Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lugotorix · 07-16-2003, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
Have these relics been subject to scrutiny? There are many foreskins, pieces of the cross, burial shrouds, etc. associated with Jesus--and even some experts recently authenticated a famous ossuary. I would probably prefer an early text to some random teeth.

In the 13th century, Kublai Khan "requested" that the Buddha's tooth be sent to him; the Sri Lankan king obliged by sending two teeth, both supposedly from the Buddha. He still kept what he considered the real relic, as possesion of it was associated with his right to rule. Trade in fake relics was widespread, like it was in medieval Christanity. So basically, you'd be right in suspecting the provenance of the tooth relic.

Speaking of which, did anyone track down the first document (religious or not) to refer to Siddharta Gautama?

I was able to find this, from my alma mater.

Quote:

* The MpnS [Mahaparinibbanna Sutta] core has Buddha dying in insignificant Kusin�r�, and in 5:41 �nanda complains that he should instead die in some grander and more appropriate place. The Buddha replies in 5:42-43 that Kusin�r� had once been the capital of a great empire, so that it is actually a suitable location for this admittedly momentous event.

The concern of �nanda is mirrored in the concern of Confucius's disciples in Analects (LY) 9:12, that Confucius is dying without having achieved high rank; they disguise themselves as the retainers of a mighty official. In a lucid interval in his final sickness, Confucius rebukes them for this imposture, remarking that at any rate he is not dying "by the roadside," as Buddha had in fact done. The date of this passage, within the gradual accretion history of the Analects, is 405 [BCE]. If we see the Analects passage as an actual echo of the MpnS passage or its orally known equivalent, then the early expansion layers of MpnS itself must be at least somewhat earlier than 405 [BCE].
The Date of the Buddha

The paper supports the traditional Mahayana dating of the Buddha's death at around 480 BCE.

lugotorix

mark9950 · 07-17-2003, 03:15 PM

The low rating hercules got in whether he existed,but hercules did exist.

I used to watch his tv show hercules legendary journeys and I still miss them.

Kevin Sorbo was great and still is in andromeda

Rusting Car Bumper · 07-18-2003, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Confucius invented by Jesuit Missionaries who historicized the author of traditional sayings (based on the model of the gospels historicizing the author of some sayings attributed to the savior?)

If that's true then then how do you explain references to him in later texts?

DC

godfry n. glad · 07-18-2003, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DigitalChicken
If that's true then then how do you explain references to him in later texts?

DC

References in later texts aren't a problem. It's the references in texts that antedate the existence of the Jesuits...in earlier texts, like those in the Records of the Grand Historian of Sima Qian, during the Han dynasty, circa 100 BCE, that pose problems for this claim.

godfry n. glad

Rusting Car Bumper · 07-18-2003, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by godfry n. glad
References in later texts aren't a problem. It's the references in texts that antedate the existence of the Jesuits...in earlier texts, like those in the Records of the Grand Historian of Sima Qian, during the Han dynasty, circa 100 BCE, that pose problems for this claim.

Records of the Grand Historian is not taken as literal and is often taken as the work of a Confucian apologist.

DC

godfry n. glad · 07-18-2003, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DigitalChicken
Records of the Grand Historian is not taken as literal and is often taken as the work of a Confucian apologist.

DC

Yet... Even if it is accepted as the work of a "Confucian apologist", it would still antedate any possible Jesuit fabrication of Confucius.

I'd like to see your sources that support your assertion that the "Records of the Grand Historian is not taken as literal and is often taken as the work of a Confucian apologist". Can you please provide?

Thanks.

godfry n. glad

Vorkosigan · 07-18-2003, 09:18 PM

Jensen's claim is not that the Missionary Fathers invented Confucius, but rather than the modern conception of Confucius as the Jesus figure of China, the cultural giant, is their invention which was then re-exported back to China. It is a provocative thesis, but an extremely poorly-argued book that does not make its case at all.

A recent book does argue that Confucius is a mythical figure. Charlotte Allen reviewed in a while back in the Atlantic but I spaced the name.

Toto · 07-19-2003, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan

A recent book does argue that Confucius is a mythical figure. Charlotte Allen reviewed in a while back in the Atlantic but I spaced the name.

That was Jensen's book. She also reviewed another that argued for a minor historical core to the Confucian legend.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99...4confucius.htm

Quote:

According to Jensen, the Jesuits invented the very word "Confucius," a Latinization of Kongfuzi ("Very Reverend Master Kong") -- itself an appellation not found in ru literature (which called the sage simply Kongzi, or "Master Kong"), although it is occasionally found on the "spirit tablets" honoring him in ru temples. Jensen does not believe that Kongzi even existed. "I think he's a literary trope," Jensen says. "He's a figure who came to stand for certain things." Jensen is currently researching the possibility that Kongzi -- whose birth, like that of Jesus, is the subject of many miraculous tales -- had his origins as a mythological figure of ancient Chinese fertility cults.

On the surface, the theories of the Brookses and Jensen would seem contradictory, because the Brookses believe that Confucius was a real person who was born and died in the years ascribed to him. The two theories are, however, quite complementary, both contending that the Confucian tradition had no single founder but grew incrementally over many centuries, changing as cultural circumstances changed. For the Brookses, the powerful personality of a gentleman soldier lies at the bottom of the tradition, whereas Jensen sees that place occupied by a powerful mental construct.
. . .

It appears that Jensen does not argue that the Jesuits invented Cunfuscius out of whole cloth, but that they historicized an earlier myth.

Rational BAC · 07-19-2003, 02:16 PM

I noticed that one of the answers was "none of the above" but there was no answer "all of the above"

Anyway-----I pick "all of the above"

And I didn't feel like choosing everybody, (just plain lazy I guess.) ---------I suppose that was an option.

Why was not there an "all of the above"?

When you think about it, if you go back far enough, did anyone exist? Did they all exist? Does anyone know for sure?

I don't think any of us know diddly squat about what happened 2000 plus years ago. We just pretend to know.

godfry n. glad · 07-19-2003, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
It appears that Jensen does not argue that the Jesuits invented Confucius out of whole cloth, but that they historicized an earlier myth.

Thank you Toto and Vork...

The only one I voted for was Mohammad.

I wondered why Asklepius wasn't included.

I must confess, I hadn't read the blurb and was reacting to the title given it, which seemed mighty pretentious. But given what you've described, it doesn't surprise me. I had heard the rumors of Confucius' ambiguity and thought it likely.

I completed my China studies, including ancient philosophy, in 1988-89, and at that time there seemed to be a growing school of thought that there may never have been a real Kong Zi, but rather that he was either a fabrication or an embellishment, rather like the historical Jesus. The thesis that seemed to be current then was that the scholar bureaucrats of the the Han empire, seeking to assure their continuing status in the imperial heirarchy, created a proto-Confucianism as a support to the emperor and then embellished that with interpretation and extension over the centuries, becoming ever more entrenched over time.

I've always found the role of Cardinal Ricci to have been exceedingly fascinating, but this is the first I've heard of his active involvement in historicization of a mythological figure....

I shall have to add this to my library list. <sigh>

Hey... Tomorrow's my 50th birthday. Mayhaps I shall celebrate in the time-honored fashion and purchase myself some books? Why.... That sounds capital!

godfry n. glad

View Poll Results: Which of these religious figures, if any, existed?
Jesus	32	35.16%
Moses	18	19.78%
Siddhartha Buddha	60	65.93%
Mohammed	63	69.23%
Lao Tzu	41	45.05%
Confucius	61	67.03%
Zoroaster/Zarathustra	27	29.67%
Krishna	8	8.79%
Hercules	8	8.79%
None of them Existed	8	8.79%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 91. You may not vote on this poll

07-17-2003, 03:15 PM	#22
mark9950 Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: midwest usa Posts: 1,203	I am surprised The low rating hercules got in whether he existed,but hercules did exist. I used to watch his tv show hercules legendary journeys and I still miss them. Kevin Sorbo was great and still is in andromeda

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-18-2003, 09:18 PM	#27
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Jensen's claim is not that the Missionary Fathers invented Confucius, but rather than the modern conception of Confucius as the Jesus figure of China, the cultural giant, is their invention which was then re-exported back to China. It is a provocative thesis, but an extremely poorly-argued book that does not make its case at all. A recent book does argue that Confucius is a mythical figure. Charlotte Allen reviewed in a while back in the Atlantic but I spaced the name.

07-19-2003, 02:16 PM	#29
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	I noticed that one of the answers was "none of the above" but there was no answer "all of the above" Anyway-----I pick "all of the above" And I didn't feel like choosing everybody, (just plain lazy I guess.) ---------I suppose that was an option. Why was not there an "all of the above"? When you think about it, if you go back far enough, did anyone exist? Did they all exist? Does anyone know for sure? I don't think any of us know diddly squat about what happened 2000 plus years ago. We just pretend to know.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.