As an American convert to Orthodoxy from Evangelicalism… sorry? At the very least, to defend my good name, we’re not all like that (though it is a depressingly common trend).
I’m with the tenth century Christians, inasmuch as I can skip over to much Buddhist literature (especially the Dhammapada) without skipping a beat; it’s always been a very natural transition for me. From what I’ve heard, the feeling is apparently mutual, at least when it comes to the Sermon on the Mount.
Do you have any resources discussing the accidental canonization of Pope Marcellinus? That’s hilarious (though, if you will, his accidental canonization could be seen as a providential exposé of the inevitability of universal salvation).
A version of of Barlaam's tales appears in the casket choice decreed by Pportia's father in "The Merchant of Venice". To my mind, it is an illustration of the powers of stories to cross boundaries of culture, faith, and age via the unconscious (often much wiser and more open than the stratifying conscious mind and presumably the reason Jesus taught with parables).
The dissonance between the historical consciousness of, like, the average Greek parishioner and of an American evangelical convert to Orthodoxy is depressing if one thinks about it too long. I keep waiting for the punchline on the phenomenon of mass Protestant conversion to Orthodoxy and Catholicism to happen so the trend can stop dominating the scene, but alas.
I, too, an a convert from the Fundamentalist wing of Evangelicalism. I was fortunate in that I first converted to Lutheranism, then to Orthodoxy. I've been wrong so many times. Thus, I have been disabused of any notion of theological certitude. This, unfortunately, is not the case with any converts who are proud of their ability to discern the truth. They still measure truth against themselves; they are their own plumb bob. I've also noticed a disturbing trend among immigrants from the old country who are very often politically conservative and drag that into the church. We have a Yaya in our church who refused to wear a mask or get the vaccine, and was convinced the bishop was part of a conspiracy to poison his flock.
I must admit, however, that this is the first time I've read about Barlaam and Josaphat. For some reason I had them confused with Barsanuphius and John.
I began life as a Unitarian-Universalist, so this sort of commonalty seems to be baked into my consciousness (though I decided I was an atheist at age 7 with an argument strikingly similar to that of Russell's "Why I am not a Christian" - "converting' when at age 15, a Jewish friend said to me, "you know Don, not everyone thinks God's an old guy in the sky with a beard." - a few years later, by Grace granted a recognition of That/He/She/whatever pronoun "in whom we live and move and have our being" delivered me, as Plotinus put it, "from thought to vision."
I don't know if it's something most scholars would accept, but writing around the time of World War 1., in his commentary on the Bhagavad Gita, Sri Aurobindo noted having recognized sutras from the Gita lifted "bodily" into various Buddhist texts from around the first to second centuries BC. Sri Aurobindo saw this as largely responsible for transforming a relatively small, rather ascetic teaching into the world religion of compassion and love so exemplified in the Metta Suttra and later in Shantideva.
Whatever myths (errors?) there are regarding Jesus' travels to India, it seems highly likely that Mahayana Buddhist monks would have made their way to Egypt before his birth (the tales of King Milinda are referred to in 3rd century Greece). So whether it is factually true, I love the idea that Sri Krishna, by way the Gita and subsequent Mahayana Buddhists, had some "influence" on the teachings of that dark-skinned Palestinian socialist Jew who has had such a transformational effect on all of humanity.
***
I'm just assuming people here will know who Sri Aurobindo was, but in case not, a brief overview:
Sent at age 5 from India to England by his anglophone father, with strict instructions for him not to have ANY contact with anything India, Aravinda Ghose grew up a poet and writer, as a teenager teaching himself German to read Goethe in the original, and Italian to read Dante in the original.
It's my understanding that he received the highest marks in Greek and Latin ever recorded at Cambridge University. A member of the "Lotus and Dagger" society at the University, he returned to India in 1893 determined to fight for liberation, within 10 years, becoming the leader of the independence movement prior to Gandhi's arrival on the scene (he also was overwhelmed with a sense of an "all pervading Infinite Reality" upon setting foot on Indian soil in 1893, a sense that never left him)
In 1910 receiving an inner command to leave British India i(he had already been jailed in 1907 for suspicious of being a terrorist, and in 1910 was considered by many in the British government to be "the most dangerous man in India") he left for Pondicherry, in French-controlled South India, and lived there for the rest of his life.
His major works were written, 64 pages a month, between 1914 and 1921, and are considered by many to be among the greatest works in the history of Indian philosophy (note that he wrote his Gita, Upanishads, and Vedic commentaries, as well as his works on Yoga, socio-political issues, poetry and more, simultaneously during that 7 year period).
His collaborator, Mirra Alfassa (aka "The Mother") gave an impromptu commentary on the Dhammapada, and during her travels in Japan from 1914 to 1920 met several roshis who recognized her as a fully enlightened master.
Humorously enough, because of some stray negative comments regarding the extreme nihilists who have existed among the Buddhists, my integral yoga community (that is the community of disciples of the Mother and Sri Aurobindo) have an almost knee-jerk negative attitude toward Buddhism.
However, Robert Thurman (former chair of Tibetan Buddhist studies at Columbia U, and first of Americans to be ordained as a monk in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition) recognized much of Sri Aurobindo's philosophy to be remarkably congruent with Tibetan Buddhism. And to come full circle, in the mid 70s I was startled to see the extent of commonalties between the rituals of various sects - particularly the Nyingma) - of Tibetan Buddhism and medieval Catholicism (and even more so with many of the teachings and practices of contemplative prayer in the Orthodox tradition).
That Unitarian-Universalist influence was, I guess, much stronger than i realized, though I've hardly set foot in their church since 1963.
What a fascinating story of cultural osmosis! I love fantasy tales that find their way in the actual history or at least in the collective consciousness. For that reason I hope that one day you will write a similar article about Prester John. (I know that you have shortly narrated his legend in the Story of Christianity, but I am sure you can say much, much more about this topic.) Or, if we dare to dream big, perhaps one of your next novels will take place in the vast grey zone between reality and imagination in Medieval Europe and Asia (similar to Umberto Eco's Baudolino).
I hope I did not offend anyone by using the adjective "Nestorian." I had no such intent.
"God, ALL in all" seems to contradict any ad modum recipientis kind of ontology, if I may phrase it that way. The problem with Neoplatonic ontologies in general is that they were designed to account for the eternity of the world as it is. The victory over all Powers and Principalities in Jesus Christ risen from the dead and the abolition of this Age are not welcome here, not to mention the idea that risen Christ is the firstborn of all creation and the first man ever made in the image of the invisible God.
Thank you for clarifying your opinion about Nagarjuna.
"I confess, I should like to make quite a great a deal of it" : I am sure everybody here would love to read it.
Could you, please, be so kind as to explain to us how you can be an anima naturaliter buddhistica and a Neoplatonist? I will not ask you if a Buddhist anima is a real possibility. And I do not suggest that you would have to be both a Buddhist and a Neoplatonist at the same time. I am asking because, as time passes, I feel more and more a Buddhist Orthodox Christian and les and less a Neoplatonist (I also speak here as a historian of Greek-Arabic Neoplatonism or Neo-Aristotelianism). As I understand "the Way," whether Buddhist (Dzogchen in particular, bu Zen also) or Taoist, its main spiritual or contemplative tenet is, to put it briefly, non-intentionality. How does that fit in with the kind of Neoplatonism you advocate? Can there be any intentio in the absence of all substantial objects of reference? Can there be any meaningful intentio outside "a world of hypostases"?
Do you have an opinion about the extent to which the Nestorian writings found in Dunhuang were doctrinally influenced by Buddhism and/or Taoism?
Unrelated: what are forms if we can’t say that every English noun corresponds to a deathless ideal in the mind of God? I’m troubled by thoughts of “the form of the eared seal” and “the form of the Taco Bell restaurant”.
As an American convert to Orthodoxy from Evangelicalism… sorry? At the very least, to defend my good name, we’re not all like that (though it is a depressingly common trend).
I’m with the tenth century Christians, inasmuch as I can skip over to much Buddhist literature (especially the Dhammapada) without skipping a beat; it’s always been a very natural transition for me. From what I’ve heard, the feeling is apparently mutual, at least when it comes to the Sermon on the Mount.
Do you have any resources discussing the accidental canonization of Pope Marcellinus? That’s hilarious (though, if you will, his accidental canonization could be seen as a providential exposé of the inevitability of universal salvation).
A version of of Barlaam's tales appears in the casket choice decreed by Pportia's father in "The Merchant of Venice". To my mind, it is an illustration of the powers of stories to cross boundaries of culture, faith, and age via the unconscious (often much wiser and more open than the stratifying conscious mind and presumably the reason Jesus taught with parables).
Classic piece. Sancte Gautama...
The dissonance between the historical consciousness of, like, the average Greek parishioner and of an American evangelical convert to Orthodoxy is depressing if one thinks about it too long. I keep waiting for the punchline on the phenomenon of mass Protestant conversion to Orthodoxy and Catholicism to happen so the trend can stop dominating the scene, but alas.
I, too, an a convert from the Fundamentalist wing of Evangelicalism. I was fortunate in that I first converted to Lutheranism, then to Orthodoxy. I've been wrong so many times. Thus, I have been disabused of any notion of theological certitude. This, unfortunately, is not the case with any converts who are proud of their ability to discern the truth. They still measure truth against themselves; they are their own plumb bob. I've also noticed a disturbing trend among immigrants from the old country who are very often politically conservative and drag that into the church. We have a Yaya in our church who refused to wear a mask or get the vaccine, and was convinced the bishop was part of a conspiracy to poison his flock.
I must admit, however, that this is the first time I've read about Barlaam and Josaphat. For some reason I had them confused with Barsanuphius and John.
"Irony of providence", awesome.
Ironic, as this piece and my subsequent reading of The Balavariani had a lot to do with my conversion to Orthodoxy.
Somewhat unrelated question: have you read any Henry Corbin yet?
Btw, I'm still waiting for you to write something about Sufism (or Islam in general).
Thank you for using "eponymous" correctly. The ignorance of rock critics ("The Clash's eponymous first album") has nearly skunked this term.
I began life as a Unitarian-Universalist, so this sort of commonalty seems to be baked into my consciousness (though I decided I was an atheist at age 7 with an argument strikingly similar to that of Russell's "Why I am not a Christian" - "converting' when at age 15, a Jewish friend said to me, "you know Don, not everyone thinks God's an old guy in the sky with a beard." - a few years later, by Grace granted a recognition of That/He/She/whatever pronoun "in whom we live and move and have our being" delivered me, as Plotinus put it, "from thought to vision."
I don't know if it's something most scholars would accept, but writing around the time of World War 1., in his commentary on the Bhagavad Gita, Sri Aurobindo noted having recognized sutras from the Gita lifted "bodily" into various Buddhist texts from around the first to second centuries BC. Sri Aurobindo saw this as largely responsible for transforming a relatively small, rather ascetic teaching into the world religion of compassion and love so exemplified in the Metta Suttra and later in Shantideva.
Whatever myths (errors?) there are regarding Jesus' travels to India, it seems highly likely that Mahayana Buddhist monks would have made their way to Egypt before his birth (the tales of King Milinda are referred to in 3rd century Greece). So whether it is factually true, I love the idea that Sri Krishna, by way the Gita and subsequent Mahayana Buddhists, had some "influence" on the teachings of that dark-skinned Palestinian socialist Jew who has had such a transformational effect on all of humanity.
***
I'm just assuming people here will know who Sri Aurobindo was, but in case not, a brief overview:
Sent at age 5 from India to England by his anglophone father, with strict instructions for him not to have ANY contact with anything India, Aravinda Ghose grew up a poet and writer, as a teenager teaching himself German to read Goethe in the original, and Italian to read Dante in the original.
It's my understanding that he received the highest marks in Greek and Latin ever recorded at Cambridge University. A member of the "Lotus and Dagger" society at the University, he returned to India in 1893 determined to fight for liberation, within 10 years, becoming the leader of the independence movement prior to Gandhi's arrival on the scene (he also was overwhelmed with a sense of an "all pervading Infinite Reality" upon setting foot on Indian soil in 1893, a sense that never left him)
In 1910 receiving an inner command to leave British India i(he had already been jailed in 1907 for suspicious of being a terrorist, and in 1910 was considered by many in the British government to be "the most dangerous man in India") he left for Pondicherry, in French-controlled South India, and lived there for the rest of his life.
His major works were written, 64 pages a month, between 1914 and 1921, and are considered by many to be among the greatest works in the history of Indian philosophy (note that he wrote his Gita, Upanishads, and Vedic commentaries, as well as his works on Yoga, socio-political issues, poetry and more, simultaneously during that 7 year period).
His collaborator, Mirra Alfassa (aka "The Mother") gave an impromptu commentary on the Dhammapada, and during her travels in Japan from 1914 to 1920 met several roshis who recognized her as a fully enlightened master.
Humorously enough, because of some stray negative comments regarding the extreme nihilists who have existed among the Buddhists, my integral yoga community (that is the community of disciples of the Mother and Sri Aurobindo) have an almost knee-jerk negative attitude toward Buddhism.
However, Robert Thurman (former chair of Tibetan Buddhist studies at Columbia U, and first of Americans to be ordained as a monk in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition) recognized much of Sri Aurobindo's philosophy to be remarkably congruent with Tibetan Buddhism. And to come full circle, in the mid 70s I was startled to see the extent of commonalties between the rituals of various sects - particularly the Nyingma) - of Tibetan Buddhism and medieval Catholicism (and even more so with many of the teachings and practices of contemplative prayer in the Orthodox tradition).
That Unitarian-Universalist influence was, I guess, much stronger than i realized, though I've hardly set foot in their church since 1963.
What a fascinating story of cultural osmosis! I love fantasy tales that find their way in the actual history or at least in the collective consciousness. For that reason I hope that one day you will write a similar article about Prester John. (I know that you have shortly narrated his legend in the Story of Christianity, but I am sure you can say much, much more about this topic.) Or, if we dare to dream big, perhaps one of your next novels will take place in the vast grey zone between reality and imagination in Medieval Europe and Asia (similar to Umberto Eco's Baudolino).
Reminds me of Fr Bede Griffith: " Christianity and Buddhism are very similar, especially Buddhism".
Have you read Lord of Light by Roger Zelazny? Sci-fi that uses Hindu and Buddhist mythology as its framework.
I hope I did not offend anyone by using the adjective "Nestorian." I had no such intent.
"God, ALL in all" seems to contradict any ad modum recipientis kind of ontology, if I may phrase it that way. The problem with Neoplatonic ontologies in general is that they were designed to account for the eternity of the world as it is. The victory over all Powers and Principalities in Jesus Christ risen from the dead and the abolition of this Age are not welcome here, not to mention the idea that risen Christ is the firstborn of all creation and the first man ever made in the image of the invisible God.
Thank you for clarifying your opinion about Nagarjuna.
Thank you, David.
"I confess, I should like to make quite a great a deal of it" : I am sure everybody here would love to read it.
Could you, please, be so kind as to explain to us how you can be an anima naturaliter buddhistica and a Neoplatonist? I will not ask you if a Buddhist anima is a real possibility. And I do not suggest that you would have to be both a Buddhist and a Neoplatonist at the same time. I am asking because, as time passes, I feel more and more a Buddhist Orthodox Christian and les and less a Neoplatonist (I also speak here as a historian of Greek-Arabic Neoplatonism or Neo-Aristotelianism). As I understand "the Way," whether Buddhist (Dzogchen in particular, bu Zen also) or Taoist, its main spiritual or contemplative tenet is, to put it briefly, non-intentionality. How does that fit in with the kind of Neoplatonism you advocate? Can there be any intentio in the absence of all substantial objects of reference? Can there be any meaningful intentio outside "a world of hypostases"?
Do you have an opinion about the extent to which the Nestorian writings found in Dunhuang were doctrinally influenced by Buddhism and/or Taoism?
Thank you in advance.
Any recommended translations of the Dhammapada and Bodhicaryāvatāra?
Unrelated: what are forms if we can’t say that every English noun corresponds to a deathless ideal in the mind of God? I’m troubled by thoughts of “the form of the eared seal” and “the form of the Taco Bell restaurant”.