Refine
Document Type
- Part of Periodical (21) (remove)
Language
- English (21) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (21)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (21)
Institute
- Institut für Wissenschaftliche Irenik (21) (remove)
The Indian Neo Buddhism has aroused a movement since the 50s, which propa-gates Buddhism as the top form of the Indo-genous dharma. - The vast majority of that new religious movement belongs to the Dalits [1], people whose en-dogamous communities have been excluded from the varna system [2a] since centuries. The varna system is the traditional hierarchic structure of the relation-ships of those Indian communities who mutually acknowledge themselves as constituent members of their society. These varna jatis established a social class of people devoid of any basic social right. Declared as 'Untouchables' these peo-ple lost all human substance in the eyes of the varna jatis. Yet, that social degra-dation didn't primarily spring from racial, religious or even cultural reasons but from economic ones. When the old Indian agrarian production became a little more productive the division of labour was established as basic structure of the society; but in India the productivity remained on a low level during centuries so that the new non-productive jatis had to keep down the costs of the material pro-duction and the necessary services; they needed cheapest labour.
The historian has to safeguard the strangeness of the past. Therefore, religio-historical research has to scrutinise the reconstruction of the real history of religions by religious ideologies of the present. Very often religious ideologies fall back to the past in order to get an alleged legitimacy for their actual am-bitions; however, for that purpose they have to model or falsify the past according to their present ideo-logical needs. One of the outstanding examples of such an ideologisation of history of religion is the modern view of Buddhism. Developed by the Western colonialist Indology this ideology portrayed and still is portray-ing Buddhism as an rationalist-atheistic, anti-brahmanical, anti-caste and egalitarian religion - in con-trast to Hinduism which is caricatured as idolatrous, casteistic and brahmanised. The aim of such an ideological interpretation is to demonstrate the alleged Western modernity of Buddhism and the alleged obscurantism of Hinduism. The target of that ideological aggression was the Hinduism. In order to exploit the wealth of India the Western colonialists needed the weakening of the Hindu self-consciousness; therefore they favoured an Indology which produced an not existing Indian Buddhism as an alleged modern alternative to the alleged primitive religion of the 'Hindoos'. Playing the Buddhism against the 'Hindoos' the colonialist attempt to defame the vast majority of the Indian people was very successful. Even Indian religious intellectuals and leaders (i.e. the secularists or the Neo-Buddhists1) are sharing and supporting that colonialist view still today. We want to dispute these asserted positions by empirico-historical reasons. First we will discuss the early Buddhism, than Ashoka's reform program of the dharma and at last the historio-graphical dilemmata of scholars sharing the colonialist ideology of Buddhism. ....
Charity has a long tradition in the Christian religion. From the early beginning there was some organized charity. In the Acts of the Apostles we read about socalled diakonoi being responsible for the needy Christians. During the whole church history there was the rule that 1/3 of the tithe, the decima pars, the religious tax, had to be spend for the poor people of a parish. Of course, there was much misuse of that portion; the tithe became private and the new owners of the tax mostly living far away were not interested in supporting the poor people. Yet, the Christian people organized additional charity. It is very important to see that religious mentality was very helpful for that ...
Martin Luther (1483 - 1546) and Vishvambhara Mishra (1486 - 1533), known as Shri Krishna Caitanya, have been the outstanding representatives of the great west-eastern religious revolution which shattered the hearts of their societies in the 16th century. They were the spiritual revolutionaries of the modern times. The question may very well be raised if and how these two religious reformers on the edge of modern age share theological commonness, even though they lived wide apart and certainly did not know of each other. We will see: Both Martin Luther and Shri Krishna Caitanya have taught the un-conditioned, Free Love viz. Bhakti. Even if they did it in the tradition of the theological context they were born in they produced a new common setting of religion: the destruction of meritoricly bound religion and its substitution by free religion. The worship of God or charity were no more a mean for but the final state of salvation. Their interpretation of this revolutionary religion has lost nothing of its existen-tial meaning, even though having been twisted often enough to indiscernibility or even to the complete opposite - up to the present day. ...
The Christian culture experienced a deep-going change with the uprising of the Civil Society ("Bürgerliche Gesellschaft"), the industrialization of economic production, the urbanization of life-style and the individualization of religiosity in the 19th century. The Christian formation of inner- and outer-world in those days became obsolete. From this conflict the civil or modern Christianity origi-nated. In a painful changing process most of the people of this new society have newly interpreted religion, moral and ritual of traditional Christianity and cre-ated to their new conditions of life new institutional forms of transmission and realization of Christian cultural heritage. Under the recourse of the Reformato-rian heritage the modern Christianity developed the religious-moral doctrine: A true Christian is before all a citizen who is living in the midst of the world self-determinate and socially engaged fulfilling all his worldly duties; the modern Christian has to get this motivation for a world-oriented existence on his own responsibility because religion is not restricted anymore. ...
There is no question about charity in Islam: Allah himself has ordered almsgiv-ing: "Narrated Anas bin Malik: … The man further said, 'I ask you by Allah. Has Allah ordered you to take zakat from our rich people and distribute it amongst our poor people?' The Prophet replied, 'By Allah, yes'." The fundamental relevance of Islamic charity, zakat and sadaqa3, roots in the Muslim understanding of God. According to the proper message of Mohammed the first and primary name and quality of God is rahman and rahim4. Allah is - so to speak – rahman, the life giving uterus, rahim. Like the uterus he gives life to the men without any pre-condition. Life is a gift free of charge not a reward for something. ...
The basic argument the canonical and apocryphic theologies of the South Indian Tamil Shrivaishnavas grow worm over since centuries is the question: Has God set into motion the process of salvation in order to save mankind - the anthropocentric tradition is teaching -, or in order to save himself, the way a theocentric soteriology would teach. To answer this question we have to examine particularly the theocentric religion of salvation because it was held apocryphic by the anthropocentic orthodoxy and has therefore to be reconstructed from sources that are all concealed anthropocentrically. ...