Miss Buddha

by Ulf Wolf

  Tallest among those, and probably their philosophical father, stands the mystic and guru Sri Aurobindo Ghose who wrote his elegant arguments for a new Brahman-centered world, embracing both science and mysticism, in English.

  The Path of Philosophy

  If one fact emerges from the trace of the second whirlwind history of this paper, it would be that a lot of men (and women) have given this world and its riddles a lot of thought.

  How come, though—one can certainly be justified in asking oneself—are their answers to different?

  How can two people, both human beings, both human minds, both human spirits, look at a problem and arrive at completely different solutions. Compare, say, Gandhi and Marx.

  And how can one school of thought, and its many followers, arrive at the conclusion that there is no God, and that all there is to this world is matter, while another as firmly believes that not only is there a God, but he (or she) has a thousand different faces.

  How can one school arrive at the view that we should live for ourselves only, and only see to satisfying our own pleasures, while another school is convinced that we live for each other and must live for each other.

  One school preaches the police state to control the inhabitants of the realm, while another is convinced that a society—whether a city-state or a country—can only be changed (for the better) by changing each individual citizen.

  It does seem, however, that once you look beyond human thought, and approach spiritual experience (mysticism) that the answers simplify, even unify into one.

  It seems that the spirit of man does recognize that there cannot be but one truth, no matter how many faces it may sport.

  And it does seem that when man tries to reason his way to this one truth he invariably reasons himself into a myriad of divergent paths all screaming for relevance and right-hood, none providing a lasting way.

  The Path of Philosophy has not failed to wholly unify for lack of trying (or suggestions).

  The same can be said of Religion.

  So, let’s look in that fruitful direction for a while.

  :: Religion ::

  Religion could be said to be a sacred engagement with what is believed to be spiritual reality.

  One could also say—and one would most likely be correct—that were there no suffering in this world, there would be no (need for, actually) religion.

  But there is suffering in this world, and the need for religion is gravely apparent.

  As a worldwide phenomenon religion has played a part in all human culture and so is much broader and more complex than the set of beliefs or practices found in any single religious tradition. An understanding of religion must take into account what we ultimate believe to be true, as well as the similarities and differences in religions across all human cultures.

  At all times, and in all cultures, human beings have made a practice of interacting with what they take to be spiritual powers, whether in the form of gods, spirits, ancestors, or any kind of sacred reality with which we believe we are connected.

  Sometimes the spiritual power is understood as an all-embracing reality, and sometimes we approach through its manifestation in special symbols.

  Sometimes it is seen as external to the self, sometimes internal, and sometimes both. Humans do—and have always done so—interact with such a presence in a sacred manner: that is, with reverence and care.

  When asked to name this complex and diverse realm of human experience, we mostly turn to the word Religion.

  The Word and its Many Meanings

  Let’s revisit the various meanings of the word.

  The word religion is derived from the Latin noun religio, which denotes both earnest observance of ritual obligations and an inward spirit of reverence; it also, at heart, connotes a bond.

  In modern usage, religion covers a wide spectrum of meanings that reflect the enormous variety of ways we interpret the term. At one extreme, many committed believers recognize only their own tradition as a religion, understanding expressions such as worship and prayer to refer exclusively to the practices of their tradition (mostly convinced that all other faiths calling themselves religions are in fact shams and, as often as not, the work of the Devil).

  By defining religion as a sacred engagement with what is taken to be a spiritual reality, it is possible to consider the importance of religion in human life without making claims about what life really is or ought to be.

  Religion is not an object with a single, fixed meaning, or even a zone with clear boundaries. It is an aspect of human experience that may, and often does, intersect, incorporate, or transcend other aspects of life and society. Such a definition avoids the drawbacks of limiting the word to Western or biblical categories such as monotheism (belief in one god only) or to church structure, neither of which are universal.

  For example, in tribal societies, religion—unlike the Christian church—is normally not a separate institution but rather pervades all of both public and private life.

  In many traditional cultures, the idea of a sacred cosmic order is the most prominent religious belief; a belief to explain such things as why the sun rises each day and why the moon waxes and wanes. Because of this variety, some scholars prefer to use a general term such as “the sacred” to designate the common foundation of religious life.

  Religion in this understanding includes a structure of activities that cannot be reduced to any one aspect of human experience. Rather, it is a part of individual life and also of the group dynamic. Religion, viewed from this angle, includes patterns of behavior but also patterns of language and thought.

  Sometimes religion is a highly organized institution that sets itself apart from a culture, while at other times it is an integral part of a culture.

  Throughout history, religious experience has been expressed in visual symbols, in dance and performance, in elaborate philosophical systems, in legendary and imaginative stories, in formal ceremonies, in meditative techniques, and in detailed rules of ethical conduct and law.

  History of Religious Study

  Up through history, but especially over the past four centuries, philosophers, anthropologists, sociologists, and psychologists have taken various approaches to understanding religion, mostly approaching the subject not from a sectarian or partisan standpoint but, rather, impartially: as a subject for scholarly investigation.

  Antiquity

  The first recorded Western attempts to understand and document religious phenomena were made by the Greeks and Romans.

  As early as the 6th century BCE, the Greek philosopher Xenophanes noted that different cultures visualized the gods in different ways. In the century following, the Greek historian Herodotus recorded the wide range of religious practices he encountered in his travels, comparing the religious observances of various cultures, such as sacrifice and worship, with their Greek equivalents.

  Roman historians Julius Caesar and Cornelius Tacitus similarly recorded the rites and customs of peoples that they met on their military campaigns.

  Ages of Exploration and Enlightenment

  Although a systematic study of religions as an academic subject did not emerge until the second half of the 19th century, the groundwork was laid in the three preceding centuries.

  In the 16th century, Western knowledge of other cultures increased dramatically through extensive exploration and then trade. Returning explorers and missionaries reported in detail on the range of religious beliefs and practices they had encountered around the world.

  During the Age of Enlightenment (early and mid-18th century), scholars took a special interest in what they termed natural religion—the (what they considered) inborn capacity of all humans to arrive at a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to act on that belief.

  The 19th and 20th Centuries

  In the mid-19th century, German scholar Friedrich Max Müller, who has been called the father of comparative religion, became the most prominent advocate of historical and linguistic
analysis in the study of religion.

  Beginning in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the scriptures of many non-Western traditions had been translated and published, offering a view of faiths that previously had been inaccessible. In addition, archaeological excavations had revealed new features—including some scriptural texts—of previously obscure religions, such as those of the ancient Middle East.

  Presented with this mass of information, Müller undertook a critical, historically based investigation of world religious traditions. Although his approach emphasized the view that all traditions were the product of historical development, Müller believed comparative study would demonstrate that every religion possessed some measure of truth.

  By the end of the 19th century, scholars were making religion an object of systematic inquiry. Müller’s comparative approach was adopted in many European and Japanese universities, and as a result the common features of world religions (such as gods, prayer, priesthood, and creation myths) were the subjects of sustained scholarly investigation.

  In addition, field anthropologists had begun to compile firsthand accounts of the religions of peoples who previously had been dismissed as savages, a study that contributed a great deal to the general analysis of the role of religion in human societies.

  By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, scholars had begun to pose basic questions about the origin and development of religious ideas, questioning how religion began and the stages of its evolution.

  Some maintained that it originated with a belief in spirits (animism), then evolved into the notion that there were many gods (polytheism), and ultimately emerged as the ideal of a single god (monotheism).

  Others held that religion began in a sense of awe at the impressive activities of nature, in a feeling of reverence for the spirits of the dead, or in an attempt to overcome mortality.

  Many other important questions about the nature of religion were addressed during this period: Can religion be divided into so-called primitive and higher types? Is religion a product of psychological needs and projections? Is it a function of political and social control? Such questions have, to this day, continued to generate a large number of theories.

  Religious Life

  The religious life is an individual’s attempt to live in accordance with the precepts of his or her religious tradition. For example, Buddhists hold the Buddha up as a model and try to replicate his life; Christians strive to be Christ-like; and followers of the mystical Tao practice noninterference with the natural course of things.

  Religious experience also reflects the diversity of cultural expressions in general: It can be formal or spontaneous, solemn or festive, hierarchical or egalitarian; it can emphasize submission or liberation; it can be devotional or contemplative; it can involve fear or joy; it can be comforting or disruptive; it can encourage reliance on powers outside oneself or encourage personal responsibility.

  The view that sacredness is an individual experience and the view that sacredness is influenced by environmental factors are not necessarily in conflict. Religious life is given distinctive form both by the power of a community’s social bonds and its traditional objects of veneration, and by an individual’s personal interaction with those objects.

  Religion as a Function of Society

  In many cases, the things that people consider sacred are determined by the community to which they belong. However, the holiest things in the world to one group—its gods, saviors, scriptures, or sacraments—are not necessarily seen as sacred absolutes by another group, sometimes—especially by those groups whose religion demands that no other god aside from theirs ever be allowed—even as evil things.

  The notion that sacredness is a value that a given society places on certain objects—objects representing what that society values most—and that such objects shape and generate the religious feelings of its members was first proposed by French sociologist Émile Durkheim.

  According to his now classic theory set forth in Les Formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse: Le système totemique en Australie (1912; and translated as The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, 1965), the distinguishing mark of religion at its most fundamental is not a belief in divinity or in the supernatural but is simply objects decreed as sacred by a group of people.

  In Durkheim’s view, it is the authority and beliefs of a society that make things sacred or profane. Consequently, religion is best understood neither as the result of supernatural revelation nor as an illusion or a set of mistaken ideas.

  Rather, he claims, religion is best understood as the power of a society to make certain things (objects, whether physical or mental) sacred or profane in the lives of its individual members. Therefore, social sacredness and religious sacredness are one and the same. Thus, sacred things are those objects and symbols, including principles and beliefs that must be preserved from violation because they represent all that is of most value to the community.

  All cultures hold something sacred. In secular Western societies, the sacred might be embodied in certain principles, such as individual rights, freedom, justice, or equality.

  In Durkheim’s view, therefore, religion is not a matter of claims about the universe that are either true or false, but is the normal way that a society constructs and maintains its cherished tradition and moral values.

  Religion as Divine Experience

  A very different view, emphasizing individual experience, was developed by German theologian Rudolf Otto. In Das Heilige (1917; Literally “The Holy” but translated as The Idea of the Holy, 1958), Otto holds that personal experience of the divine power is the true core of religiousness.

  Such experience, according to Otto, is marked by a sense of awe in the face of the Mysterious Other that in this moment dramatically intersects our limited, vulnerable view. It is this reality, Otto maintains, that religious traditions symbolize by concepts such as God or the Allmighty.

  In Otto’s view, the capacity for such awareness lies within each person, and it is the purpose of religious language, observance, and practice to shape and elicit this awareness.

  Religion as an Individual Phenomenon

  For many people, religion is best understood as individual spiritual life.

  An influential book exploring this view is The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902), by American philosopher and psychologist William James.

  James attempted a study of all forms that religious experience can take—from extreme asceticism (practice of self-denial) and mystical union with the divine, to modern techniques of positive thinking, giving special attention to what he termed conversion experiences, or life-changing encounters with spiritual forces.

  James supported his study with hundreds of documented cases where individuals reported that they had experienced contact with something transcendent and that their lives had changed decisively as a result.

  Many of these recorded episodes came as a sudden and unsolicited consciousness of spiritual unity or insight. Mystical, quite ineffable, he said.

  Based on this study, James hypothesized the existence of a wider, subconscious dimension of the self that could help account for the source of apparently supernatural visions, voices, and revelations.

  Religion as Experience Mediated by the Sacred

  Romanian scholar Mircea Eliade (1907-86) emphasized that religious people experience our ordinary world differently from non-religious people because they view it as a sacred place.

  In his view, believing in divine foundations of life elevates the significance of natural objects and activities.

  He also believed that for what he termed homo religiosus time, space, the earth, the sky, and the human body can all have a symbolic, religious meaning, and, like Otto, Eliade held that the study of religion must not reduce its subject matter to something merely social or psychological, but must take seriously the idea that in the believer’s world the experience of sacredness defines a distinctive reality.

  Patterns in Relig
ious Life

  Observing religion across many cultures yields certain common themes and activity patterns. Naturally, you also discover significant differences within those patterns.

  Sacred Histories

  Most religions are grounded in and organized around certain past events or models. They, as a rule, have their own account of the history of the world—the great time when gods, creators, sages, ancestors, saviors, founders, or heroes established or revealed the essential elements of the religion; the single exception here being Buddhism, since the Buddha considered such speculations pointless and non-productive of enlightenment, and would accomplish little else but ensnare you in opinions and guesswork.

  But for rest, where sacred histories are part of the fabric, these collective memories are ordinarily preserved in carefully maintained oral traditions or in written accounts known as scriptures or sacred writings.

  In Christian histories, for example, the key event of the past is the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ, whose teachings, death, and resurrection set the model for the meaning of Christian life.

  In Judaism, the key event was the Exodus (the flight from Egypt under Moses) and the subsequent handing down of the Law at Mount Sinai.

  The enlightenment experience of the Buddha and the revelation of the Qur’an to the prophet Muhammad are defining events in Buddhism and Islam.

  And so, and not surprisingly, the Islamic calendar begins with the birth of Islam in 622 CE, the Christian calendar begins with the birth of Christ, and the Jewish calendar begins with the biblical time of the Creation itself.