25 December 2014

How the Christ Will Be Resurrected by the Buddha. Religion Is What We Make It

-A dialogue on the future of religion with Brad Radziej-
All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost..
 
 The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.

From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring..

Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king.(J.R.R. Tolkien)  

Brad Radziej: I have two main points to this inquiry on why humans are religious:
1) What we generally consider to be religions were all formed during different points in human history when civilizations themselves were formed.
Different geographical regions developed civilizations at different times in history, but in each occurrence a religion was developed along with that civilization.

The term "religion" has been homogenized to only refer to "civilization religions", and not to "tribal religions" and many times, in the west, it is narrowed down even further, to only refer to Abrahamic religions, negating Buddhists, Hindus, Jains and Taoists etc.

But regardless of the above, all religions were basically formed (also) as a means of adapting a cultural morality, laws and code of conduct, as well as a philosophical foundation for civilizations to adhere to. As we banded together physically in the formation of civilizations, the need arose for us to also band together mentally, philosophically and spiritually as well.
As the burden of survival was decreased by community cooperation, there was more down time to be spent philosophizing about anything & everything.

And so, religion was originally intended as a means toward forming a better lifestyle that everyone would benefit from. This flood of new ideas was highly accepted, which was why there were so many prophets, gurus etc., all offering different religious philosophies throughout these prospering civilizations.
Some were scam artists, whilst some were legitimate, which situation has never changed.
The good ones stuck, and developed into what we now know as the major religions. And throughout history they have been transformed in numerous ways, some good and some bad. But the idea that religion itself is bad, or just one thing, is overall a detriment to humanity.

In recent times we have become obsessed and fixated by disbelief, criticism, cynicism, and overall skepticism in regards to religion.
This obsession with debunking religion, is just plain foolish!

Not that we should not call a fraud, "a fraud", or call corruption, "corruption", but to fixate upon this without attempting to positively reform and re-implement religion as a tool for binding us together, reforging and cultivating positive and wholesome practices and behavior is a big mistake.
These days’ people are only concerned with pointing out the wrong in religion, and very few are actively & assertively attempting to promote the right in religion.
Religion is what we make it.
And it should be used to cultivate a positive lifestyle for the benefit of all.

So, to be a stubborn critic of religion, and to identify this cynicism with being intelligent, without putting any effort towards reforming or acclimating the basic principles of all religions, is far from intelligent!

2) The Buddha never negated nor confirmed the existence of an afterlife, because he said that it was beside the point.
Regardless of your belief..
a) no afterlife..
All there is - is this "present life".

b) heavenly afterlife..
What you do in this "present life", dictates what happens to you in the afterlife (heaven or hell).

c) reincarnation..
What you do in this "present life", dictates how you will be reincarnated in the next life.

All scenarios point at the importance of this "present life", therefore regardless of your afterlife beliefs all that you should be concerned with is this "present life"!
And so, accepting & practicing the Buddha’s "eightfold path" is then mutually beneficial, regardless of what afterlife scenario you agree with.

Buddhism, then, is the "mechanism whereby human beings can feel good in the present moment".
So feeling, or being religious, is then not dependent upon an afterlife scenario at all (unless you don't consider Buddhism a religion?).
It is merely a matter of cultivating a positive lifestyle, right now, for the benefit of all, in this present life!
Lucian Dantes: I totally agree with you when you say that “religion is what we make it”, I really needed this insightful view. I must confess that I thought of you when writing about the "afterlife" perspective in religions, because I don't think that the "afterlife" expectancy is the IT thing in authentic religious life. This is not about Buddhism only; Jesus himself never mentioned the perspective of the afterlife in plain words. Expressions like “to be born again”, “to be like children”, to act like “lilies in the field”, to be “resurrected” are metaphorical in essence.

Jesus’ whole idea of the afterlife is comprised in this verse in John, 4.23:

“But the hour comes, and NOW is, when the true worshippers shall worship the father IN SPIRIT, and IN TRUTH: for the father seeks such to worship him.”

Therefore: it is not "tomorrow" and it is not "in body"..., but is "now" and it is "in spirit"

I hope that everything you said about people negating the clear religious essence of Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Taoism etc. will become only a past, an "illiterate" stage in the history of religion studies in the Western hemisphere.
There is no excuse in the 21st century for those who still adopt a dogmatic Christian view and appropriate the idea of religion and spirituality. No one can "possess" the Christ, as no one can "possess" Buddha-consciousness, not even the Buddha himself (but on the contrary).

But when someone builds-up a sense of self-identity around an idea in the head (Jesus, the Buddha and what not), which becomes a solid, ossified structure of beliefs - this is all dogmatic truth and I can accept it until it becomes militant and aggressively intolerant and proselytizing. 
Brad Radziej: Well, you certainly hit the nail on the head, so to speak, with the term "possess"!!
From my observations, it is precisely these two key ignorance factors, pertaining to an exaggerated false-idea of, "possession & self-identity" that is at the heart of the problem.
These two factors manifest themselves in innumerable ways, and all of which are detrimental to both the individual and society. Because without thus exaggerated idea of a self-identified possession, there would be no cause to result in conflict.
For example, a self-identified possession of either belief/disbelief will inevitably result in conflict.
The thing is that neither side is open, or willing to discuss the similarities regarding behavior and conduct that bind them!
This to me is the real value in the Buddha’s teachings on the Middle Path. Because, what you believe/disbelieve is totally besides the damn point!!

If such attachments to a self-identified possession of belief/disbelief only result in a world full of conflict and turmoil, then apparently this is the problem that must be addressed and rectified!
Funny enough, the method of resolving such a problem couldn't be more simple...
The four noble truths:
(the facts of life )
1)there is a "result"..
or problem; conflict & suffering (anger, greed, envy)
2) there is a "cause"..
which results in conflict & suffering; self-identified possession.
3) there is a "result"..
or solution to this problem of conflict & suffering; virtuous thought & behavior.
4) there is a "cause"..
which results in virtuous behavior; the eightfold path to enlightenment (i.e. the Middle Path of virtue)

And so, there is a cause which results in conflict & suffering.
If you don't like the result, then deal with the cause.
The cause being an exaggerated false-idea of self-identified possession.
The remedy being the wholesome cultivation of eight aspects of life, which can be can be simplified into three categories.

The eightfold path:
Wisdom training-
the cultivation of virtuous..
1) thought, (or view)
2) intentions.

Ethics training-
the cultivation of virtuous..
3) speech.
4) action.
5) livelihood.
Meditation training-
the cultivation of virtuous..
6) effort.
7) mindfulness.
8) concentration.

No inherent belief system, no static dogma, no afterlife scenario, no deity, no commandments, no laws, no mysticism, etc..
Whether or not you have a belief pertaining to any of the above factors is totally irrelevant, in regards to implementing the Buddha’s eightfold path.
Whatever belief/disbelief you have, is totally compatible with practicing this method of cultivating wisdom, ethical conduct, & meditative awareness.

Why "the four noble truths & the eightfold path", is not already hanging in every school, business, and government building is totally beyond me, and I think that it is unfortunate that it is not.
Especially considering that it does not prescribe to any particular religious view or belief, but rather to all beliefs & views that are considered as humane & just.
And the fact that the very problem that it directly addresses, is what keeps it from being properly understood, accepted, and implemented, would be totally hilarious, if it weren't so tragic.

Lucian Dantes: Buddhism is apparently so appealing because it doesn't have static requirements, no dogmatic truths, it is some kind of therapy. The Buddha designed it this way. However, I regard it as more than that - as a non-theistic religion, with all the afferent consequences, which I don't want to discuss now, because the subject is to vast.

I have an additional comment on the apparent success of Buddhism in the West:
It doesn't strike the collective ego directly, with and opposing dogma, opposing ideology, opposing metaphysical system, with "opposing" things. So, Buddhism doesn't seem to be a great danger for “apex predators” like Christian faith. Nevertheless, it is. Furthermore, it isn’t an enemy, but an ally to the core of the Christian teaching. When you doesn't strike hard, you don't strengthen the ego, but undermine it and eventually reform the set of behaviors and beliefs revolving around the initially authentic experience of the founder.

On another level, Buddhism is very appealing to big corporations, for instance, because a practicing Buddhist is a very well balanced and disciplined person, doesn't show up late at work and doesn't get drunk. In addition, this kind of person has a positive approach and is very productive. A Zen Buddhist has no need for "time-management" training sessions, for instance. I don’t' think that your employers felt the need to send you over to the shrink, or invested money in teaching you how to react, how to negotiate, how to criticize in a constructive manner, how to work within a team etc. You need no training, you stay out of trouble because you have an untroubled mind since the very beginning and so forth.

Nevertheless, the big corporations will be very disappointed after a while, because a practicing Buddhist cannot be fooled around. It is very difficult to control a dispassionate employee who doesn't fear and keep things simple and straightforward. The employers will have to learn this lesson, soon. Delusion doesn't work on Buddhism and our ever growing economies cannot be sustained by a simple living and spiritually oriented population who doesn't buy unnecessary things.

As a conclusion, Buddhist teachings will have a some main consequences, at least in our Western cultures:

1) it is simple (i.e. not very sophisticated, not very metaphysical), the focus is put "on here" instead of "out there", in the "now" instead of the "afterwards, afterlife, past and future". very experiential and very concrete.

2) it will finally reach a very large audience because it is not a belief system and one doesn't have to miss the Sunday religious service as a catholic, whilst practicing zazen..; but as a Buddhist you will be able to thrive on less and this could be the death of our consumerist civilization.

2) willingly or not, Buddhist teaching is a real and ecological psychotherapy and our Western world is in great need of this kind of thing. If you analyze the elements of the eightfold path, you will find out that each one of them will concur in keeping you balanced, alert and calm, besides the spiritual implications. So, the "danger" is that Buddhism will end up as either: a) a psychotherapy similar to yoga school (originally a metaphysical system and an extreme asceticism, a spiritual path in essence) or b) some sort of gymnastics of the mind. I don't know if this is a good or a bad thing, but it's just the way it is. In any case, this is the worst-case scenario. Buddhism can harm no one, except for one’s ego and one’s self-esteem…

3) the best potential of Buddhism as a non-belief, non-dogmatic, non-ritualistic, non-systematically conceptual, non-static and non-theistic religion is that it has the appropriate set of tools for reforming both Christianity and Islam. If you read "Dune" by Frank Herbert, you know what I mean, because the Fremen were Zen-Sunnis, that is: Islamic Buddhists.

Christianity will have to make this big choice: either 1) to remain a religion of faith, a belief system, a system of a given truth, based on the authority of the Bible, the Churches, the whatever and eventually become extinct or 2) to become a religion of experience, which a spiritual and daily practice and, thereby, thrive.
Buddhism has the possibility to infuse Christianity with fresh blood.

Eventually, the Christ will be resurrected by the Buddha:)

I’ll give you an example on how this kind of syncretism is already at work: there is a tremendous number of practicing Christians that are aware of the Dalai Lama’s teachings and his general views and opinions and I think that the Dalai Lama will have a deep impact on those honest Christians who will be able to recognize the Christ-type of message embodied by the Dalai Lama himself.

The Dalai Lama is a Buddhist monk and in a surprising way, he is a good Christian, at least according to the way he acts!. This kind of approach will not go unnoticed: everything that the Dalai Lama did or does is what Jesus himself would do, this is too obvious. I’ve read, recently, a book in which the Dalai Lama was expressing his love for the Chinese people and his deep respect for the Chinese culture. Who does this kind of thing? Millions of Christians will be driven back to the roots of their own tradition and so, "reforged shall be the blade that was broken", just like it happened with the shards of Narsil, which became Andúril...

In regards to the idea of a "beginners mind" approach of S. Suzuki, it’s interesting to notice that Jesus advised on the exact same approach! Without this very important aspect, there is no Christian teaching!
(He said: Anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it. – Luke18, 15-17)
And I think that it's this very aspect that has the potential to "reforge" (redirect) Christianity back towards its’ original purposes.

 

 

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

17 November 2014

Just a Tiny Drop of Emptiness Watching Itself in a Mirror


I startled.
I thought it was the branches
hitting, sporadically, my window. 

But I was wrong, that was me, too ...

It was me, no longer dressed
in neither my body, nor in my thought

but just wanting to turn the seeing inward. 

I was just a tiny drop of emptiness watching itself in the mirror.

And then I saw : 

After the stars will be extinguished

I will linger
as a lonely, naked, tear

projected unto
the burned retina of the sky.

09 November 2014

Consciousness Experiencing Itself as Temporal Reality

The Unmanifested vibrates both through this phenomenal existence and as this phenomenal existence.The 8th verse of the Buddhist masterpiece The Heart Sutra (Prajñāpāramitā Hṛdaya) goes:

“Whatever is Form, that is Emptiness and whatever is Emptiness, that is Form”


[whatever ("yad") is ("sa") form ("rūpa"), that is emptiness ("śūnyātā"), whatever ("ya") is ("sa") emptiness ("śūnyātā"), that ("tad") is ("sa") form ("rūpa")]

But what about looking in the mirror at the Heart Sutra with this statement in reverse:
“yad nāmarūpam sa satya ya satya tad nāmarūpam” ?
I am again inclined to regard Buddhism as Advaita Vedānta reflected in a mirror. This statement from The Heart Sutra, in a Vedāntic treatise would read:
“yad nāmarūpam sa satya ya satya tad nāmarūpam”,
That is:
“All that is Name and Form is Being and whatever is Being is equally Name and Form.”
India has had this great gift of skillfully handling the paradoxical language.
In order to clarify this statement in reverse, I'm quoting below from an older post:


“When the Consciousness objectifies itself as a visible form, or, in other words, when the consciousness experiences itself as a temporal reality, only then can It be conceptualized. When the One Consciousness reveals itself as an object or a thought, it paradoxically and simultaneously obscures itself. This is why it is so hard to see beyond the world of dancing and playing forms (Skr. “rūpa”) and concepts (Skr. “nāma”), the underlying reality. However, the objectified, the manifested or the visible aspect of reality, as a whole, in other words, this dance of māyā represents, for India, just a symbolic representation of the absolute Being or the Unmanifested, that vibrates both through this phenomenal existence and as this phenomenal existence.” (http://luciandantes.blogspot.ro/2014/02/thresholds-of-awareness.html)

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

11 October 2014

This Ever Now That Takes Up Form


*This ever Now that takes up form
as yesterday, tomorrow, now and never,
as both the dream and as the waking eye within the dreamer
as both the one and as the two and many
and yet remains beyond:


Be just this pillar, be still,
and nonetheless aware, in the midst
of all these lovely and horrendous dreams
-a mere witness, motionless, but ever watching
the sublime
of the tragedy of forms.


This pillar is the doorway unto the abyss of the thoughtlessness’ realm
wherein lies the root of both no-things and things.
When facing, untroubled by fear, regret, desire and duty, fame and achievement,
just the emptiness
which is the playground of thoughts,
stay as this witness as they arise and they die.
That which is beyond the waking, the dreaming and the dreamless states
and yet pervades them all:
that is to be experienced as non-mind.
So, try zazen as
this lifeless emptiness, beyond all forms, beyond all pairs of opposites, which blows
the energy of life and death into the realm
of the transience of forms.



* In response to Suresh Gundappa’s post Song of Zazen ~ Hakuin; Photo also by Suresh Gundappa






04 October 2014

We All Have Our Own Bodhi Tree



Under the Bodhi Tree, Prince Siddhartha Gautama was just sitting, in absolute silence. He lost any interest in any purpose whatsoever and gave up any desire of reaching awakening.

This is why we now have the Buddha.
Each of us has their own Bodhi Tree.
Any quest for understanding is a quest for liberation in disguise.
The same principle applies in the Buddha’s case. The need to understand conditioning/limitations arises in humans, not out of simple curiosity, of course, but out of the need for deconditioning. Unfortunately, we have this strange persistent determination: in our journey toward deconditioning, we create new mind patterns and so we add new layers of conditioning between us and the final liberation that we seek, always pushing it forward in a future that never comes.
We forget all the time that, by definition, the future never comes.
What actually could have happened to the Buddha?
First: A traumatic event: he crosses the threshold of the paradisiac, protective environment as he steps out of his comfort zone and acquires this straightforward visualization of illness, old age and death. These moments of despondency equate with the call to adventure, to a heroic endeavor, and with a new type of mindset, that is: a new type of conditioning.
Second: he accepts the challenge, starts questioning everything and leaves the protection of the environment, the mirage, the world of appearances and so he sets off for a seeking adventure that we all are very familiar with, because there are so many seekers around us and there is a seeker in each of us as well.
This is his philosophical and ascetical stage. During the quest, he becomes acquainted with all major philosophies of India and with all religious belief systems of his time. In addition, he gets along well in yoga practices.
Nevertheless, this is not the Buddha yet, this is only an exchange of IDs.
He just traded the illusion of a prince who is terrified by illness, old age and death for the life of renunciation. Not only did he see the appearances of suffering, but also, he found himself ensnared by the illusory powers of a monk, whose meditative demeanor would have seemed, back at the moment of his departure, as the only way out of suffering.
Illumination is now the last desire that he’s got left, an ardent desire that makes him push every spiritual practice beyond the limit. This is his new hope, his new dream and his new kind of expectation. Namely: the enlightenment that will happen sometimes, soon, in the future, as a result of renunciation and constant practice.
Henceforth, he exchanges the identity of a prince for the identity of a philosopher and a wondering monk. He is in this stage a seeker of enlightenment; he is seeking a state of mind where there is no suffering.
Now, don't get me wrong, this effort was necessary, like the training in the ballet. The movements in ballet seem effortless because there is such a great deal of effort behind, that is -all those years of hard work and exercise. Therefore, this need for understanding was a preparatory stage to both the Enlightenment and to the later doctrine of the Eightfold Path.
The last stage, under the Bodhi Tree, is that stage where the former prince Siddhartha and present mendicant leaves the vehicle behind: the seeking, the effort, the journey, the idea of a purpose, the idea of identity, the idea of idea, the need for understanding, the path itself.
He now comes to this realization:
How could there be a path, when there is no tomorrow?
I have come to realize that only when the human being that we know call the Buddha was able to give up the effort (the need to understand, to explain, to achieve awakening etc.), then and only then he actually awakened.
This supreme renunciation, which is giving up the desire to reach enlightenment, made him capable of looking at himself with an equal eye and in a state of utter equanimity. Prince Siddhartha, the monk, the philosopher, the Awakened One and "this body" and "emptiness" – they all are the same thing. In other words, he was able to assume each of these evanescent identities and, at last, to look at himself from the highest perspective, which is the radiant core of the consciousness of the entire Universe. This means that at this final stage he doesn’t care that much about any of these identities because, in essence, he comes to the realization that there is no identity whatsoever.
There is no clinging, no fear, no attachment, no duty and no identity, besides the functional-relational one. Of course, he remains fully aware that this is a human body, this is its masculine gender; this body must be fed and so forth. However, there is no subject of suffering anymore there to be found, there is no longer an "I" and no duality. The body is going to encounter pain, old age, illness and death, BUT there is a still point, a motionless place within, and he is now capable to seal off this center of pure awareness from any suffering, as the sense of the “I” has vanished. Nirvana is the pure and peaceful awareness that has remained after extinguishing the flame of the “I”.
There is no suffering anymore because there is no longer a sufferer.
This is what happened when the ego dissolved completely, as the need to reach Enlightenment was the last barrier between him and Enlightenment.
For both conventional and teaching reasons, he might have continued to act in the world in this or that way, but the sense that there is an "I" was no longer active in him, even when he would speak in first person, delivering sermons and so on.
The stage after the last stage: teaching - return journey and the necessity of a map
The Buddha did not follow and did not need the Eightfold Path for himself. He creates this kind of design in order to make this process of deconditioning accessible to others and I don't think that in creating this (let's say) therapeutic doctrine he has to struggle too much. It just pours out. He doesn't make any additional effort, the understanding is there, so complete, that the entire Universe is now speaking through his mouth. The effort is purely physiological: he just has to open up his mouth and speak.
The Buddha has ventured into uncharted waters by himself and when he later "returns" to the community, he draws up a map for the rest of the humankind. Therefore, we now think that the map is necessary, and there is a yonder shore. Nevertheless, for him, no map had been necessary and in the last stage of his quest, under the Bodhi Tree, he discovers that when the effort comes to a halt, the yonder shore is everywhere and everything. All this adventure of the Buddha was necessary maybe in order to prove that the center is everywhere.
The center is total awareness.
 We all have our own Bodhi-Tree
There is a tree of enlightenment for every one of us, waiting for us, ready for us, specially designed for us. We spend our entire lives running and running to get there and sit down under our own Bodhi Tree.
Eventually, we realize that it can’t be somewhere out there, but it’s in here and everywhere at the same time. There is no need to plan, to go or to run in order to grasp it sometimes in the future. We can give up the path altogether.

We just have to open up to the suchness of any given experience and thereby sanctify the place and the moment we are in.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

31 May 2014

Why the afterlife idea as a fake remedy for fear is the worst definition of religion?


The idea of a Santa Claus is marvelous until it kills the very idea of generosity, on the grounds that Santa Claus doesn’t really exist.

When speaking of the afterlife projections and everlasting life expectancy, we tend to identify the birthplace of religion in our fear of death. But our problem is not fear. The major problem is its source. Fear lives on expectation and uncertainty. And this is all that a possible future afterlife is about: hope and fear, that is – expectation. Religion is not a cure for fear; religion is a cure for expectation.

We cannot get rid of our fear of death so we discovered a substitute: the afterlife. Is it so? I don’t think that the “afterlife” idea is very good, in the first place, because this isn’t proper medicine, it is L.S.D. It could be good material for mythic stories, but not a good rendering of a factual reality. The afterlife scenario will always leave considerable room for doubts. The idea of the afterlife is the very pillar that stands between you and life. Placing an obstacle between you and a possible total annihilation might seem reassuring, but is, in fact, a dream full of horrendous possibilities.

We should bring the so-called “afterlife” here. Those insightful people whom we call saints or rishis experienced personal epiphanies and recounted visions of the “afterlife” not because they were hoping to survive somehow after death, physically or even spiritually, but because they dropped-off expectations and replaced the “after-life” with “life”. To them, the blissful and timeless “afterlife” had been already here.

And anyway, religion cannot be reduced to the idea of the afterlife, it can’t be explained only by our fear of death, because religious human behavior doesn’t deal solely with the idea of an “afterlife”, religions’ scope comprises also the idea of reconciliation between fragment and totality, time and eternity, flesh and spirit.

The idea that the afterlife projection can cure the fears and unhappiness of the present moment is flawed by the simple fact that the incessant movement from the present moment to an ever projected “future better life” or “the afterlife”, or whatever is better than the present moment doesn’t make the present moment satisfying for too long. “The afterlife” is just an idea in the mind and just as any other idea - it cannot quench the human thirst for eternity for too long. It’s only a substitute.

The Buddha refused to answer any questions regarding the realm of the afterlife, not because he denied the afterlife itself, but because in terms of both rationality and imagination we tend to perceive “timeless” and “eternity” as mental projections of an “ever-lasting” experience of some sort.

We tend to empirically project realities of a noumenal order. And it is wonderful that we can do this, unless we contemplate our source, the numinous as a hard fact-sort of reality, which somewhere, “out there” and “then” or “afterwards”.

We forget that the circumference of our circle of life is only the reflection of the center.

 “Out there” imagined things are meant to drive your attention “in here”. The “afterlife” is meant to make you focus on “life”. I always try to avoid reductionist approaches, but if I were asked to say in one sentence what religion and mythology is all about, I would answer that it’s about walking the circumference of the circle as long as you need to figure out the right direction to the center. We need to the find the center, not another point on the circumference. 

“But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the kingdom of God” (Jesus Christ)
 

26 May 2014

Joseph Campbell broken down? Ethnic vs. World Religions


“Buddhism was the first of the world religions, as contrasted with the ethnic religions, the local religions into which one is born. One is born a Hindu; one is born a Jew; one chooses to profess Buddhism, Christianity, or Islam.” (J. Campbell: Myths of Light: Eastern Metaphors of the Eternal)
After being admonished myself by a contributor to Philosophy of Religion Community that there is no such thing as “ethnic religion”, I admitted that he might be right and that J. Campbell's distinction should pass some tests, since the respective contributor told me that he knows personally quite a few Hindu converts.
 I am always eager to experience new things. After getting myself auto-excommunicated recently from the Atheism Community, under the charges of posting on spiritual communities, which is a mortal sin and heresy in any respectable system of militant atheism, I decided to seek various public views whenever I come across such inciting ideas as “ethnic vs. world religions”, because this kind of public discussions are more able to enlarge my own perspectives an get a clearer picture than traditional scholarly works.
I think this is the new kind of scientific approach, not only from the perspective of a comparative History of Religions, so I decided to ask our readers and contributors to share their views on the subject, provided that the overall attitude is a moderate one and, whenever possible, academic references are provided.
The fruitful, rational and moderate dialogue on religion, art, philology and philosophy between the Occident and the Orient that had been enlivened by the European pioneering sanskritists and sinologists during the 18th century was followed by various cultural and religious exchanges throughout the following two centuries. These in turn have led to so many mutual influences upon the studied religious systems themselves and even to undeniable syncretism. This long and complex evolution makes a hard toil out of any 21th century attempt to write a coherent and systematic history of religions, because many distinctions and characteristics which were common-sense prerequisites to a proper religious interpretation and scientific methodology 100 years ago are now obsolete.
I arrived, therefore, to the conclusion that such distinctions as “East and West” and “Ethnic and Universal” are mere valuable tools for organizing the colossal amount of available material in the hands of those enthusiastic scholars preparing a new “History of Religion”-sort of analytical work in five volumes, which requires them to append the afferent bibliography to the book. The boundaries between East and West, ethnic and global, tend to be erased in our era dominated by internet and scientific discoveries.
Such a discussion on “ethnic vs. world” distinction in a comparative approach of religions is meant solely to provide some directions and signposts in this large and complex area of religious-related studies referred to in academic area as “History of Religion” discipline.
In order to arrive to fruitful conclusions we should focus on the following two central aspects that can lead to a possible answer. Please feel free to pick-up one of them, or address them collectively, or in whatever manner it might seem more convenient to you, or even try a different approach, from an original perspective.
1.      One’s ethnicity is or is it not essentially linked to one’s religious affiliation in the so-called “ethnic religions”?
If you tackle this item from a Hindu or Jewish perspective, please also address my additional queries, assuming that I am a Christian – a word that defines my religious orientation and I am also Romanian –a word that defines my ethnicity:
a)     Can I become a Hindu? Can I become a Jew? Can I chose to be a Hindu/Jew (as religion), but at the same time keep my declared ethnicity (Romanian)? 
b)     If yes, is this a wide-spread phenomenon and (for instance) can I show-up tomorrow along with 20.000 Romanians in Benares and ask to become Hindus, all of us? Will we get a green light for this?  
c)      If yes, can anyone trace back from at least three generations a significant amount of people who initially were, ethnically, non-Hindu/non-Jew, but their grandsons are now recognized, socially and religiously, as Hindu/Jews? Or is this kind of “Hindu converts” phenomenon just an isolated, recent, phenomenon that might be considered only as some sort of extravagance or cultural fashion by the mainstream Hinduism/Judaism?
2.      As a consequence to the above, if we want to point out some flaws to J. Campbell distinction, we will have to try to:
a)     provide scientific references that there is a Hindu/Judaism religion (but not an isolated cult) independent from any Hindu/Jewish ethnic group;
b)     deny the fact that there is an essential requirement to be born a Jew/Hindu or meet any other ethnicity-related requirement in order to be a Jew/Hindu;
c)     provide substantial evidence (references to public, secular sources are required) that for at least three generations there are Hindu converts and/or Jewish converts that are also recognized as Hindu/Jews by mainstream Hindu/Jewish communities, in order to avoid generalizing isolated cases or accidents;
d)     ascertain that there is such a group or a community of people that cumulatively and explicitly: a) declare themselves Christian/Buddhist and 2)when asked about their ethnicity they declare themselves Christians/Buddhists;
3.     Possible consistent arguments against Campbell’s distinction, but only when one reads his statement literally:
a)      one chooses to profess Buddhism, Christianity, or Islam” vs. “one is born a Hindu; one is born a Jew” is contradicted in practice, by the fact that one’s religion is usually handed-down from parents to children, so the statements “one is born a Hindu” and “one is born a Christian” are interchangeable, to some extent, unless we take into account that one can be born a Christian irrespective of his parents’ ethnicity; Usually, the individual is not expected to become an adult and only then asked to make his choice (“I chose to profess Buddhism” etc.).
b)      one chooses to profess Buddhism, Christianity, or Islam” kind of statement doesn’t cover religious practices in industrialized societies, wherein the majority of people who are, formally, Buddhist or Muslim or Christian are in fact non-practicing Christians etc. or even atheists and attend religious services just on such occasions as : when getting married, when being baptized, when dying etc.
When sharing your views, please take into account that this is not a debate on the universal value of this or that belief system, but an attempt to figure out to which extent one’s ethnicity is linked to one’s religious orientation. Likewise, the adjective “universal” in “universal religion” or “world religion” kind of wording doesn’t equate with “universal value”, but only with the ability to accept new followers without any ethnical requirements. I am myself a big admirer of the Bhagavad-Gītā, the big scripture of Hinduism, whose universal value has gained a huge recognition in the Western hemisphere – that is: in another cultural environment, different in many aspects from that in which Bhagavad-Gītā originated. And still, according to J. Campbell theory, which is raised for discussion here, Hinduism is an ethnical system of religious beliefs and practices. 
Any offensive statement will be ignored/deleted, as well as any political/harsh dogmatic attitude.

Labels: ,