Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The two Christian saints who are the Buddha

signoregalilei.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 189 posts

Re: The two Christian saints who are the Buddha

#31

Post by darepublic »

xutopia wrote: post #10

This reminds me so much of the Raglan hero archetype rank: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rank–Raglan_hero_archetype So many stories, many people believe are true and build whole religions around, are really just repeated stories with many details changed to fit the local culture and traditions. It's crazy so many of the world's politics and problems stem from what might actually just be the same story said in a diffe…

Politics and problems don't stem from the story. The story is an after the fact rationalization

Re: The two Christian saints who are the Buddha

#33

Post by anon291 »

3m4r wrote: post #8

The Therapeutae sect is another good example of this phenomenon, although because it touches the root of several Abrahamic traditions so thoroughly, scholars and others are much less likely to declare an authoritative relation between between early Buddhism and the Therapeutae. However, anyone who has more than a passing familiarity with the history of early Buddhism, the Therapeutae, and the religious developments o…

Christian and Buddhist monastic traditions are so uncannily similar it's difficult to really think they developed without influence. That's my opinion. Even the Europeans who first set foot in Asia during the age of discovery thought they were being played tricks on, so I don't think it's that wild an idea

Re: The two Christian saints who are the Buddha

#35

Post by oreally »

wiradikusuma wrote: post #13

"Christianity in particular has a history of absorbing other religions’ traditions" -- Tangentially related: I'm a Catholic, so I don't know much about other "distros", but the Roman Catholic Church has a long, pragmatic history of absorbing local traditions in Indonesia. It's interesting dynamic. Catholic Church is notoriously top-down and hierarchical, yet local parishes can feel entirely distinct. It's not uncommo…

I'd think you overrate christianity too much. Javanese culture is known to be very welcoming of other traditions.

Re: The two Christian saints who are the Buddha

#36

Post by adolph »

Guestmodinfo wrote: post #27

Get your facts correct. Buddha was more than 600 BC focus on the word "Before" while Christians and the Christian saints came after Christ. Don't be an intellectual hodgepodge

The article isn't an explicit claim that these Christians were the Buddha, but that the story told about them is an apparent retelling of the Sidhartha story. It closes with:

  All this tells me that there’s something about our relationship with the divine and the sacred that transcends individual eras and places. A place or a festival or a story that appeals to our common senses of awe or morality or wisdom can reach people of any faith tradition. Perhaps they’ll interpret it through their own lens, of course. But in the end, isn’t that all we have?

Re: The two Christian saints who are the Buddha

#37

Post by heresie-dabord »

gwbas1c wrote: post #19
ck2 wrote: post #16

the fun-fact about any religion is since they are all completely made up, if you don't like the rules you can just make your own rules or religion however in certain countries this gets you executed or imprisoned

Religion is very closely tied to social support structures: You can only "make one up" if the people who you are close with go along with you.

> Religion is very closely tied to power structures

Fixed it for you, Sir.

Re: The two Christian saints who are the Buddha

#38

Post by phyzix5761 »

broken-kebab wrote: post #29
phyzix5761 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its called syncretism. The Greeks and Romans have been doing it since the time of Alexander the Great.

Syncretism is mixing religions (as doctrines, beliefs). Assimilating local traditions into one's religious rituals is not that.

"It can include assimilation of several originally discrete traditions, especially in theology and mythology, thus asserting an underlying unity and allowing for an inclusive approach to multiple faiths."

"...in the realm of religion, it specifically denotes a more integrated merging of beliefs into a unified system, distinct from eclecticism, which implies a selective adoption of elements from different traditions without necessarily blending them into a new, cohesive belief system."

"It provides an opportunity to bring beliefs, values, and customs from one cultural tradition into contact with, and to engage different cultural traditions."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretism

Re: The two Christian saints who are the Buddha

#39

Post by rimeice »

I find it incredible how many people have died in the name of minor variations in their monotheistic beliefs that are all based on the same foundational stories and yet here is a one of those foundational stories that has totally non-theistic source. I struggle with the hypocrisy of religion sometimes.

Re: The two Christian saints who are the Buddha

#40

Post by mightyham »

ajross wrote: post #20
mightyham wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In particular" could also be interpreted here as just signaling the main subject of the article, not necessarily making any sort of claim to comparative amount of syncretism.

Editor snobbery digression: that would be poor writing. The job of signaling the main subject of the article belongs to the headline and lede, and "Christian saints" is right there. No, that phrase is just filler. And IMHO it's basically wrong. Certainly if the author want to show that Christianity is more likely than other religions to import ideas, the article has a lot more work to do than point out one myth. Lite…

This is a really pedantic editorial argument. I'm not going to claim the author's sentence is anything amazing, but you are being overly critical. The paragraph clearly introduces the general concept of religious influence through contact, then transitions that idea to pointing out instances of this in Christianity. It is quite literally particularizing the idea as it relates to the main subject, and so it uses the phrase "in particular" in its transition sentence. It's not "basically wrong", it's basically right and you are interpreting it in the least charitable way.
Post reply on HN