The 'religious' part of Asian religions

[rousseau]

I was just thinking about this question and wanted to start a thread about it - maybe as a place for Politesse to kill some time briefly

I've studied Asian religion/philosophy for a while now, but in doing so have mostly emphasized the philosophy part while ignoring the religious elements - stuff like God, heaven, hell, sin etc.

So my question is - if we were to do a bit of comparative analysis between - roughly - Eastern and Western religions, how would these elements compare? To what extent is Buddhism, Hinduism etc, as actually historically practiced in Asia, more similar to Christianity and Islam than it is different? Is it true that Asian religions have put less emphasis on the supernatural?

 

[abaddon]

I've read both secular Buddhists and religious Buddhists, but not the anthropological study of folk Buddhists in Asia (for lack of interest in the varieties of quaint cultural customs). But, from what I've read, the most outstanding distinction I know of is the different emphasis on the metaphysics of transcendence. The religious Buddhists tend to frame things in a more absolute way. For example they talk about getting over suffering TOTALLY, whether by leaving the samsaric world after attaining buddhahood, or by becoming imperturbable and yet staying here in the world. They have a salvational message about deliverance from the conditions of life. I think that is the point of near-convergence with Christianity, generally speaking.

The secular Buddhists don't take up the totalistic message of escape. They offer there are means of consolation for life here in the world and more-or-less successfully avoid the otherworldly metaphysics of escape. IOW, for them transcendence is psychological, not metaphysical.

 

[rousseau]

I've read both secular Buddhists and religious Buddhists, but not the anthropological study of folk Buddhists in Asia (for lack of interest in the varieties of quaint cultural customs). But, from what I've read, the most outstanding distinction I know of is the different emphasis on the metaphysics of transcendence. The religious Buddhists tend to frame things in a more absolute way. For example they talk about getting over suffering TOTALLY, whether by leaving the samsaric world after attaining buddhahood, or by becoming imperturbable and yet staying here in the world. They have a salvational message about deliverance from the conditions of life. I think that is the point of near-convergence with Christianity, generally speaking.

The secular Buddhists don't take up the totalistic message of escape. They offer there are means of consolation for life here in the world and more-or-less successfully avoid the otherworldly metaphysics of escape. IOW, for them transcendence is psychological, not metaphysical.

I was about to respond to some other parts of your post, but it looks like you removed them.

I'm realizing now that this question is more difficult (to phrase and answer) than I realized. The 'religious' part of Asian religions - is that what I'm really after - or is it the 'supernatural' part. I think what I'm interested in is the supernatural in Eastern traditions, but even then there doesn't seem to be a clear line between the natural and supernatural. Some elements of Buddhism, for example, may not use explicitly supernatural language, but they do assume kind of supernatural possibilities and revere personalities in the same way one would 'God'.

 

[Rhea]

Following... interesting topic!

 

[Politesse]

Well, for starters, it's worth noting that the divide between "natural" and "supernatural" is a philospohical position of relatively recent import to most Asian cultures, being of European origin. So we shouldn't expect, and do not find, clean differentiations between the two even in European religions; it is more a question of how scholars categorize the world than how people live in it. Which is not the same thing as saying that those concepts are wrong or meaningless, but it's important to keep this in mind because you're going to hit human roadblocks every time you try to apply them.

This is true in both East and West, but doubly true in places where the divide only appears in scholastic circles until fairly recently. "Religion" is itself a contested term, not having a exact equivalent in most non-Latin languages and often seen as a kind of foreign imposition. When you tell a Japanese person that you have a "religion" for instance, they likely hear an implication of "from somewhere else" that you did not intend, hence the seeming paradox of vast segments of the Japanese public telling pollsters they have no religious beliefs but routinely partiicpating in rituals that the scholar defines as "Buddhist" or "Shinto" (both of which terms are also of fairly recent European invention). So you're always looking at non-European religious traditions through a hall of mirrors created by your own presumptions and definitions. What is "Buddhism"? An anthropologist will tell you that the best way to answer this is to ask the Buddhists and start from their starting point. But you'll quickly discover that 1.) Buddhists aren't really one unified group, especially and specifically where beliefs are concerned, and 2.) If you're trying to define the supernatural in this tradition, you're going to find that you're jamming that category into situations where it may apply but clearly isn't wanted. Instead of learning from your interlocutors, you'll find yourself arguing with them in short order. Is karma a supernatural concept? Almost any Buddhist you ask will say: absolutely not. It's a natural principle inherent to the universe, as natural as gravity or friction. For every action, there must be a reaction. But from your perspective as a non-Buddhist observer, the number of times that you see karma used in a way that seems "supernatural" to you will rapidly accumulate. Karmatic effects echo through lives, they are present even for acts that no one witnesses, or that had more good effects than bad. In some places, it is invoked in prayer as though one could speak to it or send it messages in burned fabric. If you're in Southeast Asia or central China, there may be God whose purpose is to administrate karma. Other Buddhists pray to have it removed, or "merit" substituted for its effects. If you are looking for supernatural elements in Eastern religion, I think you will generally find them. The question is whether you are finding something "real", or finding an artifact of your own philosophy/perspective.

I do not personally feel that there is an enormous qualitative difference between "East" and "West" in the degree to which various religious communities are apt to invoke supernatural concepts. But that is partly because both "East" and "West" are over-simplified abstractions. For every mysticism-soaked Sufi/Buddhist/Animist magic worker, there's a stodgy Protestant or Jew with little time for or interest in sermons about the beyond. You'll find that in practice, both individuals and communities will come to their own preferred balance point between things seen and things unseen.

 

[abaddon]

...

I was about to respond to some other parts of your post, but it looks like you removed them.

Yeah, I decided to wait and see if the terms were seen as a problem for others before I made a thing of it.

Politesse brings up the same basic point: "Is karma a supernatural concept? Almost any Buddhist you ask will say: absolutely not. It's a natural principle inherent to the universe, as natural as gravity or friction."

My slant on it was this: I've seen the label "supernatural" used on anything that doesn't seem part of nature from a scientific POV. Karma and rebirth often get targeted. Are they "supernatural" because the scientific worldview doesn't include them in its picture of nature? Or doesn't it depend if the believers themselves say it's supernatural? If they're trying to describe nature then isn't it a naturalistic belief system regardless if science agrees?

In Christianity, God's a disembodied spirit that makes nature and can do anything he likes with it; he's outside nature's web of cause and effect. So here the believers themselves define their God as supernatural.

Does "it ain't scientific" count to make a concept "supernatural"? My vote on that is No.

 

[rousseau]

Thanks for the replies. I guess you could say that a species whose nature is pretty much the same regardless of where they live should have religious practices that are more similar than they are different. As people who can use logic we like to categorize, delineate, and distinguish, but a true distinction between Asia/Europe might be more illusory than anything else.

It would seem like there is a touch of randomness involved in what form religious belief/practices take, but usually they all adhere to a loose, but common structure.

 

[aupmanyav]

They are different when it comes to philosophies. One talking about The One God and the prophets / sons / messengers / manifestations / mahdis that he sends, and the other not discussing any God when it come to philosophy. Is that where they differ, God not being central to their scheme of things? Gods have no role in my life if I am following my 'dharma'. No God or Goddess can send me to hell, no one can deny any heaven (if there is) to me.

 

[rousseau]

They are different when it comes to philosophies. One talking about The One God and the prophets / sons / messengers / manifestations / mahdis that he sends, and the other not discussing any God when it come to philosophy. Is that where they differ, God not being central to their scheme of things? Gods have no role in my life if I am following my 'dharma'. No God or Goddess can send me to hell, no one can deny any heaven (if there is) to me.

When you include religions of communities who were closer to the hunter-gatherer type it adds another wedge into the conversation. I recall a conversation here some time ago which I wish I could remember but it outlined what some of the earliest beliefs were. I believe you usually have, at a minimum, belief in animism, creation, and an afterlife. Which maybe points out purpose and death as central themes needing resolution from cognitive dissonance - or at least an explanation.

I'm of the belief personally that religious belief kind of - takes the shape of it's vessel - it's ideas are built to serve the community that they exist in. In more complex societies there is time/energy for religion to address a broader range of issues. But I think - towards my point - when humans are all living fundamentally the same life, with the same questions - why do I exist, what happens after death, how can I stop suffering, how can I control my environment - we see a common framework on which belief is built.

 

[aupmanyav]

I believe you usually have, at a minimum, belief in animism, creation, and an afterlife. Which maybe points out purpose and death as central themes needing resolution from cognitive dissonance - or at least an explanation.

But I think - towards my point - when humans are all living fundamentally the same life, with the same questions - why do I exist, what happens after death, how can I stop suffering, how can I control my environment - we see a common framework on which belief is built.

No. Advaita (non-dual) Hinduism has no such belief. No creation, no God, no Goddess, no soul, no birth, no death, no heaven, no hell, no afterlife. All that is considered an illusion.

Yeah, humans (apparently) live the same life, play the usual drama. Why I (seem to) exist (actually, I don't really exist. What exists is energy, a conglomerate of atoms), is just a chance of these atoms coming together. And yes, I can control my environment - I can put on the heater or the airconditioner; or shut them off. There are common beliefs and some uncommon ones.

 

[rousseau]

I believe you usually have, at a minimum, belief in animism, creation, and an afterlife. Which maybe points out purpose and death as central themes needing resolution from cognitive dissonance - or at least an explanation.

But I think - towards my point - when humans are all living fundamentally the same life, with the same questions - why do I exist, what happens after death, how can I stop suffering, how can I control my environment - we see a common framework on which belief is built.

No. Advaita (non-dual) Hinduism has no such belief. No creation, no God, no Goddess, no soul, no birth, no death, no heaven, no hell, no afterlife. All that is considered an illusion.

Yeah, humans (apparently) live the same life, play the usual drama. Why I (seem to) exist (actually, I don't really exist. What exists is energy, a conglomerate of atoms), is just a chance of these atoms coming together. And yes, I can control my environment - I can put on the heater or the airconditioner; or shut them off. There are common beliefs and some uncommon ones.

I was mainly referring to (and generalizing about) early belief systems. For example this might constitute the earliest forms of Hinduism, or beliefs that preceded Hinduism - think North American or African Indigenous. They usually had creation myths, but I wouldn't call that God belief in the same way we think of it today. I mention this because your point about God being a differentiating factor might be even more complicated when we factor in ontologies that don't fit into the major categories - Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism etc

To me it seems like there has been an evolution of religious beliefs - in some cases (like Advaita) God was dropped and the worldview became more sophisticated.

 

[aupmanyav]

All that is considered an illusion.

And is an illusion. A pin pricking into finger and the blood pouring out does not cause any two atoms to touch each other.
However, as you correctly mentioned, this is sophistication. The Indo-European Aryans had their Gods of nature and the indigenous had their Shiva, Rama, Krishna, Mother Goddess Durga. Hinduism arose from the admixture of these two streams.

 

[rousseau]

All that is considered an illusion.

And is an illusion. A pin pricking into finger and the blood pouring out does not cause any two atoms to touch each other.
However, as you correctly mentioned, this is sophistication. The Indo-European Aryans had their Gods of nature and the indigenous had their Shiva, Rama, Krishna, Mother Goddess Durga. Hinduism arose from the admixture of these two streams.

I've found I am That by Maharaj very influential. You also mentioned A History of Indian Philosophy by Dasgupta a while back, I've given it a quick glance, I plan to look again.

I also find the ideas of Advaita appealing. I wouldn't really even call it a religion, rather a scientific world-view emerging before ipso facto scientific understanding. But what I enjoy about it is that it is focused on a kind of existentialism, where actual science has no real focus and no explanatory power in this way.

My only addendum to Advaita (and Zen, which has also been influential) is what I'd call an enlightened naturalism, which is an awareness of the world as real, with real problems, which work on real naturalistic principles. I think there is a risk in writing off the world as illusory where we don't try to understand the properties that are actually there, we forget that we are an animal that has to exist and thrive by understanding that world, and that our actions have real consequences to real sentient beings.

So I think there is also room for a scientific worldview where we try to gain harmony with our environment by actually understanding it in real terms.