The metamorphosis of a Jewish sect into the ecumenical Christian Church is indeed astonishing; but so, too, is the metamorphosis of the Indian Theravadin Buddhist philosophy into the ecumenical Mahayanian Buddhist religion. The strength of the Mahayana as a missionary religion lay in its devotees’ willingness to come to terms with the pre-existing religions of the areas that the Mahayanian missionaries evangelized. The Mahayana was not inhibited by anything in its Theravadin Buddhist past from being frankly tolerant and from overtly aiming, not at conquest, but at symbiosis. On the other hand, Christianity’s Jewish past was a handicap for Christian theologians and missionaries. Christianity could not bring itself to live and let live; it had either to destroy its rivals or to absorb them; and it would absorb them only in so far as it could do this covertly. Yet Christianity absorbed far more than it destroyed. In fact, its method of propagating itself was more Mahayana-like than its official representatives could afford to admit.
Mankind and Mother Earth, A Narrative History of the World, OUP, 1976, posthumous
July 29 2008 at 4:32 am
An interesting comparison of Mahayana with Christianity. While it’s true that Mahayana was syncretic as it spread through East Asia, Theravada has had success as well. Theravada is still considered more orthodox and conservative, but it too has had to adapt to the local surroundings in order to be intelligible, intuited, and valued.
Also interesting is your use of philosophy in describing Theravada and religion in describing Mahayana. Any reason for the divergence?
http://dharmafolk.wordpress.com
July 29 2008 at 6:13 am
Thanks. Not my use of these words, Arnold Toynbee’s. Interesting question. I don’t know the reason now, but will see if this is consistent in his writing. I think this goes back to somewhere in the Study.
July 29 2008 at 8:57 pm
Christianity went for covert absorption at best, the Mahayana achieved symbiosis. So was Christianity’s “method of propagating itself” really “more Mahayana-like than its official representatives could afford to admit”? Or was there much absorption in the case of Buddhism also?