Good article, though I do find this part a bit unsatisfying:
"Only in India does the ancient Greek Galenic medical tradition survive, the Yūnānī school. Muslims transmitted this school from the West to India after 1200 AD, where it survived and flourished long after dying out in its homeland. This is a case where India’s integrative instinct, culturally appropriating from another tradition, preserved ancient knowledge while openly acknowledging its origin. In contrast, indirect Indian influence on Christianity through Neoplatonism or the modeling of Muslim madrassas on Buddhist viharas are appropriations uncredited and unknown. Where India absorbs and integrates, the West consumes and digests."
I do not find these examples very good comparisons. You use a theological comparison for Christianity and Islam, then for lack of a better term, materialistic knowledge for Hinduism. Is there an example where you could compare how Hinduism acknowledges and "integrates" theological concepts from other religions? To the counter of the example of the theoretical unacknowledged Hindu influence on Christianity, there have been some scholars who say there was a theoretical unacknowledged "Christian" influence in Hinduism during the height of the Bhakti movement/era in South India due to the Nestorian Christians living there. The Hindu example you use of "integration" (as opposed to the consuming) seems a more physical/practical knowledge, i.e. medicine. Greek medicine system may have even reached earlier to India via the Indo-Greek kingdoms, then when Muslims encountered India, it further reinforced that medical knowledge being from the "Greeks". But why is that surprising that Hindus would acknowledge their practical knowledge from where they feel it originated? This is not to cast anyone in a bad light, if anything instead of integration, I think it just shows great scholarship on Hindus to document where they feel the knowledge came from. Hindu Indians were collaborating across the middle east with other scholars in the pursuit of knowledge, first with the Zoroastrian, Manichean, and Nestorian Persians, possibly the Greeks, and then later with the Muslims in the "House of Wisdom" You say Hinduism gives credit to the medical knowledge, but records in the west and the Catholic church openly acknowledged their knowledge received from the "pagan" Greeks, and later the western "enlightenment' acknowledges their gleaning knowledge from contributions of the Islamic medical scientists, Another example, I could be wrong, but I think there are Islamic records of gaining knowledge from Hindus/India, for example what the West used to call "Arabic" Numerals, the Islamic world called "Hindu" numerals. Even the great Patriarch of Nestorians, Timothy, mentions the origin of numbers from India. Great article Razib, a lot to think over, but just this one part I feel examples with more direct comparisons, i.e. theology to theology, just would make the point better.
"there have been some scholars who say there was a theoretical unacknowledged "Christian" influence in Hinduism during the height of the Bhakti movement/era in South India due to the Nestorian Christians living there. "
i don't think it was christian. it seemed devotionalism was a thing happening all across the world btwn 0 and 500 AD. probably 'axial age 2'
I could understand that, the same though could be said for "unacknowledged hindu" influence for christianity, which is even more remote or indirect, a development of it's time. My speculation was more about the comparisons for your consume/digest vs absorb/intergrate, the use of a theological example vs medical knowledge example. The dichotomy you're proposing to me is not convincing with these examples. To make this point, a more direct comparisons, theological to theological, would be more convincing. Does Hinduism "acknowledge" concepts that came to it from another religion? I was just wondering if you maybe knew of some? That would make more sense, using the example of medical knowledge we can already find in the west records/acknowledgments of the nonchristian sources that studied/learned from in it's development, even as recent as Reverend Cotton Mather trying to promote smallpox vaccination, unsuccessfully at first (opposed by a younger Ben Franklin), he acknowledges this came from nonwestern/nonchrstian source, told to him by West african slaves.
It may, in the end, be all about the numbers. But for now, leaving out the numbers, the only indispensable culture is the Western one; the cultures of the other two 'bodies' (and indigenous of all other places) can fade into history without changing much of current global trajectory. It's the culture of the chariot and the wagon, of trireme and galleon, of Trevethick and Watt, of Wright Bros and Tesla, Fleming and Watson & Crick, Shockley and Von Neumann, that carry the day.
This is a bit shortsighted, along the lines of the 1899 quote from the patent office "everything that can be invented has been invented". I realize your argument is a bit more elastic than that, but contribution from other cultures to the future is far more ambiguous. After all, "culture of the chariot" needed the concept of "zero" to advance into Tesla, Fleming and Watson & Crick, Shockley and Von Neumann. The roman numerals would not have cut it.
"Europe’s 19th-century conquest of the world was only possible because medieval China had kept the lights on 1,000 years earlier"
What is the explanation here? If medieval China hadn't "kept the lights on" why couldn't Europe do all that conquering?
Your argument that only the rise of Islam split Europe from the Middle East as part of a broader West is novel. My dim recollection of "From Plato to NATO" is that the latter wasn't included with the West. The Greeks & Romans would also have seen themselves as distinct from the Persians & Parthians (the Carthaginians would have born more of a resemblance though at least in terms of their political system).
I also recall reading in another book (I don't think it was Lost History of Christianity, but I think it was recommended by you) that Buddhists converted relatively easily to Islam. Perhaps Islam is in a sense closer to Buddhism than Christianity is.
When categorizing societies as belonging to the same civilization, experiencing the same historical phenomena is considered important. So the experience of the Reformation & Counter-reformation is said to separate Western & Eastern civilization even within Europe/Christendom. In that light one might consider the role played by the Mongol conquests. Those post-date the rise of Islam and fell more heavily on the Islamic world than Europe (except for what would become Russia).
Brilliant Razib!!! Loved this line "Where India absorbs and integrates, the West consumes and digests."
Good article, though I do find this part a bit unsatisfying:
"Only in India does the ancient Greek Galenic medical tradition survive, the Yūnānī school. Muslims transmitted this school from the West to India after 1200 AD, where it survived and flourished long after dying out in its homeland. This is a case where India’s integrative instinct, culturally appropriating from another tradition, preserved ancient knowledge while openly acknowledging its origin. In contrast, indirect Indian influence on Christianity through Neoplatonism or the modeling of Muslim madrassas on Buddhist viharas are appropriations uncredited and unknown. Where India absorbs and integrates, the West consumes and digests."
I do not find these examples very good comparisons. You use a theological comparison for Christianity and Islam, then for lack of a better term, materialistic knowledge for Hinduism. Is there an example where you could compare how Hinduism acknowledges and "integrates" theological concepts from other religions? To the counter of the example of the theoretical unacknowledged Hindu influence on Christianity, there have been some scholars who say there was a theoretical unacknowledged "Christian" influence in Hinduism during the height of the Bhakti movement/era in South India due to the Nestorian Christians living there. The Hindu example you use of "integration" (as opposed to the consuming) seems a more physical/practical knowledge, i.e. medicine. Greek medicine system may have even reached earlier to India via the Indo-Greek kingdoms, then when Muslims encountered India, it further reinforced that medical knowledge being from the "Greeks". But why is that surprising that Hindus would acknowledge their practical knowledge from where they feel it originated? This is not to cast anyone in a bad light, if anything instead of integration, I think it just shows great scholarship on Hindus to document where they feel the knowledge came from. Hindu Indians were collaborating across the middle east with other scholars in the pursuit of knowledge, first with the Zoroastrian, Manichean, and Nestorian Persians, possibly the Greeks, and then later with the Muslims in the "House of Wisdom" You say Hinduism gives credit to the medical knowledge, but records in the west and the Catholic church openly acknowledged their knowledge received from the "pagan" Greeks, and later the western "enlightenment' acknowledges their gleaning knowledge from contributions of the Islamic medical scientists, Another example, I could be wrong, but I think there are Islamic records of gaining knowledge from Hindus/India, for example what the West used to call "Arabic" Numerals, the Islamic world called "Hindu" numerals. Even the great Patriarch of Nestorians, Timothy, mentions the origin of numbers from India. Great article Razib, a lot to think over, but just this one part I feel examples with more direct comparisons, i.e. theology to theology, just would make the point better.
"there have been some scholars who say there was a theoretical unacknowledged "Christian" influence in Hinduism during the height of the Bhakti movement/era in South India due to the Nestorian Christians living there. "
i don't think it was christian. it seemed devotionalism was a thing happening all across the world btwn 0 and 500 AD. probably 'axial age 2'
I could understand that, the same though could be said for "unacknowledged hindu" influence for christianity, which is even more remote or indirect, a development of it's time. My speculation was more about the comparisons for your consume/digest vs absorb/intergrate, the use of a theological example vs medical knowledge example. The dichotomy you're proposing to me is not convincing with these examples. To make this point, a more direct comparisons, theological to theological, would be more convincing. Does Hinduism "acknowledge" concepts that came to it from another religion? I was just wondering if you maybe knew of some? That would make more sense, using the example of medical knowledge we can already find in the west records/acknowledgments of the nonchristian sources that studied/learned from in it's development, even as recent as Reverend Cotton Mather trying to promote smallpox vaccination, unsuccessfully at first (opposed by a younger Ben Franklin), he acknowledges this came from nonwestern/nonchrstian source, told to him by West african slaves.
It may, in the end, be all about the numbers. But for now, leaving out the numbers, the only indispensable culture is the Western one; the cultures of the other two 'bodies' (and indigenous of all other places) can fade into history without changing much of current global trajectory. It's the culture of the chariot and the wagon, of trireme and galleon, of Trevethick and Watt, of Wright Bros and Tesla, Fleming and Watson & Crick, Shockley and Von Neumann, that carry the day.
This is a bit shortsighted, along the lines of the 1899 quote from the patent office "everything that can be invented has been invented". I realize your argument is a bit more elastic than that, but contribution from other cultures to the future is far more ambiguous. After all, "culture of the chariot" needed the concept of "zero" to advance into Tesla, Fleming and Watson & Crick, Shockley and Von Neumann. The roman numerals would not have cut it.
"Europe’s 19th-century conquest of the world was only possible because medieval China had kept the lights on 1,000 years earlier"
What is the explanation here? If medieval China hadn't "kept the lights on" why couldn't Europe do all that conquering?
Your argument that only the rise of Islam split Europe from the Middle East as part of a broader West is novel. My dim recollection of "From Plato to NATO" is that the latter wasn't included with the West. The Greeks & Romans would also have seen themselves as distinct from the Persians & Parthians (the Carthaginians would have born more of a resemblance though at least in terms of their political system).
I also recall reading in another book (I don't think it was Lost History of Christianity, but I think it was recommended by you) that Buddhists converted relatively easily to Islam. Perhaps Islam is in a sense closer to Buddhism than Christianity is.
When categorizing societies as belonging to the same civilization, experiencing the same historical phenomena is considered important. So the experience of the Reformation & Counter-reformation is said to separate Western & Eastern civilization even within Europe/Christendom. In that light one might consider the role played by the Mongol conquests. Those post-date the rise of Islam and fell more heavily on the Islamic world than Europe (except for what would become Russia).
"our argument that only the rise of Islam split Europe from the Middle East as part of a broader West is novel."
this isn't novel. this is behind 'muhammed and charlemagne'