Why was the classical West so far behind in religious/spiritual development?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Agathon
Greek philosophy was monotheistic. The Platonists, Stoics and Peripatetics all believed in one God. The traditional Greek gods were for the idiots to believe in.

The Epicureans thought that the Gods couldn't care less about us.

I've never heard that. All of their writtings which I've seen make extensive refrences to the Greek Gods.

[Agathon]

I've never heard that. All of their writtings which I've seen make extensive refrences to the Greek Gods.

The traditional gods became a cipher for the divine in general. The major theistic schools of Greek Philosophy are monotheistic.

[Ned]

johnc,

It may pain you to realize that all ancient IndoEuropeans are polytheistic and had essentially the same gods, differing in name and detail only. I have no idea why you would say one polytheistic religion is superior to another.

[johncmcleod]

I don't believe 'the west was more concerned with empire building' is a valid explanation. China was the largest empire in the world for thousands of years, and had a socio-political system that held it together very well.

And though there were some interesting philosophies in the West, and some men like Cicero had notions of virtue, they are the exception. The West wasn't nearly as developed as the East. In the East, the common people followed ethics and were very spiritual. In the West, the commoners had no sense of ethics and spirituality was unheard of.

I definitely agree with General Ludd. The teachings of Jesus were ruined by the creation of a political, institutionalized religion. I do think that things have changed for the better, but I think that Christianity still isn't as spiritual of some of the Eastern religions.

And again I think this has to do with Western thought and the way we interpretted the teachings of Jesus.

So let me throw this out, were the differences in Eastern and Western styles of thinking the reason for a lack of spirituality in the West and more spirituality in the East?

Joseph Campbell made the point that when we look at the religion of a foreign civilization, we're looking at it from a scholarly perspective and not from the down-to-earth perspective we see our own from. So while the same Westerners who are jaded about Christianity and see it as guilt-trips, fables, and threats can see Far Eastern philosophies like Zen as a beautiful spiritual system, Japanese in the 17th century before Christianity was banned couldn't convert fast enough. They probably saw only the "chant to the Buddha and make giant golden statues" aspects of Zen whereas they might read the Bible and see the really brilliant stuff Jesus said as opposed to what goes on in churches all over the Western world.

For every brilliant insight into the mind contained in Hinduism, there are hundreds of obscure rules, caste system things, downright sick myths, and beings with more arms than might be considered strictly necessary. Because we Westerners got the full load of pagan civilization passed down to us, whereas we had to discover and filter Eastern civilization, it's a lot easier to focus on the good bits of the latter.

Yes, I agree. I think that when we view religion from the third person, we emphasize the ideology in our thinking, because that tends to be the main difference between our thinking and their thinking. We tend not to pay attention to the institution. This is especially true with missionaries. The missionaries come and teach the ideas, and there is a high conversion rate. The only exposure the people have to the religion is through a few missionaries. But if the people were to observe the religion in practice in its nation of origin, they might see it as just an institution and not think it is so special.

[johncmcleod]

Whoa, hold on their Ned.

The only polytheistic religion in the East was Hinduism. And though the commoners worshipped all of the different Gods, the actually philosophy and metaphysics of the religion are just so much more advanced that the Western pagan religions, especially in matters of spirituality. Hinduism is about getting closer to God. The Western pagan religions were all about appeasing the Gods.

And as for Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism, none of these were polytheistic, and they were way more advanced than any western religion of the time.

[Agathon]

And though there were some interesting philosophies in the West, and some men like Cicero had notions of virtue, they are the exception. The West wasn't nearly as developed as the East. In the East, the common people followed ethics and were very spiritual. In the West, the commoners had no sense of ethics and spirituality was unheard of.

Yeah they did. The lives of ancient peoples were consumed with religion. Orphic cults, mysteries, etc.

Try reading ER Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational.

We tend to see the Classical period in its role as forbear of secular western civilization. There's a lot of unrepresentative picking and choosing in that. Modern people would find many of the preoccupations of the Greeks and Romans quite baffling.

And there isn't much difference between Oriental notions of medicine and health and those of the Classical west. Both were homeopathic traditions, and the Galenic tradition (Classical medicine) isn't that much different from the eastern view.

A guy I know complains that westerners who consistently believe in oriental homeopathic approaches would never dream of using Galenic cures, which is bizarre, because they are at root the same thing.

And as for philosophers, try reading Heraclitus after Lao Tzu, it's quite an eerie experience.

[johncmcleod]

I think I've got it.

The dawn of Western religion was at the beginning of civilization, in Mesopotamia. The new agricultural lifestyle had its downfalls. Not only did the people have to work more, because they were sedentary they lived in constant fear of famine, floods, earthquakes, and foreign invaders. They had a very wrathful image of God, and the purpose of the religion was to appease the Gods. All other western civs were heavily influenced by their predecessors, and they kept the same view of religion. Sacrifice in order to get stuff and appease the Gods. (Note: this view continued through Christianity as people prayed in order to get God's help). With this view of a wrathful God, and their religion as something in order to appease God, they never got a spiritual view of God. Since they were scared of It, they never learned to connect with it. They just saw it as something that controlled their lives. In the East, they saw God as something that you can connect with, something that was spiritual, and they therefore had a more spiritual religion.

Here is my next question. In the West, the priests were the chief administrators and held great power. Kings were believed to be divine. But in the East, the two were separate. The Brahmans and the administrators were part of a different caste. The Easterns beat the Westerners in separation of church and state by 4,000 years, and that is if you saw Jesus believed in that idea, if you don't, then the West got beat by five and a half thousand years.

Why is this? Is this connected to the original question at all? Does it have to do with different types of thinking?

[johncmcleod]

Yeah, but I think there is a difference between a few weird cults and widespread, major religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, or Taoism.

[Agathon]

Yeah, but I think there is a difference between a few weird cults and widespread, major religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, or Taoism.

They weren't that uncommon. Sure, things like Pythagoreanism were weird, but many people participated in the mysteries.

As the Classical world progressed, the philosophical view of the gods came to dominate. In that view the traditional gods were ciphers.

[Ned]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Whoa, hold on their Ned.

The only polytheistic religion in the East was Hinduism. And though the commoners worshipped all of the different Gods, the actually philosophy and metaphysics of the religion are just so much more advanced that the Western pagan religions, especially in matters of spirituality. Hinduism is about getting closer to God. The Western pagan religions were all about appeasing the Gods.

And as for Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism, none of these were polytheistic, and they were way more advanced than any western religion of the time.

johnc, the only IndoEuropeans in the East are the Hindus and the Cambodians. The native religions of China and Japan are not that much different than those of Africa. Grafted on to these is Buddism, which of course, origniated in India.

I think a lot of the so-called advancement that you are talking about centers therefore on Buddism.

BTW, you still don't seem to understand that the paganism of the Western Europeans is the same as Hinduism. All IndoEuropeans essentially have the same root religion and gods as they all are branches of the same tribe.

[Ned]

johnc, the people of ancient Mesopotamia are not IndoEuropean. This region cannot have inspired the gods of the IndoEuropeans AFAIK.

[JohnT]

I think the reason the West was "behind" the cultures of the East in terms of creating a religion that lasted into modern times is because (Cue up Guns, Germs, and Steel reference) of geography.

Israel, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Greece, all are at the crossroads of 3 continents*,

http://apolyton.net/upload/view.php?file=666_Nth_Africa_east_phy.jpg

while China

http://apolyton.net/upload/view.php?file=666_China_phy.jpg

and India

http://apolyton.net/upload/view.php?file=666_India.jpg

are rather secluded from outside interference by mountains and desert.

This increased tumult precluded the idea of forming a general consensus for a long, long time, much longer than it took the relatively secluded China and India. It also increased the need to look not just for a civilization that worked and was self-sustaining, (which the Chinese and Indians most assuredly had), but for a system that works better. Finally all this competition produced a civilization that was capable of spreading itself all over the world, in various forms and levels of degree.

If you want my opinion, I think the key difference is the printing press combined with a 26 letter alphabet, compared to Koreas multi-thousand word alphabet.

*We'll just assume that Europe is a continent because the number 3 improves my argument. Sorry... Diamond's argument.

[Art Vandelay]

I like this new, bogus concept. Religion is advancement.

Peace is war.

Truth is a lie.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
The only polytheistic religion in the East was Hinduism...

And as for Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism, none of these were polytheistic

Wow, you're grossly misinformed. Mahayanna Buddhism is de facto polytheistic...

[johncmcleod]

True, but the Mesopotamians had a huge impact on western civilization. By race, the Aryans were Indo-European, but India was certainly not a Western country. It had little influence on the West until far later and it is much more like the East in its thinking and religion.

And anyway, Hinduism is much different from Western pagan religions. It is much more spiritual, as the whole purpose of the religion is to come closer to God, and it has a strong code of ethics.

As for Buddhism, it depends on what sect you are talking about, and worldly influences on the religion. Buddhism in itself doesn't even accept or deny existence of a God. Mahayana Buddhism is a sect for the common people and they tended to be polytheistic. But still, Mahayana Buddhism is infinitely more spiritual than any Pagan religion ever was.

I'm still sticking to my explanation.