Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Religious similarities/contrasts (Was: What is life?)

Expand Messages
  • lady_caritas
    ... historical ... There is no doubt that religious motifs crop up in various cultures without obvious historical connections. C. G. Jung also studied this
    Message 1 of 34 , Feb 4, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      > Mahayana is a very wide category, with a large number of sects...
      > some of which differ from each other quite strikingly.
      > Sure there are similarities Klaus... as there are with nearly every
      > religion. I will even conceed that there are some very interesting
      > similarities in this particular case, but that does not mean there
      > are not very important differences as well. What is more important
      > though, is that similarities in no way imply ancestory or
      > relation. From the purely historical point of view, there is no
      > evidence that Mahayana actually existed before the common era. I
      > still remain unconvinced that there must have been some Indian
      > influence in the Hellenic movements when basic Roman attitude is
      > right there to provide the necessary ingredients.
      > Certain motifs crop up time and again in religion and philosophy...
      > without having to be directly gained from one particular source or
      > another.

      There is no doubt that religious motifs crop up in various cultures
      without obvious historical connections.

      C. G. Jung also studied this idea of cross-cultural motifs. In fact,
      here is an interesting article about archetypes comparing Jungian
      psychology with sociobiology:

      The Valentinians might have been not far off in their classification
      of a "psychic" nature vs. a truly "pneumatic" nature. Could our
      psychic natures be acting out archetypes, instinctive motifs?

      What then is truly spiritual vs. psychological? IOW, where does
      gnosis fit in? Is "gnosis" historical or ahistorical? Can we
      identify gnosis (as different from psychological religious motifs)
      when comparing/contrasting various religious settings (like Mahayana
      Buddhism and "Gnosticism")? Soteriology only? We do tend to see
      societal groupings that interpret the expression of this type of
      salvific knowledge. I suppose distinguishing what is psychic vs.
      what is pneumatic (albeit interpreted and expressed through our
      physical/psychic mechanisms) involves a combination of observing the
      manifested fruits of pneumatic awareness in addition to that kind of
      intuitive understanding that is beyond words.

      "For the father is sweet and in his will is goodness; he is
      acquainted with your own, upon whom you rely. For by their fruits
      your own are known: for the father's children are themselves his
      fragrance, for they are from the loveliness of his face. Therefore
      the father loves his fragrance and manifests it everywhere. And when
      it mingles with matter it imparts his fragrance to the light, and by
      his silence he makes it superior in every way to every sound. For it
      is not the ears that smell the fragrance, rather it is the spirit
      that possesses the faculty of smell and draws the fragrance toward
      itself for itself and sinks down into the father's fragrance; thus it
      nourishes it and takes it to what it emanated from, the original cold
      fragrance. And it is a soul-endowed modeled form, being like a cold
      liquid that has sunk into some loose earth; and those who see it
      suppose that (only) earth is there. Afterward, it reevaporates when
      a gust (of wind) draws it off and it becomes warm. Cold fragrances,
      then, result from division. For this reason, faith came and did away
      with division, and it brought the warm fullness of love, so that the
      coldness might not return: rather, it is unity of perfect thought."
      (Gospel of Truth)

      > Schopenhauer is a good example of this in fact. He was
      > surprized with the similarities he found with ideas he believed he
      > had invented had to eastern religions. His comparative analysis was
      > drawn after the fact.
      > PMCV

      An aside on Schopenhauer ~
      This article, by Peter Abelson, discusses "Schopenhauer and Buddhism":


      Also, PMCV, if you're so inclined at some point, perhaps you could
      briefly outline for our members a few of the ways that eastern
      religion is "the exact opposite of Gnosticism," as you mention
      below. This invitation for discussion of contrasts is open to other
      interested members, too, of course.


      > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, klaus schilling <pessy@c...>
      > wrote:
      > > pmcvflag writes:
      > > > eastern religion, which
      > > > is in some wasy the exact opposite of Gnosticism.
      > > >
      > > No, mahayana buddhism is in many ways very similar to Gnosticism,
      > > as shown by Edward Conze.
      > >
      > > Klaus Schilling
    • lady_caritas
      ... Say, Ernst, would you humor me and translate the gist of this post for the majority of members who don t speak German? Thanks much, Cari
      Message 34 of 34 , Feb 7, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, ernststrohregenmantelrad
        <no_reply@y...> wrote:
        > >--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, klaus schilling <>
        > >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.

        Say, Ernst, would you humor me and translate the gist of this post
        for the majority of members who don't speak German?

        Thanks much,

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.