First, Poul Anderson's works. There is a Commander Ranjit Singh in Ensign Flandry. The Sikh Hindu-Muslim synthesis is monotheism plus reincarnation. (Reincarnation is of souls bearing karmic consequences.) The Muslim-Buddhist synthesis on Altai might be monotheism plus rebirth but we are not told. (Rebirth is just of karmic consequences.) Reincarnation is mentioned just once in the League period:
"...Adzel droned, 'you see reincarnation not at all necessary to the idea uh Karma -'"
-Poul Anderson, "The Trouble Twisters" IN Anderson, David Falkayn: Star Trader (Riverdale, NY, March 2010), pp. 77-208 AT V, p. 131.
Adzel is right. Karma is action which has consequences in this life and for posterity whether or not we are individually reincarnated but I am not sure where he is going with this in terms of his Mahayanism. Zen is part of the Mahayana. The Zen monks who guide our meditation group do not mention rebirth except one who seems to be as familiar with the bardo plane as he might be with a London Underground station. Maybe, when Buddhism got out of India, it was able to downplay rebirth a bit. Reincarnation, revised as rebirth in Buddhism, is a big deal in India even though it is not in the Veda. It is associated with a non-Vedic contemplative tradition that has become Jainism, Buddhism and Yoga.
This brings us to what is wrong with Indian philosophy. Orthodoxy is acceptance of the authority of the oldest scriptures, the Veda. There are three unorthodox philosophical systems, three pairs of orthodox systems and three main interpretations of the main orthodox system! Thus, three triads encompass everything. Of the nine systems, eight do not question reincarnation (Buddhist: rebirth) but accept it as a premise and the ninth system, unorthodox Materialism, has died out in India. Unquestioning acceptance of any doctrine is not philosophical.
Earth and, in Flandry's time, the Terran Empire should accept "India's great and lasting contribution to [galactic] thought" but not its dogmatism about reincarnation.
12 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Your comments here puzzles me. India has already made its "great and lasting contribution" to human thought thru the Indian/"Arabic" numbers an unknown genius invented there.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
What's to puzzle? I agree about the numbers. But the cover of AN OUTLINE OF INDIAN PHILOSOPHY shown on the post praises the philosophical systems as a great and lasting contribution. Imagine if, in Europe, the only philosophizing that was done was confined within the parameters of Scholasticism.
Paul.
!Kaor, Paul!
Except I see nothing so "great and lasting" in Hindu philosophy. It has never affected the world as STRONGLY as Platonism, Aristotelianism (and its Scholastic successor), etc., has done. Or, for that matter, as Confucianism has done.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Exactly. It really distresses me that eight out of the nine Indian philosophical systems unquestioningly accept reincarnation - even though one unorthodox system, Buddhism, revises it as "rebirth."
But the yogic practices that underly the Yoga philosophical system and the meditative practices that underly Buddhist philosophies are of lasting value as are Indian mythology and literature and, as we have already said, mathematics.
Paul.
In fact Indian religions have (since the late 19th century) had a very strong effect on a number of Western schools of thought. Wicca, which I did a lot of research on, is saturated with Indian influences -- not least because Gardner, the 'father' of its modern form, spent a lot of time in and around India (Ceylon, Burma, etc.).
BTW, the reason reincarnation isn't prominent in the Vedas (particularly the Rig-Veda) is because it's so old -- quite possibly composed as early as 1500 BCE, and probably in the north-west of the subcontinent, and drawing on elements that had been established before the Aryans arrived there. The similarities to religious elements (names of deities, etc.) found as far west as Mitanni, and in the older Iranian compositions, would support that.
That 1500 BCE date means it's only about 300-500 years younger than the start of the Indo-Aryan migration, which started in the steppe country south and east of the Urals and probably after 2000 BCE.
Hence it's much closer to the Proto-Indo-European religion, which was a fairly straightforward polytheism.
(Greek and Roman religion show strong similarities to the Rig-Veda; all three have "Sky Father", divine twin horsemen, etc.)
I'd guess that some important elements of Hinduism (and reincarnation possibly being one) were absorbed from the pre-Aryan layer. Just as modern Hindus are a genetic mixture between the previous population and that migration, so the religion is a composite.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: And I don't believe in reincarnation/rebirth. Which has been used to justify the cruelties of the Hindu caste system. Plus, I don't believe in the Hindu gods.
I know next to nothing about yogic practices, so I can't comment. And the West/Christianity has its own traditions of meditation. Buddhist meditation seems pointless to me because it is not focused on God, Who is the only truly transcendent reality.
Mr. Stirling: I knew about Gerald Gardner and the role he played in creating the neo-paganism we can see in our time. But, intellectually, I can't take Wicca and its competitors seriously. Compared to the ancientry, learning, and depth of thought found in Judaism/Christianity, neo-paganism is shallow and thin.
Exactly, before its eastern branch absorbed those ideas about reincarnation and caste, the religion of the Indo/Aryans was a straightforward polytheism reminiscent of what the Greeks and Romans had. The Aryans who invaded India added their gods to those of the older inhabitants.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Let me say that I do not believe in reincarnation/rebirth or gods and find the practice of Zen meditation highly significant.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Good! I believe that to be at least a start in the right direction.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: Wicca is younger than most religions... but all religions start -somewhere-. And it draws on older elements. Some genuinely ancient, like the borrowings from Hinduism and Buddhism, others now oldish but younger than they claimed (like
Theosophy).
In fact, Theosophy was absolutely -saturated- with Indian elements.
Madam Blavatsky was wildly popular and quie well-known in India, especially among early Indian nationalists. She visited there, and corresponded with a number of Indian thinkers. The authorities of the Raj considered her a subversive!
Theosophy has been influential in surprising places.
The Baltic German adventurer von Ungern-Sternberg moved in Theosophist circles in Russia before WW1.
And the 20's-30's pulp writer Talbot Mundy was a Theosophist of sorts. Most of his fiction features things like ancient secret mystic orders and so forth, many of them straight out of the Theosophist writings.
Edgar Rice Burroughs also picked up some Theosophist elements, though I doubt he actually seriously believed in them -- take a look at the Holy Therns on Barsoom, and the Valley of Dor and the plant-men there.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Certainly! I have no objection to agreeing some neo-pagans picked up some ideas from Theosophist, Buddhist, and Hindu sources. But that makes them LESS, not more like the real pagan religions of the past: Greco-Roman Olympians, Germanic and Scandinavian paganism, etc.
I've read a little about Madame Blavatsky, enough to make me think she was half a charlatan. I had not known she dabbled in the fringes of Indian politics.
Your own book DAGGERS IN DARKNESS makes me unsurprised the Mad Baron picked up some peculiar ideas from Theosophist sources.
Never heard of Talbot Mundy before. But your comments about him reminded me of how some of H. Rider Haggard's novels also used what now seems to me have been Theosophist themes.
Ah, ERB! I well remember the Holy Therns from THE GODS OF MARS. If my memory is correct the Therns did not believe in their own religion. It was a fraud, a scam for extracting money from the gullible and deceived.
I have a few books touching on these topics. Such as WICCA'S CHARM, by Catherine Edwards Sanders; THE UNICORN IN THE SANCTUARY, by Randy England; and CATHOLICS AND THE NEW AGE, by Fr. Mitch Pacwa, S.J.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: neo-pagans are different from pagan reconstructionists, who actually try to do the pagan religions the way their original followers did. Asatruar, followers of the Greed pantheon, etc.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Intellectually, I have more sympathy for reconstructionist pagans than I do for theosophist neo-pagans. If you want to worship the Olympian gods, believe in the way pagan Greeks and Romans did, with no theosophist, Hindu, and Buddhist stuff mixed in! Their "scriptures" should be the ILIAD, ODYSSEY, THEOGONY, and maybe the AENEID.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment