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

181–189 of 189 posts

Re: The two Christian saints who are the Buddha

#181

Post by kshri24 »

ux266478 wrote: post #90
dyauspitr wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think anything assimilates religions better than Hinduism. New belief system? Just throw in a new avatar of Vishnu to legitimize it and carry on.

Even that doesn't cover it. Vaishnavism, though the most popular branch, is only one Hindu denomination. Shaktism and Shaivism don't give Vishnu the preeminant status he's given in Vaishnavism. "Hinduism" at this point in time indicates a tradition cares about some subset and some interpretation of the Vedic texts, which doesn't actually entail all that much.

There is a term for it. It's called "sect".

> some interpretation of the Vedic texts, which doesn't actually entail all that much

If you studied the Vedas you would know why this issue exists in the first place. The Vedas talk of One Supreme Brahman who should be given Havis during a Yajna. The dispute between the sects is on who the Supreme Brahman is identified as. Every name in the Vedas is but a name of the Supreme. Vyasa composed the Brahma Sutras to unravel it. But then, as is the case with Dharmics, we have around 30+ commentaries on the Brahma Sutras itself. This, coupled with commentaries on Prasthanatrayi as well as interpretation of Puranas created sects.

All of them come within the umbrella term of Hinduism as all of it is Dharmic and native to the Indian subcontinent.

Re: The two Christian saints who are the Buddha

#182

Post by Woodi »

1659447091 wrote: post #168
indoordin0saur wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting that in religion back then they took the idea of the gods' existence as an obvious fact. So when they encountered other people with different gods they assumed that they were actually the same gods, just by different names. If they encountered civilized/intelligent people with different mythologies it meant either that those people knew something the Greeks previously didn't or they had just gotten e…

> So when they encountered other people with different gods they assumed that they were actually the same gods, just by different names. [...] It was more like two people with different, but honest, accounts of an event in the remote past trying to reconcile their own limited recollection or view point. And not just with the classic Greek/Roman Gods. The similarities between Pandora and Eve, the Flood myths[0] like D…

There is nothing wrong with stories that purpose is to give you wisdom. Try to study few theological comments on eg. Genesis book from eg. "desert fathers" :)

In Bible we have stories, songs, history (that cruel part), teachings, prophecies and straight jurnalists like researched relations of Someone life and words.

Think about that: Church know that some stories are older myths and did not removed them from official books. Why ? Becouse religion is much serious thing that some industrialized system. At least for Christians. And "history" can only help to true seekers - why censor the truth, what someone did ? Learn in what "context" things was done and how it looks on others doings background and what was later and what you can learn from all of that. But someone with bad intensions can't be bothered to think much...

And about shape-shifting :) a) if omnipotent God exists than He can do miraculous things, right ? b) that magical creatures are usually described in books that are stories or prophecies not historical one. In case of doubt look a) ;)

Anyway: there is _insane_ amount of wisdom in Christianity teachings, even for atheists.

And if God is True then finally everything He done will be explained as good and just - logic :) There is 'if' there because faith is important. IMO without faith there is no free will - humans are not like angels that just know and decide only once...

Re: The two Christian saints who are the Buddha

#183

Post by danans »

geye1234 wrote: post #176
danans wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> or the caste system (unthinkable in Islam or Christianity, a base part of reality in Hinduism), etc. The historical prominence of the slave trade in both the Christian and Islamic worlds should make it quite clear that it was hardly "unthinkable" but instead very rationalizable. Rigid systems of social power hierarchy and oppression based on ancestry, perceived race, and occupation (which is a lot of what the worst…

Right, but that proves nothing. The fact that human beings who profess religion R engage in behaviour B does not imply that B results from said profession of R. But I think you'd struggle to argue that the caste system doesn't result from Hinduism.

> But I think you'd struggle to argue that the caste system doesn't result from Hinduism.

The "Hindu" caste system results from the history of social hierarchy in the Indian subcontinent. What you are calling "Hinduism" is a relatively recent construct that has emerged as a response to religions with more centralized/uniform doctrines and institutions. There are belief systems categorized under this "Hinduism" label that overtly reject caste systems (and have done so for centuries), while others overtly uphold it.

Other societies also have caste systems, just differently rationalized than the one present in some belief systems that fall under the "Hindu" banner. I'm not excusing any of these systems whether Hindu or not - they are all a blight on humanity - but they are also a feature of many societies whether or not they use the particular term "caste".

Some clear examples of excluded/oppressed castes outside of the South Asian context are the Burakumin in Japan, the al-Akhdam in Yemen, and the Mestizos with more indigenous ancestry in Latin America.

Re: The two Christian saints who are the Buddha

#184

Post by Barrin92 »

kshri24 wrote: post #179
Barrin92 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not knowledgeable enough about Hinduism to argue the first point but that's too reductive of a view of Christianity and Islam. There's a rich history of panentheism in both. Ibn Arabi, probably the most famous Sufi scholar was known for defending it ( "[God] sleeps in the rock, dreams in the plant, stirs in the animal, and awakens in man" ), Meister Eckhart and the Rhineland mystics held similar views etc. Of cou…

Sufis were meant to propagate that Islam is syncretic to get people to convert wherever they went. Once Islam got a critical mass of converts (15-20%), Islamic invaders would have the necessary internal support to invade and destabilize the Kingdom. This is literally how Islam got to places in Asia and spread. It was through Sufis who acted as initial points of contact. > A lot of these traditions are much more flexi…

>That does not make "traditions flexible". It's just a cheap tactic to increase followers/harvest souls.

That's not mutually exclusive. You're certainly right that religions spread this way, but it's also what they become. Christians today are Pauline Christians more than anything else. The abolition of circumcision and dietary restrictions, household code, 'render unto Caesear' etc were obviously tactics to convert Gentiles, but once you had all the gentiles, you had genuinely altered what the faith is. They never went back to the radicalism of Jesus.

Buddhism is also an interesting case. By the start of the 19th century there wasn't strong Buddhist practice in India. When it was rediscovered it was heavily shaped by China, Tibet and Japan and had done a round about turn.

Same with modern Evangelicalism and Catholicism. Very successfully spread through indigenous cultures in LatAm and Africa but now the influence goes the other way, with real impact on the churches, just look at the last two popes. I don't think this deserves to be categorized as cheap tactic, that's very much what religion is.

Re: The two Christian saints who are the Buddha

#185

Post by argentier »

BurningFrog wrote: post #75
bitsage wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CCP actually views the Taiping Rebellion positively, as an egalitarian movement which is a precursor to their own, albeit significantly flawed [1]. Upon looking this up, I was surprised to see they rarely even view it from a religious lens, maybe because the movement was so syncretic. Although, that could be due to the similarities between the Taiping Rebellion and Cultural Revolution’s aims. 1. https://bitterwin…

Starving tens of millions to death is also part of the CCP's traditional values.

America's too.

Re: The two Christian saints who are the Buddha

#186

Post by expedition32 »

KK7NIL wrote: post #123
graemep wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Catholic Church is notoriously top-down and hierarchical It has a hierarchy, but it has multiple hierarchies. It is not all that top down. Bishop's ave a lot of autonomy, and most decisions are made at the diocesan level. Dioceses have their own property and funds held by their own trustees. On top of that religious orders have their own hierarchy (and property and funds etc.). Then there are the rites such as the…

> Historically this was the result of the fact the church predates modern communications. It was not possible for a Pope to direct things That's not really accurate. All bishops were essentially "autocephalus" in antiquity. Whether they could even be removed by a council of other bishops was something that was really not resolved for many centuries. There were many occasions of competing councils declaring each other…

There is an offshoot of the Catholic church in the Netherlands were the bishop is not chosen by the Vatican.

Dutch people really handle hierarchy poorly and prefer "flat" organisation style. Anyone who acts as the boss doesn't last long.

Re: The two Christian saints who are the Buddha

#187

Post by graemep »

KK7NIL wrote: post #123
graemep wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Catholic Church is notoriously top-down and hierarchical It has a hierarchy, but it has multiple hierarchies. It is not all that top down. Bishop's ave a lot of autonomy, and most decisions are made at the diocesan level. Dioceses have their own property and funds held by their own trustees. On top of that religious orders have their own hierarchy (and property and funds etc.). Then there are the rites such as the…

> Historically this was the result of the fact the church predates modern communications. It was not possible for a Pope to direct things That's not really accurate. All bishops were essentially "autocephalus" in antiquity. Whether they could even be removed by a council of other bishops was something that was really not resolved for many centuries. There were many occasions of competing councils declaring each other…

You are right and that history is another reason: the starting point was that. However, even when popes started claiming greater authority there was a practical constraint on centralisation.

Re: The two Christian saints who are the Buddha

#188

Post by Bapak_jokowi »

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…

[dead]

Re: The two Christian saints who are the Buddha

#189

Post by graemep »

expedition32 wrote: post #186
KK7NIL wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Historically this was the result of the fact the church predates modern communications. It was not possible for a Pope to direct things That's not really accurate. All bishops were essentially "autocephalus" in antiquity. Whether they could even be removed by a council of other bishops was something that was really not resolved for many centuries. There were many occasions of competing councils declaring each other…

There is an offshoot of the Catholic church in the Netherlands were the bishop is not chosen by the Vatican. Dutch people really handle hierarchy poorly and prefer "flat" organisation style. Anyone who acts as the boss doesn't last long.

There are many such because the Church's own belief is that a bishop always remains a bishop (even if removed from their diocese) and can make others bishops.
Post reply on HN