[Buddha-l] Western Buddhism and devotion

[Michel Clasquin-Johnson]

AT LEAST four, yes, but you are taking the traditional classification  
scheme of Advaita Hinduism (by no means the only form of Hinduism  
there is) as canonical. Contemporary scholars have put a little  
further thought into the matter.

FWIW, Dale Cannon ("Six ways of being religious") identifies 6:

The Way of Sacred Rite
The Way of Right Action
The Way of Devotion
The Way of Shamanic meditation
The Way of Mystical Quest
The Way of Reasoned Enquiry

Frederic Streng's ("Understanding Religious Life") analysis is more  
subtle and detailed. He divides it into

Traditional ways

Personal Apprehension of a Holy Presence
Creation of Community through Sacred Symbols
Living in Harmony with Cosmic Law
Attaining Freedom through Spiritual Discipline

Nontraditional ways

The Religious Significance of Fulfilling Human Relationships
The Religious Significance of Social Responsibility
The Power of Rationality
The Power of Artistic creativity
The Religious Response to Physical Existence

There are probably other classification schemes as well: I haven't  
been keeping up.

Now it is easy for us eggheads on Buddha-L to claim that, for  
instance, we have no truck with "Creation of Community through Sacred  
Symbols". Oh yeah? How do you feel about someone urinating on the flag  
of your country? You might not be driven to homicidal rage by it, but  
as soon as you feel, "Well, that is really not done", you are  
participating in "Creation of Community through Sacred Symbols". In  
fact, even if you applaud such an action, you are participating in it:  
You simply respond to a different set of symbols that work for a  
different community.

Or, Let's take "Personal Apprehension of a Holy Presence". Remove the  
"Holy" and it becomes obvious. We need not go into the supernatural  
here: It is just the human response to a Presence that transcends a  
particular personality. If you encounter a judge in his court, you  
address him as "your honour". Even if after court hours, with no robes  
and paraphernalia, you call him "Charlie". The office of a judge gives  
the incumbent an aura, a "holiness" that enforces respect even if in  
your opinion that particular judge is an idiot. A small number of  
judges are clearly not idiots: they carry that aura with them, and  
people tend to call them "your honour" even after hours.

I'll bet that if our own Richard Hayes were ever to meet George Bush  
in person, he might call him a @#%^$&*@, but he would phrase it as  
"You are a @#%^$&*@, Mr President".

There is simply no way that any human being can claim to be 100%  
rational all the time. Well, Lt Commander Data, maybe, but he's an  
android and doesn't count.

As Joseph Campbell once wrote:  "(observe) any professor of philosophy  
at play in a bowling alley: watch him twist and turn after the ball  
has left his hand, to bring it over to the standing pins" . (C'mon,  
Bob, you enjoyed that, admit it). Whether there are 4, 6 or 9 factors  
of being religious (or should we say "of being human"?), they are all  
present in some sense in all of us. Oh, one of them can dominate to  
the extent of 90% or whatever. But the others are there, we can access  
them if we want to. Just keep in mind that they also operate in the  
everyday world, not just in spiritual or supernatural realms, if such  
exist.

[obligatory Buddhist content] Contrary to popular opinion, ritual and  
devotion in Buddhism was hardly a Mahayana invention. The  
Kitagirisutta (MN 70) to name just one, speaks of people being freed  
by faith. [end of obligatory Buddhist content]

On 16 Nov 2007, at 10:13 AM, Bob Zeuschner wrote:

> I can't speak for others, but there are supposed to be at least four  
> ways of being religious.
> One is devotion to deities. I can't find an ounce of _bhakti_  
> anywhere in my own nature; if anything, I push it away (not good for  
> a Buddhist).
> Another way to be religious is to enjoy religious rituals. I find  
> them uninteresting and of little personal value.
> Another way is meditative; I find some value in _dhyana_.
> Another way is to use one's rational mind, one's ability to think  
> carefully and critically, which is how I understand _jnana_ or  
> _prajna_, and seems to be the only way that I can participate in  
> religion.
> For this reason, I find myself unable to inculcate devotional or  
> ritual Buddhism in my children, for personally I find myself unable  
> to relate to these other _marga_.
> Bob
> Dept. of Philosophy
>