Re: What is life?
- sometimes I feel whether our friend Klaus has actually read the
articles or just citing them for his convinience.
I DO have the very article by E. Conze. It is in _Le Origni dello
Gnosticismo_ ed. Bianchi 1967 Brill p. 651-667.
titled "Buddhism and Gnosis"
Notice the title? Yep, the author didn't say Gnostics He states,
"This Buddhism I propose to compare with "Gnosis" rather then
"the Gnosticis," because the connotation of the latter term is still
so uncertain that this Congress has been specially convenend
for the purpose of defining it." (p. 652)
The author proposes 8 basic simiarities and 23 least possible
similarities (but notice that the last 6 least possible simiarities
are with Manichaeans.)
The author didn't come to definite conclusion of the kinship
between two and states, "All I can say is that there is here a
definite problem, but as yet no definite solution. And what, of
course, still remains to be seen is whether my alleged parallels
will stand up to the scrutinty of the experts!" (p. 667)
PMCV is right in saying that there is no historical connection
linking these two movements. What we only have is similar
typology. That is the exact same situation with so called Jewish
Mystercism or what is known as Merkabah, Hekhalot and later
what's became known as Kabbalah. And Jewish Mystercism and
Gnosticism are much more close in geography but there is no
direct connection between two. If there are connection they are
incidental and minor.
Anyway, if anyone is interested in the article I'll scan it but
remember it is still a copy righted meterial.
BTW, looking back PMCV did state "eastern religion" NOT
--- In email@example.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...>
> Mahayana is a very wide category, with a large number ofsects...
> some of which differ from each other quite strikingly.every
> Sure there are similarities Klaus... as there are with nearly
> religion. I will even conceed that there are some veryinteresting
> similarities in this particular case, but that does not meanthere
> are not very important differences as well. What is moreimportant
> though, is that similarities in no way imply ancestory orhistorical
> relation. From the purely historical point of view, there is noera. I
> evidence that Mahayana actually existed before the common
> still remain unconvinced that there must have been someIndian
> influence in the Hellenic movements when basic Romanattitude is
> right there to provide the necessary ingredients.philosophy...
> Certain motifs crop up time and again in religion and
> without having to be directly gained from one particular sourceor
> another. Schopenhauer is a good example of this in fact. Hewas
> surprized with the similarities he found with ideas he believedhe
> had invented had to eastern religions. His comparativeanalysis was
> drawn after the fact.pessy@c...>
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, klaus schilling <
> > pmcvflag writes:
> > > eastern religion, which
> > > is in some wasy the exact opposite of Gnosticism.
> > >
> > No, mahayana buddhism is in many ways very similar to
> > as shown by Edward Conze.
> > Klaus Schilling
- --- In email@example.com, ernststrohregenmantelrad
> >--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, klaus schilling <>Say, Ernst, would you humor me and translate the gist of this post
> >pessy@c...> wrote:
> > ernststrohregenmantelrad writes:
> > >
> > > I thought Sufi was a part of Islam or did I miss something?
> > For Schopenhauer, Sufi is of vedantic origin,
> > disguised as Islam.
> > Klaus Schilling
> Mensch, es gibt zu viel DDHG* bei dir!
> Du hebst so oft AS in den Himmel!
> Du nimmst die Meinung Schopenhauer als die Tatsache.
> Die ist nur einer der Meinungen von der Ursprung.
> *Der Doktor hat gesagt- wird benutzt vom Anthroposoph, der
> hebt Steiner in den Himmel. In diesen Fall machst du mit
> Schopenhauer so wie so Anthroposoph mit Steiner.
for the majority of members who don't speak German?