To: metmom; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; xzins; caww; kosta50; boatbums
Dawkins does not have the depth of Jainism.
Jainism's beliefs are at least 2900 years old and are born out of the Gangetic Indo-European beliefs in reincarnation, the concept of maya and rejection of Aryanic deities like Indra/Thor and Varuna/Dyaus Pita/Zeus/Jupiter.
By 900 BC, the Aryans had been in northern India, in the Gangetic plains for 800+ years and had been moving towards demoting their ARyanic gods like Indra (who in the Rig Veda (c. 1700 BC) is mentioned quite often as the War/Storm God and get high praise and yagnas (sacrifices etc.) of worship, yet in modern-day Hinduism is practically ignored along with the rest of the pantheon bar the Hindu trinity (Shiva-Vishnu-Brahma).
Shiva seems to be more a Dravidian god (if one connects the pictures of the ascetic with a cobra protecting his head that are depicted on Harappan coins to Shiva), while Vishnu seems like a convenient way to add in different gods to the pantheon -- functioning in the same way as Osiris did, so both Rama and Krishna are incarnations of Vishnu (and also 8 other incarnations from Narasimha, the half-man, half-lion to the dwarf who could step across worlds) and Brahma is the creator but ignored)
Indra seems to have retained his place until the time of Emperor Asoka (300 BC) who proclaimed Buddhism as the theme religion of his Empire (which stretched over all of what is now Afghanistan, Eastern Iran, TAjikistan, eastern Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, all of Pakistan, India except what is now southern Tamil nadu, Bangladesh, Nepal) -- this act destroyed Vedic Hinduism and even when Hinduism reclaimed ground under the Nandas (post Christ), it was Brahmanical Hinduism with Manu rated highly and a Hinduism influenced by Mahavira and GAutama Buddha's rejection of the old gods.
This is reflected in the Jatakas and that era writing where there is a story of Indra attempting to disturb Shiva and shiva cursing him to have his body covered with va... (well, woman's private parts) -- and India from that point on becomes an object of ridicule in Hindu religion (he was already ridiculed in Jainism and Buddhism).
Jainism, with it's rejection of Vedic Hinduism also added in the concepts of ahimsa and vegetarianism --> Jains will not eat any meat or eggs or fish or any vegetable that grows under the ground.
The Jain idea of the universe is
They believe that EVERYONE on this diagram except the Siddhis/Adinaths (conquerors of death) i.e. those who live in Siddhasila are subject to death and reincarnation -- the gods may have powers, but they are just another one of those subject to the law of reincarnation.
They believe in endless cycles of time, and cycles within cycles (the hindu ability to generate high numbers is truly amazing -- their cosmology relates to billions of years).
To answer betty's question -- the Jains argue that all are subject to the laws of the universe and that it is illogical to argue for a being that exists out of it. While Maths did originate in the EAst (from the Babylonian concepts of 360 degress of a circle to the Hindu discover of 0, Natural Sciences too had their origins in the Near East - India, with the extensions into Greece (mainland Greece didn't get civilised until the fall of the Minoans on Crete c. 1700 BC IMHO). The Indians concentrated on maths, metallurgy and medicine.
To answer boatbums -- no one is needed to keep score in their theory as what you do influences your internal "aura" or whatever. This is completely alien to the Christian concepts so it is not Pelagianism either as this is not "doing good" but "cleansing your aura". Also, do note that in the Hindu system, at least the modern one, there is a higher god above the trinity called Ishwara (of whom Shiva is supposed to an embodiment of -- I don't quite follow that). Presumably he keeps score. however, Hindus believe that the universe ends when all (including the gods) are absorved into Ishwara and everything ends.
This ties in to their concept of maya (or that the entire universe is an illusion) which is what influenced the Gnostics from the Paulicians to the Cathars.
2,247 posted on
01/31/2011 2:18:40 AM PST by
Cronos
(Vade Retro Dottore Satana Jeckle)
To: Cronos; Alamo-Girl; metmom; xzins; caww; kosta50; boatbums; James C. Bennett; YHAOS
To answer betty's question the Jains argue that all are subject to the laws of the universe and that it is illogical to argue for a being that exists out of it. And yet Aristotle argued for a first uncaused cause as the "prime mover" of the universe. Because this cause is "uncaused" in principle, it cannot arise from a purely natural source; i.e., a spatio-temporal one rising from "inside" the system of nature.
FWIW, it appears to me that the structure of the universe is not a sui-generis natural development, not a product of "nature." I.e., it is not something spontaneously generated by the phenomena to which it applies. Plus Aristotle spoke of a final cause a purpose, goal or limit towards which all causation in the universe ultimately tends.
Or to put it another way, the universe does not generate its own "rules." It is not the spontaneous product of an unguided emergence from an eternal, primordial chaos.
Anyhoot, my point is that the natural sciences do not rely on the insights of the Jains. Rather, they are largely premised in Aristotlian logic and his theory of causation. Please let me further qualify what I mean by the natural sciences: they are systematic, experimental, and based on inductive methods (ever since Bacon). In this sense, they are arguably products of the Western approach, not of the Eastern.
But this "East" and "West" divide what to make of it? You wrote, "While Maths did originate in the East (from the Babylonian concepts of 360 degress of a circle to the Hindu discovery of 0, Natural Sciences too had their origins in the Near East India, with the extensions into Greece (mainland Greece didn't get civilised until the fall of the Minoans on Crete c. 1700 BC IMHO). The Indians concentrated on maths, metallurgy and medicine."
Some thoughts. I'm aware that the world-changing "discovery" of 0 (zero) occurred in the Indus Valley sometime in the fourth century A.D. (IIRC). The Arabs subsequently incorporated it into their system of numbers, from whence it spread everywhere.... What an epiphany for the mathematical mind who first conceived this amazing idea! (Unfortunately I do not now recall his name.) But I have a question: In what way did Hindu or Buddhist thought neither of which seems to make either mind or reason even topical shape this outcome?
Plus regarding this "EastWest" quandary: I just finished reading an interesting book by Richard Geldart, Remembering Heralitus (2000), wherein he "re-members" Heraclitus by interpreting his all-too-sparse fragments in the light of Advaita-Vedanta (Hindu) philosophy on the grounds that Heraclitus was from Ephesus, then a thriving commercial center and sort of intellectual crossroads of the day. So Geldart's conclusion is Heraclitus not only knew of Advaita-Vedanta thought, but that it was seminal in his own thinking. (I am not entirely persuaded by this view, FWIW.)
Plus here's another such quandary: Pythagoras, reportedly studied 20 years with the High Priests of Egypt (remarkable astronomers among other things), and also with the Chaldeans (historical Babylon).... So was he "East" or "West?"
What does seem clear to me that both Pythagoras and Heraclitus were major influences for Plato, and from him through his student and colleague Aristotle unto the present age of Western culture and civilization....
I just claim all four of these august personages for the West.... LOL!
Thank you so very much for your outstanding essay/posts on Eastern philosophical traditions, dear Cronos!
2,527 posted on
02/01/2011 12:24:17 PM PST by
betty boop
(Seek truth and beauty together; you will never find them apart. — F. M. Cornford)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson