If you were searching for an animal-friendly religion, Christianity probably wouldn’t be your first choice. You’d likely select Jainism, Buddhism or
Buddhism shows the way that religions are part of ‘evolution’ in the sense of
the ‘eonic evolution of civilization’:
Cf. Decoding World History, and WHEE: civilization, darwinism and theories of evolution
We didn’t say much about Christianity in our post on Buddhism and the eonic model.
It is a very controversial subject and an almost tragic one. We will continue tomorrow with this
but let us note that model shows how Christianity lacked the depth and momentum of Buddhism and
ended (in one passing remark, a junk religion) in the worst case of a state religion used to dominate
a political culture or cultures in his final phase in the era of Constantine.
For a real Buddhist Christianity is a kind of catastrophe that replaced meditation with a reduced
version of theurgy as ‘prayer’ and a saga/myth based on metaphysical suppositions where in Buddhism
despite its seeming transcendent character everything is empirically verifiable in space-time, e.g the path to
and the state of Enlightenment: this must be realized in space-time.
Christianity merely promises direct contact with god/Jesus via prayer and a passage to heaven upon doing nothing except to have faith
which has no empirical verification. The situation is ripe for fraud and political manipulation.
The Jesus figure is very hard to fathom, and even his existence is subject to intractable debate.
The whole religion operated on a strange tour de force based on reports of witnesses to
a resurrection, a tactic that against all odds took off as a rapidly expanding cult.
Let’s face it, the disinformation here defeats easy analysis. But lets at least note, as we did
with Buddhism, that religions tend to correlate with a given era and then wane somewhere in the
middle of the next, the exact fate apparently underway with Christianity which is rapidly fading away
except so far in the Global South, and in the US despite its weakening hold. Halfway through this era seems much too
long, i.e. 3000 AD. But our analysis is a rough approximation, and roughly confirmed.
We said that Hinduism was an exception but that is only because ‘hinduism’ if you zoom to see what
it is close up is in fact nothing at all, so it can’t fade away: the world of India is a vast spiritual
archaeological site of multiple variants (like Buddhism) on a kind of archetypal ‘hindu’ theme.
The issue of Christianity then is highly vexed as to its real status. It has been said thus over and over
by many critics.
There is more to say here but we will continue tomorrow.
The period of Jesus himself is almost beyond reducing to fact and we cited The Book the Church
Doesn’t Want You to Read for its multiple references to Biblical Criticism.
Our discussion of Buddhism in world history should include a discussion of Christianity next to Mahayana, but the task is very difficult on a subject that is plagued with confusion. This book contains a lot of references to the literature of Biblical commentary/criticism and its many and endless controversies. Just getting the relevant books is a daunting task without access to a good library. It is difficult to determine the real facts of the case, to put it mildly. There is a free pdf online, but it is a very strange and botched text in that form.
The near impossibility of communicating the eonic effect is a depressing state of affairs. But in an academic milieu that has failed after almost a century to see the elementary problem with Darwinism one can hardly expect any attention to the reality of the eonic data. Scholars and Marxists are totally blinded by Darwinism and cannot even begin to look at world history or any discussion of its real dynamic. What a pity. This material should have been a college course by now, but sadly I will be dead soon with not chance to develop a study discipline. But maybe something can be managed.
I have tried to extend the discussion of the eonic model and the left by dealing with the case of proximate antiquity in the spectacular correlation with the divide of Jainism, Buddhism and Israelitism (not the same as Judaism, and originally something different from degenerated monotheism).
The reason is to get some inkling before considering the modern case where we see the parallel clustering ca. 1800 of modern capitalism, the Industrial Revolution, the late enlightenment, the Romantic movement, abolition, feminism, etc,… and socialism, with Marx/Engels appearing just after the divide period. The modern transition shows effects in art, philosophy, religions, economics, music, literature to a degree that is almost beyond belief in its richness. To reduce all to economic categories was a sad mistake.
Marxists (and others) would do well to consider the non-random character of their history and its backdrop. Let me note the difference of early and later Marx and the appearance of ponderous theory that cannot do justice to the situation as it emerged in first the modern transition, and then the nineteenth century. Marx’s basic gesture however is highly significant and gives an amplification to the seminal socialist/communist birth of ideas from the early modern through the French Revolution. A prophet indeed, but one who fizzled after 1848 (what else could he do). But historical materialism was never really needed for this and has confused the issue of socialism completely. World history is far more structured and abstract in a dynamic of creative evolution of some kind and cannot be reduced to economic categories. Scientism can’t allow history the distinction of facts and values, a disastrous self-inflicted wound.
I fear however that Marxists are frozen forever in the format given by Marx and Engels. Best to start over and consider a quite different dynamic here.
Cf. Decoding World History, WHEE, and Last and First Men, prior to the Last Revolution. These are very simple models based on empirical data, not theory, although the descriptive evaluation of the visible dynamic seems like theory, but it is far from that.
From The Last Revolution Modernity, the Modern Transition, the Divide We might reiterate our opening statement about system collapse by putting it in the context of the ‘eonic effect’: Although we will leave the model of the eonic effect in the background, the basic periodization of that dynamic is easy and suggests a perspective to deal with system collapse: we should distinguish the ‘eonic sequence of transitions’, the modern transition, its divide, and the modern period as such that follows. The modern transition is densely packed with eonic innovations which are only barely realized and too often damped out by the high tide of capitalism. The system thus has immense reserve potential beyond the superficial realizations of the ‘modern period’. this gobbledegook terminology is obscure at first, but always ‘mere periodization’ followed by careful empirical study until we suddenly see what the larger system is doing and get a feel for the historical tides in action. The modern period suggests dozens of recovery vehicles, and this kind of issue emerged early in the wake of the first socialists who sensed immediately that a new modernity was possible. The later confusions and sophistries of postmodernism can nonetheless remind us that while ‘modernity’ has no ‘post’ as an interval of 2400 years, it can be critiqued as to its realizations in place and the system dynamic of the eonic effect allows revolutionary/reformist restarts. We have critiqued Marx, but his instincts were right: he sensed a ‘discrete/continuous’ dynamic, the reason for his system of discrete epochs in the continuous stream of history. But the process transcends the economic and blends facts and values in a dynamic of reason, ethics, and aesthetics. Note the spectacular moment of the modern divide ca. 1800 and the clustering of massive innovations.
No mention here of the path to enlightenment, Mahayana and Hinaya and the buddhist civil war, the path of the Bodhisatwas that puts buddhists on a treadmill, the rumors from various yogis like Rajneesh of the fascism of hidden ‘buddhist’ sources (and others), the svengali drone creation of Hitler types (the latter plausibly deniable!)….
Buddhism like Christianity will slowly pass away and find a secondary remake, no doubt, just as Buddhism was a remake of Hinduism…
We are not who we were very long ago. A lot of new ideas have emerged from Buddhism and other traditions emphasizing compassion, equality, nonviolence and critical perspectives on materialism and capitalism
Scholars simply won’t listen to an outsider, and if Darwinism is challenged they will take ‘not listening’ to a whole new level. But for me it is sad, and almost unnerving to see the life work of so many scholars base itself on false premises. The evolution of man as indicated in the eonic model forces the realization that ‘evolution’ in the emergence of man coordinates a huge spectrum, including art, and with the rise of civilization we see in a snapshot the way that ‘evolution’ in a new but related sense drives the emergence of civilization. To discuss the evolution of ‘virtue’ and morality unaware of the eonic models discussion of the emergence of religion in the Axial interval, viz. Israelitism, and Buddhism, is to get mostly everything wrong. But much of the research cited remains of great interest, and hopefully a new edition of DCDX can cite some of the new thinking.
The eonic model can clarify this debate but at the same one has to go through a large amount of new research on the issues of human evolution, even given the inability of established scholars to ge…