Replies

Buddhism hampered East Asia -- China too stagnated under the Ming and was overtaken by the Jurchen (Manchu), and they too stagnated. China also -- you must remember is a mixture of Buddhist and Confucian philosophies and both emphasise staticness. China lagged behind from the 15th century to the 19th as the Mandarin "caste" became entrenched.

And Europe had its Dark Ages.

South America is largely composed of Brazil and Brazil is largely composed of the Amazon, with it's diverse cultures and religions. As I pointed out, Chile and Argentina are pretty large too -- check them out on a map. Both are also pretty diverse religiously among the ethnic groups (Mexico in the Chiapas and Tabasco and Brazil in Amazonia)."

I'm not sure how the people of the region would be accepting of your implied suggestion that they do not live in majority-Catholic countries.

The Protestant work-ethic is a myth -- or else how do you explain Belgium and France? What made the difference was that Northern Europe benefitted from a mixture of the Industrial Revolution, contact with the Atlantic and focus on nationalism rather than a wider expanse.

Yet, world over, it's the Protestant-majority countries that first passed the bar with regard to modern industrial development. Your suggestion seems to imply that religion didn't play as much of a role as trade and the development of the steam engine (which I wouldn't disagree with, considering the experience of modern Asia, which is developing along the same lines, without any religious undertones).

You keep neglecting my point which is that Hinduism with it's idea of karma and devotion to the inner-self leads to contentedness and spirituality as the positives and to stagnation and a dirty "outside" as negatives. Hindu philosophy would say "forget about the cleanliness of the streets, focus on yourself and your house and mind and soul", it has it's +s and -s.

This is patently false.

"Four sorts of mortals know me: he who weeps,

Arjuna! and the man who yearns to know;

And he who toils to help; and he who sits

Certain of me, enlightened."

- Bhagavad-Gita, Ch: VII, L: 53-56.

"Yet not by Vedas, nor from sacrifice,

Nor penance, nor gift-giving, nor with prayer

Shall any so behold, as thou hast seen!

Only by fullest service, perfect faith,

And uttermost surrender am I known

And seen, and entered into, Indian Prince!

Who doeth all for Me; who findeth Me

In all; adoreth always; loveth all

Which I have made, and Me, for Love’s sole end,

That man, Arjuna! unto Me doth wend."

- Bhagavad-Gita, Ch: XI, L: 335-344.

"Cling thou to Me!

Clasp Me with heart and mind! so shalt thou dwell

Surely with Me on high. But if thy thought

Droops from such height; if thou be’st weak to set

Body and soul upon Me constantly,

Despair not! give Me lower service! seek

To read Me, worshipping with steadfast will;

And, if thou canst not worship steadfastly,

Work for Me, toil in works pleasing to Me!

For he that laboreth right for love of Me

Shall finally attain! But, if in this

Thy faint heart fails, bring Me thy failure!"

- Bhagavad-Gita, Ch: XII, L: 23-34.

"There is right Action: that which—being enjoined—

Is wrought without attachment, passionlessly,

For duty, not for love, nor hate, nor gain.

There is vain Action: that which men pursue

Aching to satisfy desires, impelled

By sense of self, with all-absorbing stress:

This is of Rajas—passionate and vain.

There is dark Action: when one doth a thing

Heedless of issues, heedless of the hurt

Or wrong for others, heedless if he harm

His own soul—’tis of Tamas, black and bad!

There is the rightful doer. He who acts

Free from selfseeking, humble, resolute,

Steadfast, in good or evil hap the same,

Content to do aright—he truly acts.

There is th’ impassioned doer. He that works

From impulse seeking profit, rude and bold

To overcome, unchastened; slave by turns

Of sorrow and of joy: of Rajas he!

And there be evil doers; loose of heart,

Low-minded, stubborn, fraudulent, remiss,

Dull, slow, despondent—children of the Dark."

- Bhagavad-Gita, Ch: XVIII, L: 75-96.

Buddhism hampered East Asia -- China too stagnated under the Ming and was overtaken by the Jurchen (Manchu), and they too stagnated. China also -- you must remember is a mixture of Buddhist and Confucian philosophies and both emphasise staticness. China lagged behind from the 15th century to the 19th as the Mandarin "caste" became entrenched.

The Dark ages are posthumously called, whereas, these are really the middle age I when the Western Roman Empire fell due to invasions by Germanics, Slavs, etc. into Europe (430 AD to the 11th~12th century) who were mainly non-Christian and the latter Middle ages when the states were forming. These had nothing to do with existing philosophies -- on the contrary, you can see that the gradual Christianization by the Catholic Church of these peoples is what raised them from barbarism

This completely differs from what I pointed out what happened to Buddhist-Confucian China and Hindu India. Christianity does not believe in a karma, which promotes action to do "your stuff". Hinduism promotes focus on the inward side which has it's good and bad points -- as does the Christian philosophical approach. India, despite it's large % of Christians, Muslims etc. is Hindu in culture and particularly Brahminical Hindu -- Vedic Hinduism in my opinion was more dynamic, while post-Buddha Brahmanical Hinduism emphasised more on letting things stay the way they were. Modern Hindu philosophy can be more dynamic, so what hampered India from the 4th to the 15th century does not have the same relevance to modern India

South America has been a work in progress for centuries -- when the Spanish came there, no civilisation had a written language and it took centuries for the Spanish to penetrate the interior, especially Brazil. Chile and Argentina are very large, Catholic countries that have a dynamism and good health-care and care of the externals (not just a focus on the inside which was characteristic of Hindu India).

The world over --> you forget that the USA was always multi-religious, with 30% at least being Catholic in the late 19th century. Religion plays an important role, but more importantly in the philosophy it imparts, as I keep repeating.

Also, BElgium and France were/areCatholic countries that kept pace with their Protestant counterparts, don't forget, so the Protestant work-ethic is a myth. It's more closely a Germanic work-ethic (Since Franks and Belgia have Teutonic influences though they'd hate to admit that)

1 Samuel is a one-time command, not a philosophy, which is quite unlike the Gita.