Final Post: Jainism

My final post will be examining the rituals and practices of Jainists. First an overview of their beliefs, is not intended as 'essentializing' their religion, for people who do not know much about Jains, I think it is important to give some basic teachings:
While some consider Jains a sect of Hinduism, it can't really be considered that since they have their own literature, rituals and spiritual leaders, not to mention very different beliefs. They have 5 principals that help them lead their lives. They are Non-Violence, Non-Stealing, Non-Possession, Truth and Celibacy. Non-Violence means that Jains will not hurt any living thing, as best as they can manage. They don't eat meat and most animal products. Also, they will not eat root vegetables such as potatoes, onions and garlic, because harvesting them would hurt the plants. Often Jains will also wear masks over their mouths to keep from ingesting microorganisms. The reason they do this because they believe all living things have a soul and are therefore divine. This concept of non-violence also includes harmful thoughts. Non-Stealing is a bit obvious- they don't take things that are not willingly given. Non-Possession is goal of all Jains to lose all their attachments on earth- one of the videos will explore this more. Truth is once again, quite simple- to tell the truth in a harmless manner (I don't know where white lies come into play here). The Celibacy rule only strictly applies to monks and nuns. Lay-people need only be in a monogamous relationship.
The first video relates to the non-possessive way of living, a particular ritual called sallekhana(here's a link to the Jain's explanation http://www.jainworld.com/education/seniors/senles15.htm, or the act of killing oneself by ceasing to eat, drink and speak. Also, there's a weird intro thing- disregard it.
NOTE- this video may be a bit disturbing, especially if you have a hard time dealing with death.



A few things to understand and notice from the video:

1:38--the first time we see the monks it is quite obvious that they don't wear clothes. This is because they are reducing their attachments to worldly goods, and clothes are included in that. Some sects of Jainism wear all white to symbolize purity. This is a theme we have seen a lot in other religions- the desire for purity and cleanliness is shown through their garb.

3:29--We see women wearing clothing at this point which is an interesting part of a sect of Jainism, and is a divide between the two largest sects. One sect believes that since women must wear clothes, they cannot achieve enlightenment in this life, they can only hope to be reincarnated as a man. The other believes that women can end the cycle of birth-death-reborn (or at least thats how I understood the difference).

4:12--The Abhisheka is a ritual performed by Jains, Buddhists and Hindus in which water is poured over a deity to honor it.

4:30--This is a very interesting part of the video for me. The monk is performing Sallekhana in order to rid himself of all possessiveness on earth yet clings to his feather duster (used to sweep insects away so the Jain does not step on them) and rosary. After contemplating the duplicity of these actions I have come up with a possible reason. While the feather duster and rosary may be items, they represent more than what they are. So the monk may not be clinging to the items, merely the religious significance they give to him?

I think it's also interesting to note how happy the person writing the subtitles sounds. They use explanation points when the monk is 60 seconds away from dieing. This person is obviously a Jain, since they believe the monk is breaking the rebirth cycle- their ultimate goal.

Here are some general symbols of Jainism:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hyderabad/128197261/

-The hand means to stop, or to think before you act, especially about violence.

-The swastika represents the cycle of birth-death-rebirth. The three dots above the swastika represent the three jewels of Jainism: Samyak Darshan (Right Faith), Samyak Jnan (Right Knowledge), and Samyak Charitra (Right Conduct). We should have all three: right knowledge, right faith, and right conduct together, then only can we achieve the liberation. The right knowledge means having the knowledge that soul and body are separate and that the soul, not the body attains the salvation. The right faith means one must have faith in what is told by Jinas, who were omniscient. The right conduct means that our actions should be void of attachment and hatred.

-The half circle with the dot above everything represents where the liberated souls go to when they break the cycle of reincarnation.

Here is another video on how a Jain interprets the non-violent way of living.



What I find interesting about this video, is that the man is saying that even thinking non-violent thoughts is going against the passive doctrine set by Jains. It reminds me of the rules made for Sellekhana. A person may not think about their friends or relatives at death, think about a reward, wish for a speedier death or even wish to prolong death. It's very interesting how Jains must think in accordance with their beliefs. It's something that occurs in most religions, but I don't think is necessarily talked about as much. It's like the Jains are saying that Actions speak the same as words (or thoughts), not more.

These are just a few things that I find interesting about Jainism. It is one of the oldest religions in India (the founder being a contemporary of the Buddha), so it has a rich history and a multitude of culturally significant traditions.

Bahai Temple in Chicago

After watching the video and exploring the site on the Baha'i temple in Chicago, I definitely want to visit. Architecturally, it is beautiful. The man who designed it spent 8 years on the plans not to mention the years it took to construct it. I was also amazed that even though there weren't tons of North American Bahai's at the time of the temple's construction, relative to the religions founding, there was already quite a widespread following.
The symbols on the temple are numerous. the design conforms to the other temples around the world. It is circular, with 9 pillars joining together to represent different faiths praying together and supplicating God. Also on the temple are the cross, star of david, wheel and hooked cross. These represent the unity of all religions in the Baha'i faith. Another thing that all Baha'i temples have is gardens. Since we know the significance of gardens in the founding of the religion, it is almost a given that a Baha'i temple would have a sizable garden. While its not exactly modeled after the garden of Ridvan, it is another place in which all people can pray and meditate.
I also found it interesting that singing plays such a large part in the temple. I suppose since there is no clergy, the choir provides some service (besides readings from religious texts from all faiths) for people to listen to while praying. In particular, on the website it said they keep the choir out of sight, above the congregation (for lack of a better word) so people may simply experience the music. I definitely liked that aspect. In that way, its less of a concert and more of a religious experience.

Religion without commitment

I was pondering a topic to blog about today, and I started thinking about the many people who consider themselves a certain religion yet rarely worship if at all. I think it's true with most religions that there are are more orthodox believers and also some bordering on secular. Often times these people don't get along, with especial bad feelings coming from the hard-core followers. So many sects can arrise from different religions, I think the root of unrest and war between religions stems from this more than other causes.
For example, the Bahai had different views than the rest of Islam but they were still very close to the orgin. Islamics however persecuted them more than other religions more distanced from their own beliefs. The Christians who wrote about meeting with the Bahai's were shocked by their knowledge of christianity, yet since they still considered them a different religion, they had more apathy towards their following of some of their beliefs.

Founding a New Religion

What are the elements that go into forming a new religion? Is it a sudden change or a long process? What is the relationship with past religions? What is the importance of a founder?

To form a new religion there must be a need for one. If the people are satisfied with their current religion, why would they convert to a new one? I think many of the Bahai's were unhappy with some of the violent ideas floating around in the Babi, and previously the Islam faith. Bahaullah advocated peace and brought with him wisdom that could solve all problems. Those Babi's put their faith in him. Whether it is a quick or sudden change depends on perspective. In the case of the Bahai's and most other religions formed from old one's(i.e.-christianity), the change occured relatively quickly, but not overnight. It takes time to gather followers, and most aren't converted overnight (except Bahaullah, who became a Babi after reading a letter--did anyone else find this weird?). The relationship with past religions is usually at least at the start, rocky. The new religion is moving forward in a way that the old religion is not ready to accept. Its like on the circle diagram we discussed in class, except instead of a single religion forms, an entirely new one sprouts off of the old. I think, sometimes more or less, the old religion will accept the validity of the new religion. The Importance of the founder cannot be understated. This is the person who reloutionizes the the old religion, completely changing the status quo. They are often worshiped or idolized. Without the founder, the new religion would never even come to be.

An Individual Religion?

I was talking to my friend earlier today who is in the Gender in Music class and he was reading an article that, summed up, pretty much said that without religion. human beings have no free will. I'm not here to discuss free will, because I probably couldn't make a good argument or much less come to a conclusion on the matter. But this did get me thinking on why free will or individuality could be applied when religion is involved. Maybe I should've read the article in question, but it seems to me that religion does quite the opposite of imposing a sense of individuality. People who are in most religions identify with that group of people that believe in the same things they do. By doing that they start trusting what their pastor says, because he has always had the right things to say to them before. While I wont go as far to say that religious people are drones (they certainly aren't), I think a certain amount of individuality is lost when put in a group such as a religious one.
Of course a lot of religious people may have slightly or even dramatically different views and still be in the same religion. Perhaps the general moral code instilled by the religious group would cause free will, but the fact that the group shares and is taught this moral code, can that be called free will at all? Religion brings people together, it does help individuals, but those people are ultimately part of a larger group.

Boboshanti

The video I watched for this blog on the boboshanti rastafari people gave a different impression of Rastifari than what I had previously thought. In the video, the people lead very simple lives sometimes with not running water or electricity. They pray 3 times a day even rising at 3 am to do so. The more mainstream view of Rastafarians is in my opinion, much less related to faith, and more anti-establishment culture. Bob Marley, is an example of someone who is Rastafarian yet leads quite a different life from the Boboshanti. If someone had described their habits to me without saying they were Rastafari, I would have thought that a more radical religion than rastafarian. But, with all religions there are fundamentalists, radicals, occasional believers ('easter and christmas christians'). Each sect of rastas believe in different things, though mostly their fundamental concepts are the same. The Boboshanti wore turbans, prayed more and observed the sabbath. More mainstream rastas do not follow these practices yet both are labeled Rastafarian. All sects of Rastafarians try to isolate themselves from the Babylon that is Jamaica, but the Boboshanti do it more radically by physically making their homes and towns farther away from civilization.

Am I offending you?

Something that I have been noticing about my blogs thus far is my fear of offending someone reading them. Since religion is one of the magic three that you must never talk about (the other two being politics and money) I thought it would be an interesting topic to discuss here.
It's true an innocent conversation can lead quickly to a heated discussion, argument or even war. This is most prone to happen when two parties are discussing religion. Offending someone on the religious level usually entails disrespecting another persons beliefs, albeit the original intention. Often the reason for offense is just ignorance. I know I've done it before. Being raised in a secular household has meant that all my knowledge of the bible comes from 'Jesus Christ Superstar,' 'Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dream coat' and 'Godspell' (My family likes musicals). After learning the hard way, I know avoid all talk of anything that could be remotely offensive, or at least, I try to. I certainly believe in respecting all religions and beliefs, but sometimes I think a theological debate could be educational and fun. I know I'm not prepared for it now, a certain level of religious knowledge would have to be attained first. But in an increasingly politically correct world, could the language barriers ever be broken down enough to have an honest discussion about religion with someone who doesn't hold the same views?

Kebra Negast

After reading the text given on Moodle I definitely see Ethiopia as a more significant country than I did before. I'll be honest, before this when I thought of Ethiopia I thought of Sally Struthers talking about starving children. Yea, I know its terribly ignorant and 'American' of me, but its seriously what I thought of. Anyways, it's changed now, and not just from the reading but also the slide show we saw in class.

Ethiopia plays a large role in Christian and Jewish faiths. The fact that their line of kings descended from king Solomon gives a lot of strength to their country. While Jerusalem is often gone to on pilgrimages, not going to Ethiopia is like only understanding part of one's religion. So this story gives a lot of significance not only to Jews and Christians around the world, it also gives an identity to the peoples of Ethiopia.

Conceptual Blending

The article on conceptual blending detailed an interesting feature of the human mind. I think this concept could be used quite easily when contemplating religion. But first, a quick example of conceptual blending.

Its very easy to blend two unrelated ideas or events. The article first uses the example of a boat race occurring in two different times. A modern boat was trying to beat a boat that made the same journey a hundred years previously. The excerpt used in the article made it seem like the two boats were racing each other at the same time. The blending of the two events happens almost unconsciously in human's mind.

The conceptual blending could be used in religious thought as a teaching device and also one to help interpret texts. Just as the french ski instructor in the article helped his pupil have good posture, so can a shaman or priest help teach with conceptual blending. For example: they could give metaphors for the best way to think of God as or perhaps who to act like in order to please a higher being. To assist in theological thought, conceptual blending an individual could contemplate the way in which the text they are reading helps them in their own lives. They can 'blend' the ideas in the text into themselves.

While I had never noticed how much conceptual blending I do in my thoughts, now that I am aware, it seems we are blending our world almost constantly.

Rowan Atkinson on Religion

---------------------------------------




the hilarious british comedian Rowan Atkinson has a few monologues on youtube related to religion that were pretty funny/offensive/significant to our class discussions.
The first, when he is welcoming people to hell, gains its humor from the french, germans and lawyers getting named as the wicked. But it also caused me to think about how hell is used in specifically Christianity and other religions. I didn't learn until recently that hell is a controversial topic. A debate rages whether or not hell exists, and if the bible passages some think speak of hell, really do.
The second video likens Jesus to a magician (sorry if this offends anyone). I think it's interesting that he sees a resemblance between magic tricks and miracles. What is the difference though? I think this ultimately pertains to what an individual believes. Rowan Atkinson clearly is not a Christian, or he would believe that Jesus gained his powers from God, not Penn and Teller. A non-believer sees them as David Blaine-like street tricks. A Christian would see them as miracles from God.

St. Augustine's writing in Book 2 of "On Christian Teachings" can be quite helpful in interpreting and understanding the psalms. Augustine often talks about the difference between being knowledgeable and well-read in theological writings and truly understanding what the writers were trying to say. An easy step is to eliminate any ignorance on cultural aspects they may have been writing on. Certainly when I was reading the Psalms, I didn't know what a Hyssop was, but understanding what it meant to the people during the time it was written is important. Its also necessary to understand and recognize the difference between literal and metaphorical language in religious texts like the Psalms.
Augustine also explores the dangers of translations and the confusion it makes just as Alter discussed in his footnotes. The differences between Latin and Greek can be particularly disastrous.
St. Augustine provides context and possible pitfalls in reading the psalms that could be very helpful in interpretation of them and all theological texts.

Church and State

I was skimming through some religious topics through google and I found something very interesting. Apparently, anti-abortion and Christian license-plates can be bought for a premium in some states, yet there are no pro-choice license-plates available. Is this unconstitutional? My first instinct was to not care about license-plate sales, but I think this issue goes much deeper.

I believe if the government would offer any sort of religious paraphernalia, they should offer all (or at least, most) of beliefs. But more than that, I think no religious related items should be sold in the first place. Even in a small instance like this, religion should remain separate from government. Of course this isn't happening right now, it would be near impossible for a secular presidential candidate to win. But the reason why I think they should be separate goes back to our definition of religion by Geertz. Religion gives 'powerful and persuasive moods.' Obviously, for different beliefs, the moods and ideas will be different from each other. And since we live in a diverse country and world, how could we say that one religion is capable of choosing what is right?

On the other hand, I also believe that even an athiest or agnostic couldn't lead a country perfectly. I've been reading some atheist blogs lately and many of them seem quite hostile towards other religions (one stating that it is even foolish to respect beliefs of higher powers). So perhaps no one is suited to run a country perfectly. And perhaps different religions will always clash. But at least give the non-christian side a chance to argue their beliefs on their license-plates as well!

Psalm 18

The images in my head while reading Psalm 18 were that of a Zeus-like god that throws lightening bolts and rides on clouds. A lot of religions also had a punishing god that would take revenge on wrongdoers. The difference between these gods and the one we are used to hearing of in the psalms is the vividness of the actions.

In this psalm, God is described as descending on earth and taking his retribution. This is much more concrete than the usual 'fluffy' metaphorical language about God usually used. The uses of this language are clear though. While it may seem scary, a more vengeful God can probably yield a far greater turnout on Sunday mornings. If people fear God, it is likely they are more likely to worship him. I realize that many will worship God if he is loving and less interfering, but I also believe that more will follow if they dread the consequences of disobeying.

I think this Psalm could be a very powerful motivator for someone trying to get more people to believe in God. I was certainly a little scared while reading it. Will I become Christian because of it? Probably not, but words back then packed a lot more punch as well.

Harry Potter in Religion

I know this is two blogs in one day, but I thought it best to just get ahead on these blogs. Also, I was thinking of a topic for my 'free' entry and I wanted to write about it while it was fresh.

Recent debate has sprung up over the Harry Potter series use of witchcraft but in actuality is one that has been going on for quite some time. The separation of church and state has been over the news since the beginning of our country. While some religious communities believe that books should be banned, advocates of free press believe that all books should be allowed. Book burning was certainly a part of many cultures past and is still a part of some. Authors like Ray Bradbury have warned against it in Fahrenheit 451 and banning books is a more modern approach. Harry Potter is a prime example having been named one of the most banned books last year(http://www.education-world.com/a_admin/admin/admin157.shtml).

My opinion is on the side of freedom of press, however, I think the religious communities provide an interesting point. If I believed the plot of these books was evil, of course I would not want my children to read them. A lot of the country think the 'religious zealots' should calm down about harry potter and let children read about a fictional story. In fact the religious community at large is divided on book banning. I know families on both sides of the issue and both have valid opinions. Some believe that a fictional story can be read by children as fiction and is meant purely for entertainment. Others believe that children can be very impressionable (I definitely believed Hogwarts was real in 4th grade).

I find banning books to be offensive to the very nature of them. While some families may not want their children reading material that contradicts their beliefs, banning these books is not the right step. Books should be available for all to read and individual discretion used from that point on.

Translations of Psalm 2

So after comparing the version of psalm two in the Alter translation with the one given to us in class, there are some key differences I identified. The main one was that in the Earlier translation in the 8th stanza it reads: "and of the earth thou shalt possess the utmost coasts abroad." I think what this meant to early Americans is quite clear. In the newer edition the line reads: "Ask of me, and I shall give nations as your estate, and your holdings, the end of the earth." The earlier edition makes the inheritance of land a given, the latter, more of a blessing. This would fit with early American worldview that America was meant for them to take. Since religion often fits with culture and society, it's probably more than a coincidence that the translation was different than the one we read for class.

Another difference between the texts was in the first line. In our current edition it reads: "Why are the nations aroused" The second version is much angrier in comparision. " Why rage the Heathen Furiously?" This different, more bold and mean version could also fit in with society in early america. Not only was Puritanism popular in America, being a religious haven, an angry foe (such as the british?) could help the Americans with their independance cause.

So those are some differences in the text I found. There are definitely more, but I found these to be the most interesting.

Significance of caves in other religions

I was thinking more about the Lascaux cave and it's significance in paleolithic religion, and it started me thinking on other important caves in religions throughout the world. After a quick Google search I found this interesting article/blog thingie:
http://www.relijournal.com/Religion/Five-Holy-Caves-in-the-World.302101

I don't mean to bore by making anyone read another article, but I found it interesting in the context of our reading and discussions. Some of the caves were important because of burials, others because they were the places of special events in the religion.

While the paleolithic caves represented a connection to the spirit world, caves in other religions mean other things. Even with these different meanings, it is quite clear that the eerie quality caves lend is crucial to their significance. Even a religiously insignificant cave feels somehow special because of the way sound and light are carried. This could be why caves appear so much in early belief systems. Since the early religions were usually about being in harmony with nature, caves seem to transport you into a different world. While there are different interpretations of the meanings of caves, it is important to delve into the significance in religious history.

Do the effigy mound builders of wisconsin/midwest follow the definition made by Geertz? The effigy mounds could certainly be called symbols, it is quite clear they represent the spirits and animals from the upper, middle and lower worlds (not unlike the paleolithic cave art). While it is hard for archeologists to discover facts about what early native americans believed, there are some things known that make the effigy mound builders seem to go along with Geertz's definition.

We do know that the mounds were honorific towards the earth, water and air animals/spirits. The water spirits were known to be vengeful upon the native american's canoes so they would build mounds to honor them. But more than that, the mounds were meant to show the harmony between the different forms of nature and humans.

By believing these mounds could improve their lives or at least show what they believe in, the native americans were following Geertz's definition. What's interesting is that I don't think this belief system could fit in all definitions of religion which commonly use a 'higher power' as the main definition of belief. Native American's seemed to believe in the harmony of nature, and less in the power of an unknown deity. I suppose water spirits could be described as a higher power, but I think that these spirits were more of a explanation of why boats sink- similar to the concept of myths we discussed in class today.

As I'm sure everyone is well aware, God's name has been used as a justification for war for a very long time. However I hadn't considered the implications of this until I read an article entitled "The Gospel according to Dubya" on a site called Killing the Buddha.

Ok, so it's a weird name for a website ( I swear I didn't know about it when I came up for the title of my site). It's sort of an anti-religion site but basically it just has a lot of editorials to peruse. I kind of stumbled upon it yesterday and thought with a name like Killing the Buddha, there's gotta be some pretty good stuff to blog about. But anyways, back to the article.

The main point of the column was to give examples of the duplicitous nature of Jesus from the bible and how George Bush used these examples in his 2000 campaign. A lot of Christians quote the peacenik side of Jesus and while does this, he also quotes a fiercer, war-mongering Jesus.

While the article fails at being objective, it still made me intrigued about how humans can use religion as a cause for violence. It's clear that it is used when another person/people violate the beliefs the other holds. Terrorists certainly violate morals that the majority of Americans hold. Then why would Bush feel the need to use Jesus as a means for justification? If by saying it's what Jesus would have wanted, Bush can gain backing by the christian right, but are all the other religions and beliefs supposed to follow along? Perhaps it relates to the elements of Religion we discussed in class. I think Bush was trying to make a tighter-knit community, but in reality, made most secular citizens wary. Whatever the reason, it is hard to say whether religion should be used as a means for war, I say no, but the world thus far is disagreeing.

The fundamental element of religion is easily defined, yet is harder to explain and qualify . The most rudimentary definition can be thought of as the belief in another being or beings. However, what is interesting about the study of the ur-religion, at least to me, is how our ancestors began believing in an outside being and how their beliefs fit in with their culture, society and politics.

It was made clear in the article called Paleolithic art and religion that seeking out and explaining the first religion is a daunting task that most deem impossible. But the author firmly states that the historical, religious and ethnographic advances would be too great to pass up. I agree with the author that while most, if not all, theories may be wrong about the source of religion, it is of the utmost importance to study.

The author's main theory on the cave and rock surface art concerned shamanism. While I wont reiterate what was said, I would like to share my opinions on the spirit world. It could be going too far to say this, but I came up with an argument somewhat against the author's theory. If paleolithic religion came from shamans taking hallucinogens and recording the spirits they observed on their trip either below or above ground, then how can we suppose religion is real? A drug trip does not make gods/spirits real. It's understandable that the 'cave men' would think that the visions were real, but if modern religion is based on this, how do we know it's not a farce? I'm not trying to say that all religion is false, just critiquing the author's theory. I definitely encourage classmates to respond as I have probably missed a key point in the reading that explains this discrepancy.