[Buddha-l] African religions & Buddhism's future (was Dying Forest)

[Malcolm Dean]

OK, the vote appears to be in: the topic was understood as to compare
and contrast shamanism, African religions, and Buddhism.

Joanna writes:

> As for Africa, well I have to disagree that their various religious
> practices are shamanistic a la central and northern Asia (or if you like,
> Tibet). They aren't.
>
> African religious cults, practices etc are more like the village cults that
> once were very predominant in India but are going fast toward the "great
> tradition" under the political and economic forces of "development."  Their
> main features are or were deity cults, possession by deities rituals, lots
> of sorcery and magic

Stephen writes:

> I thought the received anthropological wisdom was that indigenous
> African religions are basically all mediumistic not shamanic.  Do you have
> any references ?

Kate writes:

> African shamanism
> has very little, if anything, in common with Buddhism.
> We should all be thankful that African shamanism hasn't amalgamated with
> Buddhism.

All three of you express gratitude that Buddhism did not attempt an
amalgamation with African religions. Your opinions do remind me of the
critiques offered by Catholic missionaries when they encountered
Tibetan or Chinese religions. The same objections did not apparently
deter the early Buddhist missionaries to central Asia, however, and we
received a new Buddhism as a result.

Tibetan Buddhism has preserved features from earlier religions, such
as mediumistic communication with local spirits and the deceased,
shamanistic invocation of natural forces, various oracles, objects of
power (including body parts), deity cults, tons of rituals, and plenty
of sorcery and magic.

The current state of a religion, or a culture's relation to its
religious heritage, defines possible transformations, not the
impossibility of transformation.

On Stephen's distinction between mediumistic and shamanistic,
references would be welcome, but the examples given above hint that
functionally, they refer to the same activities. Medium is a modern
European term with a hint of communications theory (see Peters, J.D.
Speaking Into The Air, Chicago 1999 on this point). Further
clarification should come from theorists of religion, not
anthropologists, nor, Devas forbid, from any "received opinion."

But I offered Africa as a provocative example to the question of dying
traditions, not as an opportunity to express disgust at current
examples of the same practices which were prevalent across the ancient
world, including Tibet. Take the example of South America, if you
prefer.

When under attack from the rise of Protestantism, Catholicism
compensated by riding a wave of European exploration and conquest,
destroying entire civilizations in order to establish new territories
of faith. In the process, missionaries were content upon occasion to
let locals believe they were a new kind of Buddhist monk, a Confucian
scholar, a God, or a liberator - any guise as long as the indigenous
population began to convert. The bloodthirsty rituals of the Americas
played well with the theme of crucifixion. Deities that resembled Mary
or a saint were easily appropriated. The first generations might not
understand the new faith, but the grandchildren would grow up in
Catholic schools and refer to the faith of their ancestors with the
same disgust expressed above.

One final example: this time contemporary and American. The Church of
Scientology is busy inscribing its scriptures on titanium sheets which
are being stored in deep underground facilities. Given a planetary
disaster, it is quite possible that the writings of L. Ron Hubbard
could be the only surviving evidence of our history and culture.

The question is this: if two major types of Buddhism are now under
systematic attack, with a shrinking Buddhist population, how exactly
do you plan to spread Buddhism to future generations? Has the
missionary spirit died out? If the torch has been passed, to whom or
what?

Malcolm
Lost Angeles