Looking At Eastern Religion From the West

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-david-dubois/does-asia-have-religion_b_1031869.html

http://www.1world1way.com/coach/cultures_east_vs_west.html

As someone who has studied and continues to study religion, I find myself getting trapped in the same patterns that the discipline started from, which are decidedly Western and Christian, only one of which I remotely consider myself. The tendency I refer to is considering more Asian or Eastern religions according to the European or Western standard. Buddhism, Confucianism, Shinto, Hinduism, Daoism, Sikhism, Jainism and others all fall under something of an umbrella of systems classified as Dharmic; that is, following a path or adhering to a natural law, which is one common translation of the term dharma in Sanskrit. At least two of the faiths I listed are commonly not even considered religions in academic study: Confucianism and Jainism, mostly because they are centered on human activity instead of the supernatural related to the human. This creates an ambiguity about classification and what you include amongst common lists of 12 for most people involved in the study as a whole. Sometimes Buddhism isn’t even considered, since it’s almost as ambiguous about the relevance of the supernatural. There is also a huge swath of diversity within these religions due to the lack of specificity about a sacred or otherwise central text for the religion itself. There are many examples of relatively important historical texts for a background on any of these faiths: Tripitaka (Three Baskets) for Buddhism, along with the Pali Canon in general, the Vedas for Hinduism, the Dao De Jing and Zhuangzi for Daoism, and the list goes on. But none of those texts are considered absolutely essential for all people associated with those belief systems. All in all, one has to make at least some distinctions between Western and Eastern religion, even though the term is decidedly Western in origin, meaning another term would be required for the kind of precision that would take away the ambiguity that exists in this conversation. But what term would be best?

They very idea of religious studies as an academic discipline originated in Western culture, from a desire to understand religion in more scientific terms. But the basis of what was understood as a religion came from the Abrahamic traditions, which were the most studied at the time, especially Christianity. To believe was to make specific affirmations and to orient to the supernatural. But even with religions that believed explicitly in the supernatural, such as Shinto and Hinduism, there wasn’t the specificity of Christian creeds and so their exotic nature was simplified so as to be more palatable to Western minds. Fundamentally, this created a difficulty with Confucianism, Jainism and Buddhism, since they were more like philosophies and worldviews without the supernatural. So thankfully this exposure to a different manifestation of what we could call the religious impulse of humanity resulted in Western scholars partly recognizing that religion wasn’t limited to a definition that required the supernatural or a sacred text held to be inerrant or infallible. While not everyone has the nuance to see this, it’s at least possible to consider Buddhism and Confucianism as religions in a nominal sense, even though many scholars would contest this on the grounds that you’re stretching the credibility of the term religion to include things that may be better classified outside of that. The term religion itself is subject to some debate in its etymology. On the one hand we have the analysis by Cicero of re-ligare, to re-read or re-examine. This doesn’t possess the more creed based idea of another popular interpretation that religion is derived from the Latin religare, to bind fast. The former suggests a philosophical aspect, whereas the latter has a mystical element in communion with the divine. That aside, the question remains as to the nature of Eastern religion and whether there’s another term that could work in describing it apart from Western religion’s preconceptions and the partly loaded ideas that result.

Since we’ve partly established that religions in the East are either philosophical in nature and thus don’t qualify as well for the Western definition, or are more syncretic and/or eclectic in their approach to the supernatural, the Western ideas about religion are either barely applicable, such as with Hinduism or Sikhism in the connection to the divine, or virtually irrelevant, such as with Buddhism and Jainism that regard the gods as inconsequential to one’s spiritual development. With this in mind, the recognition that there is both a Western and Eastern religion in taking the two popular etymologies into account could complicate things more than if we simplify the discussion to worldviews and approach the subject with the idea that worldviews can have qualities of either side and not require the term religion to describe either of them. The term worldview admittedly creates some difficulties, since it doesn’t preclude the inclusion of various other beliefs that are more non-philosophical in nature, such as politics and the like. But overall it would enable us to present the differences side by side and also admit that there is some overlap. Some worldviews of Western origin might fit Eastern qualities better, such as Wicca. There are also religions that skim the boundary, such as Zoroastrianism, possessing some aspects of Western religion, such as a sacred text, the Avesta, but also reflecting a dualism that isn’t as present in Christianity with God as sovereign, whereas Ahura Mazda is in conflict with Angra Mainyu in a battle of good versus evil. The category overlaps could continue on for a while, but for the moment, we should admit that the classification is imperfect, but effective nonetheless.

There will necessarily be differences between these two forms of “religion” Western religion is more a matter of affiliation to one specific system or institution (Christianity, Judaism, etc), while Eastern religion is more associated with cultural practices and can be eclectic and syncretic in nature. Western faiths have more commonly associated official texts and creeds, whereas Eastern faiths have a lot of overlap and aren’t so strict in your identification with one and another, since they can harmonize with each other very easily in a sense, as Japan did with Shinto, its native belief system and Buddhism as it came from China, which also did the same thing with its own folk beliefs and Buddhism as it came from India. Even with traditions like Confucianism, Buddhism and Shinto to an extent, the behavior of believers is not the same and neither is the regard of the believers to the supernatural itself as opposed to society in relation to one’s beliefs. The Western idea of religion that we take for granted is derived primarily from an Abrahamic perspective that saw other belief systems as religions according to a very narrow idea of what constitutes religion in terms of beliefs related to the supernatural, which would’ve excluded Confucianism in the strictest sense, but also consider Chinese folk beliefs a religion of sorts unto itself. The more fluid and dynamic nature of Asian religion necessitates that you consider it within its own cultural sphere instead of under the Western lens that can push out many otherwise compelling and important Asian religions, even minority ones like Jainism and folk religions like Bon. The world religions class you take in college may give you a starting point for discussion, but it won’t necessarily present the belief systems as very different from those that many students were raised in. This will mean many of them have presuppositions about what a religion is supposed to be which will subsequently be shattered with the sheer diversity of Hinduism alone, along with Daoism and Shinto. The differences shouldn’t be cause for alarm, but an opportunity to broaden one’s horizons and see that religion is not always how we identify our beliefs, strictly speaking. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

Faith and Forgiveness, How Does It Work?

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/24/how-faith-can-help-and-hinder-forgiveness/

When speaking about religion and faith, one usually thinks of forgiveness being easier for believers. But there may be a much greater difficulty in reality. The difficulty in forgiveness itself exists either way, but it seems to be more difficult in terms of reconciling your own feelings with feelings towards a higher power that is involved with the world and its events, both happy and sad. When good things happen, you thank this power, but when bad things happen, one might lash out not at oneself or others, but at the original source of this suffering, God. Of course, Christians would eventually recover, understanding their own problems and overcoming them in time. When someone initially goes to God and finds God wanting, their anger only exacerbates the problem. If you instead concentrated on the real source of the problem and persevered through the inevitable suffering that results from the world that doesn’t always go how we expect, perhaps personal forgiveness would be easier. When you focus on forgiveness from others instead of forgiveness from yourself, you have your priorities reversed.

Some of the aspects of forgiveness and religion, in terms of theism especially, involves misotheism, or hatred of God, if only temporarily. When you are able to vent at some higher power, one might say you are able to get over the problem better. I’d argue the inverse, though. If you project your anger and frustration towards something that may not even exist or is so beyond human pleas to even care, then those feelings are wasted and misdirected towards what is essentially blameless or insensible. Of course, the contrary could be asserted with a deity that genuinely forgives and loves people even in their broken state. But even if this is the case, it fails to solve the original problem of confronting your own state of discontent.

To reference my Buddhist beliefs, when one has a problem in Buddhism, you don’t look outward first, if at all in some cases. Instead you look inwardly and see how your own thoughts and perspective have disposed you to behave or believe a certain way. With Christianity in particular, there is the sense of projection of your responsibility initially to God and realizing afterwards that you are the problem and God is not in any way affected by your petty mistakes beyond a general separation, what with being “holy” and such. Christianity therefore might be said to put an unnecessary first step into a more basic system that Buddhism presents.

First, do you go to a higher power to console yourself or do you meditate inwardly on the problem, considering both the possibility that you are the problem’s source or that some things just happen even if you did everything you could? If a person you love is hurt emotionally or even physically by your words or actions, there is a responsibility to take upon yourself that doesn’t require God belief in the slightest. The psychological sphere of guilt we all encounter at one point or another is especially pertinent. With guilt by virtue of believing in some original sin nature or even just the belief that you are inferior and imperfect before a sinless savior, Jesus, can make the forgiving process much longer and protracted than it needs to be. Of course forgiveness is difficult with such things as rape on the part of the one forgiving the one who hurt them or drunk driving on the part of the one who is seeking forgiveness as the driver who survived.

There is a strong theme of forgiveness in the Abrahamic tradition, no doubt, and it doesn’t even have to involve the God always in the background of the scriptures, especially in the Old Testament. There is the biblical wisdom to not let the sun go down on your anger, though some might take it too literally and not even sleep until they resolve their problems, which can cause more problems than it solves, if it does at all. Jesus also emphasized forgiving your enemies in the Gospels. Even the notion of God’s forgiveness might be said to have some comforting effect on people, though this creates a difficult standard to meet when you consider the perfection of God and in that way, we have the stereotypical guilt associated with Catholics and rituals of confession and contrition lumped together as creating a complex where you think you can do no right before the righteous judge known as God. With Jewish forgiveness, there seems to be less of a tendency to beg God for forgiveness and instead focus on reconciling oneself to your fellow human for wrongdoings. This is pertinent to my post “Jesus Doesn’t Solve Everything, Especially Sex Scandals” with Anthony Weiner’s Jewish faith in contrast to Albert Mohler Jr.’s Christian faith in terms of forgiveness of one sort or another.

I’m not saying religion is ineffective entirely in the business of forgiveness, but there is a decent argument to put forth that the psychological aspects of it are not so accessible in a religious context, since there is already a leap of sensibility in a person begging forgiveness first from outside themselves. Even if it does make sense to seek forgiveness, one should first seek to forgive oneself for wrongdoing instead of trying to blame and punish yourself as if it will cleanse you of the guilt. In reality, it only seems to reinforce the guilt because of the pain and regret you feel afterwards. You will feel pain and regret for a time; that is undeniable. Rape or drunk driving can both make forgiveness very difficult because of the nature of the parties involved. The first has a surviving party who was violated and feels they cannot trust anyone and the second has a party who has survivor’s guilt, wanting to die in the place of the person who they killed by their senseless decision. Either way, it is important to face up to the harshness of reality instead of facing away and finding consolation in something whose forgiveness is unconditional and thus has no challenge embedded in it at all. With God’s forgiveness, I daresay there is something too easy involved in the process, even if there might be difficulty on the part of the person to beg for forgiveness, but once you get over that hurdle, you’re stuck in a codependent relationship to an entity that is purely independent of you and is just taking your worship with the ease of walking. I could go on for a while longer, probably, but to conclude, forgiveness is a subject that has enough complexities already. Why would you want to involve God in this issue when God is already involved with the explanation for the world? Focus on the human area of forgiveness and you will become a more forgiving person with that practice over time. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

Faith, the Future and 2011

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/01/11-faith-based-predictions-for-2011/
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/04/more-atheists-to-come-out-in-2011-leader-predicts
http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-01-01/bay-area/17466332_1_east-bay-bay-area-first-time-camping

This article will be all over the place, since the topic is the possibilities of the future instead of precise judgments in the present with such uncertainty assailing us. Belief Blog consulted 11 different contributors, with a 12th extra chiming in a bit late, each bringing something to the table as to what 2011’s potential for faith is. Let’s try to boil these down to categories instead of each individual story.

Selena Fox, who I referenced when speaking on Christine O’Donnell’s alleged connections to witchcraft and Wicca, predicted that more Wiccans will become involved in interfaith dialogue, which would certainly line up with a previous prediction by both Steve Wohlberg, author of Hour of the Witch and Marla Alupoaicei, co author of Generation Hex (http://shatteredparadigm.blogspot.com/2008/09/wicca-will-be-3rd-largest-religion-in.html) that Wicca will become the third largest religion in the U.S. It doesn’t seem unlikely, though one wonders what would count as a Wiccan under this notion. Also, David Silverman, head of American Atheists, thinks that coming out as an atheist might be considered cool in 2011, or as some people put it, accepted. This seems a bit more difficult to believe, though America has at least allowed an atheist in Congress, which is a step in the right direction towards a sense of cooperation. In relation to atheism in the U.S., there is the notion in the wake of the Christmas billboard and bus advertisement wars between atheists and theists that there will be a call to ally both believers and non believers in God under a common good of human flourishing. Orson Scott Card, popular science fiction Mormon author, thinks that Mike Huckabee, noted for his anti Mormon statements in the 2008 campaigns, might have to change his tone if he wants to win over the Mormons that stand in some opposition to his nomination for 2012 in contrast to Mitt Romney, a popular Republican nominee as well in 2008. And one can hope that the prediction concerning GLBT dialogue with religion will come to fruition, with the recent repeal on some level of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in the military.

Concerning Muslims, we have a suggestion that Muslim/Jew dialogue may become more proactive from a moderate Muslim perspective, more than likely in America to start with. Without getting into the issues of the Middle East and the state of Israel, there will instead be more focus on common ground and a sense of spiritual community that exists between them. Also, there will probably be an upsurge of advocates for religious pluralism as an issue for the 2012 presidential race, such as from New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, in the face of the “Ground Zero Mosque” controversy that still seems to kindle hatred and vitriol towards Muslims. And the Park51 controversy will hopefully be little more than a minority griping about supposed insults to their sensitivities, most people seeing the bridge-building potential of a community center with Muslim undertones with New York’s religious diversity. Not to mention by this point people have probably realized that it’s just a passing memory in the back of one’s mind, since it’s going to be hidden behind all the buildings between it and the memorial actually being built at Ground Zero.

And since the Christian majority of the country always seems to feel various levels of frustration and fear, there are predictions surrounding their development. The Tea Party and religious conservatives of various stripes will no doubt be pressuring Republicans to remain consistent to the party agenda, particularly fiscal responsibility and cultural conservativism. And with the increase in attacks on Christian churches in the Middle East, the coining of the term “Christianophobia” will start competing for space with “Islamaphobia”, which was a strong buzzword in 2010. And with people feeling like the U.S. is becoming less like their ideal “Christian nation”, evangelicals, along with triumphalists and dominionists of the Christian variety, will focus their efforts in a more radical direction, which one Christian author notes might steer more people away from the conservative flavor of Christianity and into the liberal threads that exist. In short, Christianity can be said to be going through a radical transition phase of one side accepting their potential loss of influence in some sense in an increasingly diverse religious culture and those that will continue to push for more influence that they think they deserve with the infection of historical revisionism in favor of Christianity further polluting their minds.

And what is most common in terms of predictions for 2011 is actually not far from my birthday. May 21, 2011 has been predicted by one Harold Camping to be the date for the oft spoken about Rapture, where all the good Christians will be teleported somewhere while all the bad people like me will stick around for about 7 years or so suffering at the hands of some Antichrist, from what I recall. Ironically, though, Mr. Camping had predicted the end of days 16 years or so ago, to happen on September 6th, 1994. Not unlike the Great Disappointment in 1844, people hoped for Judgment Day and were sorely disappointed; though I wonder how many people were so willing to sell all their possessions and otherwise separate themselves from the profane world in the hopes of whatever is promised in scriptures. I find more agreement with most Christians on this topic, contrasting with my common ground to the minority of Christians on celebrating Jesus’ supposed birthday. It is said in scriptures by Jesus himself that only God knows the day or the hour when the final judgment and rapture will occur (Matthew 24: 36, Mark 13:32). I won’t even get into details about how the Rapture doctrine was only formalized in the late 1700s; but suffice it to say, eschatology in Christianity has probably been one of the more contentious aspects next to soteriology. In layman’s terms, the only thing that gets people more mad at each other than whether one group will go to heaven or hell is when God’s judgment will actually happen.

So here’s hoping I’ll still be celebrating my 24th year when the date comes. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

Religion: Comfort in Certainty or Contentment in Chaos?

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/01/prominent-jerusalem-rabbi-warns-of-religions-limits/
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/04/my-take-why-i-changed-from-faith-to-being/

Since there haven’t been huge events in the world that have had relevance to present society, I thought it better to consider religion and faith in general for once this week instead of specific incidents that connect to their study.

David Hartman, a well known Orthodox rabbi and philosopher, starts his CNN Belief Blog interview by noting what is probably the first thing most people view religion as; something to comfort them, to make them see the possibility of hope in a world that is intrinsically chaotic, unpredictable and varied in the satisfaction we gain in it. But Hartman cautions against this view, noting that religion shouldn’t be seen as a way to bind oneself to something in order to make the proverbial roller coaster of life seem more bearable. Religion may in some way have this function, as a method of therapy and catharsis, a cleansing of the mind and a reorientation of our perspective. But it shouldn’t be seen as a way to transcend life and go beyond suffering and the reality that we experience every day. Religion is not acquiring ultimate answers to give people, because otherwise, life would be perfect. If we just got a solution to the problem of people suffering loss of friends and family, life wouldn’t be in the state it is, with people in some cases becoming so fixated on the afterlife that they eschew any value to life as we know it. Not everyone is a Gnostic in that radical dualism of the spirit and flesh. But even a belief system where we think we have some ultimate revelation about how the world will end is still going a step beyond what it ought to be. Any religion that steps into the human realm and speaks to them as if they’re some messenger of God with just the right answers has turned its followers, laity and clergy alike, into puppets of self delusion. Hartman brings up the example of kids suffering with cancer. Religion doesn’t solve these problems, science does, over time. Religion heals wounds over time as well, albeit those of a more subtle nature. To Rabbi Hartman, religion is that system which enables us to persevere in the face of absurdity, of the uncertain. I would go a step further and say that this system shouldn’t be called religion, but instead something of a fusion of religion and philosophy. By this, I mean that this system, whatever one might want to call it, should involve both principles of ethics and practice following from them. Paul Kurtz, a philosopher called the “father of secular humanism” coined the term eupraxophy, which describes a system that focuses more on ethical behavior than what he called the “transcendental temptation”; what I understand to be similar to what Rabbi Hartman spoke about. We can’t live life thinking we have all the answers, no matter how much we’ve experienced in our own lives. A child could present more genuine ethics in a funeral situation or any such disaster than someone even my grandparents’ age. In a child innocently understanding that when someone is crying, they are upset, they would also consider it appropriate to console the person in a way that may involve words, but may simply involve a touch of the hand. That kind of comfort is something any person can appreciate, even if they also know that it will pass away. Knowing people will pass away is not cause for holding a belief that eventually people won’t pass away. It seems more prudent to focus on behaving well and cultivating good habits of ethics presently instead of hoping for some future where all our problems have been solved. As Hartman said, “I prefer a religion that gives me the strength to live with the unpredictable world rather than denying it,”

Continuing with the line of thought about the terms we use to describe such a system that appears in varied forms, without or with God. Some call it religion, others a relationship; some prefer to call it philosophy, discovering wisdom and fulfillment in life. There’s also belief system or worldview that express a more comprehensive idea, but are also very extensive and intimidating to people who want a basic way to express what their practice of virtue is. And of course there’s the term eupraxophy which is still very much unknown in common parlance. Even the term faith seems too limited, since not every person focuses on their faith in something in the sense that many have come to use the word. To have faith in something nowadays seems to be persisting in a conviction even when there is evidence or experience to the contrary. People who advocate this kind of faith also don’t seem to want a fellow believer to ever backslide or revert to their old ways, or distance themselves from the beliefs they were raised with. I can’t genuinely seem to name any names, not even a particular cousin who has generally harsh criticism of “liberalism” but is also quite liberal with his advice and doesn’t seem to know when to hold his tongue and listen to someone else talk, like a younger cousin of mine in college, not as concerned in his youth about his salvation so much as his education. The generation gap could be accused as the culprit in this case, but it seems like it may be something more along the lines of differences of personality. There are those that are more prone to being fixated on conservation of the past and future without realizing that in many cases, what is done in the present reflects both one’s past and future; the past in what you have learned and grown through before and the future in what you might do and how you might confront the unknown. And there are those that are potentially too invested in the present to the exclusion of considerations of the past or the future; ignoring past mistakes or not considering the consequences of their actions that will happen. A balance needs to be found or at least some moderation of either side. We admittedly need people that are more motivated by either rational or emotional considerations, and even those that contain aspects of both; like a philosopher of religion, considering religion, a discipline intertwined with people’s hopes and fears, through philosophy, more rigorous and structured, though aligned with religion nonetheless in seeking happiness through reason’s lens. Krista Tippet, host of the radio show now titled On Being reflects something of this sentiment. If we are to make a genuine pursuit of understanding what we have in common, we have to at least loosen our grip on, if not let go as reified ideas, those terms like faith and reason and consider them in a more general context before automatically reducing them to our particular contexts in life. Myself, as a child raised Christian, becoming a teen Deist and then finally concluding after college as more of a Buddhist; I am just one person of many that can be observed and approached in, and approach others with, the spirit of hospitality and tolerance. Not gullibility and naivete, mind you, but a deep trust alongside discretion honed over time and experience. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

The Meaning(s) of Easter

http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/13-culture/356-most-americans-consider-easter-a-religious-holiday-but-fewer-correctly-identify-its-meaning

After going to an Easter sunrise service (staying up the entire night so as not to get 2-3 hours of sleep and be grumpy about it) and hearing the pastor note a study from the Barna Group about how people regard Easter, I thought I’d look into it. After a cursory glance, I took a well deserved nap. And after analyzing it in more detail, I am somewhat disappointed as to how they use their relatively small sampling (a little over 1000 people) to suggest that everyone in the U.S. is ignorant about Easter’s meaning in the Christian context. Some of the answers they gave seem to be there just to make the evangelicals and born again Christians feel superior that they know the “true” meaning of Easter. Some people suggest it is reflective of welcoming the spring or of Passover (which are both true in terms of meaning you can derive from the holiday). Some of the answers are admittedly more concerned with “consumer culture” as it’s termed or the general togetherness the holiday brings. None of these are necessarily the incorrect meaning unless you view the Christian answer as the only true one, which is one of my issues with such groups using studies to justify their status quo or lack thereof.

There’s also their distinction between seeing Easter as a religious holiday and of seeing the “true” meaning of Easter in the alleged resurrection of Jesus. How are these different except in the specificity; that is, assuming there has to be one meaning only? It’s not as if they’re complaining overall; they seem to have a concern about people in my age category and their progressively “secular” thinking making them forget that Easter is even a religious holiday. But the very way they phrase the distinction of the groups that are mistaken about Easter and the minority that affirms the specific things they want to hear troubles me; as if being an evangelical or a born again Christian is not affirming a religious position or should be the majority position. The Barna Group seems more concerned about groups affirming that Easter is both a religious holiday and focused on Jesus’ resurrection. Although even that is observed in the statistics (however suspect they are) to be questionable since less than half of all the age demographics affirm that Jesus’ resurrection is the meaning of Easter, meaning any group affirming exactly what the Barna Group thinks is right are in the minority of what is a miniscule representation of the 300 million+ people in the U.S..

The issue they’re not seeing is that people are not educated enough about Christianity or Easter in the first place to really know what the Christian meaning is in the context of what is commonly their native religion. This issue is not uncommon, especially with a book by Stephen Prothero coming to mind: Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know--And Doesn’t. He notes that America is one of the least religiously literate nations in the world; however advanced we may be in other areas of consideration, such as military. With this in mind, I don’t see the Barna Group’s concern as surprising, but I do see their positive conclusion about people’s willingness to invite people to Easter services as the least of their concerns. The groups willing to follow through with their likelihood to invite friends to Easter services were 31% of their 1000 people, suggesting that even if all 300+ people did what they said they’d do, the increase in congregations would be a paltry sum in the dwindling numbers of active churchgoers. If they really want to improve the status of their religion’s popularity or accessibility to today’s people, then they should adjust the way they communicate to them. However objectionable it may be, I can’t imagine it’s that hard to emphasize the miraculous nature of your founder’s return from the dead even to today’s people, however “secular” they may be. It’s a matter of focusing on the meaningfulness derived from the story itself. The historical or scientific credulity, it would seem to me, is secondary to convincing people that the story of the Jewish rabbi returning to life as a pseudo vampire and saving their souls is something they can derive meaning and purpose from. After all, you’re taking the story on faith primarily, are you not? Until next time, Namaste and Aloha.