Manichean , Nestorian, Buddhism

[Ishraqiyun]

What influence do you think the Christocentric religions like Nestorianism and Manicheanism had on the evolution of Mahayana Buddhism (specifically pure land, the messianic idea of the future Buddha Maitrya whose name is thought to be connected with Mithras/ Mihr , the Shamballah myth, and Tantric Buddhism)? Centeral Asian peoples like the Sogdians, Turks, Uighers, Mongols , and Persians often practiced Manicheanism or Nestorian Christianity. Central Asia is thought to have been the birth place of Mahayana by many scholars. Manicheans and Buddhists also practiced their faith in China for centuries. Eventually the Chinese Emperor issued an edict saying that only non-Chinese living in China could practice the faith because it was portraying itself as a school of Buddhism and confusing the simple. At times it can even be hard to tell if a text or inscription was Buddhist, Nestorian, or Manichean without close inspection. Interestingly both the Nestorian and Manichean faith were called "The Religion of Light" and for a time Manicheans were even put under the Nestorian bishops by the Chinese emperor.

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste,

thanks for the interesting OP.

What influence do you think the Christocentric religions like Nestorianism and Manicheanism had on the evolution of Mahayana Buddhism (specifically pure land, the messianic idea of the future Buddha Maitrya whose name is thought to be connected with Mithras/ Mihr , the Shamballah myth, and Tantric Buddhism)?

little to none. the principles of the Mahayana were established during the Buddhas initial Turning of the Wheel of Dharma. it is helpful to consider the idea that Hinyana, Mahayana and Vajrayana are merely useful mental coordinates to help a being navigate to the Other Shore.

i'm not a Pure Land adherent though Tariki, who frequenly visits this forum is and will be able to offer a more thorough insight into your question in it's specific context. i would offer by way of discourse that the idea of a Pure Land within the Buddhist context is far, far different than what is understood within the Christian paradigm as Heaven.

Centeral Asian peoples like the Sogdians, Turks, Uighers, Mongols , and Persians often practiced Manicheanism or Nestorian Christianity.

those peoples have practice a great many religious traditions which have arisen within their own socio-cultural paradigm or were imposed upon them by others so i'm unclear how this would have any sustained cultural impact especially given the diverse and geographically isolated societies of which those cultures are representative.

Central Asia is thought to have been the birth place of Mahayana by many scholars.

it is? which scholars think this? i would suggest scholars that hold such a view are astoundingly mistaken. one need but read the Suttas for themselves to find the teachings of the Yanas therein.

it is, however, often the case that the idea of categories, in this case groupings of the Buddhas teachings termed "hinyana, mahayana and vajrayana" represent some manner of difference in the teachings in the minds of a great many beings however this is not so.

one of the most overlooked aspects in the discussion regarding the Buddhadharma, in my experience, is the idea that what the Buddha taught isn't actually in the Suttas or Yanas, it's the Dharma and that Dharma is Suchness, Reality-as-it-is unadorned by mental obfuscation and delusion and this Dharma is something which is experienced outside of the texts.

Manicheans and Buddhists also practiced their faith in China for centuries. Eventually the Chinese Emperor issued an edict saying that only non-Chinese living in China could practice the faith because it was portraying itself as a school of Buddhism and confusing the simple.

Buddhists still do, insofar as the Chinese govt will permit them to. i'd be quite interested to read about the emperor that banned the Manichean practice.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

little to none. the principles of the Mahayana were established during the Buddhas initial Turning of the Wheel of Dharma

There was no evolution of language, mythology, and perspectives at all in your opinion? Or are you just talking about some of the general or more important principles?

i would offer by way of discourse that the idea of a Pure Land within the Buddhist context is far, far different than what is understood within the Christian paradigm as Heaven.

But it does have many areas of similarity with the Manichean understandings of heaven. I also don't think there needs to be a perfect one for one similarity on every aspect of a teaching in order for there to be a seeding or influence from tradition to another. Manichean teaching was undoubtedly influenced by Buddhism yet it also had many areas of divergence for example.

those peoples have practice a great many religious traditions which have arisen within their own socio-cultural paradigm or were imposed upon them by others so i'm unclear how this would have any sustained cultural impact especially given the diverse and geographically isolated societies of which those cultures are representative.

And I would be surprised if all the religions practiced there didn't have some lasting effect on the consciousness and traditions of the peoples in question. Especially a religion that was practiced for over a 1000 plus years.

it is? which scholars think this? i would suggest scholars that hold such a view are astoundingly mistaken. one need but read the Suttas for themselves to find the teachings of the Yanas therein.

I will have to look over some of my books to find the sources. I do know that it's commonly thought that Mahayana originated in North Western India, spread to Central Asia, and then entered China indirectly through Central Asia. Some people have posited that Central Asia was the actual birthplace though and the authors of some the early texts ascribed them to an Indian source for the sake of connecting them with the land of the historical Buddha.

I will post some quotes from a few books on the subject later.

 

[Christ's_Warrior]

I am Nestorian, we are the Church of the East and the term Nestorian is falsely attributed to us. We are Christian and not some mystical sect, if you have any questions please ask.

 

[Christ's_Warrior]

Ishraq, the religion of light is a direct reference to Jesus, it is not an exclusive term used by the Assyrians. If you would like to know more about our story, there is a great book called "the lost history of Christianity".

 

[Christ's_Warrior]

I know that our scholars helped to translate writings for buddhists, I'll get the exact quote and paste it later.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Ishraq, the religion of light is a direct reference to Jesus, it is not an exclusive term used by the Assyrians. If you would like to know more about our story, there is a great book called "the lost history of Christianity".

I will have to check that book out.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

I could have sworn I read a book that provided some evidence for a strong Central Asian origin for some the key elements of Mahayana but I can't seem to find it. All I found so far is this:

"It is not at the present stage of our knowledge to make very many certain statements concerning either the origins or the development of the Prajnaparamite literature. It is widely held that this literature, and possible Mahayana Buddhism itself originated in Central or Southern India... Etienne Lamotte has argued, however, for the North Western and Central Asian (Khontanese) origins of the Prajnaparamita, and indeed Lamotte is inclined to see some Mediterranean and Greek influences at work in the changes occurring in Buddhism during the period of Mahayana emergence."
- Mahayana Buddhism , The Doctrinal Foundations by Paul Williams.

This author thinks it's a mistake to look for a single geographical source rather than a number of different centres.

 

[Livindesert]

Really Orthodox christianity is influenced by the Nestorian Christians as God is both man and God.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

The Tantric Vehicle of Vajrayana[bless and do not curse]-[bless and do not curse]The Order of Nazorean Essenes

http://www.angelfire.com/vt/OkarResearch/mani2.html

These pages have some interesting articles on this subject.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

I'm re-reading "Religions of the Silk Road" by Richard Foltz. I know it has some good stuff I can post.

 

[Booko]

I could have sworn I read a book that provided some evidence for a strong Central Asian origin for some the key elements of Mahayana but I can't seem to find it.

Years ago I read a couple of academic works on Zoroastrianism that detailed influences on both Western and Eastern religions.

Was that what you were thinking of?

They didn't go so far as to claim key elements of Mahayana Buddhism originated there, however.

You could make a better case for certain elements in Western religions having a origin in Zoroastrianism.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Years ago I read a couple of academic works on Zoroastrianism that detailed influences on both Western and Eastern religions.

Was that what you were thinking of?

I've read that as well. Most recently in a book by Joseph Campbell. I'm talking more about influences coming from Manicheanism though. I know the first references to Amitahba are shortly before Manicheanism even existed and some scholars connected certain attributes of Amitahba with the Iranic God Zurvan. Did later Iranic influence via Manicheanism effect that same stream of thought though?

Did that religions practiced for over 1000 years in Central Asia and China die without leaving a trace on the surviving streams of religious thought?

Mahayanna seemed to be pretty open to making use of stories, symbols, and myths from various religions. Just look at Taoism and Chinese and Japanese Buddhism for example. The concept of "skill in means" made it a no brainer to do this imo. What if anything was brought in from Manicheanism?