The basic idea behind the question is this: religions such as Buddhism have been conveyed from their country of origin and have been made logistically accessable through lamas, gurus and other influential figures, UK centres, temples, retreats, books, CDs and public talks. However, in terms of practicing these religions, how accessable are they really? Can we ever really fit in or practice them as Westerners, or do the cultural influences (past or present) that inform these religions play a larger role than we would admit, making us ultimately 'incompatable'?
The query was provoked by two things. Firstly, I watched a DVD on a buddhist pilgrimage which portrayed buddhism in a very ritualistic way, with multiple prostrations being done in front every statue of buddha that was passed and at every holy site, for the purpose of attenuating negative karma. (This was explained in a very simplistic causal manner: you do 100 prostrations, you get the karma points.) This element of buddhism doesn't seem valued so highly by westerners as part of their practice and many (if not most?) Western Buddhists would probably not do it at all, nor would they place such a high value on the relics that were shown. Here, the pilgrims and monks donated significant sums of money towards the restoration or completeion of religious relics in the name of "compassion". My thought on this documentary was really that:
1. The "Buddhism" that makes its way onto the shelves of Waterstones and is made available to Westerners seems to be in a different world to the Buddhism practiced (covertly or openly) in the Eastern Hemisphere where it originated. Therefore:
2. Are we offered a more 'palatable' version because Buddhism in its undiluted form is not accessable for the Western lifestyle or belief system? And is this 'right'?
The second aspect of my enquiry concerns Sikhism. Here, the religion is accessable to non-asians because and the langar that's free for all, regardless of caste, colour or religious belief. However, there are aspects of Sikhi that do seem culturally informed. Panj Kakkar, for example (wearing of the kanga, kirpan, kesh, kachera and kara) stems from the tradition of panj pyare ("five beloved"), and in turn the khalsa army which defended the punjab border from muslim violence.
My thought here is: I can see the relevance for asians for whom panj kakkar represents their national as well as spiritual consciousness and also their heritage. But what right would I, as a non-asian have to adopt that code of dress, even if the symbolism has a personal significance to me?
To conclude, I might well pre-empt valid comments regarding the relative unimportance of both ritual and dress in religion, which is ultimately not temporal but transcendent. However, I would point out here, without going into too much detail at this point, that as Westerners this is exactly the kind of thinking that springs from our own cultural norms. According to these norms, which are perhaps to an extent inescapable, I too would agree that ritual worship and uniformity are not the most important aspects of religion, but I do think that perhaps they are much more important than we are inclined to believe as Westerners. I suspect that we don't want to take the risk of looking different, for example, because that would involve sacrificing things which we have attachment to, like our hair or wearing make-up or jewellery.
And doing what is 'easier' is not necessarily the same as doing what it 'right'....
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
My thoughts for what its worth are that this is probably a somewhat disingenuous post - in that you talk about what certain Buddhists actually practice[that many others don’t] (despite the fact that there are many forms of Buddhism, differences created not least by the fact that it had travelled to differing peoples and cultures) but then sort of compare it to the core beliefs of Sikhism, as opposed to how they differ what they actually practice (including the caste system and rejection of believers in other faiths including Muslims and Hindus) and its patently clear that Buddha did not want a religion created in his honour let alone one that worshipped him – a practice that is a clearly massive and fundamental shift in core value no?
So, if it’s about core beliefs, then yes… why wouldn’t both Sikhism and Buddhism be accessible to Westerners, as is any religion.
.
Heya Az (Hope you're ankle is getting better)
I think, regardless of the religion, their modern day portrayal will differ depending upon the culture in which it is being practiced. You could easily say that the "correct" practice for relgions are those of the country that is deemed to be it's origin, but I personally think that the truth behind any religion is the teachings of wisdom that are given to assist in leading a moral/spiritual/truthful/present/self-realized (call it what you will) life. I think the cultural aspects of the religion have been part of the culture even before the religions or wisdom came to (or was developed in) those countries.
So, Buddhism may seem to go to some extremes in Eastern countries with prostrations and prayer to buddhist deities and it may be less so in the West, but the underlying principle of the teachings is still the same. In Western Buddhism they also do pray to the deities, perhaps moreso in some styles of buddhism than others but you can't get away from the fact that they are living in a different culture.
Is Buddhism in the west a diluted version? I don't think so. I still think the underlying wisdom of the teachings exists, but it it perhaps the dedication of westerners that is lacking, for actually being willing to give up on attachments and devote their lives the same as is more easily done in the East. That said, the wisdom can be easily applied to living in the West as it is in the East, however, it just appears different because of the cultures.
Likewise with Sikhism, Hinduism, Christianity etc. These are practiced differently in different countries, not necessarily because they have been watered down, but more because they are fitting with the culture where they are. Even people who have (im)migrated from the "originating countries" abroad will change their practice to fit in with the culture to some extent, perhaps because they want it to be more acceptible, but also because they have more or less available to them in that culture, in terms of material things, communication and many of the other things of life.
Not sure if you say the program on TV last year "Around the world in 80 faiths". This gave a wonderful insight into the way the same religion is practiced so differently in different countries, from one extreme to another i.e. from extreme fundamentalist Christians in America to animal sacrifice in the name of Christianity in Africa/Middle East countries.
However, in terms of practicing these religions, how accessable are they really? Can we ever really fit in or practice them as Westerners, or do the cultural influences (past or present) that inform these religions play a larger role than we would admit, making us ultimately 'incompatable'?
I think all religions are accessible to everyone, if they are willing to look at them for what they are trying to teach rather than trying to take on a culture that isn't fitting with where they live. (i.e. you wouldn't fit in doing animal sacrifice in the UK)
My thought here is: I can see the relevance for asians for whom panj kakkar represents their national as well as spiritual consciousness and also their heritage. But what right would I, as a non-asian have to adopt that code of dress, even if the symbolism has a personal significance to me?
You have every right to adopt whatever you choose for your spiritual life providing you are doing it for yourself and not doing it to be offensive to other cultures.
Now, consider where all religions stem from. It is said, and I'm not sure if it can ever be proven or disproven, that the earliest wise teachings were recorded in the Upanisads (in one of the earliest written languages, sanskrit), and by comparing those teachings with other religious texts such as the bible or the k'oran or even comparing those modern texts together, we can see great similarities in them and we can even see how translation and interpretation by cultures and language have manipulated and changed the earlier writings to fit in with those cultures and language (and in some cases in order to be used for ego and control within those cultures). The issue then comes when those translations and interpretations start to lose sight of the original meanings of the texts.
Having learned about some western Buddhism myself as well as obviously being in a Christian country and knowning some things about the various versions of the bible and also having attended the Practical Philosophy class which is founded around Self Realisation and Vedic teachings, I still maintain that I am an atheist but on a spiritual path and I have clearly seen how all these teachings are talking about the same way of life and morals, just using different terminology. Yes there are certainly different "practices" involved in those religions, but I have not found that those practices are important to being able to put into practice living by the wisdom. When I learnt meditation, it was essentially Transcendental Meditation, but was not taught with the ceremony and ritual that goes with the TM organisation's teachings, it was simply the meditation method itself that was taught. I don't feel that the ceremony or ritual would have really added anything or benefitted my ability to be able to meditate, and would seem to me more a matter of feeling like fitting in with a "group" or "organisation", which in itself is, in the wise teachings, an unnecessary nature of the ego.
So, in summary, for me, I see no reason why the true teachings behind religions cannot be easily accessible and adopted by anybody anywhere, with or without taking on cultural practices.
All Love and Reiki Hugs
Hi Azalia
Interesting question. My (Druid/Wicca) pagan friends would say that you should look at spirituality of your own culture which is represented by the land where are roots lay. Some Christians may say that Christainity is the religion of this land, but I would argue back that it is an imported eastern religion.
Belief systems often are a reflection of the environment and culture it comes from. For example, Christian concept of hell being hot and fiery, since it comes from the desert. On the other hand Nordic pagan religions would see hell as being icy cold, a bit like today 😉 Then you have Tibetan Buddhism that have descriptions of hell, (to paraphrase) like sliding down a razor blade using your balls as brakes! (And before anyone complains I have read similiar descriptions in books written by Tibetan lamas.)
In the book: The Blooming of a Lotus by the Zen Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh, there is a meditation on p.53 that goes:
Seeing my dead body infested with worms and flies, I breathe in.
Smiling to my dead body infested with worms and flies, I breathe out.
Many in the west would find that scary, but it is just a device to help the mind realise the impermanence of the body. Glasping for permanence that doesn't exist is the cause of suffering.
As for Buddhism in general, it evolves and changes its nature according to the culture that absorbs it. It's introduction into the west will only mean it will evolve in another way. Since Buddhists believes in RE-BIRTH, may be the eastern practitioners in the past have re-birthed into western bodies and wish to carry on that path. On the other hand there are some wimsical (sp?) people that will jump onto anything that is seems exotic.
I think the best path is the path that has a heart, for the spiritual seeker. Otherwise it doesn't have empowerment and the vitality necessary to study, practice and spiritually evolve. Who cares what people believe in if it helps to generate a peaceful, joyous, compassionate heart.
Best Wishes
RP
I've been struggling with this debate myself too, as a Reiki master.
For me, Reiki found me as I am: a Westerner, nominally Christian, with roots in English heritage and spirituality but influences from other belief systems such as Gnosticism, spiritualism and Buddhism. In enhancing my spirituality it has brought me closer to these roots.
This brings the question, how much of Reiki is Reiki? What is Japanese culture, and what is the universal energy? Does Reiki just boil down to the Universal Energy and the 5 Precepts? This is the conclusion I've come to. It's impossible for Westerners to practise Reiki in the same way as Usui did: he was Japanese, a Buddhist, and a man (which is important for me, a woman) and I can't hope to know what he knew. His practice was informed by Japanese culture at the time, and I think we need to get past that. People on another forum argue about this all the time!
I see no need to do all the energy practices that some forms of Reiki insist upon, nor do I see why we have to find out exactly what Usui did in order to practice "Real Reiki". I suppose I could be wrong, but I feel instinctively that I'm right - for me at least, and there are other people who agree with me.
Firstly thanks for the replies, I value all of your responses and have enjoyed reading them 🙂
Roger- if my post came across to you as insincere in some way, I can assure you this was not intentional. From your post, it would seem that you perceived something of an argument flaw since the examples I gave (Buddhism, Sikhi) seemed to be internally compared, and with disregard to their own variations. I agree that I didn't refer to the variations within Buddhism, for example, but it was not my intent to be provocative or "disingenious" in doing so, it was more for the purposes of direct comparison between East and West, and because if I had rambled on any longer, I don't think anyone would have read to the end:D
If my post was unclear, however, I apologise. Just to clarify, I was not attempting to compare the "core beliefs" of either religion, so at this point I will willingly acknowledge that there is not "pure" form of a religion since there ARE internal variations, and neither was I suggesting in an underhand way that the cultural influences from the country of origin should set any standard or modes of practice for people of other cultures necessarily. I merely wanted to question the way things are practiced and ask (more from a personal perspective I suppose, whether as a Buddhist (for example) born and raised in the UK, you would feel as personal a connection within your sangha and practice as you would in the East. You are quite right to say that religions are "about core beliefs", but I was interested whether the cultural influences are still felt to be appropriate or important for adherents outside the country of origin...
Giles- I agree with what you say, and particularly liked this point, which hadn't escaped my attention but is nonetheless a very good one and one worth reiterating:
Even people who have (im)migrated from the "originating countries" abroad will change their practice to fit in with the culture to some extent, perhaps because they want it to be more acceptible, but also because they have more or less available to them in that culture, in terms of material things, communication and many of the other things of life.
Now to this:
I think all religions are accessible to everyone, if they are willing to look at them for what they are trying to teach rather than trying to take on a culture that isn't fitting with where they live.[...]You have every right to adopt whatever you choose for your spiritual life providing you are doing it for yourself and not doing it to be offensive to other cultures.
I suppose my concern is that it could appear phoney. I accept that I am a prime example of false attachment here, but say if I were to start wearing a dastaar. It would be very meaningful to me because I would see it as a personal challenge to relinquish attachment over my appearance, and having to grow my hair, which I have never wanted to have anything other than short, would be just such a challenge. However, I know from visiting the gurdwara that you get funny looks when technically you are adopting the same code of dress but in reality you stick out like a sore thumb. I suppose this is because people do not look at me and think 'she looks sikh' (a religion-based perception) but they look at me and think 'she looks panjabi' (a culture-based perception). I guess I am trying to say that in a case where a religion has some particular mode of dress, and you don't belong to the culture from which that religion originates, you look like you're merely dressing up, like you don't fit in. With reference to your comment, I suppose it would depend on whether you were "trying to take on a culture that isn't fitting with where you live" or whether it was genuinely motivated by spiritual yearning. As Reiki Pixie said, many people do things just to be different or exotic, (and how are incedental observers to know why I choose to look one way or another?...)
Now, consider where all religions stem from. It is said, and I'm not sure if it can ever be proven or disproven, that the earliest wise teachings were recorded in the Upanisads... by comparing those teachings with other religious texts such as the bible or the k'oran or even comparing those modern texts together, we can see great similarities in them and we can even see how translation and interpretation by cultures and language have manipulated and changed the earlier writings to fit in with those cultures and language (and in some cases in order to be used for ego and control within those cultures). The issue then comes when those translations and interpretations start to lose sight of the original meanings of the texts.
Absolutely. The Biblical Studies part of my BA at Uni focussed on translation, interpretation, canonical issues etc and I don't doubt what you say. I know little about these issues outside of Judeo-Christianity and Sikhism but one of the interesting things about Gurbani is that contrary to many other religions, it is totally non-propositional (as opposed to Islam for example, where Allah speaks to Mohhammed directly) and it doesn't just draw from other religious texts or beliefs, but includes things from Muslim and Hindu authors like Kabir (and since Sikhi is only about 300 years old, there confusion or inaccuracies regarding authorship
is less likely.)
There is much to be written on your last paragraph, but I'll keep it short and simple! You say that you can value and practice the essential wisdoms of traditions without feeling the need to be part of an organised group. That's fine! I can only say with any degree of authority what feels right to me, and no doubt we are, as everyone is, different. I am working towards the idea of an organised (or disorganised, lol!) religious group because I value having a structure to work within, even if I don't agree with every single thing that every single person also practicing does or thinks. Also because I do have a lot of faith in God, and I happen to enjoy sharing my faith with others through a medium that I can whole-heartedly embrace. But that's just me...!
ReikiPixie- great first couple of paragraphs! Thanks for sharing that perspective, I'd never thought of it like that before and I love exploring new ideas.
I think the best path is the path that has a heart, for the spiritual seeker. Otherwise it doesn't have empowerment and the vitality necessary to study, practice and spiritually evolve. Who cares what people believe in if it helps to generate a peaceful, joyous, compassionate heart.
Awesome! I couldn't agree more, and it's something that I have always felt can't be over-emphasised. Thanks for the reminder!
ChrisRams- I've been out of my Reiki circles for a while and hadn't thought of the relevance of this discussion within this field, excellent point! For me, I suppose devotion and faith is quite important, and I feel particularly connected when I'm in the temple doing Simran with anyone else that wants to join in, the energy of the singing is so blissful and it feels me a much more authentic and heartfelt form or "worship" than bowing or prostrating. I suppose reiki doesn't have this element, or not to quite such a degree...perhaps that makes a difference?
Roger- if my post came across to you as insincere in some way, I can assure you this was not intentional. From your post, it would seem that you perceived something of an argument flaw since the examples I gave (Buddhism, Sikhi) seemed to be internally compared, and with disregard to their own variations.
I think you’ve misunderstood my point, by disingenuous I meant the post was somewhat ‘faux naif’…
i.e. first this: -
I watched a DVD on a buddhist pilgrimage which portrayed buddhism in a very ritualistic way, with multiple prostrations being done in front every statue of buddha that was passed and at every holy site, for the purpose of attenuating negative karma. (This was explained in a very simplistic causal manner: you do 100 prostrations, you get the karma points.)
The "Buddhism" that makes its way onto the shelves of Waterstones and is made available to Westerners seems to be in a different world to the Buddhism practiced (covertly or openly) in the Eastern Hemisphere where it originated. Therefore .
Are we offered a more 'palatable' version because Buddhism in its undiluted form is not accessable for the Western lifestyle or belief system? And is this 'right'?
Then (& in stark contrast to) this: -
The second aspect of my enquiry concerns Sikhism. Here, the religion is accessable to non-asians because <a class="go2wpf-bbcode" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="Gurbani">Gurbani is the core of belief and the ideas expressed therein transcend relative entities like culture and time.
My only point is that you clearly state that one of them (Sikhism) is accessible because of it’s core beliefs… but that other (Buddhism) “in its undiluted form” is not accessible to the West.
It seemed to me that you'd used one odd practice that only certain types of Buddhists subscribe to ...but then cited the core beliefs of Sikhism… where as had you cited the very core beliefs of Buddhism (or almost any other religious philosophy) you would’ve answered your own question anyway…
You can see this by even your use of the word 'sangha' - a sanskrit root word, when used by my family in Hindi or Panjabi it means something different to when a Tibetan Buddhist uses it... So why here in the west can we not use the term 'congregation' or 'community'? ...
This really is one of my pet hates about this whole area (this is not aimed at you Azalia btw) - But why are so many (supposed) teachers and mentors so insistent on clinging to verbs from another language and dressing them as nouns in the mistaken belief that it adds some kind of supra-mysticism?;)
.
..
Hi Roger,
Thanks for explaining, I do understand where your comments were coming from now and, in re-reading my post I think it would have benefitted from a more rigorous read-through the first time around.
You said:
"My only point is that you clearly state that one of them (Sikhism) is accessible because of it’s core beliefs… but that other (Buddhism) “in its undiluted form” is not accessible to the West "
My point on Sikhism was supposed to clearly follow the format of first acknowledging the accessable element and then noting its (potentially) inaccessable element (code of dress/panj kakar). I think I was a bit clearer here:
Original: Azalia
I might well pre-empt valid comments regarding the relative unimportance of both ritual and dress in religion, which is ultimately not temporal but transcendent.
However I agree this wasn't very clear overall and perhaps I should have balanced it by referring to the dhammapada (for example) which might be considered an accessable element of Buddhism. I didn't intentionally give one an unfair advantage over the other but can quite see how you might have thought so.
You can see this by even your use of the word 'sangha' - a sanskrit root word, when used by my family in Hindi or Panjabi it means something different to when a Tibetan Buddhist uses it... So why here in the west can we not use the term 'congregation' or 'community'? ...
A fair point. I didn't use "community" or "congregation" because when I go to the gurdwara, everyone speaks panjabi, so 'when in Rome...' I would say sangat or sat sangat.
This really is one of my pet hates about this whole area (this is not aimed at you Azalia btw) - But why are so many (supposed) teachers and mentors so insistent on clinging to verbs from another language and dressing them as nouns in the mistaken belief that it adds some kind of supra-mysticism?
Sometimes because there is no english alternative (take "shenpa" for example, which doesn't translate well into English and loses much of its meaning or requires a whole sentence for explanation rather than a more laconic approach) and sometimes because as you say- and Wittgenstein would agree!- we like to play word games. I know you say you were not directly aiming the criticism at me, but perhaps my own perspective might add another angle: what about people who are learning the language? I am not Panjabi, but my partner and his whole family are, and I would like to be able to speak to them in their first language. Of course they would know what I meant if I said "community", or "scripture" or "the five Ks", but given the context, I think panjabi is appropriate now and again.
Don't get me wrong though, I completely hear you on the inauthenticity of using another language to appear steeped in mysticism!
Hi Conspiritualist
That's an interesting point about the word Sangha, why not just say community or congregation. Here's a question: what about a English equivalent to Dharma from a Hindu and/or Buddhism point of view?
Hi Chris
Recently I taught a Reiki Master-Teacher class. I haven't taught this level for several years and did some research with some deep contemplation. I came to the conclusion that Usui's intention was a spiritual development system that synthesied the best of Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism and Shamanism, but the healing side was a bi-product or side line to this process. I feel that his study and influences over his lifetime gave him insight into the "core" of spirituality, reducing dogma & ritual, and improving the potential for universal / global understanding. Just look at Reiki's universal appeal, especially the 5 principles/precepts! People of all beliefs, races and cultures are practising Reiki around the world.
Hi Azalia
Another factor in the growth of interest in eastern religions in the west is that Christianity wasn't/isn't giving people the spiritual nourishment that many are hungry for. In the world of mass communication you can't stop people looking for alternatives. On top of that very little is known about western esoteric traditions (taking here about something more hardcore than say neo-paganism) and from what I can see, not very accessible. But Islam, Buddhism, Yogic traditions etc is very accessible, in terms of meetings, books, courses, media etc. The "practitioner" can practice to a high level if they wish to dedicate their time & energy to it.
Talking about accessibility, I saw a TV programme on Ch4 about the Alpha course last year, introducing Christianity to those who wish to explore it. Many on the course were getting interest until it was time to talk in "tongues". Suddenly the accessibility was lost for several of the participents. So here is an aspect of a religion that has been in Britain for (say) 1500 years, and has similiar issues you are debating about eastern belief systems.
Who is to say that Christianity is a religion of the west with stories like Jacob's Ladder. Sounds like the Kundalini (snake) energy rising up through the spine (each disc being a run on the ladder) to me. Such concepts are universal / global.
Best Wishes
RP
Hi Conspiritualist
That's an interesting point about the word Sangha, why not just say community or congregation. Here's a question: what about a English equivalent to Dharma from a Hindu and/or Buddhism point of view?
Difficult RP, - unlike Sangha which is one thing or another (thing) - Dharma is a massive philosophy in and of itself and would be needing of a discussion - much like the term Christianity, or dare I say 'the way' or 'Dao'...no?
.
Hello all,
From my perspective: I describe myself as buddhist for one reason and that is because the Buddhist tradition, which differs from all other traditions in this respect, starts from a position of negating the existence of the eternal soul or a permanent fixed self and self existent creator God. It also negates the philosophical position that points to a mindless material universe as being the ultimate reality. The refinement of the "Middle Way" continued for nearly two thousand years. This logical reasoning is to a very large extent, at the very least, beyond culture.
Furthermore, the philosophical logic of the Buddhist tradition supports meditation practice that has been based on rigorous internal exploration of the nature of experience, repeated by many millions. The benefits of meditation are now being corroborated by Western clinical science. This, again, is very largely beyond culture.
When it comes to rituals, these are based on cultural interpretations of archetypal patterns. The cultural forms of the interpretations of the archetypal patterns vary but there is still comparability of forms. The archetypes also vary from culture to culture but there are quite remarkable commonalities that are often hard to explain via processes of cultural exchange alone.
As a modern Western man, I am quite happy to wonder at the archetype of "Christ" represented by the life and teachings of the man Jesus. I do not see any conflict with his teachings (although I do see conflict with many teachings promoted by Christians and even Buddhists for that matter) and my adherence to Buddhist philosophy and meditation practice. Using the term "God" and terms that relate to this term, for me are metaphors that fit with an archetypal or symbolic use of language. The term "God" is not consistent ontologically but it has a deep function nevertheless. This language often speaks deeply to the heart whereas the main function of logic is to cut away our habits of self centred delusion. And, cutting away self centred delusion prepares the heart to gain a direct "self-conscious" experience of the ultimate benevolence of "reality."
This is beyond culture.
Norbu
.......This is beyond culture. Norbu
- Ain’t that the truth brother!:1kis:
…& that… for me …is the real deal!
Accessible by anyone,
living anywhere,
from any culture...
– the rest of the discussion basically amounts to “I want to look authentic, but will these curly-toed sequin shoes look unacceptable with my Louis Vuitton handbag” 😮
.
"Accessible by anyone,
living anywhere,
from any culture...
– the rest of the discussion basically amounts to “I want to look authentic, but will these curly-toed sequin shoes look unacceptable with my Louis Vuitton handbag"
I think perhaps the nature of my questioning has not been read quite as intended so perhaps I shall venture so far as to express an opinion, which I have avoided until now.
I agree that religions are about "core beliefs"- after all, if they weren't, then what would be the collective thread uniting people that all subsumed under one group or another? What I was attempting to analyse was the possible value of cultural influence and whether or not the definition culturual influence affords religions makes them- to a certain degree- inaccessable to "outsiders". This stemmed from my own experience of finding the "core beliefs" sikhism very accessable but the culturally informed aspects like dress code more of a challenge to appreciate because they are so foreign to me. As I mentioned earlier I am not concerned with "looking authentic" but rather trying to appreciate a possible relevance trancscendent of cultural relativity within things which seem to simply be a result of a culture at a particular time. This was why I suggested that the relinquishing of false attachments might be achieved by some sort of uniformity, as one possible method of many.
It was not so much an answer I wanted, but to generate some discussion, that's all 😮
ReikiPixie, another point that I had not considered yet, thanks! If you know anything about the "more hardcore" esoteric traditions, I'd be interested for you to share so I could think a bit more about it.
Norbu- a great post, thanks for your thoughts, I was nodding my head in agreement throughout. With regards to my enquiryI suppose it just depends whether one was to learn from irreconcilable differences in practice (resulting from different "archetypal patterns") or whether it made them feel estranged from the core beliefs of that religion.
Hi Azalia,
First of all may I say how good it is to see you back here! (Of course, you may have been posting, but I don’t have time to read much outside the Religions/faiths pages these days.)
Is this part of a course you’re doing? It sounds fascinating. And your avatar – are you studying Sufi-ism (those two blokes look like Sufi priests to me – or perhaps Zoarastrians)? Just being nosey!
I thought that your question was a very good one. I’ve travelled widely around the world and think I see what you are getting at. What I would say is that all ancient religions started off as national and regional but most of it, as it has spread has been modified, although within Islam it seems to be going back within itself, especially with women's clothing.
Did you see this today?
Many religions sects are still in that old dogmatic mind-set, especially orthodox Judaism and Zoarastrianism, where marriage outside of the “tribe” is forbidden and religious garments are very much part of the whole package that you are born into (but cannot convert to).
Here’s a bit about the Parsis:
Zoroastrians Keep the Faith, and Keep Dwindling
[COLOR="DarkGreen"]Despite their shrinking numbers, Zoroastrians — who follow the Prophet Zarathustra (Zoroaster in Greek) — are divided over whether to accept intermarried families and converts and what defines a Zoroastrian. An effort to create a global organizing body fell apart two years ago after some priests accused the organizers of embracing “fake converts” and diluting traditions.
“They feel that the religion is not universal and is ethnic in nature, and that it should be kept within the tribe,” said Jehan Bagli, a retired chemist in Toronto who is a priest, or mobed, and president of the North American Mobed Council, which includes about 100 priests. “This is a tendency that to me sometimes appears suicidal. And they are prepared to make that sacrifice.”
But even the most closed of religious sects have been forced to modify their traditions and rituals to some extent over the years. Sometimes this has come from local laws or a higher view of human rights, or from within when their own prophets have had visions that have given new insights, like the Hebrew prophet Hosea,” For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.” (Hos 6)
A few years ago, an outspoken critic of homosexuality was sent an open letter on the internet which quoted tongue-in-cheek from many of the “extra” Jewish commandments and we realize that most of these have had to be dropped today due to the laws of the countries that adherents live in, plus a higher view of human rights. I’ll post them as they always make me laugh – especially no 10! 😀 However, it is also a salutary lesson in what happens when you only take the "letter" rather then the spirit of any religion and stop thinking for yourself.
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord * Lev. 1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Ex 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual cleanliness * Lev 15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell her? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
4. Lev 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Ex 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination * Lev 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?
7. Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them?- Lev 24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? * Lev. 20:14
When I sent this to a friend in 2002, he replied:
"Loved the letter to Dr. Laura Schlessinger. I am this moment phoning round Blaydon to get everyone together to stone one of our neighbours for wearing garments made of polyester and cotton. Not sure who's going to cast the first stone, though.
😀
When Jesus (who was, after all, a Jewish rabbi) brought a higher view of Judaism and its laws to the Middle East, his first followers were all Jewish and it was accepted (by them) that “The Way” would stay within the synagogue, but the synagogue rejected it. Then this happened:
[COLOR="Purple"]
Peter went up about mid-day on to the flat roof of the house to pray. He became very hungry and longed for something to eat. But while the meal was being prepared he fell into a trance and saw the heavens open and something like a great sheet descending upon the earth, let down by its four corners. In it were all kinds of animals, reptiles and birds. Then came a voice which said to him, "Get up, Peter, kill and eat!"
10:14 - But Peter said, "Never, Lord! For not once in my life have I ever eaten anything common or unclean."
10:15 - Then the voice spoke to him a second time, "You must not call what God has cleansed common."
10:16 - This happened three times, and then the thing was gone, taken back into heaven. (Acts 11)
After that, Christianity was shared with Gentiles and as we all know, it spread throughout the world, with many of its adherents modifying their old tribal beliefs and incorporating them into their new practice (I was horrified seeing a documentary recently of some churches in Haiti and Africa practicing animal sacrifice). The robes of priests seems fairly standard around the world (but I think those came from the Roman idol worship practices) though but adherents wear just about anything, including their national dress, which once might have been associated with other religions.
So what I’m trying to say is that while the core of all religions is the one universal truth, it is people with their dogmatic adherence to tribal thinking who limit it to varying degrees and who cause splits and hostilities. The growth of interest in Eastern religions in the West will hopefully cause them to grow more spiritual and away from the material rituals and garments, which surely are simply adornments, (in more ways than one) and not the real meaning of it?
Mary Baker Eddy made observances about various religions, but here is what I feels sums them all up:
[COLOR="Blue"]
Long prayers, superstition, and creeds clip the strong pinions of love, and clothe religion in human forms. Whatever materializes worship hinders man's spiritual growth and keeps him from demonstrating his power over error. (Science and Health 4)
I totally agree with your summing up!
I loved Rog’s summing up!
Love and peace,
Judy
Hi Chris
Recently I taught a Reiki Master-Teacher class. I haven't taught this level for several years and did some research with some deep contemplation. I came to the conclusion that Usui's intention was a spiritual development system that synthesied the best of Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism and Shamanism, but the healing side was a bi-product or side line to this process. I feel that his study and influences over his lifetime gave him insight into the "core" of spirituality, reducing dogma & ritual, and improving the potential for universal / global understanding. Just look at Reiki's universal appeal, especially the 5 principles/precepts! People of all beliefs, races and cultures are practising Reiki around the world.
Best Wishes
RP
Hiya
Yes I agree with you. Reiki around the world has flavours from those places, but there are those traditionalists who claim it is necessary to do all the practices and learn all the names... do them in the right order ... or it's not Reiki. As I said before, I believe the energy, the self-development and the precepts are the undilutable core of Reiki.
With regards to my enquiryI suppose it just depends whether one was to learn from irreconcilable differences in practice (resulting from different "archetypal patterns") or whether it made them feel estranged from the core beliefs of that religion.
Hi Azalia,
Yes I think you're right. In the end, from a Buddhist point of view, all religions teach kindness and compassion. I believe that the heart of what really matters is in developing these qualities. Teachings vary about how this universal needs to be developed and applied in human life and social conditions in which a religion emerges.
Teachings tend to become fixed and the living heart of compassion and kindness can get cut out of a tradition by adherence to doctrine. The human mind always seeks to establish systems of control but each situation is different and the deepest reality is limitless, beyond all systems yet has similar qualities in all situaltions.
From a Buddhist point of view the tendency to establish systems of control is based on clinging to a fixed sense of self. A view of self is what informs our individual identity within a social context as well as informing social identity. When you define self you define not-self or other. When you define the group you are part of you also define the group you are not part of. Compassion and kindness may be expected within the social group but may not be expected to others outside the group.
Defining fixed differences between self and other creates obstacles to cultivating kindness and compassion. There is never a system of beliefs, rites or rituals that is not subject to the human mind's tendency to do this. What really matters is the heart of the community and whether you fit culturally within the group.
Norbu
Hi all, thanks for your contributions to the thread, much appreciated!
Judy- yes, I have been absent for some time now, thanks for your welcome! It is good to be back- I have always remembered your generosity and still feel the love in that blessing J To satisfy your curiosity, my avatar is a mirror image of Sada Sat Kaur and the question is not so much connected with my degree but rather motivated by a personal dilemma.
Thanks for the new angle you brought to the discussion, my thoughts have definitely benefited from being broadened out a little beyond the confines of my original quandary! I admit to having only limited knowledge about Islam particularly with regards to the conventional dress, but from what I do know, I would be inclined to feel that their reasons for women dressing a particular way are for more oppressive reasons rather than as a way of practicing religious concepts such as non-attachment (Buddhists shaving their heads for example.) In my missive so far I have not acknowledged the way in which humans tend to manipulate religious conventions for personal, political or material gain, but I agree this has been and still is the case sometimes.
As for Zoroastrianism (thanks for the link btw!) that opened up another avenue for exploration. There is no doubt room for comparison with Judaism from a cultural/racial perspective there. As a passing comment, it could be noted that whilst Eastern religions like Buddhism are (at least prima facie) easily accessible to Westerners, other religions positively bar entry to anyone other than “their own kind”. I might feel a little out on a limb as a British Sikh, but I can only imagine what it would feel like to want to affiliate myself with Zoroastrianism when the majority of other Zoroastrians would be averse to the idea!
[Principled] "The growth of interest in Eastern religions in the West will hopefully cause them to grow more spiritual and away from the material rituals and garments, which surely are simply adornments, (in more ways than one) and not the real meaning of it?"
I do tend to agree with you, but then again, what about modes of dressing that are adopted to aid the practice of certain religious ideas, for example wearing robes to emphasise non-attachment?
Norbu- thanks for adding your thoughts, I would also go as far to say that the boundaries that we perceive as humans (e.g. our categories of different races, cultures, religions, etc) are all ultimately inconsequential anyway, when the illumination of loving kindness is cast over those constructs.
When you say:
[Norbu] "What really matters is the heart of the community and whether you fit culturally within the group."
In what way do feel it is important to fit in “culturally”? I am not sure I am quite clear on how that fits in with the rest of your post, but maybe I have not understood!
In what way do feel it is important to fit in “culturally”? I am not sure I am quite clear on how that fits in with the rest of your post, but maybe I have not understood!
Sorry for being unclear. I'm just saying that I think that all groups and systems have their failings. If we wish to be part of a community of practitioners we must accept the failings of the group. I think the most important thing is the qualities at the heart of that community, but we still have to be able to accept the culture of that group to be part of it. And "culture" doesn't just mean "Asian" or "European," it can have many subtle characteristics that we have to feel comfortable with if we are going to accept and identify with it.
Norbu
Hi again Norbu :wave:I may have been a bit slow at catching on, but don't worry- I getcha now!!
What you say makes sense, yes. If we choose to belong to a religious community we can't expect to be represented one hundred percent by everyone else, but we must function harmoniously as an organism within that organ. That religious beliefs are shared do not mean that interpretations and practices will not differ considerably at times, afterall a religious group is just one of the many groups within the wider group that we term 'the population'. And sometimes what can initially jar within you eventually becomes accepted when you realise that your previous thinking was directed against it by the ego's tendency to defend itself...(speaking from experience!)
Azalia x
1984: A Sikh Story
Hi Azalia,
Did you see this last night - I thought of you. Sonia hasn't worked through the clothes issue either:
1984: A Sikh Story
Just over 25 years ago, the storming of The Golden Temple, the most sacred of Sikh shrines, by the Indian Army led to protests around the world.
Sonia Deol embarks on a personal journey to unravel the events of 1984, an iconic year for Sikhs. It culminated in thousands of deaths including the assassination of the Prime Minister, Mrs Indira Gandhi.
The bloody aftermath that followed so shocks Sonia that she is forced to reappraise the depth of her commitment to her faith.
Broadcast on:
BBC One, 10:55pm Sunday 10th January 2010
Duration:
60 minutes
Available until:
11:54pm Sunday 17th January 2010
Hi Judy,
Yes, I had about 8 messages last week from friends and members of the Sikh Society at uni reminding me it was on! Sonia Deol, or should I say Jaswinder Kaur, proved quite contraversial re: the clothes and name issue...I understood her feelings which are similar to my own, but I am perhaps more honest with myself about my own vanity! She made it sound like her job as a journalist and presenter meant she had to "look the part" whereas in actual fact it was only her ego that was preventing her from retaining her real name and having long hair!
The basic idea behind the question is this: religions such as Buddhism have been conveyed from their country of origin and have been made logistically accessable through lamas, gurus and other influential figures, UK centres, temples, retreats, books, CDs and public talks. However, in terms of practicing these religions, how accessable are they really? Can we ever really fit in or practice them as Westerners, or do the cultural influences (past or present) that inform these religions play a larger role than we would admit, making us ultimately 'incompatable'?
The query was provoked by two things. Firstly, I watched a DVD on a buddhist pilgrimage which portrayed buddhism in a very ritualistic way, with multiple prostrations being done in front every statue of buddha that was passed and at every holy site, for the purpose of attenuating negative karma. (This was explained in a very simplistic causal manner: you do 100 prostrations, you get the karma points.) This element of buddhism doesn't seem valued so highly by westerners as part of their practice and many (if not most?) Western Buddhists would probably not do it at all, nor would they place such a high value on the relics that were shown. Here, the pilgrims and monks donated significant sums of money towards the restoration or completeion of religious relics in the name of "compassion". My thought on this documentary was really that:
1. The "Buddhism" that makes its way onto the shelves of Waterstones and is made available to Westerners seems to be in a different world to the Buddhism practiced (covertly or openly) in the Eastern Hemisphere where it originated. Therefore:
2. Are we offered a more 'palatable' version because Buddhism in its undiluted form is not accessable for the Western lifestyle or belief system? And is this 'right'?
The second aspect of my enquiry concerns Sikhism. Here, the religion is accessable to non-asians because and the langar that's free for all, regardless of caste, colour or religious belief. However, there are aspects of Sikhi that do seem culturally informed. Panj Kakkar, for example (wearing of the kanga, kirpan, kesh, kachera and kara) stems from the tradition of panj pyare ("five beloved"), and in turn the khalsa army which defended the punjab border from muslim violence.
My thought here is: I can see the relevance for asians for whom panj kakkar represents their national as well as spiritual consciousness and also their heritage. But what right would I, as a non-asian have to adopt that code of dress, even if the symbolism has a personal significance to me?
To conclude, I might well pre-empt valid comments regarding the relative unimportance of both ritual and dress in religion, which is ultimately not temporal but transcendent. However, I would point out here, without going into too much detail at this point, that as Westerners this is exactly the kind of thinking that springs from our own cultural norms. According to these norms, which are perhaps to an extent inescapable, I too would agree that ritual worship and uniformity are not the most important aspects of religion, but I do think that perhaps they are much more important than we are inclined to believe as Westerners. I suspect that we don't want to take the risk of looking different, for example, because that would involve sacrificing things which we have attachment to, like our hair or wearing make-up or jewellery.
And doing what is 'easier' is not necessarily the same as doing what it 'right'....
Thoughts?
The ultimate goal of any religion is enlightenment/self realization. Which is essentially a freedom from the conditioned mind. All conditioning is social. So realization is essentially social in nature. It is freedom from what you have been given by society. It can't be any other way
All these religions have a way/strategy of achieving that freedom, which are dictated by the social conditioning that prevails in that particular culture or sub culture.
The rituals of a religion are rooted in the collective consciousness of that particular culture. Because religion is a cultural thing and it also reflects the times of its origins.
Even if Christanity originated in East, it has taken on the hues and fragrance of the Western culture. So the rituals have modified greatly over the two millenia to reflect the cultures that practice it. Which is natural.
But the true message of a religion is neither rituals nor practices (they are just techniques) but to make perfect conditions within you for surrender to happen. That is what all religion is basically trying to induce (but religins become synonymous of the rituals they practice, unfortunately, because that is easier route for the masses)
Surrender is the ultimate challenge but we water the message down to avoid just that! Dognas, rituals, set routine are so much easier to follow than surrender. So sikhs(I am one of them) are hanging on to their 5 Ks, because it is easier option, is less challenging for the mind.
Eastern mind-set is more heart based, bhakti based so the bowing down comes easy to those cultures. It is an expression of how they trully are. But Westerns don't have to copy it mindlessly because surrender would happen, but it needs a different approach/strategy. Same with clothes. All ritual is a constant banging at rigid ways the mind is set. To pull a thorn out with another thorn so to speak. The way western mind is, it needs slightly different kind of banging.
Then the methods change again with time. When Buddha, Jesus were preaching people had uncomplicated simple mind sets. The mind has changed/evolved so much during these 2500 years. How can the same rituals be valid? They were designed for people in 500 bc.
They are rendered useless in modern times, modern mind, modern consciousness. Beliefs, rituals, dress code, practices are just perifery of the message, the core message of all religions is one - surrender. When that happens you go beyond all practices and all religions.
Most(Easterns and westerns) give too much credit to perifery.
I've a friend who is a Buddhist - as with any other religion there's several schools of it. In terms of practice, if one is raised a Christian and thoroughly indoctrinated into sacrificial altruism, this can conflict with Buddhist teachings, which does not consider this world evil and the only thing to look forward to is the afterlife. I think this is where many who consider changing their religion can have a conflict insofar as actual practice goes. However, the human mind being resilient and "retrainable" it is possible to effectively practice a new religion that has a totally different set of beliefs from the one an individual is raised on. I fall into that category myself but it took some time to retrain my mind and not fall back upon older beliefs that did not serve me well at all. Being able to look after your needs and not being a burden to others really should be the first priority of any religion - there is no such belief in Christianity - luckily Buddhism is a little more flexible and recognizes human nature for what it is and does not demand that it be changed.
Direct Access
Yes they are, imho.
But then, why would you want to?
In this day and age, when direct and open access to God is readily available for anyone,
Why would you want to try to go through the old and worn-out mechanism of man-made religions, priesthoods, closed societies, religious texts, initiation ceremonies, and other exclusive systems?