In the Danish that is used in England, Ro Esbernnson tells a Gaelic sailor that he recognizes him as a man of Eirinn. The sailor, Ailill Mac Cerbaill, is from Condacht although he has travelled through Markland, China and elsewhere, and recognises Ro as of the Lochlannach. Ailill refers to the Morrigan and to Lug Long-Arm. The nationalities tend to invoke different deities which turns out to be the point of this story. The Saxonians, whose cannon are heard to rumble and crash in the concluding sentence, have yet another pantheon and:
"...never had a higher religion..." (p. 83)
- according to Ro.
What is higher? Muslims claim to be pure monotheists. Monotheists claim to be higher than polytheists. Mithraists, including Ro, claim to be higher than other polytheists although Ro momentarily envies Ailill his gods:
"...that to a Gael are still real beings." (ibid.)
While at University, I coined the term, "theography," meaning religion based solely on the believer's place of birth.
I regard non-theistic religions like Buddhism as highest.
12 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Because I believe Christianity, esp. Catholic Christianity, to be literally true, I consider to be the highest and best of all faiths. Islam is an Arianizing imitation of Christianity.
Mithraism is puzzling, one part seems to lean in the direction of Zoroastrian de facto monotheism, but the other part relapses into polytheism.
I fail to see what makes Buddhism so "high." First, "pure" Buddhism is more of a philosophy, not a religion, with Buddha apparently having little interest in questions about God or gods. Second, Buddhism teaches ideas you disbelieve, such as reincarnation and nirvana. Third, Buddhism in various countries accepted belief in varied gods and ideas about the afterlife alien to what Buddha preached. With Tibetan Buddhism the most garish of these forms of Buddhism.
Again, what makes Buddhism so "high"? Aside from Buddha himself, I can't think of any renowned philosophers, scientists, artists, writers, etc., emerging from Buddhism. Aside, of course, from Westernized Buddhists. Which means Christianity and Western philosophy left their marks on them.
Ad astra! Sean
Some forms of Buddhism are non-theistic. The most widely practiced forms definitely -are- theistic.
Saying a religion is 'higher' may be a value judgment or may be merely descriptive, in the sense of 'more advanced'.
It is mainly a value judgement.
Sean,
Religion is response to transcendence. Theism is personification of transcendence. So theism is anthropomorphic and non-theistic religion is higher.
For some reason, reincarnation is a very strong belief in India. The Buddha analysed consciousness and found no immortal soul so the logic of his position would, in my opinion, mean no reincarnation. However, he reinterpreted reincarnation of souls as rebirth of karmic consequences. But rebirth is downplayed in Zen - Buddhism away from the Indian context. I value the meditation practice and some, although not all, of the ideas associated with it. Karma as action with consequences is a very important idea.
Meditation is practiced by people who accept a lot of the ideas in the society around them. The Buddha did not deny the existence of gods but said that they were not enlightened. People can accept prevailing polytheism or secularism and meditate. A woman visiting the Abbey said that she was a Christian. A monk replied, "You will continue to believe that and we will tech you how to meditate."
You can't think of any renowned Buddhist philosophers etc because you don't know of them! Buddhism was both spiritual and philosophical from the beginning and developed its own philosophical systems whereas Christianity, prophetic in origin, had to adapt Platonism and Aristoteleanism.
Paul.
teach
I am realizing an ambiguity in "theism." It can mean the belief or theory that the ultimate reality is a person: monotheism. (Christians complicate this by saying three persons.) Or it can mean the idea that there are many powerful superhuman beings: polytheism. Buddhism is atheist in the first sense but not in the second.
When, as is usually the case, the personal ultimate reality is regarded as the creator of everything other than himself, this is even more definitely antithetical to Buddhism. The causal process is regarded as beginningless.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: That does seem to be the case, most Buddhists are theistic, either in the monotheist or polytheist sense. A merely agnostic or atheistic Buddhism would not appeal to many.
I believe Christianity to be highest in both senses you used, "value" and "advanced."
Paul: Then, again, we can't agree. Because Judaism/Christianity believes the Ultimate, God, is a Person, a real Being.
What you said about Buddha's opinions about consciousness is another point of disagreement Christians have with him. It is our firm belief the human soul is real, so real that it survives bodily death, with no need for reincarnation.
Human actions, good or bad, having consequences is also a Christian belief. Plus, Christianity has its own tradition of contemplation and meditation, a exemplified in different ways by the Benedictines, Carthusians, Trappists, etc. Contemplative works like THE IMITATION OF CHRIST, THE CLOUD OF UNKNOWING, THE SPIRITUAL EXERCISES of St. Ignatius Loyola also comes to mind. And, IMO, surpasses Buddhism.
Most people don't know of any renowned Buddhist philosophers/scientists, etc., because, quite simply, Buddhism has never MOVED the world so strongly that such persons emerged from it. And Catholic Christianity adapted Platonism and Aristotelianism because it does not believe in rejecting what truth is found in the thought of non-Christians.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I practice a form of meditation that has come to our generation through a Buddhist tradition but that could have come through Taoism, Yoga or Vedanta. This meditation is of the highest value and does not oblige me to respond to the charge that Buddhism has not MOVED the world. Such claims and counter-claims seem increasingly beside the point.
No Buddhists are theists in the monotheist sense. They recognize neither a Supreme Person nor a Creator.
When you say that God is a Person, you have to remember that God is also three Persons. It is very difficult to converse consistently about this. Biblical immortality is through resurrection of a material body. Greek and Indian immortality is through the persistence of an immaterial soul. Christianity combines both these ideas. The soul goes to its eternal fate at death yet the body is resurrected and judged later. Christianity is a complicated synthesis of many ideas which is why it has been so successful.
Paul.
Paul: Zen is stripped down (although most though not all Zen Buddhists do believe in reincarnation), but most Greater Vehicle forms of Buddhism -- which are the most numerous -- not only believe in reincarnation, but have a riot of supernatural entities.
Paul: "advanced" in the sense of "more efficient -as a religion-".
That is, more effective at making and retaining converts.
The Religions of the Book are more advanced than the Greek, Roman, Germanic, Slavic, and Baltic polytheisms that preceded them because they're (visibly) better at that.
Modern Hinduism is also more advanced than the original, Vedic version -- which was a very similar system to Graeco-Roman and Celtic and Germanic etc. paganisms, because it sprang from the same Proto-Indo-European roots.
(Which is visible at a glance if you look at Zeus Pater/Dyaus Pitar/Jupiter/Tiwaz Fader etc.)
Hinduism developed a philosophical basis which enables it to retain intellectual rigorists who would otherwise shed polytheism, while at the same time remaining -functionally- and exuberantly polytheistic at the popular level.
Sort of "having your cake and eating it too".
The combination gives it unique absorptive power on its own ground -- witness the way it has reabsorbed 'reformist' movements like Sikhism or Buddhism, and the extreme lengths Islam in the Indian subcontinent has gone to resist its pull.
NB: most Theraveda/Lesser Vehicle forms of Buddhism also believe in reincarnation, though they're "less exuberant" on supernatural entities than Greater Vehicle types.
Sure. These Buddhist groups do make a point of differentiating between "reincarnation" and "rebirth" but there are those of us who believe in neither. As it happens, the meditation makes perfect sense whatever you believe in at that level.
In science and politics, theory and practice cannot be separated like that but spiritual practice is very different. I knew a guy who agonized between zazen and Tibetan visualization and finally opted for the latter which could never be my path because I cannot visualize. I could only say that visualization was obviously the right way forward for him at that time whereas, if someone tells me that he is going to join the Labour Party, then I am committed to arguing with him about it!
Post a Comment