which he documents on Youtube. The link to the video is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR_eA_c_Yts
agreed, and even more sensible would be to just think in regions. Bosporus, Black Sea and the Mediterranean are natural boundaries for the European region, the Himalayas are the natural boundaries between East/Central and South Asia, the Saharan / Arabian / Afghan and Kazakh deserts and steppes are natural boundaries of the Middle East / North African region. Whenever a civilization has tried to cross over from one of those regions into the other, big world events ensued.
The Ural mountains divide Europe from Asia. It can also be argued that the division of Europe from the Mid East (East Med) is between Christianity and Islam.
I can't help but think that the whole distinction between Europe and Asia is based on European pride and racism. It definitely makes sense to divide them from a cultural perspective, but a geological one? Come on.
I don't quite get why "country" in the title here is in quotes - even though not an independent state, it's a country the same way Wales or Scotland is a country.
I wish this could be shown higher. Sadly they have already replaced "country" with "region" despite it in fact is a country like Scotland is (or at least a state like California is).
By the way Tatarstan, another country in the Russian Federation even is officially a "sovereign state integrated with Russia". There even are such things as citizenship and constitution of Tatarstan.
It seems weird Buddhism is such a minor religion in Europe while it is so rational, based on individual experience (rather than belief) gained through reproducible applied self-regulation techniques, backed by neuroscience and explained with consistent philosophical logic.
Western/secular Buddhism popularized in the west is generally not the same as Buddhism practiced in Buddhist countries. The actual Buddhist religion teachings can include, depending on the branch:
- Hell and heaven realms where you can get reincarnated into if you've lived an especially bad or good life
- Various gods and demons
- A timeline spanning trillions of years and hundreds of Buddhas
- "Celestial Buddhas" that came from space
- Enlightenment is now impossible in this world because it's too corrupt. If you chant enough, this or that Buddha will reincarnate you into their personal realm where you can become enlightened.
The majority of Buddhists in the world believe and teach these things. The modern secular western Buddhist community is sort of like a Theravada-lite in my opinion. Theravada already doesn't have a lot of the above, but they do have reincarnation, different realms, magic powers, etc. In the west the Four Noble Truths and Noble Eightfold Path are emphasized while chanting, ritual, etc. as well as supernatural beliefs are downplayed.
So when you say that Buddhism is rational and consistent, you're referring to a westernized version of it. In my opinion, what Siddhartha Gautama actually taught, or at least what early Buddhism seems to have been, is somewhat close to the pared-down westernized version of Buddhism, just in a Hindu context and belief system due to the time and location of the teachings. But this set of teachings is NOT the same as the religion of Buddhism as practiced by most Buddhists.
All that being said, something real is in the core teachings. You don't have to take anyone's word for it. You don't have to have faith in anything. Just learn to look inside, and see for yourself.
In addition, Buddhism monasticism in at least the first millennium and a half of its life was simultaneously cloistered off from the laypeople, but also very much of it - individual monks owned and invested property and so did the monasteries themselves. Buddhism did not glorify poverty for laypeople - instead the idea was to be wealthy and support the monastics. That's why Buddhism was so popular among merchants, who spread it from India into Afghanistan, and through the Silk Road on to China. (A sea route south-east was also taken at the same time.)
In first millennium China, Buddhist monasteries owned up to 20% of the country's land. Enormous tracts of forest were cut down to supply the wood to build monasteries, temples, towers, and more. Buddhist monasteries even owned slaves to work their lands.
For much of this period, certificates of Buddhist monk-hood were sold by the state or sub-state actors like dukes and princesses to quickly raise money. These certificates got one out of forced labor, which was often used to build Buddhist structures. (Forced labor was a common state inducement for all sorts of reasons in this time.) The explosion of "monks" led to crackdowns, stripping those who couldn't recite sutras or hadn't shaved their head of their privilege. Those with certificates were often exempt from certain taxes, though this privilege was only certain for those at imperial monasteries.
Sources:
"Buddhism in Chinese Society: An Economic History From the Fifth to the Tenth Centuries"
By Jacques Gernet
"The Buddha's Footprint: An Environmental History of Asia"
By Johan Elverskog
The same also happened with Daoism. The West took the philosophical part and ignored for many years the cultural aspects, belief system, and worshipping rituals (i.e., the religion) behind it. Until some scientists pointed out (quite recently actually, if I remember correctly) that you cannot just do that.
I don't know much about Daoism and Buddhism, but I know a guy who compliments people in the West who claim to be Daoists on their excellent Chinese. Most of them don't get the joke (it seems many important texts have never been translated).
Concerning Buddhism, don't certain sub-branches of Zen buddhism come quite close to the Western "no magic" version?
I am not super familiar with Zen, but my understanding is "yes, sort of". Zen come from Mahayana path and I believe it retains those teachings and cosmology, but it's not as central. Looking at it on Wikipedia, it looks like Zen is all about teaching enlightenment with very little importance placed on much else, so in that regard, yes.
Equally, the branch of Protestant Christianity commonly practiced in North America is pretty far from the Christianity practiced in the the Middle East, or Africa, or even big swathes of Europe. Disparate cultures often put their own spin on things, and it's no surprise the relatively rational-secular West put a rational-secular spin on Buddhism.
Indeed, it stretches the imagination to suggest that Jesus would even be welcome in many American churches... he provided free health care for sex workers, for crying out loud
> Hell and heaven realms where you can get reincarnated into if you've lived an especially bad or good life
The hells (there are many cold hot and cold hells) and heavens and other realms of the dharmaic cosmology are important metaphors making a lot of philosophical/psychological sense. You can easily tell where are you supposed to reincarnate if you are sufficiently self-aware. Once you practice enough you can become more or less free from the tendencies of your mind which are meant to put you there or there and this will improve your overall health, mood and productivity. You can even realize that you already are living in particular realm actually despite living in the same world everybody else is from the physical point of view.
> Enlightenment is now impossible in this world because it's too corrupt. If you chant enough, this or that Buddha will reincarnate you into their personal realm where you can become enlightened.
Also makes sense: it indeed is very hard (if at all possible) to become completely free from how your neural system is preconditioned to react to what happens around. And if you feel bad about this you better chant than panic or do unpleasant things other religions followers might believe they should to do.
Also, no matter how much mythology does Buddhism contain, that comes packed with very practical and objective goodies, readily available to everybody interested. Buddhists would teach you to maintain mental health and wouldn't label you a heretic if you ignore parts of the teachings or interpret them your own way (unless you start propagating your unorthodox views too aggressively). Isn't this nice?
In reading the pali cannon I was struck by how the society the buddha lived in seemed so tolerant of different religions and thought. he was a bramin, he was an ascetic, he was able to leave and join these groups freely without suffering any consequences, and it didn't seem like others particularly cared if he were a bramin or an ascetic or following the teachings of some other holy man. Everyone he studied under basically levels with him that they are on the same quest, looking for a decent philosophy to subscribe to, sampling the field in the process and trying different things, engaging in discussions with people of different ideas. It read almost like the situation in western countries today, where people might try out different churches or take classes covering different religions freely, without societal judgement, or even have no strong religious convictions at all. The teachings described are basically cognitive behavioral therapy, but framed in the philosophical language they were using back then which was theological. It almost reads like the budhha was a depressed person in existential crisis until he had his moment of enlightenment, and the other teachers and followers he met along the way were similarly depressed people looking for a treatment in a world where there wasn't one.
Plenty -- most? -- forms of Buddhism also have tons of mysticism, gods, reincarnation, and other stuff that would have to compete with Europe's other religious traditions.
What you're saying is sort of like reducing Christianity to "love thy neighbor" and wondering why that didn't catch on wherever people are nice.
I'm in a Buddhist country right now, and I really dig it, and I'm learning all kinds of awesome things about how people live -- but I'm not sure I'd say the locals are more rational than the Europeans. Nor would I say the Europeans are necessarily more rational than anybody else... maybe "performative rationalism" would be a good term?
As a child I had a subconscious assumption that Christianity wasn't rational, and maintained that view into my mid-twenties. Thankfully, I had the drive to do research on it, and an open enough mind to accept it, because I was ready to reject Christianity completely for a short period. I know this view isn't popular, but today, I see Christianity as the most rational philosophy/religion out there.
I think it's been wrongfully misconstrued as irrational by people who don't really understand the religion, inside and out.
Speaking as an Atheist, Christianity gets a very bad rap from popular culture and because of the fact that so many people in the west know about it's core tenets but they only have a casual understanding of the theology. And thus, it's much more readily criticized.
On that subject the blog undivided looking touches on using applied history and theology to rationalize Christianity. It appeals to my sense of mrationality at least.
I took a look at that blog, but it doesn't seem historical at all to me (for example, I can't think of any historian that dates the synoptics to before 70 AD). I also can't say I'm a fan of the way he treats other denominations of Christianity as non-Christian religions.
For a good historical look at Christianity, I'd recommend people look into the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean podcast, the NT Pod podcast, or, for the old testament, the writings of Mark S. Smith (you can also find lectures of his on Youtube).
I would recommend that blog as well; it is among my favorite places on the internet. Aron's writings have had a huge and very positive impact in my life.
"Belief in creation by God" is not mutually exclusive with believing that the Big Bang model correctly describes the structure and evolution of the universe. Belief in creation by God is not another option among an array of cosmological models, since it is not even a scientific model.
Anyway, I'm trying to understand what you mean my there not being a difference in leaps of faith required…
"Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. […] By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."
Perhaps there are scientists that depend on a certain model not being proven incorrect for their own research to be viable, then, they might hope for something that they do not see. If (<- not biconditional ;p) that model stands on a solid basis they might even have confidence and some assurance about its truth. Is this somewhat what you mean?
In any case, I don't think that believing that a certain cosmological model is correct requires someone to be confident with regards to it. The currently predominant model might not be 100% right and that's perfectly fine. Thus, "belief in other cosmologies" might not require one to have faith while the verse quoted above states that it is through faith that someone understands that God is behind the creation.
(Unless you want to say that confidence in the scientific method is required for belief in a scientific model, but then, confidence in history (or God!) might be required on the other side as well, and so on).
Then, at least 1 more leap of faith is required, wouldn't you say? I'm not sure, tbh. :-)
But then, faith being involved in a process is not necessarily wrong (nor necessarily good).
The big bang is a scientific hypothesis. You don't have to believe in it. You can accept it because it was proven, reject because it was disproven or suspend your judgement in between.
Yes, but in practice who follows it to that level of detail?
From a layperson's point of view, are the astrophysicists that much different than a priestly caste?
I believe the physicists, but I don't think that by itself makes me a particularly rigorous thinker. In the ancient world I probably would have believed the priests, because it was what made sense to people.
And for better or for worse we have lots of evidence that people can reject science and still enjoy its benefits. It's not like refusing to believe in the Big Bang gets you blacklisted from using rockets or microchips, or rejecting evolution means you can't get vaccinated.
If I hypothesize that a blue Honda Civic was the origin of space, time and the known universe, physical evidence that blue Honda Civics exist does absolutely nothing to confirm or refute my hypothesis.
Christians have always been 1/3 scholar, 1/3 philosopher, and 1/3 priest.
The premise of Christianity is "revelation". That a higher power revealed knowledge to humans that is not knowable by any other means.
That there is revealed knowledge has meant that Christians spend much of their time thinking about and working out the implications of their revealed knowledge and trying to fit it into the rest of the world.
How rational you find Christianity depends on willing you are to accept it's premise. If you are then it is completely rational. If you aren't then it is nothing but castles built in the clouds.
What knowledge would that be? At least in these Catholicism-dominated parts, that knowledge seems to look something like "you better watch it because you're a sinner and might end up burning in hell, except that Jesus saved you because he loves you, but for some reason despite being saved you are still a sinner and might end up burning in hell". You kind of sound like that's not the premise you mean.
The whole "Catholic guilt" thing is of often pointed to as some whacky vehicle of control, which is a total mischaracterization of what that perspective is meant to do.
Many religions and philosophers understand the idea that humans are not basically good people. They are generally self centered and not sacrificial. So to say that Catholicism or Christianity is strange for placing emphasis on our "fallenness" is a little unfair IMHO.
The daily struggle of a Christian is to strive to rid one's self of their sinful desires (selfish / evil) and live as Christ commands. This a continual process, and one that cannot be stopped. If one just "gets tired" of being a Christian, and lives differently, then they are in danger of losing their salvation.
I only go into this detail to illustrate that there is more to "Catholic guilt" than a flippant "critique".
> The daily struggle of a Christian is to strive to rid one's self of their sinful desires (selfish / evil) and live as Christ commands. This a continual process, and one that cannot be stopped. If one just "gets tired" of being a Christian, and lives differently, then they are in danger of losing their salvation.
How is this not a vehicle of control? It steers you in the direction of behaving the way Christianity prescribes for fear of the ultimate bad consequence which is losing your salvation.
"Be nice to each other" is preached by every other world religion, as well as being at the center of many non-religious world views. The fact that we can and should be nice to each other to make the world a better place can hardly be what the grandparent meant by "knowledge to humans that is not knowable by any other means", which was what I was really asking about.
Thanks for your perspective. You're certainly selling it better than the Catholic Church is. (You won't be surprised to hear that I'm not buying into the whole thing either way.)
The roman branch of christianity (from which Roman Catholicism and protestantism arise) are hugely influenced by lawyers and roman law, which emphasises sinning and punishment a lot. If you are a sinner your priest is a parole officer.
The eastern christianity still recognises sin, but treats it more like a disease, the priest is more of a doctor.
I find this more appealing from a philosophical point of view, yet I lack any reason to believe.
> I think it's been wrongfully misconstrued as irrational by people who don't really understand the religion, inside and out.
You mean by 99.9% of the people. I have no doubt there is everything one may need to get enlightened in Christianity also but Christians have seemingly done amazing job obscuring that. And I can't recognize Christianity as rational because it requires you to just believe all the way through (in Buddhism as I know it believing is considered harmful, you are meant to experience it yourself and even then you are considered a fool if you start believing).
It is rational to say that creature won. It is not rational to worship it out of love, which Christians began doing. Whatever it is, it does not act in the interest of mankind.
Perhaps people experience cognitive dissonance when reconciling the things that you mentioned with beliefs about reincarnation?
I am relying on a rather common and uninformed understanding of Buddhism here, so I may be way off base.
EDIT:
I had to look it up, but I guess European culture has contained some sort of belief in reincarnation (Plato's Republic, Book X / Myth of Er). I don't suppose this belief has much traction anymore, despite the strong influence of Plato (or Greek philosophy in general) on Christianity.
> Perhaps people experience cognitive dissonance when reconciling the things that you mentioned with beliefs about reincarnation?
Reincarnation was the only thing to come into my mind when I heard "buddhism" when I was a schoolboy. I had zero idea of what else is Buddhism about back then. Later, as I learnt more I found out (or came to an opinion) "reincarnation" itself is a fairly unimportant concept. Perhaps it is only there to attract/repel public and to be another target for becoming indifferent to as you progress.
It may also be beneficial to imagine you being reincarnated in a particular realm of existence and contemplating what you would experience. Imagine you are going to heaven where you are going to live millennia never forgetting... that you are going to hell after that, inevitably, like for real, and try to come in peace with that. That would be an exercise.
It's not reinkarnation. It's rebirth. Buddhism explicitly rejects the idea of a soul so reinkarnation would be very strange. Rebirth is something else that can be difficult to explain...
Have you been to Europe? Many countries there masquerade as the developed nations seen in Northwest and Central Europe, while actually unaffiliated countries around the world aspire to be seen as developed.
A lot of irrational things happen at the cultural and state level in Europe, with an iron thumb of redundancy keeping those silly states in check.
I can recognize no problem in this. To me this seems a particularly rational way to die once you feel it's time to. Dying the traditionally western way - suddenly, following disability and sickness, seems way more scary.
A lot of secular buddhists tend to identify as humanists instead. It's a very popular saying: "Don't use buddhism to become a buddhist. Use buddhism to become a better whatever you are."
I always find it quite embarrassing when right-wing politicians here in Germany come up with this or that does not belong to Europe. In all cases this only shows their geographical and historical ignorance. Kalmykia is a good example. Most of these politicians have never understood that Buddism has been part of Europe for centuries. My favorite example, however, is that they mostly do not know that we have had a permanent Muslim settlement in Europe since the Middle Ages, which is on the same latitude as Edinburgh and Copenhagen: the territory of the former Khanate of Kazan.[1]
While Kalmyk Buddhism is geographically in Europe, it is in a very peripheral part of the continent with virtually no impact on European culture in general. So, it is still reasonable to claim that Buddhism is something foreign to Europe. After all, Buddhism only began to have a real impact culturally in the 19th century with translated literature coming from India and East Asia, not Kalmykia.
With regard to Islam in geographical Europe, yes there is Tatarstan (and bits of adjacent regions), but Muscovy conquered that Muslim power in the mid 16th century and subsequently made it very clear that while Islam exists there, it is only at the mercy of Christian rulers. Historically, during the tsarist era Muslims were forbidden from trying to convert the Christian population.
Perhaps a better example of "Muslims have been in Europe for a long time" (excepting Ottoman converts, as they are seen as forced conversions/uninvited guests/traitors by nationalist demagogues) would be those Tatars (same name as the Kazan Tatars but not closely related) who settled in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, but again their impact on the surrounding culture was minuscule, and ultimately they assimilated into the Slavic-speaking Christian population.
People who're upset about people abandoning old traditions in favour of imported ones should probably aim their ire at their own grandparents, for embracing U.S. and British rock'n'roll culture, rather than local traditions.
It's not like the majority stopped going to church because someone else built a mosque.
Also, we need to get history back as an major part of the curriculum - societies start doing dumb stuff when they forget their own past.
It is also a bit embarrassing not being able to differentiate between Europe (as a geographical part of the eurasian contintent) and Europe (as region with common history and values, only a small geographical part of the continent). It is the same way when talking about America. One can assume from the context whether it is about the USA or the continent)
If you want to have fun with right-wing politicians that blabber about "our Christian roots", just ask them how they feel about Christianity being a subset of Judaism.
It is also worth noting that the Iberian peninsula where it is now Spain was an Arab region for 800 some years. The Spanish language is full of words with Arab roots and Arab culture is everywhere in Spain.
It is funny to see the right wing politics trying to preserve this national Spanish heritage that they came up with.
Andalusia/Al-Andalus is probably not the best counter-example, as it became Islamic through an invasion. Also, much of Andalusia was actually Berber (from northern Africa) as well as Arabic.
Yeah, it's never about politicians' "ignorance" or lack of knowledge. That's irrelevant. It's about their assertion and what alignments it creates with their base. Constantly correcting these kind of assertions without addressing what they're doing just adds to the noise.
Your religion has no impact on your citizenship or rights. It's what sets Europe apart and that's what should make right wing extremists proud not Christian heritage.
Not quite. Church tax in one matter. Also Muslim women wearing headscarfs are discriminated in access to certain positions in government service e.g. at school, at courts etc.
Muslim headscarves are banned because we're a secular state and the state has to be neutral in religious matters. The Christian Democratic Union would never discriminate on the basis of religion.
There is a cross in every classroom because the previous sentence was an obvious lie.
True neutrality/freedom of religion would let people make personal choices about religous clothing. I'm not surprised that France has something so ridiculous but I'm somewhat disappointed that Germany would also fail to understand this
I think you misunderstood me. Of course it's the opposite of neutrality -- that's merely a fig leaf because Christianity isn't officially the state religion so conservative politicians cannot directly ban headscarves for being unchristian.
To call that bend on the Volga where Kazan is located Europe shows how much you need to stretch the facts to support that view. Citing Bosnia might have helped your point better, I guess.
How about this, then: the region we're talking about is right in the homeland of the Yamnaya people, AKA the people who spoke Proto-Indo-European, and the ancestors of all Europeans. ("region between the Southern Bug, Dniester, and Ural rivers" as per WP)
In terms of genetics, the R1b haplogroup spread from that region, and is the most common haplogroup among modern Europeans.
So, if you're European or European-descended, many of your ancestors lived there a few thousand years ago. And the language you just wrote in traces its ancestry back to that region (as does German)
EDIT: The point of what I wrote is just that the ethno-linguistic composition of regions is very fluid, and drawing lines around a region and saying "this is what German is" (or whatever) is just a dumb exercise when you put it in historical context. (My own ancestors include many in Alsace, so I'm keenly aware of this -- what's "French"? what's "German"?). Essentialism is dumb.
If someone talks about “Europe” they are not referring to “anything west of the Urals”, they mean Germany, France etc, possibly Hungary, Slovakia etc or, if they are feeling generous, Ukraine and Belarus.
It has never happened that two people were chatting about “European culture and values” and had the khanate of Kazan in mind.
Isn’t that exactly the point? There is a geographic Europe which is much larger and more diverse than NATO Europe, the EU, or Christian Europe like to admit.
What is the point about that? Nobody is worried about "geographic Europe", people care about actual Europe, not some technical term.
If someone is worried that Arab Muslims, or for that matter Arab Christians, will not assimilate into European culture and are incompatible with European values, how is it even remotely relevant that there is a tiny federal subject in what is technically European Russia where there's a lot of Muslims?
Only someone entirely unfamiliar with Europe would think this makes any difference. If you want to talk about Islam, focus instead on Bosnia, in the heart of Europe. While definitely not without their issues, comparing Bosniaks and Assyrians show that culture is more relevant than religion when it comes to integration.
I happen to be Orthodox, and having lived in Russia I can say that the answer varies depending on context. Most of the time Europe is the "other". European standard means high quality, "My brother works in Europe", a "European car" etc. Even when contrasting Russia with very exotic cultures most people wouldn't see Russia as part of Europe, they just say "Japan is different from Russia", not "from Europe". And I'm not sure it's a very meaningful question either.
What is clear is that there are very few cases where people would consider Kazan European. I haven't been there, but I highly doubt they feel very European, in any sense. And there are exactly 0 cases where anyone ever would find it _representative_ of "Europe", and that is what we are discussing here.
It simply doesn't make sense to say "There are Muslims in Kazan and that is technically Europe so anyone objecting to Arab Muslims in Munich is wrong". That's just a silly argument.
I've also lived in Jordan and I can tell you that Muslims there don't feel any particular connection with those in Kazan. Circassians may perhaps feel differently, I don't know.
Physical geography defines practical transportation links. But political geography also limits or forbids movement. Much of Russia's reactionary violence in Georgia, Ukraine, etc. is generated by fear that a thick "European" border will sever "Russian" regions from their own Moscow-centered physical-political network.
Religious geography has a similar influence as a legacy of history and empire.
And so, the distinctions between geographic Europe, EU Europe, Nato Europe, and Catholic/Protestant Europe are extremely relevant.
Three of those definitions more or less overlap, and one doesn't. You can see which one, can't you?
Which, in the interest of not fucking up language more than it already is, IMO shows that the definition that sticks out should be aligned -- or rather, newfangled BS as it is, re -aligned! -- with the other ones.
For those who didn't get what I'm talking about: The current "geographical definition of Europe" is a weird recent ("early-PC-era"?) invention. When I went to school, I learned in Geography that the highest mountain in Europe is Mont Blanc; nowadays, many sources claim it's Mt Elbrus. Yeah, and Turkey and Israel compete in the Eurovision Song Contest... Fricking Australia does! Just because you call something European doesn't actually make it European.
It sort of makes sense culturally and historically to define Europe as the part that falls in the sphere of influence of the Catholic Church and its protestant spinoffs. After all, Ukraine is not thought to mean 'borderland' for nothing.
I still prefer the geographic definition, but this is a close second.
I just think the conventional definition of Europe makes sense. Narrower definitions are too ephemeral for my taste, with countries constantly being absorbed into and breaking out of empires as they wax and wane, whereas the Ural mountains aren't going anywhere soon.
That said, to address the point that started the discussion, I think it's just silly to use "there exists some Muslim country somewhere else" as some kind of gotcha against German critics of Islam. The Ottomans were milling around Vienna for a long time, that's a whole lot closer than either Bosnia or Kazan.
Not even that can be taken for granted anymore. I was once harassed by French border police for being in the line for European (not EU, the sign definitely said European and not Union) nationals with a Norwegian passport.
All this is because humans prefer to generalize rather than be precise and this applies to both left and right.
Right, because Islam is an old religion and has been a part of Europe (and other continents) for centuries; these native Muslim communities are in general well-integrated and have a rich history; they have nothing to do with ISIS-style extremism. There are peaceful Muslim communities often react immediately when a crime is committed in the name of their religion.
Left, because "all cultures are equal" it's a convenient lie t with no connection to reality. There are toxic, terrible cultures where some members mutilate others, for example. Sometimes these atrocities are related to religion, sometimes not. Whether we allow some of these customs to take root in Western societies should be a matter of public debate, not a political decision that future generations will have to deal with.
When you say that all cultures are equal is a lie, do you mean that there are cultures that are better than others? Maybe you mean that there are certain aspects of some cultures that are worth abandoning and some others worth preserving. Do you think there is nothing left to improve in Western culture?
> When you say that all cultures are equal is a lie, do you mean that there are cultures that are better than others? Maybe you mean that there are certain aspects of some cultures that are worth abandoning and some others worth preserving.
Yes, I mean both. There are some cultures with a strong aspect of physical violence that is almost a defining factor (for the members of these groups). Taken together, these aspects sometimes far outweigh the positive ones.
> Do you think there is nothing left to improve in Western culture?
There is a lot to learn from. A bigger concern is that Western culture and related values are extremely invasive and try to dominate all other cultures so there is less and less of originality left with everything getting westernized. But we must not be afraid of criticizing these aspects of any culture that involve violence against others (this could be anyone - outsiders, other tribes, family members of given gender etc.).
A cherry culture is definitely better than a potato culture. Between humans however as a philosopher once said: The worm that he thinks is the better between his kind will suddenly became man.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism