Osweo
04-16-2011, 12:21 AM
Well now, I was reading this today;
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51MAZ3EF1AL._SL500_.jpg
... and when the author was getting into the question of whether Orphism had a moral aspect, he got onto the matter of individualism in religion, with some interesting historico-political aspects;
Orphism "was the height of individualism. Any religion which involves the doctrine of transmigration, with its absorption in 'soul-history', is almost bound to be, a truth which is amply borne out in Hindu countries to-day. It is this, incidentally, which may largely account for its obscure position when Athens was at the height of her power. Everything then was for the state, and to the glories of the state the state religion ministered. With the decay of the city-state and the growth of individualism from the fourth century onwards, the relitions of this type had much freer play."
So. Was Guthrie, first of all, right in his evaluation of Hinduism? Is it lacking in a supra-individual societal aspect? If so, does the historical record of Muslim and then British control reflect on this? Was their religion a key factor in the Indians' inability to construct a strong state/empire? Can we learn from this?
What of other societies with reincarnation based soul theories? Is it this that did for the Gauls when Caesar showed up? Is a society of individuals worrying about their 'karma' truly an obstacle to those who would build a strong and powerful state? Thoughts?
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51MAZ3EF1AL._SL500_.jpg
... and when the author was getting into the question of whether Orphism had a moral aspect, he got onto the matter of individualism in religion, with some interesting historico-political aspects;
Orphism "was the height of individualism. Any religion which involves the doctrine of transmigration, with its absorption in 'soul-history', is almost bound to be, a truth which is amply borne out in Hindu countries to-day. It is this, incidentally, which may largely account for its obscure position when Athens was at the height of her power. Everything then was for the state, and to the glories of the state the state religion ministered. With the decay of the city-state and the growth of individualism from the fourth century onwards, the relitions of this type had much freer play."
So. Was Guthrie, first of all, right in his evaluation of Hinduism? Is it lacking in a supra-individual societal aspect? If so, does the historical record of Muslim and then British control reflect on this? Was their religion a key factor in the Indians' inability to construct a strong state/empire? Can we learn from this?
What of other societies with reincarnation based soul theories? Is it this that did for the Gauls when Caesar showed up? Is a society of individuals worrying about their 'karma' truly an obstacle to those who would build a strong and powerful state? Thoughts?