Active Users:1070 Time:15/11/2024 02:14:00 AM
Yeah, that's very true. Dan Send a noteboard - 11/03/2012 03:27:09 PM
Conventionally, pretty much everything is on the table, but Ultimately it's swept right off. It really depended on how bullish a particular writer was in asserting the nonexistence of deities, or anything in question, really. I think the Theravadins were more reductionist than the Mahayanans, who increasingly took pains to includea a little something for everyone in their baroque cosmologies. To my mind this is by far the most interesting feature of their philosophy, and it's deployed incredibly cleverly. I read a Buddhist rejoinder to a Nyaya text that admitted the virtues of the Nyaya system, it's superior logic and more elegant cosmology, and went on to simply agree with it as superior to Buddhist's arguments on those matters and claimed it should be adopted wholesale. But of course, only as the best Conventional schema for Conventional Reality. Such a tactic manages to undercut the entire system of logic the poor Nyayika had developed as relevant to Ultimate Truth in any way at all. It must have been very, very annoying to argue against. I'm not surprised at all that people ended up kiling themselves over these debates.


On the subject of Akhenaton, I can only imagine you're correct, though I'm wondering if you have any recommendations on some of the broader religious and cosmological trends in Egypt. Anything from a metaphysical/philological perspective, like F.M. Cornford or even Martin Heidegger. Anything that precocious undergraduates and soft-headed graduate students get enthusiastic about. Also: anything that documents the extent and manner of Egypt's intellectual influence on Greece. All I've seen are black writers clutching their pearls and bleating about how there was once a mention of wisdom at some point in Middle Egyptian and so egyptians who are obviously black were really the originators and then being laughed at. They probably go to a poetry slam or something afterwards to get it all out. Anyway, recommendations from either would be great.

They may be "atheolatrial", so to speak, but the existence of deities is not explicitly denied beyond the sense that the permanence and independent reality of anything within samsara is refuted. The "ultimate reality" may be impersonal, but that, if anything, fits with the concept of the divine that many in the present day have when they say the word "God". Few, if any, people these days picture God as a hoary, bearded old man sitting on a cloud and frowning (or smiling, take your pick) down at Creation.

The figure of Christ is actually strikingly similar to the figure of the Buddha. Both offer a way to salvation/enlightenment that involves a renunciation of material attachments, just acts and behavior and a reinterpretation of spiritual reality that makes the old temple cults obsolete and worthless. Both are universalist creeds that grew out of narrow ethno-religious traditions, and both influenced those narrow traditions and forced them to evolve to remain marginally relevant in modern society (though both are essentially relics of a bygone era).

I think that any reading you do on Akhenaten will disappoint you. His "monotheism" was really closer to the "national deity" concept that was present in the Near East in the Iron Age, where a polytheistic world was assumed but one god assumed primacy and was worshipped almost exclusively. The concept is similar to, but not exactly, henotheism. The development was what we would today call "political", though obviously in ancient Egypt the ideas of separate "religious" and "political" spheres would be an alien concept. The temples had grown powerful, and Akhenaten sought to wreck their power and consolidate the state cult around himself as the living expression of his prime deity, the Aten (probably actually a-t:'n based on Amarna transcriptions in Akkadian, the whole name almost certainly pronounced i:x-na-a-ti:'n, though in correspondence he is referred to by his Horus name, spelled "mery-aten" but in Amarna letters mai-ati:'n). It was sort of like the destruction of the monasteries in Reformation England combined with the Stalinist cult of personality, and very, very light on the philosophy from the extant records.


This message last edited by Dan on 11/03/2012 at 03:35:07 PM
Reply to message
Atheism: The Iconoclasm of the West? - 10/03/2012 05:42:56 AM 1294 Views
I think about as highly of athiesm as I do of christianity. *NM* - 10/03/2012 05:54:20 AM 356 Views
I would chide you on that basis for having a love/hate relationship with God, but who does not? - 10/03/2012 06:05:11 AM 524 Views
If the divine made men... - 10/03/2012 06:27:42 AM 519 Views
True, but by the same token, in denying our nature we deny the divine. - 10/03/2012 06:57:40 AM 534 Views
I was actually just saying in Skype this is the first post you've made in a long time I've enjoyed. - 10/03/2012 07:02:56 AM 553 Views
Thanks? It is all Dans fault, really. - 10/03/2012 07:21:19 AM 822 Views
But you do comparable things all the time! - 10/03/2012 08:35:31 AM 747 Views
You've made this analogy before and it's still a bad one, those aren't comparable - 10/03/2012 03:43:08 PM 632 Views
You said what I was thinking far more respectfully than I probably would have. - 11/03/2012 12:14:55 AM 600 Views
... and apparently it was a waste of time - 11/03/2012 03:27:04 AM 539 Views
Perhaps he just missed it in all my spam? - 11/03/2012 04:59:31 AM 611 Views
Basically what Isaac said. *NM* - 10/03/2012 07:22:07 PM 307 Views
who? *NM* - 11/03/2012 12:00:13 AM 287 Views
Me - 11/03/2012 03:31:51 AM 565 Views
You're right and wrong. - 10/03/2012 05:09:32 PM 944 Views
Re: You're right and wrong. - 11/03/2012 12:28:25 AM 851 Views
Nope, Buddhists are explicitly atheist and also explicitly Ontologically engaged - 11/03/2012 01:39:20 AM 852 Views
Actually, Buddhists are not explicitly atheist in the conventional sense of the world. - 11/03/2012 02:42:36 AM 650 Views
Yeah, that's very true. - 11/03/2012 03:27:09 PM 745 Views
My Buddhist readings are definitely Tibet-focused. - 11/03/2012 04:00:17 PM 796 Views
Duplicate post *NM* - 11/03/2012 03:28:58 PM 374 Views
What exactly do you mean by "The irreparable damage it inflicted in the Great Schism"? - 10/03/2012 07:57:59 PM 721 Views
That Byzantiums iconoclasm was one of the many wedges between it and Rome that led to the Schism. - 11/03/2012 12:27:05 AM 644 Views
Bull. Shit. - 11/03/2012 01:54:07 AM 715 Views
I did not say it was decisive, but that it did irreparable damage to the relationship. - 11/03/2012 04:23:43 AM 732 Views
Bull. Shit. - 11/03/2012 04:30:08 AM 596 Views
It is not like I just pulled it out of my rear, any more than my HS history text or Wikipedia did. - 11/03/2012 04:57:31 AM 674 Views
Bull. Shit. - 11/03/2012 05:14:01 AM 749 Views
Irreparable damage is damage that cannot be repaired, not necessarily serious or fatal. - 11/03/2012 10:34:57 AM 819 Views
ο κοπρος. του ταυρου. - 11/03/2012 02:19:11 PM 780 Views
Very edifying; can you do Mandarin or Swahili next? - 12/03/2012 05:47:23 PM 686 Views
No. Even English seems to be beyond your grasp. - 12/03/2012 06:29:50 PM 594 Views
Citing scripture does not justify telling me to kill myself. - 13/03/2012 12:08:02 AM 728 Views
I'm not telling you to; God is. - 13/03/2012 12:35:45 AM 511 Views
Or can only you use that sort of specious logic? *NM* - 13/03/2012 03:50:20 PM 262 Views
And re: particular bullshit - 11/03/2012 02:33:15 PM 704 Views
Re: And re: particular bullshit - 13/03/2012 12:07:42 AM 610 Views
Give it up already. You are wrong. - 12/03/2012 12:53:37 AM 898 Views

Reply to Message