Through a quirk of
human mental evolution means we are able to create language metaphors and visual
icons to express spiritual or religious ideas. The behaviour may manifest itself
socially in terms of membership of one of the major world faiths or it may
simply be that a person turns to making 'useless things' because of vague
thoughts that there is 'more to life' than merely acquiring material possessions
and meeting the physical requirements of existence. Thus, individuals who do not
belong to a mainstream religious tradition, may still have strong religious or
spiritual feelings which they wish to communicate poetically. They may, for
example, have a deep sense of the continuity of life, beyond their own
particular span of existence. They may see their own life as being part of a
continuum, so that even though it has a definite beginning and end, it exists as
part of a broader spectrum of universal existence separate from the purely
physical, inanimate world. They may also have a sense of sharing a spiritual
existence with other human beings. This may be in the sense that all human
beings have certain common mental experiences as part of the nature of being
human. This was articulated by the
Roman historian Tacitus who wrote in the first century CE " The Germans do not
consider it consistent with the grandeur of celestial beings to confine the gods
within walls, or liken them to the form of any human countenance. They consecrate woods and groves, and
apply the names of deities to that hidden presence which is seen only by the eye
of reverence".
Therefore, many people
experience a spiritual dimension to life, whether or not they are part of an
organized faith. This spiritual dimension can be contrasted with the secular
approach to living, which is characterized in a typical sense by a preoccupation
with the material things of life and satisfying the physical requirements of
sustaining life. But there is not a clear dividing line between what we might
call the 'spiritual' and the 'secular'. Listening to music, for example, may on
one level be purely about physical enjoyment and appear to have no relationship
to the spiritual life. Contrariwise, someone who listens to music which s/he
really enjoys may experience a lifting of the spirit and an enhanced feeling
about life very close to a spiritual experience which others might term
'religious'.
When we consider
societies in which the secular and the spiritual are very closely intertwined,
it becomes far less easy to define clearly what we mean by the 'religious'. It
is perhaps far easier to achieve this distinction when we consider contemporary
society because today it seems possible to make a decision to lead a purely
secular life. In earlier societies
this was much less usual.The distinction between the spiritual and the secular
may in fact be a feature of contemporary society, rather than a longstanding
historical phenomenon.
In present-day society
it is perfectly possible for someone to lead their life totally divorced from a
sense of the spiritual. Such a person may successfully earn a living, have a
house and car and rear well-adjusted children, without having any sense of the
religious as part of their life. If a person is happy and feels that s/he leads
a fulfilled life, then perhaps it is not completely clear as to why one might
assume that they should have a religious dimension to their life.
Where people are
members of a major faith, then there are certain expectations of the way in
which they will behave. For instance it is usually
assumed:
* that they will read
certain religious texts;
* that they may pray
to a deity or deities;
* that they will
participate in certain religious rituals;
* that they will
attend certain ceremonies at a place devoted to communal
worship;
* that they may
subscribe to a particular code of ethical conduct.
The range of
religious beliefs
Considering the range
of world faiths, it is evident that there are enormous variations in patterns of
belief and worship. There are faiths that have no deity to which people pray or
carry out devotions. Perhaps the largest religion which comes into this category
is Buddhism. To the uninitiated, Buddhists may appear to be worshipping the
Buddha. After all, large golden statues of the Buddha are set up in a Buddhist
temple, much as there may be a large statue of the crucifixion in a Christian
church. However, there is no sense in which the Buddha is 'worshipped' as a
deity. The Buddha stands for a spiritually enlightened human being whose
historical teaching is capable, if followed diligently, of helping human beings
to reduce the suffering inherent in their lives. A statue of the Buddha is seen
as an image of an enlightened person meditating and as such a reminder of the
teaching of the Buddha and of the potential inherent in all human beings to
reduce suffering. A Buddhist would not normally pray to the Buddha for help in
solving problems in life. A Buddhist would not, for example, pray for a miracle
or for divine intervention in some form. The Buddhist would reflect upon the
teachings of the Buddha, perhaps using the statue as a form of inspiration for
what was possible in life. A Buddha image and the historical Buddha are a
reminder of the spiritual achievements of one human being and the way in which
today Buddhists may utilize those achievements to improve the quality of their
lives.
This is very different
from the situation in Christianity, where Christians may pray to Jesus Chris or
his mother in the supernatural realm, asking for intervention in the material
world to help them cope with a problem. Buddhists are entirely dependent upon
their own efforts to help bring about a change in the world or to reduce their
own suffering. Christians, however, besides their own efforts, would see the
possibility that God, through their faith would be able, in principle, to
intervene and help them in their lives. Christianity shares a clearly
monotheistic worldview with Islam, Judaism and Sikhism, among others. This is
not to say, of course, that members of these different faiths have the same
perception of the deity in their particular religion; only that they subscribe
to the view that there is a single supernatural deity. Some other faiths, such
as Taoism, appear not to subscribe to the view that a deity as such exists, but
rather that there is a spiritual force influencing the universe and that it is
possible, in principle, for Taoists to acquire a close understanding of the
nature of that spirit and become better able to control it for their own ends.
In other religious systems such as Confucianism and Shintoism the relationship
between a world view, and the existence or otherwise of a deity is less
clear.
Shinto, is the
indigenous religion of Japan. There
was originally no separate 'name' for Shinto. It only later became known as
`Shinto' to distinguish it from the newer religion of Buddhism. The fundamental
reason for the lack of a distinguishing name originally was that Shinto, like
the beliefs of the Iron Age Germanic peoples, was so much a part of everyday
life there was no reason to distinguish a religious life from a secular life.
Kami, or spirits, were seen as part of the natural world of trees, mountains and
rivers and also as part of family ancestors. The entire world was a spiritual,
religious world. Arguably there were parallels with Christian European society
in the Middle Ages, and certainly with traditional Hindu society. One might also
argue that there is a similar situation with regard to the world view of
indigenous Americans or Australians. Both groups of people had (and have) a
sophisticated relationship with the natural world, which was fundamentally
spiritual.
Thus, there are faiths
that are clearly monotheistic in terms of belief in a single, all-powerful God
and there are other faiths which appear not to subscribe to the existence of a
deity as such. There are also, however, faiths that appear to combine some
elements of both of these positions.
They have both personal deities to which the individual person may make
approaches and also a rather impersonal universal spirit, which has a unifying
influence over the whole of existence.
Hinduism is an example
of this position. There are many individual deities in Hinduism. Among the more common deities are
Krishna, Shiva, Sarasvati and Ganesh. The worship of these personal gods is not
something which takes place solely on the occasions when someone visits the
temple because images of the gods are to be found in all areas of society. A
stallholder on the streets of an Indian city may well surround his workplace
with framed pictures of his favourite deities. Taxi drivers will also typically
have many small images of deities on the fascia of their vehicles, beside the
steering wheel. An individual deity is often associated with a particular
dimension of life and prayers will be offered to that god or goddess at
appropriate times. The important feature of this approach to deities is that it
permeates many facets of life, producing a blurring of the distinction between
the religious and the secular.
Although one can view
these Indian gods and goddesses as being imminent and very close to the
day-to-day lives of people, they are manifestations of a more general religious
force. This universal spirit or Brahman of the writings called Upanishads can be
viewed as the spiritual force which influences all of the living and inanimate
world. All of the imminent, personal gods can be seen as a part of such a
universal spirit. On this plane the absolute can be seen as a divine element in
everyone. It may well be true that many people in their daily lives are not in a
state of regular reflection on Brahman, but the more personal deities of
Hinduism offer a straightforward approach to religious experience which is
available in daily life.
One view about
multiple religions is that far from being deplorable, it is a social good; it
adds richness to the totality of humankind’s religious venture. Is life not more
interesting for the varied contributions of Confucianists, Taoists, Buddhists,
Christians, and Jews?
"How artistic," writes
a contemporary Hindu, "that there should be room for such variety. How rich the texture is, and how much
more interesting than if the Almighty had decreed one antiseptically safe,
exclusive, orthodox way. Although he is Unity, God finds, it seems, his
recreation in variety!" But the goal beyond these differences is the same
goal”.
For evidence of this,
Ramakrishna Paramahamsa India's most well-known devotee of the goddess Kali
sought god successively through the orthodoxies of a number of the world's great
religions and came to the following conclusions.
"As one and the same
material, water, is called by different names by different peoples, one calling
it water, another eau, a third aqua, and another pani, so the one
Everlasting-IntelligentBliss is invoked by some as God, by some as Allah, by
some as Jehovah, and by others as Brahman.
As one can ascend to
the top of a house by means of a ladder or a bamboo or a staircase or a rope, so
diverse are the ways and means to approach God, and every religion in the world
shows one of these ways.
As the young wife in a
family shows her love and respect to her father-in-law, mother-in-law, and every
other member of the family, and at the same time loves her husband more than
these; similarly, being firm in thy devotion to the deity of thy own choice, do
not despise other deities, but honour them all.
Bow down and worship
where others kneel, for where so many have been paying the tribute of adoration
the kind Lord must manifest himself, for he is all
mercy.
The devotee who has
seen God in one aspect only, knows him in that aspect alone. But he who has seen
him in' manifold aspects is alone in a position to say, 'All these forms are of
one God and God is multiform.' He is formless and with form, and many are his
forms which no one knows.
The Saviour is the
messenger of God. He is like the viceroy of a mighty monarch. As when there is
some disturbance in a far-off province, the king sends his viceroy to quell it,
so wherever there is a decline of religion in any part of the world, God sends
his Saviour there. It is one and the same Saviour that, having plunged into the
ocean of life, rises up in one place and is known as Krishna (the leading Hindu
incarnation of God), and diving down again rises in another place and is known
as Christ.
Every man should
follow his own religion. A Christian should follow Christianity, a Mohammedan
should follow Mohammedanism, and so on. For the Hindus the ancient path, the
path of the Aryan sages, is the best.
People partition off
their lands by means of boundaries, but no one can partition off the
all-embracing sky overhead. The indivisible sky surrounds all and includes all.
So common man in ignorance says, 'My religion is the only one, my religion is
the best.' But when his heart is illumined by true knowledge, he knows that
above all these wars of sects and sectarians presides the one indivisible,
eternal, all-knowing bliss.
As a mother, in
nursing her sick children, gives rice and curry to one, and sago arrowroot to
another, and bread and butter to a third, so the Lord has laid out different
paths for different men suitable to their
natures.
Dispute not. As you rest firmly on
your own faith and opinion, allow others also the equal liberty to stand by
their own faiths and opinions: By mere disputation you will never succeed in
convincing another of his error. When the grace of God descends on him, each one
will understand his own mistakes”.
Similarities
between world faiths
It is relatively easy
to find differences between world faiths and, indeed, such differences are so
numerous, that a comparative analysis could proceed for a long time. It is
probably a more complex task to look for similarities between religions or at
least for those shared themes that characterize the spiritual
life.
If we are to draw a
distinction between the religious life and the secular life, then it is a
reasonable assumption that there must be questions and issues which are
distinctively 'religious', and this certainly seems to be the case.
Religions, for
example, generally appear to address the possibility of an existence beyond the
present, earthly life span of a human being. In Christianity, there is the clear
promise of a 'life after death'. For the Christian who has faith in God and
makes a sincere attempt to live life according to the example and precepts of
Jesus Christ, there is the promise of eternal life, close to 'God the Father' in
heaven. In Hinduism and Jainism, the prospect of an existence in a spiritual
realm after the earthly existence is linked to concepts of karma, reincarnation
and the doctrine of a cycle of birth, death and rebirth. The assumption of karma
is that the deeds of an individual accrue certain consequences which have to be
lived through in future existences, until all the consequences have been
eliminated. Only then can the individual achieve release from the cycle of
reincarnation. In Jainism, the main method for eliminating the results of karma
is to lead an ascetic life.
Some religions,
therefore, tend to offer an analysis of the nature of existence after a physical
death and also offer a spiritual 'path' along which the individual may travel in
order to achieve a new spiritual existence after death. Buddhism, however,
offers a rather different analysis of this issue. It certainly acknowledges the
validity of the question, since it is recorded that the Buddha in his lifetime
was asked this question by one of his disciples. He chose not to respond
directly to the question of the nature of an afterlife. His answer was that the
question itself is unimportant. His argument was that the only truly important
issue was the manner in which we live our present lives. This should be our
total preoccupation. In other words, human beings should devote themselves to
the system of mental training set out by the Buddha and should adopt this in
order to try to reduce the suffering in their lives. The principle of
mindfulness enunciated by the Buddha exhorted people to concentrate on life in
the present and to live each moment in a sensitive and careful manner. One might
perhaps summarize the Buddhist view by saying that the only reality is the
present. Nevertheless, one can see that conjectures about the nature of further
possible existences are characteristic of all religious faiths.
Another area which is
central to the religious life is the question of the nature of reality. If it is
applied to spiritual matters, it raises such issues as whether the material,
day-to-day world is compatible with the religious life or whether true
spirituality may only be found in some 'otherworldly' existence which is
distinct from the ordinary daily life of, for example, earning a living and
raising a family. This is very much connected with questions of religious
lifestyles. Some people may argue, for example, that the religious life should
really be lived 'in the world' as a part of ordinary, daily existence, while
others may suggest that the truly religious life is one of contemplation and
withdrawal from the world.
The two kinds of
responses to this important question emerge in all faiths. In the Sikh religion,
for example, there has always been an emphasis upon the importance of
integrating the spiritual life with day-to-day living. This was always
emphasized by Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikh religion. In his later years
at Kartarpur, he continued to earn his living as a farmer, as if to stress the
significance of the importance of daily labour. In addition, at one point, in
the early history of Sikhism, the Sikhs would not accept converts to the faith
from sadhus and sannyasins who were leading a life dependent upon alms given by
others. The more practical approach to life was affected to some degree by the
location of Punjab, the geographical centre of Sikhism. This area of the Indian
sub-continent is situated on the main route into India from the Asian steppes
through the Khyber Pass, so the Sikhs frequently found themselves affected by
war and conflict. Perhaps in order for them to survive in such a situation, it
was necessary to act in the world, rather than to adopt an 'otherworldly'
approach.
Confucianism was very
much an ethical approach to the practical questions of daily life, so much so
that after the death of Confucius, his approach was gradually adopted by the
political and administrative systems in China. Some traditions such as Zen
Buddhism, which are sometimes considered as withdrawing from the world, also
have a practical element in their practice. Zen monks are frequently required to
do a considerable amount of manual work as part of their training regime. The purpose of this is partly a training
in mindfulness, but also in being non-attached to other activities in which
perhaps sometimes they would rather be engaged. Judaism is also very much a
life-affirming tradition. There is much less of the emphasis upon withdrawal
from the world as there is in some other faiths. Judaism emphasizes family life
and indeed many of the traditions of Judaism are as much centred on the family
and worldly success as they are at the synagogue.
Nevertheless, there
are a number of world faiths which respond to this basic question about the
spiritual nature of the world, in a broadly different manner. Some faiths, or at
least traditions within those faiths, view the material world as fundamentally
unsatisfactory in a spiritual sense and consider that the most appropriate means
of religious expression is to withdraw from the world in some
way.
There is, of course, a
long monastic tradition within Christianity, which reached its highest
development in medieval times in Europe, but whose antecedents may be traced
back to those in the centuries following the death of Jesus, who found their
spiritual life in desert communities. The contemplative life is certainly found
within the Sufi tradition in Islam, and also within Taoism in China. Perhaps,
however, it is within Hinduism and Buddhism that one finds the clearest examples
of withdrawal from the world.
The ideal of the
religious recluse occurs in many different contexts in Hinduism. The general
theme is of the person who retires from the cares of the world, living in an
isolated location, leading a life devoted to meditation and contemplation. This
is usually accompanied by a very simple lifestyle, perhaps living on food alms
given by disciples. The guru, or teacher, may have one or two disciples who are
trained in meditation and the scriptures by the guru and who later assume an
independent, similar way of life. The discipline of meditation may also be
accompanied by austere practices. These might include sitting or standing in
various difficult postures for long periods of time (sometimes for periods of
years); submitting to being buried for periods of time; and perhaps also the
self-denial of food and water for periods. Such austerities are claimed to help
with attaining spiritual insights.
Lifestyles of this
type are to varying degrees described and advocated in scriptures such as the
Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads. The mendicant lifestyle is also regarded as
part of the ideal type of Hindu life stages or ashramas. The basic stages of the
idealized Hindu life conclude with the person withdrawing from family life and
living a reclusive life in the forest, finally leaving to become a wandering
sadhu. The lifestyle of the wandering mendicant is very much in existence in
contemporary India. Sadhus are a frequent sight in India, coming together in
very large gatherings at events such as the Kumbh
Mela.
Similarly in Theravada
Buddhism, the monks and nuns lead an austere lifestyle. In the way of life in
European Buddhist monasteries, which is modelled on that in South-east Asia, the
monks and nuns rise at about 5.30 or 6 a.m. and attend the main meditation hall
for chanting from the Pali scriptures followed by a lengthy period of
meditation. There is then a breakfast of porridge and tea. There is only one
main meal during the day, taken at noon. After that no food is consumed at all
until the breakfast of the following day.
Ordained monks and
nuns have only a few very basic possessions such as a robe and a bowl in which
they can collect food alms. The entire purpose of this money-free lifestyle is
to ensure that monks and nuns only have the very basic essentials which are
required to sustain life. After that, they are trained to adjust to whatever is
available and to accept life the way it is. It would be possible for them to ask
for things such as medicines if they were ill, but in general terms they are not
encouraged to ask for something simply because it would create a temporary
feeling of happiness or pleasure. They have very basic living and sleeping
accommodation, which may consist of a simple hut or room, and when they receive
their midday meal, they should accept whatever is given, rather than showing any
satisfaction, pleasure or indeed disappointment. They certainly are not supposed
to ask for any particular kind of food to be included in the meal, simply
because they enjoy eating that food.
Similarly, in the
monastery they are encouraged to do whatever work is required, rather than
seeking out a particular kind of work which they find fulfilling or pleasurable.
They should accept eagerly and with gratitude any work which they are asked to
complete. In other words, they are not encouraged to try to mould the external
world to make it pleasanter for them or more satisfying. Rather, they are
encouraged to be accepting of the world as it is.
Many Buddhist
monasteries are involved in community work of various kinds, in teaching and in
writing. They do not, then, withdraw from the world in quite the same way as
Hindu sadhus. Nevertheless, the material world is seen as ultimately
unsatisfactory and unsatisfying. It is the antithesis of Buddhism to try always
to make the world more pleasant. The Buddhist is perhaps not so much trying to
change the world or to withdraw from it, but rather to accept it the way it is
and to purify the human response to that imperfect
world.
Deity
Another fundamentally
religious question which the different faiths attempt to answer is the nature of
the ultimate power and authority in the universe. The religions that have all
developed just to the east of the Mediterranean, i.e. Judaism, Christianity and
Islam, all possess the concept of a single, all-powerful supernatural god, who
created the universe as we know it. Likewise Sikhism has the concept of a single
god.
Some other faiths are
rather different in their concept of the power controlling the universe.
Buddhism has no concept of a divinity and, in fact, does not really address the
question. Buddhism concentrates very much on what we might reasonably regard as
the psychology of the individual person attempting to respond to the challenges
of an imperfect world.
Some other faiths
adopt a somewhat intermediate position between monotheism and the negation of
any deity. These faiths, such as Taoism and Shinto, conceptualize the universe
as being under the influence of a spiritual force, which in Taoism is known as
the Tao and which in Shinto would probably be seen as the spiritual source of
the kami or multiplicity of spirits which exist in the world. One might also
include in this broad perspective the Brahman of the Upanishads in
Hinduism.
The concepts that
different faiths have of the power and authority over the universe affects many
aspects of religious practice, which influences the nature of prayer in that
faith. It is perhaps less easy to pray to an abstract spiritual force than it is
to pray to a personal deity. The other aspect of this question is that even if
two religions claim a similar concept of a deity, there is no way of knowing in
any absolute sense the actual idea of the deity which is carried around in the
mind of the devotee. One can perhaps seek the empirical evidence of people who
have described their religious experiences. This might provide some idea of the
nature of the concept of God, but it is far from clear how one might attempt an
accurate analysis and description of the manner in which deities are
conceptualized.
Conflict
Differences in the
concept of God are perhaps just one way in which religions have clashed over the
centuries. It is undoubtedly sad that religion, encapsulating as it does a way
of life devoted to the highest of ideals, should have been the cause of so much
conflict throughout history. Perhaps it is the profound nature of those ideals
which, ironically, is at the heart of religious conflict. Religious belief, for
example, tends to go to the very heart of how we conceptualize ourselves as
human beings. It is often more than simply a set of precepts, and touches on
most of the different facets of the way we view the world. When one person meets
another individual with a completely different world view, then the outcome may
be some degree of conflict. Religions tend to address some of the issues which
are, at the same time, the most profound and also the most important to us. Our
vision of what happens to us after death is one such issue. Religions differ in
terms of regarding this issue as, on the one hand, not being of central
importance (e.g. Theravada Buddhism) to, on the other hand, being a central
concern for how we live our life on earth (e.g. Christianity). With differences
between religions on such central issues it is not difficult to see how tensions
can arise.
Religious authority
has historically often been connected with secular, political and economic
authority. Throughout history, military leaders have often sought religious
sanction for the waging of war, and religious leaders have sometimes seen it as
one of their proper duties to pronounce on the justness or otherwise of war.
Since religious power and political power have sometimes been difficult to
disentangle, this has provided another forum within which religions could find
themselves in conflict.
Nevertheless, we must
also listen to the faiths of others. This holds however we may have answered the
question of their relation to our own, even if we assume that they have no truth
that cannot be found in our own. We
must listen to them, first, because our times require it. The human community
today can be no single tradition; it is the planet. Daily the world grows
smaller, leaving understanding the only bridge on which peace can find its home.
But the annihilation of distance has caught us unprepared. Who today stands
ready to accept the solemn equality of nations? Who does not have to fight an
unconscious tendency to equate foreign with inferior?
We live in a great
century, but if it is to rise to its full opportunity, the scientific
achievements must be matched by comparable achievements in human relations. For
understanding, brings respect, and respect prepares the way for combating fear,
suspicion, and prejudice, and provides the means by which the peoples of the
planet can become one to one another.
For if we are to be true to our own faith we must attend to others as we
hope they will attend to us. We must have the graciousness to receive as well as
to give. For there is no greater way to depersonalize another than to speak
without listening.
Ethics and world
faiths
Ethics is concerned
with those questions about how human beings ought to live their lives. Ethical
questions can legitimately be regarded as a sphere of study of secular
philosophy and yet they have very much come to be regarded as part of the
religious area of knowledge. The main religions have generally set out to
delineate certain ways of acting as being acceptable and moral and others as
being unacceptable.
Some religions have
fairly strict ethical teachings and in Judaism, for example, the Torah contains
over 600 requirements with which Jews are supposed to comply. In Islam, there
are requirements such as zakat, which means that Muslims should give to
charitable causes what amounts to about two and a half per cent of their annual
income and possessions. Muslims may give to deserving causes at other times, but
zakat is regarded as ritual giving and an obligation upon Muslims. There are
thus ethical requirements which are part of a particular religious view and
which may be regarded as absolute, in the sense that they are part of the belief
system of the faith. The customs within Jainism which are connected with a
non-violent perspective on the world might also reasonably be thought of as an
example of this perspective. Such customs include the filtering of drinking
water to remove any tiny living creatures before drinking and the wearing of
gauze over the mouth to prevent the inhalation and therefore killing of small
insects and so on.
In some other
religious systems, however, ethical thought may be regarded as rather more
relativistic. Even then, though, it depends to some extent on where one searches
within the range of practice and doctrine which make up the faith as a whole. In
Hinduism, for example, one might point to the apparently strict requirements of
caste membership as evidence of very clearly defined ethical rules. To that
extent, the social structure of Hinduism may be considered to reflect a degree
of ethical absolutism.
And yet, in the
Bhagavad Gita, one of the most widely read Hindu scriptures and beloved of
Mahatma Gandhi, there is arguably a slightly more flexible approach to ethics.
The book opens with a battle scene, which may well be regarded as a metaphor for
the moral dilemmas of life. Arjuna, a Hindu prince, is in his chariot on one
side of the battlefield, facing the opposing armies in which he can see personal
friends and relatives. He does not wish to fight. This is the scene which is set
for Arjuna's charioteer to reflect on the dilemmas which confront human beings.
It transpires that the charioteer is none other than the god Krishna. The
remainder of the Bhagavad Gita is an opportunity for Krishna to expound his
philosophy of the way in which human beings should act in the world and can be
seen, in effect, as a treatise on Hindu ethics.
Krishna's argument is
that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with action or with work, but it is
the motive which is important. It is essential, according to Krishna, that
people do not have any expectations from their actions. More particularly, they
should not have any selfish aspirations about what they do. They should not act
in a particular way, simply to hope for a particular reward. On the contrary,
all their actions should be dedicated to God. One of the key principles here is
that of non-attachment. According to the Gita we should be unattached to the
fruits of our actions and act purely from unselfish motives. Krishna argues that
the pursuit of pleasure does not lead to happiness, because the pleasures
generated by the material, physical world are impermanent. Only the pleasure and
peace of mind which arises through unattached action dedicated to the originator
of the universe has any degree of permanence.
Hinduism deals with
the three desirable states of humankind: infinite being infinite awareness,
infinite joy. The Gita tends to
concentrate on the ultimate motives for actions to attain these states, rather
than on the issues inherent in the choice of one action rather than another.
Hence there is a measure of relativity in terms of deciding whether to act in
one way rather than another. Presumably, in practical terms, Hindus would feel
constrained by the requirements of the caste to which they belonged and hence
one might argue that to some extent ethical principles would be conditioned by
the requirements and limitations of the immediate social group. There is no
general sense in the Gita of actions being specifically approved and other
actions being specifically prohibited.
This is not quite the
same in Buddhism, where there are certain prohibitions, although these are
expressed in a fairly general way. The Noble Eightfold Path is the guide
enunciated by the historical Buddha to enable human beings to reduce and then
eliminate suffering in their lives and to escape from the cycle of birth and
rebirth.
Of the eight elements
to the Buddha's path, three are specifically concerned with the way in which
human beings should behave in their day-to-day lives. These are the injunctions
to adopt 'Right Speech', 'Right Conduct' and 'Right Livelihood'. There are
differences between the interpretation of these requirements for lay Buddhists
and for ordained members of the Buddhist sangha (monks and nuns). Generally
speaking, the expectations of monks and nuns in terms of behaviour are much
stricter than with lay Buddhists.
Right Speech is the
requirement to abstain from such activities as telling lies about people and
engaging in slanderous talk. Generally it is the requirement not to speak
unkindly about others. However, the principle of Right Speech also reminds
Buddhists that they should not engage in what we might term `idle chatter';
simply chatting about things in a thoughtless and casual manner. Buddhists are
expected to be mindful and aware at all times and this is seen as applying very
much to speech.
Right Conduct relates
to the principles of not killing other living things and also of not stealing.
The principle of not taking life applies not only to the act of murder of a
human being, but also to not taking the life of any other living creature,
however small. It is often extended by Buddhists to the more general principle
of caring for all living things and having a mindful awareness of the existence
of other life. A Buddhist, for example, would perhaps not idly snap off a leaf
or twig from a plant. Although this might not result in the death of the plant,
it would be regarded as an unnecessary and unethical
action.
Right Livelihood is
the principle that lay Buddhists should adopt to earn their living by a method
which does not entail doing any harm to other living things. Thus such
professions as hunter, butcher or soldier entail killing other living creatures
and would be regarded as unacceptable.
Quite apart from
elements of the Noble Eightfold Path, Buddhism also emphasises general ethical
behaviour in terms of exhibiting kindness and compassion towards all living
things. Here there is an ethical principle which does not normally seek to set
down specific rules or obligations, but describes in general terms a state of
mind which the Buddhist is asked to cultivate. This is the state in which the
individual regards the whole world and particularly other living creatures with
a sense of kindness. The Mettasutta or Sutta of Loving Kindness is the Buddhist
scripture which formalizes advice in this area of
ethics.
Although there is a
sense within Buddhism, and particularly within the Noble Eightfold Path, of a
number of ethical 'requirements', they are typically expressed in a fairly
general way, which leaves scope for the interpretation of the individual. For
example, in terms of the principle of Right Livelihood, there is considerable
room for debate about which types of employment might or might not result in
suffering to others. There is considerable scope here for individual judgement.
Equally, the concepts of loving kindness and of compassion establish basic
ethical principles, but leave the detailed application to the reflection and
mindfulness of individuals.
Changes in
religious commitment
Religions do not
remain constant in terms of their popularity with people. Buddhism, for example,
started in north-eastern India and southern Nepal and spread relatively rapidly
throughout Asia, but became almost eliminated in India, the country of its
origin.
There are other
examples. Zoroastrianism was at one time a very widespread and influential
religion in Iran. Now, other than
its retention by a fairly small group of migrants who settled in India (i.e. the
Parsis), it has become very much a minority faith in its country of origin.
Islam, from its inception, spread extremely rapidly and has largely retained its
influence over the countries where it originally became established. There are
one or two minor exceptions, such as the lack of present-day influence of Islam
in southern Spain. Confucianism was the `established' religion of China for a
very long time, but changes in the political situation in the country altered
that. Similarly, the close link which developed between the cult of the Emperor
in Japan and the Shinto religion was extremely strong and yet this was severed
after the defeat of Japan in World War II. Again, political changes affect the
relationship between an organized religion and the social structure of a
country.
Some faiths have been
extremely resilient in terms of surviving adversity and conflict with either
other religions or with different political systems. In India, for example,
Hinduism has succeeded in retaining its culture and religious practices despite
the rule of the Mughal Empire and the later British Raj. Neither administration
in India was uniformly hostile to Hindu culture and religion, yet there remained
conflict in some areas. Nevertheless, Hinduism survived and has proved itself
very adaptable. Indeed, in some cases, it produced thinkers and philosophers who
sought to combine the best of Hindu thought with that of other cultures. Another
religion which has proved extremely resilient is Judaism. In this case, one can
only marvel at the manner in which the religious culture has been sustained amid
the dispersal or diaspora of Jews around the world. The Jewish community has not
had the benefit of a stable homeland in which it could consolidate its faith and
ensure that the rituals and teachings were maintained. All of this had to be
achieved in many different locations around the world and in the context of
often the most terrible persecution.
Sikhism is also a
faith which has experienced considerable difficulties in its development. These
difficulties have partly emerged from the geographical location of Punjab and
also from the conflict with other faiths which has taken place from time to
time. The Sikhs are also a religious group who have undergone an extensive
degree of migration around the world and yet in whichever area they have
settled, they have tended to be very energetic at retaining their culture and in
terms of building gurdwaras, or Sikh 'temples', which could be the focus for
their faith and for the retention of their language (Punjabi) and their
culture.
Christianity, rather
like Buddhism, has not retained a significant presence in the country of its
origin and yet has also been very successful in terms of becoming established in
other countries and cultures. The popularity and influence of Christianity has
also varied enormously throughout history. One can only contrast the political
power and influence of Christianity in medieval times with the dwindling church
attendances in some areas today. Nevertheless, Christianity remains a very
significant influence, although at the same time one can discern changing
patterns of commitment.
It is perhaps not
surprising that religions themselves do change in their social structures and in
some cases doctrinal beliefs, if one accepts that religions themselves are
partly a product of the society in which they developed. In other words, the
belief system of a particular faith finds acceptance partly for the very reason
that those beliefs are at least not antithetical to that particular culture.
Subsequently, when the secular culture changes, it would not be surprising if
there were changes in the commitment of the society to that particular religion.
Within this framework one would not find it very surprising if, as one religion
grew in popularity, another one waned in terms of the number of practising
adherents.
Mystical elements
in world faiths
Within most religions,
practitioners seek a direct experience of God or the divine. A variety of
techniques may be used to try to achieve this, including prayer and meditation.
This approach to religious experience is often referred to as mysticism,
although it is not always easy to define precisely where mystical approaches can
be differentiated from everyday religious practices. The approach of mystics to
try to establish a direct and personal contact with God has sometimes
distinguished them from people who approach God through the intercession of an
ordained clergy.
The term 'mysticism'
is certainly very difficult to define in a precise and all-inclusive manner.
This is at least partly because the mystical experience itself is sometimes
described as being beyond the capacity of expression in mere words. It is
sometimes said that the mystical experience is something which must be felt in a
subjective sense, before one can understand it. In other words, it is not
completely susceptible to objective, empirical analysis. Hence it is not easy to
define a phenomenon which in any case some people find difficult to express in
words.
The most usual
definition of mysticism involves a tradition or religious path whose aim is a
union of the individual soul or self with the divine. Mystical experience is
also usually described, by those who are able to do so, as involving feelings of
great bliss and happiness and also a sense of overwhelming inner peace and
harmony. It may also be described as a sense of the individual being able to
reach spiritually a realm that would otherwise be
inaccessible.
As with all
definitions, however, it is rarely easy to encompass all instances of a
phenomenon within a fairly short description. There are religious traditions,
for example, which one would probably wish to describe as either mystical or at
least having strong mystical elements within them, which at the same time do not
involve any identification with a god or gods. Jainism is one example of this.
Another would be Zen Buddhism. The aim of the latter is that the aspirant should
ultimately attain satori or gain an enlightenment experience which helps him or
her to understand the true nature of reality. The enlightenment experience of
Zen Buddhism is certainly not theoretical in nature, but is an experiential
understanding of the essential operation of the universe. It affects both the response of the
individual to the world in general and also his or her relationships with other
human beings. Nevertheless, although the enlightenment experience would
typically be described as mystical, there is no sense of a merging of the
individual soul with a divinity.
The mystical quest is
usually accompanied by a course of spiritual training, which typically
incorporates some degree of asceticism or physical denial. Zen Buddhist training
in a monastic setting is a rigorous endeavour. Sometimes, if an aspirant monk
requests to undergo training, he is told that he may not be admitted or that no
places are available. This is a technique to test his determination. If he stays
and repeats his request, he may ultimately be
admitted.
The training involves
long and arduous periods of meditation, combined with hard physical work around
the monastery. The food is very basic and not designed to stimulate the palate.
In some monasteries, lack of attention during meditation sessions or lack of
mindfulness and care while carrying out labours around the monastery are
rewarded by a sharp slap on the back with a stick, in order quickly to refocus
the mind. Sleep is limited and monks have to rise very early in the morning. The
general discipline of the monastery is strict and governed by the abbot. From
time to time, the abbot will see individual monks to assess their progress with
the training and meditation.
The role of the
teacher in mystical training is very important. Gaining mystical understanding
is not regarded as simply acquiring a measure of doctrinal knowledge. Mystical
understanding, almost by definition, can only be authenticated by someone who
has themselves acquired at least that same degree of understanding and spiritual
development. There is the assumption in many mystical traditions that the
teacher passes on the understanding to the pupil, who, on becoming a teacher,
also transmits this understanding. In this way there is a chain of transmission
and within some religions it is often a pertinent question to ask a religious
teacher the identity of their teacher.
Within Sufism, the
teacher is often known as a shaikh, while in Hinduism, the term guru is normally
used. Within Hinduism, even when the pupil has left his or her guru to lead an
independent life, contact is still maintained with the guru. Pupils will return
to visit their gurus regularly, partly to receive teaching, but also to care for
them if they are elderly. The guru is regarded with great esteem, being perhaps
even closer than a parent to a religious mystic. Mystical traditions, such as
yoga, are usually learned from a guru or adept.
There is a reasonable
degree of commonality concerning the range of techniques used within mystical
traditions. A common method involves the use of the mantram, or holy syllable,
which is repeated over and over again. The steady repetition has perhaps a
similar effect to breathing meditation, in that it helps to calm the mind in
preparation for other forms of meditation. The use of the mantram is widespread,
in Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and Sufism. Sometimes the mantram will be a name
of god; in other faiths, it may be a spiritual word or phrase of a different
kind. Christianity uses the hypnotic phrase ‘As it was in the beginning, it now and
ever shall be, world without end. Amen’
In Buddhist
meditation, one of the aims is to calm the mind and then to ease thoughts from
the mind, leaving it empty of chatter. One of the characteristics of the mind is
that it is continually filled with fluctuating thoughts, coming and going,
disturbing the potential tranquillity of the mind. Meditation seeks to help the
individual to allow thoughts to come into the mind, but then also to leave the
mind and not to remain as the focus of attention. The emptiness and silence of
the mind is regarded as a very positive element in Buddhist
practice.
Asceticism has been
traditionally associated with mystical practice. The assumption here is that a
comfortable lifestyle which caters for worldly needs is not necessarily
compatible with gaining spiritual insights. Even though the orthodox elements in
a faith may not be otherworldly, it is fairly usual for the mystical element in
a religion to practise some degree of asceticism or self-denial. Among Hindu
ascetics, these may be taken sometimes to what most would regard as extremes of
self-mortification. Some sadhus or holy men will submit to being buried alive
for a number of days. They claim typically that such practices improve their
sense of spiritual well-being and help them to gain mystical insights. Living
off a very frugal diet is a fairly normal practice, as is the adoption of long
periods of meditation practice. Many mystics will live either in a monastic
setting, or else will have a very simple dwelling in an isolated, peaceful
location. In India, many holy men lead a more or less permanently itinerant
life, perhaps only living in one place for a short time during inclement
weather.
A place in the
universe
Although one of the
principal features of religions is often considered to be a belief in a deity or
deities, there is arguably a more general characteristic of a religious belief
system. This is that it is a belief system in which individuals have a sense of
the universe and of their place within it. In other words, their perception of
their own lives is not limited to their immediate existence, but rather looks
out to a broader world and to the life forms which inhabit it. They also look
out to a universe which is currently unknown, but which engenders a feeling of
wonderment. Perhaps also there is a sense of trying to explain the universe to
oneself and this creates the motivation to look at things from a religious
perspective.
Certainly the faiths
so far described seek to look beyond the immediate existence of human beings to
wider horizons. Taoism has no deity and yet is infused with a love of and
admiration for the broad, empty expanses of nature. Taoist devotees lived in
isolated places, leading lives of meditation and tranquillity. Taoist paintings
are often characterized by a sense of space. They typically contain images of
high mountain ranges, pine forests, fast-flowing streams and noticeably often a
single monk meditating or travelling within this inspiring wilderness. Often the
painting has large expanses of sky or of forest, as if the artist is creating a
contrast between the tiny solitary human figure and the vastness of the
universe.
Although Buddhism
appears to concentrate on the individual, in the sense that it focuses on the
problem of suffering and the strategies which may be employed in eliminating
that suffering, it also addresses the nature of existence in a broader universe.
Buddhism encourages the individual to try to understand the nature of all
existence and, in particular, the characteristics of existence. Thus all
existence is seen as being impermanent. This impermanence is seen as applying
not only to the lives of individuals, but also to the broader animate and
inanimate material in the universe. Thus, trees, mountains, lakes, this planet,
the sun and indeed galaxies and the whole universe are seen as being ultimately
impermanent. The Buddhist is thus encouraged to look beyond his or her own
small-scale existence.
Following on from the
concept of impermanence is that of suffering, or `unsatisfactoriness' to use a
typical Buddhist word. We know that the energy of our star, the sun, is certain
to expire one day. In other words, it is impermanent. What is more, that
impermanence is unsatisfactory. It would be 'better' in many ways if the sun
continued shining for ever, and gave future generations of human beings, and
future life on earth, a guaranteed existence. But this is not to be. If human
beings continue as a species, our rational minds tell us that one day the earth
will begin to cool and will not be able to sustain life. This is the
unsatisfactory nature of the universe. Things do not go on unchanged for
ever.
In our own lives we
would perhaps like it if we were able to pick a day when we felt supremely happy
and then that day could extend for ever. Perhaps all our family could be around
us and we would feel healthy and contented. But we know this cannot he. The
Buddhist is encouraged to look at the impermanent and unsatisfactory nature of
the world and to accept it in the way that it is. The purpose is at least partly
to appreciate that the same forces of existence apply to our own lives as apply
at the cosmic level and that there is nothing at all that we can do to alter
these basic rules of existence. Although we cannot alter them, what we certainly
can do is to alter our attitude to them. We can come to terms with them by
changing our behaviour in a variety of ways.
It does not matter
into which culture we are born, there are certain inevitable characteristics of
life and the universe with which we must come to terms. Life is created and
later ceases to exist. Living things ultimately malfunction and then die. The
young grow old and lose their youth. We reflect on the purpose of life. We
consider how best we should live out our relatively short span of existence. We
wonder how we should behave towards other people and how we should interact with
our environment. These are some of the great issues of existence. They have
presumably been raised before recorded history and will presumably continue to
be raised for ever into the future.
They are ultimately
religious questions and the creation of faith-systems. From this point of view they can be
viewed scientifically as biologically adaptive responses. However, from a
non-scientific perspective we can only marvel at the resolve of human beings
through the ages to reflect on these issues and never to abandon the quest of
trying to comprehend our place in this universe.
This Web Page Created with PageBreeze Free HTML Editor