John
You asked some questions.
What would be the point of the short essay?
A) To explain to the people here WHY you argue all your points and to show you that someone here understands why.
How did Hinduism develop a theory of opposites that was not a clash?
A) What?……… Read it again John!
“Yet there were many cultures which had developed the notion of clash between good and evil (Manichaeism, Hinduism etc.) quite independently of Greek thinking.”
How is Manichaeism to be thought other than as a Greek tradition?
See answer 2
But I guess I have to explain what Manichaeism is John seeing that you don’t know, this may help!
It’s not Greek tradition!
Cut and paste…. By the way!
Manichaeism
Manichaeism is a gnostic religion that originated in Babylonia in the 3d century AD. Its founder was a Persian of noble descent called Mani (or Manes), c.216-c.276. Manichaeism was long treated as a Christian heresy, but it is more clearly understood as an independent religion, drawing on the diverse resources of Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and Buddhism.
At about the age of 24, Mani received a special revelation from God, according to which he was called to perfect the incomplete religions founded by earlier prophets--Zoroaster, Buddha, and Christ. About the year 242, he undertook an extensive journey as an itinerant preacher, proclaiming himself the "Messenger of Truth," the Paraclete promised by Christ. Traveling throughout the Persian Empire and as far as India, he gathered a considerable following. He met with increasing hostility from the Zoroastrian priests and was finally executed for heresy.
The essence of Manichaeism was the principle of absolute Dualism: the primal conflict between God, represented by light and spirit, and Satan, represented by darkness and the material world. Human beings, created by God, were divine in spirit but they carried within them seeds of darkness, sown by Satan, because of their material bodies.
Salvation, as taught by Mani, requires liberating the seed of light, the soul, from the material darkness in which it is trapped. This is achieved by strict celibacy and ascetic practices. Those who would become perfect are to set three "seals" on their lives: on the mouth, to speak only truth and to abstain from meat or impure food of any kind; on the hands, to refrain from war, killing, or injuring life; on the breast, to render impossible the works of the flesh. This triple seal applies only to the elect or pure; hearers follow a less demanding code. The imperfect are destined to continual rebirth in a world of material bodies.
Manichaeism, which denied the reality of Christ's body and rejected the notion of free will, adapted from Christianity baptism, the Eucharist, and a third sacrament of remission of sins at the time of death. Because of its attitude toward the material world, Manichaeism regarded evil as a physical rather than a moral entity. Women were considered forces of darkness, binding men to the flesh.
The Byzantine emperor Justinian issued an edict against the Manichaeans, and Saint Augustine, who for 9 years had been a Manichee, wrote and spoke against this heresy, as well as described his own experience in his Confessions.
Manichaeism disappeared in the West in about the 6th century, although its doctrines reappeared in the teachings of the Bogomils, Albigenses, and other sects during the Middle Ages. In the East, Manichaeism survived until the 13th century.
- Asmussen, J. P., Manichaean Literature (1975)
Why the mention of the USSR?.
A) Apparently you don’t know who Hegel is, strange I thought you were a professor of philosophy. Why would I mention Hegel and the USSR together? Could it be his ties to Marx. Why would I even mention Hegel. Could it be his dialectic theories of logic or bait for you?
John, I just don’t get it, you complain when people give you short and to the point.
You complain when someone gives you something to ponder. I now think that you are a fraud.
The opportunity was given to use your intellect to refute what I believe to be your paradigm of debate. You on the other hand, have chosen to use cheap shots. I ask you, do you think that there isn’t anyone here with the intellect to come up with an explanation for your way of thinking.
Your background in academia has taught you to use ONLY critical thinking (I am right you are wrong) in trying to get people to see your side of any point. Has it worked? Not to my knowledge. Have you caused many hard feelings. YES. So John, just what is it that you are trying to accomplish? If you have come for an argument I say GET LOST that’s not what this forum is about.
From this point forward I will NOT be responding to ANY of your drivel. I would hope that many of the others here will do the same.
Robert
