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

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Agathon
I'd go so far as to say that the hunger for eastern religions is wholly motivated by a desire for the exotic, rather than any merits they might have.

Eastern mysticism and religious thought has always seemed rather crude and dull to me.

OMG, Agathon and I agree about religion! Is the sky gonna fall?

We in the west have our own tradition, people like Julian of Norwich and Thomas Traherne and countless others. I don't see why we should go off and annoy the Indians and Chinese by letting people like Madonna talk crap about their stuff.

Nah, Madonna is over in Israel trying to convert Jews to Kabbala...

Originally posted by Boshko
I was talking about how in late Roman society Christianity was basically a poor-man's mystery cult. I wasn't implying that this was a bad thing or that this was the case today.

Errr, except it wasn't a mystery cult.

[Bosh]

Errr, except it wasn't a mystery cult

Same basic set-up, and filled the same basic cultural niche (except being less exclusive).

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Boshko
UR: Never heard of Lit Tzu, thought it was a typo and meant at Lao-tzu. How does it compare to the Lao-tzu and the Chuang-tzu?

More like Chuang-tzu than Lao-tzu, but in a more ethereal way.

Originally posted by Boshko
you might also find this interesting: http://sangle.web.wesleyan.edu/etext/index.html (my old philosophy prof's page, really good teacher)

Thanks

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
1. Yet, Christianity teaches that much will happen before this day will occur.

Depends on which part of the NT you quote. Jesus told a bunch of people that the world would end before they die.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
2. And the leader proved his claim.

Sure he did.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
3. How so? Christians are supposed to be in the world, not of it.

Jesus got his diciples to leave their families and live in a commune.

[Agathon]

You've got a cool brother

Yep. His talent for Chinese has led to free food on more than one occasion. We will walk into a Chinese takeaway in NZ and he will order in Chinese and be best friends with the owner in about ten minutes.

[johncmcleod]

First off, I'd like to say that when I recommended that book to you, Agathon, I forgot that you were a philosophy professor and you probably already know plenty about Hinduism. Forget that I said it.

originally posted by Ned
Not to be "crude," but didn't Western religion have something more than just sacrifices to the gods? Didn't they have a concept of heaven and hell, and that one had to live a good life to get into heaven as opposed to hell?

Though this could be Christian bias, everything I have read has said that at the time of Jesus, the common people of the West had no notion of ethics or spirituality, and a few weird cults were out there that were a little bit different (though certainly had some great philosophy), but still, not much better.

originally posted by Boshko
Well I took a class on Sufis in college

I find the Sufis to be the most fascinating religious order of all the Western religions. I think they are the most spiritual, too, and I like their liberal interpretations of the Koran. I like them mainly because their beliefs seem sort of pantheistic, and I think pantheistic beliefs are the most important aspect of spirituality. If you can think of everything as God, the world will be filled with so much beauty that you will be overtaken with joy.

originally posted by Urban Ranger
Neither Daoism nor Confucianism are religious, both started as major schools of thought during the Spring-Autumn period (a prolonged period of civil war amongst the fedual lords following the Chou dynasty), the other one being the School of Law.

Confucianism can be considered as reactionary, as Confucius attempted to bring back the sort of system (a mix of fedualism and slavery) that had existed during the Chou dynasty, while the School of Law can be considered as progressive.

It is difficult to define religion. Confucianists did believe in Heaven, and the reason I mentioned Confucianism is how remarkable it was.

As for Taoism, there is the religious Taoism with magic, etc. and all the perils of institutionalized religion, there is philosophical Taoism, which is about living life in a way that makes use of your energy more efficient, and there is spiritual Taoism, and they use some of the same meditation techniques that the Hindus and Buddhists use. I think it is very spiritual.

originally posted by Chemical Ollie
In reply to the opening post.
Why would one world view that is obviously wrong be more "forward" than another world view that is obviously wrong?

First off, their is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God, souls, etc. Second off, who is more "right" is irrelevant. Religions are simply tools for spirituality and guidelines for ethical living (along with the evil institutions). It doesn't matter who is right, it matters which tool is better. Even if there is no God or soul, people who are spiritual tend to be happier and are at peace. And something like meditation, which Eastern religions came up with, is something that one doesn't have to be religious at all to do. You don't have to believe that it helps you get closer to God, but you can't deny that it is very relaxing and helps create a feeling of peacefulness.

In my opinion, when it comes to religion, God, and spirituality, truth is not what is important. What makes you happy is what is important.

My top 5 favorite religious groups are:
1. Zen Buddhists
2. Sufis
3. Unitarians and Universalists
4. Quakers
5. Jesuits

But as for philosophy and ideas on how to live one's life and ideas on spirituality, the Hindus and Taoists are my favorite.

[Ned]

Johnc, I'm having a difficult time with your concept of "spirituality." What are you talking about?

In the Roman world, I think there was a general decline in religion around the time of Christ. But what I was really asking about is whether the pagan religion believed in Heavan and Hell, had a concept that people would go one place or the other after death, and whether the place one would go depended upon whether they lead a virtuous life?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
It is difficult to define religion. Confucianists did believe in Heaven, and the reason I mentioned Confucianism is how remarkable it was.

Once it was adopted by the state to be the official school of thought, with nationwide exams based on canonical Confucianist books, you bet it spreaded fast and wide.

I reckon if the government had done it with something else, say, the School of Law, same thing would have happened.

As for them believing in Heaven, I think that's just a ploy to grant yourself the right to rule the people, i.e. the Heavenly (or Divine) Mandate.

Originally posted by johncmcleod
As for Taoism, there is the religious Taoism with magic, etc. and all the perils of institutionalized religion, there is philosophical Taoism, which is about living life in a way that makes use of your energy more efficient, and there is spiritual Taoism, and they use some of the same meditation techniques that the Hindus and Buddhists use. I think it is very spiritual.

The original Daoism started as philosophy, which was later bastarised by a bunch of schmucks to take on religious tones. If you couldn't get the Confucian "Heaven" on your side, having some other gods would work well, too.

[Agathon]

First off, I'd like to say that when I recommended that book to you, Agathon, I forgot that you were a philosophy professor and you probably already know plenty about Hinduism

I don't as it happens. I'm trained in the Analytical tradition with a large dose of classics for good measure. I don't pretend to any expertise about Eastern religions or philosophy. I have my opinions on it, but I'm not much better off than the next guy.

[johncmcleod]

I think I've got it. The westerners had a very pragmatic style of thinking. It was very logical and methodical. These traits are great for understanding matter, but not great for understanding more abstract concepts, especially spiritual ones. So they became very materialistic and their thought was centered on the matter around them, they didn't get advanced thinking when it came to spiritualism. This also lead to their inability to understand zero, which may have also been part of the reason why they weren't as spiritual. Western religions were more materialistic in nature, though this changed a few centuries after Christ with the rise of monasticism and ascetisism.

The Easterners, however, had a different style of thinking and they spent more time thinking about spirit than matter. Their religions, especially Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, and Buddhism were anti-matter and very spiritual.

IMHO, a balance is needed between materialism and spiritualism.

I don't as it happens. I'm trained in the Analytical tradition with a large dose of classics for good measure. I don't pretend to any expertise about Eastern religions or philosophy. I have my opinions on it, but I'm not much better off than the next guy.

Well, I always thought of Hinduism as a silly paganistic religion until I read that book, and now I think its philosophy is fascinating, even moreso than the West's. There are, however, some parallels in the two types of thinking. Some of what Plato wrote was very similar to the Upanishads. For example, there is this one metaphor about the self that is in the Upanishads, and the same exact idea is in some of Plato's writing.

Anyway, I recommend the book because it takes what is truly important and remarkable about each religion and puts it in a chapter that isn't very long. It is a good read and a quick read.

Johnc, I'm having a difficult time with your concept of "spirituality." What are you talking about?

I will answer this on Friday or Saturday. Right now I don't have any time so I won't give you an answer yet. Well, actually I will give you the short, crappy, oversimplified answer that might get you to head in the right direction of what I am thinking about, spirituality is that which is not matter.

In the Roman world, I think there was a general decline in religion around the time of Christ. But what I was really asking about is whether the pagan religion believed in Heavan and Hell, had a concept that people would go one place or the other after death, and whether the place one would go depended upon whether they lead a virtuous life?

I am no expert of history, especially about the Romans, so I am not a good person to ask. From what I understand, there wasn't really a concept of an afterlife prevalent among commoners. And anyway, the description of the afterlife you just gave is the Western, materialist description of it that I am describing. You do good in your life, and you go to a place where everything is good and happy. You do evil in your life, and you go to a place where there is fire and evil. These descriptions are all about matter, and they are simple, logical, and pragmatic. An Eastern description of Heaven and Hell would be much more abstract, and it certainly wouldn't be about places, kingdoms, etc. like the Western descriptions.

[johncmcleod]

Once it was adopted by the state to be the official school of thought, with nationwide exams based on canonical Confucianist books, you bet it spreaded fast and wide.

I reckon if the government had done it with something else, say, the School of Law, same thing would have happened.

As for them believing in Heaven, I think that's just a ploy to grant yourself the right to rule the people, i.e. the Heavenly (or Divine) Mandate.

True, but Confucianism is remarkable for its strong ethical system, and the fact that it held together China for two millenia. That is why I brought it up.

The original Daoism started as philosophy, which was later bastarised by a bunch of schmucks to take on religious tones. If you couldn't get the Confucian "Heaven" on your side, having some other gods would work well, too.

IMO, Taoism is great because I think if one follows its philosophies, they will have an easier time having a more spiritual life, and a happier one. I think feeling closer to God would be easier if one lived a balanced, Taoist life.

[Agathon]

I think I've got it. The westerners had a very pragmatic style of thinking. It was very logical and methodical. These traits are great for understanding matter, but not great for understanding more abstract concepts, especially spiritual ones. So they became very materialistic and their thought was centered on the matter around them, they didn't get advanced thinking when it came to spiritualism

Except that the whole history of Greek philosophy throws this into doubt. In fact the main problem of Greek philosophy is how to deal with abstract concepts.

Both Aristotle and Plato have complicated metaphysical theories that attempt to explain the various modes of being, material and immaterial. For both, God is by definition an immaterial entity (in Plato's case because matter is evil, in Aristotle's because God is pure form).

There is really not that much difference on the spiritual side; the Western philosophers just had a much better grasp of logic and argument (which they deployed in service of their natural theologies).