[Buddha-l] buddha-l Digest, Vol 103, Issue 6

[Richard Hayes]

On Sep 17, 2013, at 10:42, "Dan Lusthaus" <vasubandhu at earthlink.net> wrote:

> The inquisition -- as the various things grouped under that label from the 12th-19th c -- was about stamping out heresies, i.e., schismatics. It was, from the Christian point of view, a matter of eliminating deviant forms of Christianity.

Agreed. I would only add that the deviances were almost always elements of practice that people brought with them from "pagan" religions, the indigenous religions they had practiced before Christianity was their principal religion.

> At the beginning the inquisitions aimed at heresies, such as Cathars and Waldensians, which -- like ALL Christians, I might add -- retained gnostic, neoplatonic and manichaean elements, as early on formulated by groups like Paulicians.

Yes, these are excellent examples of people practicing both Catholicism and another religion.

> There is nothing in the suppression of schismatic heresies that supports your contention that the inquisition was about persecuting people sampling "other" religions. I asked you to name which "other" religions you imagined those targetted were importing or sampling.

The indigenous religions of the Teutonic and Celtic peoples, bits of Manichaeism and Greek religions.

> Instead, you gave a long excursus that simply repeated in simplistic fashion (with a sneer) that the notion of one religion per customer is supposed to be my idea. It's not my idea; it's the case.

You gratuitously read a sneer into what I wrote. I was in no way implying that the "one religion to a customer" theory was your invention. It is, however, a theory that you seem to subscribe to. It can hardly be said that it's the case. At best it can be said that it's one interpretation of the available evidence. As I said earlier, I'm inclined to see that same evidence in a somewhat different light.

Cheers,
Richard