I want to talk about the key textual elements you might find in an Islamic manuscript. I'll focus on this manuscript, roughly 18th century, of an Arabic history of the rulers of Egypt called Nuzhat al-nāẓirīn, by Marʻī al-Karmī (d. 1623/4).
Budeiry Library (Jerusalem) MS 593 -jm
These little prayers are fun pic.twitter.com/hJYk2M01bO
— Josh Mugler (@J_mugs) February 16, 2019
More from Tweeting Historians
More from Religion
just a my thought...
❶/12 Roughly speaking, primitive Buddhism was about liberation from the inner suffering of the ordained individual. In contrast, Mahayana Buddhism, especially the teachings of the Lotus Sutra, emphasises 'the salvation of all people, together'.
❷/12 In short, people of Mahayana Buddhism do Practice as Bodhisattva for all in the secular world. Strictly, these are different religions, and primitive Buddhism is not well suited to being associated with the state or secular communities.
❸/12 I believe that if anti-secular primitive Buddhism had arrived in ancient Japan it would not have spread very far. In Japan, where rice cultivation is very important, the idea of destroying the community would have been a threat of people's survival.
❹/12 By the way, it's perhaps inevitable that the purity of the teachings will diminish depending on how they are disseminated in society. In other words, I think that, roughly speaking, what develops away from the original form can even become a civilization.
❺/12 But anything that significantly reduces the quality of the original should be called a degeneration. I think that Christian civilization, although flawed, has built a civilization in tension.
❶/12 Roughly speaking, primitive Buddhism was about liberation from the inner suffering of the ordained individual. In contrast, Mahayana Buddhism, especially the teachings of the Lotus Sutra, emphasises 'the salvation of all people, together'.
Bodhisattva is also important for understanding the Japanese. It was a very developed in Mahayana Buddhism. Liberators keep putting off and dedicating until all people are saved. This is an ideal prototype. But this devoted tradition is disappearing under the Weimar Constitution. https://t.co/uBTcwOjlWt
— Atsumori \u6566\u76db (@atsumori5834) January 9, 2020
❷/12 In short, people of Mahayana Buddhism do Practice as Bodhisattva for all in the secular world. Strictly, these are different religions, and primitive Buddhism is not well suited to being associated with the state or secular communities.
❸/12 I believe that if anti-secular primitive Buddhism had arrived in ancient Japan it would not have spread very far. In Japan, where rice cultivation is very important, the idea of destroying the community would have been a threat of people's survival.
❹/12 By the way, it's perhaps inevitable that the purity of the teachings will diminish depending on how they are disseminated in society. In other words, I think that, roughly speaking, what develops away from the original form can even become a civilization.
❺/12 But anything that significantly reduces the quality of the original should be called a degeneration. I think that Christian civilization, although flawed, has built a civilization in tension.
"Hinduism was one of the world's most easy-going faith traditions, famed for it's non-persecutory history."
I can assure you, it is NOT.
It is neither easy-going, nor non-persecutory. In fact it is the very opposite.
Thread.
Modern Hinduism is a British colonial concept, created in concert with Brahmins, who are at the "apex" of the caste system. The word "Hindoo" in fact, is of Persian origin, meaning a person who lives in the Indus valley.
Colonialists who attempted to study Indian religion in the 18th century (NOT, at the time, Hinduism) were baffled by it. Strata of people living distinctly (the caste system) with overlapping gods didn't fit into their Judeo-Christian understanding of religion.
Which has an ecclesiastical authority, a holy book etc., which Indian religions lacked. In studying "The Hindoo", colonialists prioritized textual sources of knowledge, which is where Brahmins, the priestly caste with a monopoly over education/text come in.
Brahminism was a distinct "religion" (although i don't really want to use the term in this way) that was frankly terrorized of other castes. In fact, the very basis of Brahminism is oppression. Brahmins had scholars who recorded *Brahminical* canon textually.
I can assure you, it is NOT.
It is neither easy-going, nor non-persecutory. In fact it is the very opposite.
Thread.
Hinduism was historically one of the world's most easy-going faith traditions, famed for its non-persecutory history. Now this ... pic.twitter.com/Obln4cns7b
— David Frum (@davidfrum) February 3, 2021
Modern Hinduism is a British colonial concept, created in concert with Brahmins, who are at the "apex" of the caste system. The word "Hindoo" in fact, is of Persian origin, meaning a person who lives in the Indus valley.
Colonialists who attempted to study Indian religion in the 18th century (NOT, at the time, Hinduism) were baffled by it. Strata of people living distinctly (the caste system) with overlapping gods didn't fit into their Judeo-Christian understanding of religion.
Which has an ecclesiastical authority, a holy book etc., which Indian religions lacked. In studying "The Hindoo", colonialists prioritized textual sources of knowledge, which is where Brahmins, the priestly caste with a monopoly over education/text come in.
Brahminism was a distinct "religion" (although i don't really want to use the term in this way) that was frankly terrorized of other castes. In fact, the very basis of Brahminism is oppression. Brahmins had scholars who recorded *Brahminical* canon textually.
