Both atheists and theists have an unfortunate tendency to treat religions as if they were monolithic -- as if there were just one thing labeled "Christianity" or "Islam". This is perhaps more of a problem for theists than atheists because atheists can be prepared to critique any form of a religion that may come along whereas theists must either deny that there are any variations on "true" religion or admit that there are many forms of a religion -- including forms that are violent.
In Buddhist Warfare, Michael Jerryson writes in his introduction about the variation that can be found in Buddhism:
"Buddhisms" is a web of interconnected cultural entities predicated on the teachings of the Buddha, whether he is conceived as historical and/or cosmological. This definition is deliberately broad in order to encompass the fluid and polythetic characteristics found in self-ascribed Buddhist traditions, specific beliefs, texts, and leaders related to Buddhist organizations. There is an enormous diversity in Buddhist principles and followers, which raises the question of whether we should use value-laden terms that are all-encompassing, such as "Buddhism."
This is similar to the concern that religious studies scholar Jonathan Z. Smith poses in regard to Judaisms. Smith calls on scholars to dismantle old theological and imperialistic impulses toward totalization and integration, explaining that the "labor at achieving the goal of a polythetic classification of Judaisms, rather than a monothetic definition of early Judaism, is but a preliminary step toward this end." It is this totalizing impulse found in the term Buddhism that demands change, if not critical reflection.
This is a principle that can probably be applied to almost any religion -- or at least any religion that has sufficient age and has spread through enough different cultures. It's probably not applicable to a relatively young religion that's only existed in one culture.
Jerryson details some of the variety that can be found in different Buddhisms in different cultures:
Although virtually every Buddhist tradition holds the Four Noble Truths (PÄli: cattÄri ariyasaccÄni) as its core principles, there is no unifying canonical scripture that interprets and explains them in detail. One can easily find variegated descriptions of the Noble Truths when comparing the Sinhalese, Thai, Burmese, Sanskrit, PÄli, and Khmer canonical scriptures (and there are geographical variations within each linguistic category).
In addition, each Buddhist tradition contains unique practices and doctrines (which constitute the very nature of a tradition): for example, Mongolian Buddhists circumambulate cairns made of rock and wood; Thai Buddhists believe that people have two different spirits, the winyan and kwan; and monks from the Jogye school initiate their followers to Korean Buddhism by placing five incense sticks on the initiate's arm. Although each tradition contains unique practices and beliefs, Buddhists associate these variegated beliefs and practices with the teachings of the Buddha.
The implications of this are quite important. For atheists, it means that critiques of one form of Christianity may not apply to other forms of Christianity. For theists, though, this requires acknowledging that there isn't just one single form of their religion; even more important is the fact that there isn't a single pure form of their religion either. Instead, their religion is shaped by culture and determined by the cultural practices of the adherents.
Religion is cultural and cultures tend to be religious to one degree or another. Separating religion from culture is difficult under even the best of circumstances. So long as cultures differ, religions will differ -- and even the same religion will differ from nation to nation, culture to culture. What's more, because of variations within a nation's culture, there will be great variations in a religion within a single nation as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment