History questions not worth their own thread

[Lord Baal]

I offer an explanation that one of my theology professors, whose expertise was Christian-Buddhist relations, gave me. This is heavily simplified, but bear with me:

Eastern religions are fundamentally based on a different theory of reality than the West. In ancient Greece, there was a debate between two schools of philosophy. The followers of Heracleitus argued that the reality is in flux, and change is an illusion (pluralism); whereas the followers of Parmenides argued that reality is of a single substance, and difference is an illusion (monism). These particular philosophies are extremes, but generally, a moderated form of monism became adapted by Aristotle, which became the norm in Western philosophy.

It's the exact opposite in Eastern philosophy; reality is a process more than a web of things. Hence the parable of how life is like a candle wick, constantly in change but approaching its source as time goes on.

That would seem to indicate that Buddhism would have done well in the Near East though. Not among the Greeks themselves, but their subjects.

 

[LightSpectra]

That would seem to indicate that Buddhism would have done well in the Near East though. Not among the Greeks themselves, but their subjects.

It did well in India, but Persia was Zoroastrian, which was a monotheistic religion. It would be difficult to reconcile the idea that the universe is in flux, with the concept that a divine permanency to it.

 

[Lord Baal]

It did well in India, but Persia was Zoroastrian, which was a monotheistic religion. It would be difficult to reconcile the idea that the universe is in flux, with the concept that a divine permanency to it.

I meant more West of Persia. With the exception of the Jews and the Greeks themselves, religions in the area weren't that different to the sort of syncretism in the East.

 

[say1988]

Could Persia have acted as a sort of wall, preventing significant contact between Buddism and the West?

 

[Lord Baal]

Could Persia have acted as a sort of wall, preventing significant contact between Buddism and the West?

That's what I argued. I don't see how LightSpectra's teacher's argument would work. After all, the Greeks in India converted to Buddhism.

 

[LightSpectra]

That's what I argued. I don't see how LightSpectra's teacher's argument would work. After all, the Greeks in India converted to Buddhism.

The Greeks were one of the most theologically diverse civilizations in ancient history. Some Greeks in India converted, just as some Greeks were Heracleitians to begin with. It was only starting with the recollection of Aristotle's works by the Arabs that his views became cemented as the norm; though as I said before, the fundamental monotheism of the Christians and Muslims would've put them at odds with Eastern philosophy to begin with.

 

[Lord Baal]

The Greeks were one of the most theologically diverse civilizations in ancient history. Some Greeks in India converted, just as some Greeks were Heracleitians to begin with. It was only starting with the recollection of Aristotle's works by the Arabs that his views became cemented as the norm; though as I said before, the fundamental monotheism of the Christians and Muslims would've put them at odds with Eastern philosophy to begin with.

Yeah, but wouldn't that argue for Buddhism being more than capable of converting the West, had it passed Persia? Monotheistic religions eventually came to dominate the West, but Buddhist missionaries far predate Christianity, and Judaism never really spread that much. Buddhism's syncretic nature would have appealed to the Near East.

 

[Dachs]

How was Buddhism any more syncretic than any of the other major deity-cults vying for influence at the time?

 

[ParkCungHee]

I offer an explanation that one of my theology professors, whose expertise was Christian-Buddhist relations, gave me. This is heavily simplified, but bear with me:

Eastern religions are fundamentally based on a different theory of reality than the West. In ancient Greece, there was a debate between two schools of philosophy. The followers of Heracleitus argued that the reality is in flux, and change is an illusion (pluralism); whereas the followers of Parmenides argued that reality is of a single substance, and difference is an illusion (monism). These particular philosophies are extremes, but generally, a moderated form of monism became adapted by Aristotle, which became the norm in Western philosophy.

It's the exact opposite in Eastern philosophy; reality is a process more than a web of things. Hence the parable of how life is like a candle wick, constantly in change but approaching its source as time goes on.

But Parmenides' philosophy is almost exactly the same as Adi Shankaras. Litterally it's almost word for word the same argument and same conclusion. And considering Adi Shankara is one of the most influential Hindu Philosophers ever....

 

[Masada]

Basically, it converted people who didn't already have some sort of strong religious foundation,

Rubbish. It was adopted by all manner of groups, usually for entirely pragmatic reasons, and few of them had weak religious foundations - whatever that means. For instance, Malay Royalty adopted it to (1) to legitimize their rule, (2) act as a political bargaining chip or (3) to gain access to Brahmans for court advisers. Why? Because (1) Malay Kingship was meritocratic, (2) there was already an existent division between groups who worshiped Shiva and Vishnu and the guys in the middle were sick of being sold to the winning side like so many cheap hookers and (3) Brahmans were knowledgeable, literate, loyal and made good intermediaries. It was then grated onto the existing religious practices of the population, most simply assumed Buddha like Vishnu and Shiva before him were simply the aspect of some local deity or another and offered supplications along those lines. The rulers didn't care in the least what the population did, so long as it was loyal. In-turn the rulers expected to hold to their obligation to keep the realm safe and prosperous. If anything Buddhism was slowly trans-mutated and adapted to local conditions - where it was eventually subsumed into the morass that was the local religious landscape. It's pretty funny to find Orthodox Sunni Muslims in Indonesia offering sacrifices and prayers to a Buddhist/Animist/Hindu-Bodhisattva/Protector Spirit/Minor Aspect of God.

I offer an explanation that one of my theology professors, whose expertise was Christian-Buddhist relations, gave me. This is heavily simplified, but bear with me:

I'd say circumstance had significantly more to do with it. The collapse of Buddhism's major sponsors and the resulting few hundred years of relative chaos severely limited Buddhist expansion.

 

[Dachs]

That played a big role in why the Indohellenic kings adopted Buddhism as well (at least in part). Northwestern India, the area around Taksashila, where the Indohellenic states were centered, was one of the most heavily Buddhist areas in the subcontinent. Going as far back as Tarn, there's been a current of thought claiming that Demetrios I, Apollodotos, and Menandros, the initial leaders of the Indian campaigns, gained a great deal of support from the populace because they claimed to be protecting Buddhism from the Sunga persecutions of Pushyamitra. Obviously this was mostly a propaganda line but I don't doubt it played a part in Indohellenic success. Anyway, to stop the digression, the argument goes that the Greeks could hardly avoid at least incorporating the Buddha in some ways into their religious practices because without token adherence to the strongest local cults at minimum they would have had a harder time garnering support from the locals. They had already done something almost similar with the worship of Anahita-as-Artemis in Baktra; this was just taking things one step further. And it's hardly as though the Greeks threw themselves wholeheartedly into Buddhism, either. Even Menandros, the famous "Milinda" Buddhist philosopher-king of the Milinda Panha, coined heavily using both Buddhist emblems like the wheel and Greek ones, such as Athene Alkis, the preferred deity for his line. And IIRC one of the native Indians who, in later periods, were accepted as full citizens of the Indohellenic poleis, Indragnidatta 'the Yonaka' (basically, 'the Greek'), is known through his inscription dedicating something or other to a Greek deity. (I forget the circumstances of the whole thing.)

 

[Plotinus]

As far as I know, knowledge of Buddhism arrived relatively late in the west anyway. I believe that the earliest known reference to Buddha by a classicial author is in Clement of Alexandria.

 

[Captain2]

During the American revolution it seems Spain and Britain were at war, how did the Spanish not capture Gibraltar?

 

[Shekwan]

During the American revolution it seems Spain and Britain were at war, how did the Spanish not capture Gibraltar?

I know nothing of the topic, and it took me about 20 seconds to find this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Siege_of_Gibraltar

You're new to this internet thing maybe?

 

[holy king]

I see; then was that because they still felt that Austria had a "primacy" among the lands in the Habsburg dominion, or was it simply because the legitimacy of the crown rests in the fact that Vienna had authority over its empire?

emperor of austria sounds more pompous.

 

[Captain2]

I know nothing of the topic, and it took me about 20 seconds to find this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Siege_of_Gibraltar

You're new to this internet thing maybe?

I couldn't find that article, no need to be a smartass

 

[LightSpectra]

I was curious what modern Austrians think of Engelbert Dollfuß; i.e., if they think his policies against Nazism and anti-Semitism make up for his authoritarianism.

 

[Atticus]

Couple years ago someone asked here about knights in medieval warfare, and someone gave him pretty detailed answer. I don't remember who it was, or with what words I should search the thread. Does someone else remember?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Does anyone know where I could find a list of US Army units in the Civil War and which battles they fought in? I am looking specifically to see if there was a Pennsylvania regiment that attacked Marye's Height at Fredericksburg, and that had already seen service.

 

[Masada]

I was curious what modern Austrians think of Engelbert Dollfuß; i.e., if they think his policies against Nazism and anti-Semitism make up for his authoritarianism.

An Austrian teacher I had back in the day didn't like Dollfuss, but was of the honest opinion that he was considerably better than what followed.