Those are the basic concepts of the world's religions. We have Zarathustra, Lao-tzu, the Buddhas (if I got that right), certainly Christ and Mohammed.
A philosophy professor of mine called these examples of perfect beings leading perfect lives tathagata. That's actually a concept of Buddhism but it remains the same when expanded. That professor, Mr Pendle, was probably the most intelligent man I have ever met. In the same room with him, in discussion, his intellect was literally palpable. He was not intimidating in any way. His mind was just there in an almost physical sense. He certainly wasn't imposing physically. Five-eight maybe, thin almost delicate. I guess, interestingly enough, he was a black guy. I only mention it here because in another context that might be interesting. That's a shame. It's a false context.
His point was; these men's thoughts, words, ideas became the basis of our great religions. They became our pathways to understanding, to paradise. They came to inform our relations with others.
These ideas took hold slowly over centuries, even millennia. It's a roadmap of the growth of good ideas and concepts whether spiritual or secular. The idea of accretion. It's so important in human history. These ideas are separate from creation myths and such.
Are you bored yet? I noticed in my philosophy class the subject was very soothing. It seemed to put some people to sleep. I never tried reading philosophy to my children as fussy infants but I did notice any discussion seemed to make their eyes roll-up as teen agers. That may have meant something else.
To quote Houseman, " Listen lads. It's our turn now." (Look it up. It's funny. Honest)
That slow building of momentum of transcendent ideas interested me. It also made me curious of why Islam spread so quickly; literally in Mohammed's lifetime. That's unique in the stories of the various Tathagatas. Christ was the only one to attract enough notice to get himself killed for his trouble.
It wasn't until years later I read a very good history of the Arab people by Albert Hourani that I found the explanation. It's a very good book and I understand, for some, an excellent sleep aid. ( A History of the Arab Peoples.) I get bored so you don't have to.
In those days the Middle East was divided into city-states. Those cities were theocracies. The head of the government was the head of the local religion and to greater or lesser degree shaped that religion.
Simply put, Mohammed shaped Islam into a religion based on conquest and the attendant exploitation of neighboring people. It's actually a model remarkably similar to the development of the Roman Empire except with a rigid religious component. For its time it was remarkably successful.
As an observer, what seems unfortunate to me is the underlying tradition of hostility to neighbors and the idiosyncrasies of a single author. There seems to be a healthy dose of clinical, male hysteria unrefined by later writing or writers. I think the Quran suffers from an absence of a New Testament.
The Judeo-Christian Bible benefits greatly by the softening of the Old Testament's exhortations to violence and conquest and literal contempt of women by the New Testament presented as Holy Writ. We know you shouldn't stone women because Christ said so. We know conquest of our neighbors is wrong because the Bible tells us so. The Quran? Not so much.
In the current day it sure does make a quandary. Is there a solution? I dunno. That's not part of this assignment. I do know we'll never affect a positive change by applying violent, external pressure. It never has and never will work on us. I'm not sure what would make us think it would work on others no matter what their Good Book says or why it says it. We ought to know, no matter how people pray or how many times they pray, when that's done they are still just people.
No comments:
Post a Comment