Whether or not that legend is true, you're right to say that there are similarities in approach in some ways between Buddhism and Orthodoxy that are not found in the West. It's not necessary to claim that Buddhism influenced the Church, or that the Buddha was 'appropriated', to see this. As I've said before, Hesychasm and Zazen have similarities, but it's closer to the truth to say that both traditions see the necessity of detachment. Of course, they're not the only traditions to see this - it's not as if the Buddha invented it. I prefer to see a situation in which, for whatever reason, the West went its own way, and saw its religious soul subsumed by the will to power, which is now consuming the world.
"It's not necessary to claim that Buddhism influenced the Church, or that the Buddha was 'appropriated', to see this."
Agreed, but there is no harm in speculating that Christianity in its Eastern manifestation was influenced by Dharmic teachings. And the Church did appropriate the Buddha's story. Christianity, like many religions, is syncretic. Justin Martyr incorporated concepts from the Stoics, and declared Socrates and Plato partial Christians in order to get necessary ideas into Christian thought during its formative years.
"I prefer to see a situation in which, for whatever reason, the West went its own way, and saw its religious soul subsumed by the will to power, which is now consuming the world."
The reason is clear. Western Christianity declared itself a universal truth, higher and more complete than any other. A pure power move. The will to power that has subsumed the West came from within Christianity itself.
'The will to power that has subsumed the West came from within Christianity itself.'
This is simply not true, however much you repeat it. There is no 'will to power' within Christianity - the founder of the faith teaches precisely the opposite: surrender to God;'s will and service to others. It's explicit and, as I said above, in other parts of the world (India, Africa, the Orthodox countries) Christianity does not manifest this way. The real question is why Western Christianity manifested in such a way that the will to power sometimes (though by no means always) corrupted the faith.
And doesn't Buddhism also declare itself 'a universal truth, higher and more complete than any other'? You have been doing a lot of that here! Most religions in fact tend to do this. I think there's another another explanation, more tied up with specific European history.
A will to power can be found in Christianity's sacred texts:
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion"
Power move.
"Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
Power move.
"Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord."
Power move.
In your own post, you say the founder taught surrender to God's will.
Power move.
Look at the words: dominion; subdue; submit; surrender. It is about power, and who commands and who obeys.
"in other parts of the world (India, Africa, the Orthodox countries) Christianity does not manifest this way."
In Africa, India, and Orthodox countries, Christians are part (and sometimes leaders) of efforts to suppress and harm queers--in some cases, trying to change centuries old cultures/traditions which are not anti-queer into ones that are. Again, an exertion of power.
"And doesn't Buddhism also declare itself 'a universal truth, higher and more complete than any other'?"
In part. Buddhism also declares that all other paths are equal to it--so in a way it is not higher, and both complete and incomplete.
"I think there's another another explanation, more tied up with specific European history."
I would also look to Greek and Roman thought. Someone in Rod Dreher's community posted something that stuck with me: if European culture is thought of as a house, then Greek ideology is its foundation, and Christian ideology are its walls.
We could spend all day on this I'm sure, but you're conflating a lot of quite different things here - one of the two Genesis creation stories, St Paul's practical instructions to the early church, Christian sexual morality and the notion of kenosis (the emptying of self-will). The latter is actually close to what Buddhism teaches on the same subject. Calling it a 'power move' is the equivalent of saying the same thing about the Buddhist instruction to detach from worldly things. Just misleading, and distorting of what is actually going on. I could easily run through Buddhist practice and teaching and history with the same kind of jaundiced eye, but it wouldn't prove a lot. The Bible is a library spanning a thousand years, but Christians follow the teachings of Christ, and on the subject of power they're crystal clear. The distortions of some of his followers are another matter.
What is interesting here, and pretty undeniable, is how Western liberalism - including, for example, your concern for the wellbeing of sexual minorities - is a direct evolution of Western Christian thought. Buddhist countries, not to mention Muslim or Hindu ones, are considerably less minority-friendly than those with a Christian heritage. The latter are also at the forefront of concerns about race, gender etc. Tom Holland makes the fair point that the seed of 'woke' politics can be found in the Sermon on the Mount - which, along with the crucifixion, is far from being a 'power move.' In fact, it is a set of values which permanently and globally challenge what power even is, and how God uses it. There's no 'Pride Month' outside the parts of the world which were formed by the Church.
Have you ever read Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals? Might be an intetesting exploration if not. It sees the oddly affable mustached melancholic railing against the "slave morality" of Christianity. The reason for this, from my reading for what it is worth, is explicitly because Judeo-Christianity suppresses the will to power in contrast to the "master morality" he saw in Arab or Japanese warriors or the Vikings as archetypal examples. An interesting premise.
Good point. I've not read that, but I've read some other Nietzsche. I particularly remember him dismissing Christianity as 'a religion for slaves and women.' Which of course is one of the reasons it took off in the first place: it offered a vision of the universe in which God himself would be sacrificed rather than demanding sacrifice, and in which, in Paul's words, God would use the weak to humble the strong.
What also interested me about Nietzsche is that although he hated Christianity he could also see that without God society was in great danger of completely losing its head. As indeed did he.
You are on the ball. What makes "Geneology" quite an interesting book of his is the very coherent and unified argument it presents. Therein he explicitly articulates things previously presented in symbolic/metaphoric form (Zarathustra) or as collected shorter maxims/paragraphs.
As a Christian, it is well worth a read because it points to the shadow interpretation of the biblical statement that "the last shall be first and the first shall be last." It ruthlessly points out the possibility for something we can think of as akin to aspiring victimhood which he refers to as "slave morality" (i.e. 'I am special and morally right because I am oppressed and so am deserved of some reward from reality.' He was actually taking the piss out of the roots of Wokeness 130 years ago!)
Regarding his madness, I often wonder if he would have gone so far off the rails if (1) he had ever experienced genuinely deep connection and a sense of belonging rather than have multiple failed relationships and an odd family situation (2) he had actually sold a load of books and realised that there wasn't actually a sustaining there there in terms of the meaningfullness of external success and validation.
There is also a wonderful fiction book called "When Nietzsche Wept" by the great existential psychotherapist Irvin Yalom. Would highly recommend to anyone interested in the affable madman or even in psychotherapy writ large.
Read some Nietzsche, and was underwhelmed. His portrayal of Buddhism was off, so I did not put much store in the other aspects of his writing. Seemed mostly like axe-grinding.
He was definitely grinding axes!!!! He just so happened to do so with his own soul :-P
I do not know enough to comment on his Buddhist understandings or what he himself would have had access to read on the subject in late 19th century Germany. Was Shopenhauer writing about Buddhism before he was maybe? Could that have influenced him?
If you were to read anything of his, "Geneology" is the one I'd recommend. I read it in conjunction with a load of non-fiction Tolstoy for some Yin and Yang.
Thanks for this Jacob. I was unaware of it.
Whether or not that legend is true, you're right to say that there are similarities in approach in some ways between Buddhism and Orthodoxy that are not found in the West. It's not necessary to claim that Buddhism influenced the Church, or that the Buddha was 'appropriated', to see this. As I've said before, Hesychasm and Zazen have similarities, but it's closer to the truth to say that both traditions see the necessity of detachment. Of course, they're not the only traditions to see this - it's not as if the Buddha invented it. I prefer to see a situation in which, for whatever reason, the West went its own way, and saw its religious soul subsumed by the will to power, which is now consuming the world.
"It's not necessary to claim that Buddhism influenced the Church, or that the Buddha was 'appropriated', to see this."
Agreed, but there is no harm in speculating that Christianity in its Eastern manifestation was influenced by Dharmic teachings. And the Church did appropriate the Buddha's story. Christianity, like many religions, is syncretic. Justin Martyr incorporated concepts from the Stoics, and declared Socrates and Plato partial Christians in order to get necessary ideas into Christian thought during its formative years.
"I prefer to see a situation in which, for whatever reason, the West went its own way, and saw its religious soul subsumed by the will to power, which is now consuming the world."
The reason is clear. Western Christianity declared itself a universal truth, higher and more complete than any other. A pure power move. The will to power that has subsumed the West came from within Christianity itself.
'The will to power that has subsumed the West came from within Christianity itself.'
This is simply not true, however much you repeat it. There is no 'will to power' within Christianity - the founder of the faith teaches precisely the opposite: surrender to God;'s will and service to others. It's explicit and, as I said above, in other parts of the world (India, Africa, the Orthodox countries) Christianity does not manifest this way. The real question is why Western Christianity manifested in such a way that the will to power sometimes (though by no means always) corrupted the faith.
And doesn't Buddhism also declare itself 'a universal truth, higher and more complete than any other'? You have been doing a lot of that here! Most religions in fact tend to do this. I think there's another another explanation, more tied up with specific European history.
"There is no 'will to power' within Christianity"
A will to power can be found in Christianity's sacred texts:
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion"
Power move.
"Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
Power move.
"Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord."
Power move.
In your own post, you say the founder taught surrender to God's will.
Power move.
Look at the words: dominion; subdue; submit; surrender. It is about power, and who commands and who obeys.
"in other parts of the world (India, Africa, the Orthodox countries) Christianity does not manifest this way."
In Africa, India, and Orthodox countries, Christians are part (and sometimes leaders) of efforts to suppress and harm queers--in some cases, trying to change centuries old cultures/traditions which are not anti-queer into ones that are. Again, an exertion of power.
"And doesn't Buddhism also declare itself 'a universal truth, higher and more complete than any other'?"
In part. Buddhism also declares that all other paths are equal to it--so in a way it is not higher, and both complete and incomplete.
"I think there's another another explanation, more tied up with specific European history."
I would also look to Greek and Roman thought. Someone in Rod Dreher's community posted something that stuck with me: if European culture is thought of as a house, then Greek ideology is its foundation, and Christian ideology are its walls.
We could spend all day on this I'm sure, but you're conflating a lot of quite different things here - one of the two Genesis creation stories, St Paul's practical instructions to the early church, Christian sexual morality and the notion of kenosis (the emptying of self-will). The latter is actually close to what Buddhism teaches on the same subject. Calling it a 'power move' is the equivalent of saying the same thing about the Buddhist instruction to detach from worldly things. Just misleading, and distorting of what is actually going on. I could easily run through Buddhist practice and teaching and history with the same kind of jaundiced eye, but it wouldn't prove a lot. The Bible is a library spanning a thousand years, but Christians follow the teachings of Christ, and on the subject of power they're crystal clear. The distortions of some of his followers are another matter.
What is interesting here, and pretty undeniable, is how Western liberalism - including, for example, your concern for the wellbeing of sexual minorities - is a direct evolution of Western Christian thought. Buddhist countries, not to mention Muslim or Hindu ones, are considerably less minority-friendly than those with a Christian heritage. The latter are also at the forefront of concerns about race, gender etc. Tom Holland makes the fair point that the seed of 'woke' politics can be found in the Sermon on the Mount - which, along with the crucifixion, is far from being a 'power move.' In fact, it is a set of values which permanently and globally challenge what power even is, and how God uses it. There's no 'Pride Month' outside the parts of the world which were formed by the Church.
The meek shall inherit the Earth.
Have you ever read Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals? Might be an intetesting exploration if not. It sees the oddly affable mustached melancholic railing against the "slave morality" of Christianity. The reason for this, from my reading for what it is worth, is explicitly because Judeo-Christianity suppresses the will to power in contrast to the "master morality" he saw in Arab or Japanese warriors or the Vikings as archetypal examples. An interesting premise.
Good point. I've not read that, but I've read some other Nietzsche. I particularly remember him dismissing Christianity as 'a religion for slaves and women.' Which of course is one of the reasons it took off in the first place: it offered a vision of the universe in which God himself would be sacrificed rather than demanding sacrifice, and in which, in Paul's words, God would use the weak to humble the strong.
What also interested me about Nietzsche is that although he hated Christianity he could also see that without God society was in great danger of completely losing its head. As indeed did he.
You are on the ball. What makes "Geneology" quite an interesting book of his is the very coherent and unified argument it presents. Therein he explicitly articulates things previously presented in symbolic/metaphoric form (Zarathustra) or as collected shorter maxims/paragraphs.
As a Christian, it is well worth a read because it points to the shadow interpretation of the biblical statement that "the last shall be first and the first shall be last." It ruthlessly points out the possibility for something we can think of as akin to aspiring victimhood which he refers to as "slave morality" (i.e. 'I am special and morally right because I am oppressed and so am deserved of some reward from reality.' He was actually taking the piss out of the roots of Wokeness 130 years ago!)
Regarding his madness, I often wonder if he would have gone so far off the rails if (1) he had ever experienced genuinely deep connection and a sense of belonging rather than have multiple failed relationships and an odd family situation (2) he had actually sold a load of books and realised that there wasn't actually a sustaining there there in terms of the meaningfullness of external success and validation.
There is also a wonderful fiction book called "When Nietzsche Wept" by the great existential psychotherapist Irvin Yalom. Would highly recommend to anyone interested in the affable madman or even in psychotherapy writ large.
Thanks QL.
Read some Nietzsche, and was underwhelmed. His portrayal of Buddhism was off, so I did not put much store in the other aspects of his writing. Seemed mostly like axe-grinding.
He was definitely grinding axes!!!! He just so happened to do so with his own soul :-P
I do not know enough to comment on his Buddhist understandings or what he himself would have had access to read on the subject in late 19th century Germany. Was Shopenhauer writing about Buddhism before he was maybe? Could that have influenced him?
If you were to read anything of his, "Geneology" is the one I'd recommend. I read it in conjunction with a load of non-fiction Tolstoy for some Yin and Yang.