Something that struck me . . .

I was reading a discussion on the merits of Yu Dan, a Chinese pop-philosopher who has introduced a heavily Daoist-influenced version of The Analects, one of the central texts of Confucianism. While the topic is specific, I think that the message in this bit could resonate with anyone who studies the philosophy of religion.

In the academic study of religion, do we risk losing some of its vital aspects?

By studying religion academically, you risk losing even some of it’s academic aspects. Just within Christianity, I am noticing more and more that some of the classic ‘tough questions’ are only tough questions if we consider God as a list of attributes, and not as a Person Who Does Stuff. I think when we analyze a subject like this, there’s a temptation to emphasize those aspects which are easiest to dissect or break down into simpler terms, and a temptation to ignore those which cannot. I’m sure the Eastern faiths can relate- certain situations where if you view a system as propositions 1 - 7 it seems rather confusing, irrelevant, or just false, but if you add in the subtleties of what it means for people to be living this way, the problems evaporate.

From my perspective, it is the constant battle between spirituality which is an understanding found in private reflection, and the endless god is -god isn’t debate. Throw in all the attributes assigned to “God” by this religion or that, and you have this forum. If people were to look inwardly and explore their own spiritual nature, there wouldn’t be but one or two threads posted here in a week. But the pattern is to attempt to cram what should be an inward understanding into this or that philosophical position, or to engage in the “how many angels on the head of a pin” arguments.

For me, this is the attraction of Taoism in that none of what is written makes sense without relation to my own experience. Not what I’ve read, not what others have told me, but what I have experienced. With experience in the forefront way-making becomes a living process, not just “words of wisdom” from some ancient script.

Is this really the question the author of the piece you quote asks?
He seems to plead for the hearts and minds of the Chinese.
Heart and mind, incidentally, being the problem of your question; the writer mentions one philosopher linking the principle of morality or truth, li, which is related to the mind, with the heart.
Certainly the great Christian and Islamic seminaries he talks about adress the participants’ hearts more than their minds. Most reborn Christians belive from their hearts. They are filled with a love of God that justifies even beliving in a hoax.
Religious people who believe with their minds are relatively few. In the west, thinkers with a religious facination have often studied kaballah. Indeed, Judaism is an examplary religion when it comes to intellectual worship in the west.
As far as the Chinese tradition goes, it seems that much of the wisdom has indeed travelled west. In California the exploration and practice of the traditions of India and China both is abundant. Often debunked by academics, the holistic healers of the west have allready transformed Christian territory from within - countless hybrid forms of religion can be found throughout the US and Europe, and even though most healers will say they are led to the tradition by something other than mind; they are ususally not as mindless as they are made out to be.
I wonder whether Islam will be transformed from within by another, more philosophical tradition.

Concering rituals; I think a rite is no mor eor less than a deliberate action performed with respect and dignity. Perhaps Confusius’ role is played out for now. People take from tradition what they can practially apply and emotionally relate to. There’s no will of heaven needed to understand that.

Very thoughtful response, Jakob. I agree with your interpretation of the piece. I saw it as an expression of concern regarding the spread of monotheistic religions, especially Christianity, in a country with state-imposed atheism. I also agree that the organized religious efforts that promote non-intellectual faith (what you call ‘believing from the heart’ rather than from the mind) are always going to have more mass appeal. I’ve heard from Asian friends that for some Buddhist communities in Japan or Southeast Asian countries, religious practice is more a matter of habit and cultural influence, anyway. I don’t know how true that is, though, my information is all second-hand.

I generally share the author’s concern regarding the spread of monotheistic religions in the world. I have family members who do Christian missionary work by going to desperately poor rural areas of developing countries and providing basic human services, but only if they also get to build churches and proseltyze at the same time. The poor people are hardly going to send them away, and neither are their governments. I think that subjecting people to a god sermon to get their teeth fixed, for example, is deplorable. (This is a discussion topic that we’ve learned is best not raised at our family get-togethers, lol.) From my non-theist perspective, at least the evangelical religions are somewhat like viruses (or meme-like versions), which exist to be spread. As well, I don’t think it’s possible for the eastern traditions to ‘compete’ with religious doctrines that tell people they get to live forever. Or that if they have to live in dirt-floor poverty or have hardships in this life, they can have bliss in the next one. I found slightly abhorrent the author’s suggestion of advocating Confucianism (or Taoism or Buddhism) as ‘theologies’ in order to compete with Christianity or Islam.

I felt a pang of sadness (and irony) when the author noted that it seems as though all the good teachers have gone to the west. Here the teachings seem overwhelmed at times by misunderstanding, materialism, western philosophic prejudices and the quest for a quick relgious feel-good ‘fix’. But Buddhism has historically been a particularly adaptable doctrine, able to find its place in the various cultures it’s migrated to without losing its essence. So I’m optimistic about how it will develop here. There are good teachers around (and I’m fortunate to be in California which, as you say, abounds with them). But there’s a lot of new-agey hokum, as well.

In response to Xunzian’s point, I don’t view ‘practice’ rigidly, although I find that it necessarily involves both study and meditation (Buddhist). I don’t downplay academic knowledge, because studying the teachings has been for me an essential and vital part of the path. But in Buddhism (and I can’t speak for other traditions), there are aspects of doctrine that unfold only with the practice of meditation and mindfulness. That is to say, there’s the intellectual understanding of what ‘vastness of mind’ means…and then there is vastness of mind. It’s like conceptualizing water versus diving into the ocean.

Finally, I’ve experienced the ignorance of both the doctrine and particularly of the practice by those who have at best a cursory knowledge, but who have lots of opinions as to what it means, lol. It can be frustrating I guess, but really only when it comes to web forum discussions like this.

Religion is like alcohol - it smells offensive when you haven’t tasted it.

I am not so much worried about the spreading of religion.
Partly because I am religious, and know the need of a certain type of personality to relate to the unknown in familiar terms. Partly because I have a faith in humankind based on looking back into history - a faith not undisturbed by bouts of fear, mind you, but still I have no doubt that our species will come up with suprise after surprise in what the healthy members of it enjoy as the game of evolution.
Perhaps the Chinese just like to have a taste of the wine we’ve drank for so long - it’s become a bit stale here in Europe and maybe too sweet in America, but for them I imagine it can come as a taste of fresh ‘blood’ - by which I mean to indicate the thickness of spirit.
All in all, I don’t think religion can cease to exist as long as humans are in wonder of their lives.