Anthropological differentiation:
- Etic = outsider point of view, how the culture/society/religious group looks to those outside the group.
-Emic = insider point of view, how the culture/society/religious group looks to those inside the group.
Sailbi regrets that there is too many options and not enough guidance when it comes to religion, forming a spiritual supermarket that leads people to join NRM's instead of remaining in larger authoritative religions. ----- I would say that a spiritual super market is a great things, although it could lead to loniness in a way. Paganism can be quite lonely if you don't subscribe to a more primary form - even if you find a welcoming group its sometimes obvious when you deviate from it. Can feel isolating. So I can somewhat see where is he is coming from.
He also regrets that "secularization" has limited how mainstream religion can be expressed in public spaces has given an opening to marginal and alternative religions.
- he reveals his Christian bias and desire for Christian hegemony.
"Secularization theory" The belief that as society becomes more modern and invested in science its interest in religion will wither and eventually die out. -- I don't think that will EVER happen. A rise in NRM is sort of proof of that.
Asian NRM Notes (will use most of this for the discussion board, as there are no prompts yet).
**I wrote this to respond to the questions at the end of the lecture:
What did you think about these Asian based NRM?
Something that I really find interesting and have a mixed feeling on is humanitarian acts as a means to proselytize. This is something that happens across various religions - Christianity is notorious for it. The example in our lecture was Hare Krishna temples providing free meals to the community so that no one would go hungry. "people would come for the food and stay for the religion".
On one hand I love when a religion does humanitarian acts out of genuine love for people's well being. Providing food for the hungry is blessed work however to do so only for the sake of converting and spreading a religion is self serving and underhanded. I am not as familiar with how the Hare Krishna temples go about it but I can only draw on the two methods of this I have seen through Christian examples.
In three separate examples of missionary work through providing food I have experienced:
#1) I will call this example a "community feast" in that it was a sort of potluck held by the church and was open to the community at large. The food wasn't free, but it was only a few dollars to come in and there was no limit to how much food you could eat once inside. The religion was all around through the presence of the church, religious art, and free bibles available to be taken if someone so chose on their way in or out. A single blessing was said at the beginning of the event and while I did not stay till the end there was no preaching involved. Just a community coming together to share a meal (and a way to keep the church doors open).
#2) Providing hot meals to transient workers at the local and state fair grounds. During this time volunteers from the church gathers to make and serve hot meals for free to the workers, who would come from all over. Some people served the food and others walked around providing drinks and refilling them, others simply walked around handing out bibles and striking up conversations. The workers were free to turn down the bibles, and while those striking up conversations were encouraged to bring up the church and use that as a means to bring up religion and proselytize, it was understood that most would not be interested and the issue was not to be pushed if they seemed reluctant.
#3) This example is from a church cookout I went to because a friend invited me saying it was just as casual community hang out. The event was free, offering free food and good conversation with the community who came. Once it was clear that most people had gotten their food and were settling down to eat it turned into an informal church service. Once the preaching began it became hard to leave and awkward - perhaps that was just my social anxiety and desire to be respectful. But it felt like being caught in a mouse trap - tempted by free food and then suddenly unable to leave while a religion is being forced on you.
**Mind you its not like anyone was chained or the proverbial doors were locked (this was outdoors) but social pressures and decorum kept me silent and still. I was stuck in an uncomfortable event and environment for the sake of decorum. This is especially true for women - but that is a socio/psychological conversation for another time.
To me example #1 is the most respectful means to go about "come for the food, stay for the religion" as a means of charity work. The religion was not the forefront of the event - the food, people, and community was. It just provided a means to introduce the church to those who were unfamiliar and raise interest while also staying true to the purpose of the event.
Example #2 is sort of in the middle in that the religion was easily accessible but there was no pressure talk about it. The company and food was provided simply because there were people in need. If it lead to conversion or even just for some of the workers to think more deeply about religion in general then all the better.
To me, the third example is almost a sort of extortion: listen to us preach or go hungry. Those in attendance would have no choice but to listen to the religious teachings if they wanted the free meal. Now, several of the mini bibles were left on the table once people took their leave of the event, but several took the bibles with them. This is a strong way to spread one's religion but the act is no longer philanthropic.
The lecture seems to describe how Hare Krishna goes about this more in parallel with the first example but not much detail was provided. Does anyone (or if the professor sees this and can answer) know which example is closer to how this religion/movement goes about it? Does it vary depending on the temple?
---
Another thing I found to be common amongst religions that heavily rely on conversion that was brought up in the lecture is the disruption of cultural events that have nothing to do with the religion by a religious group. The example from the lecture was the Lithuanian holiday that resembles American Mardi Gras and the Buddhist monk who went with his kids but complained that the Hare Krishnas could pop up at any time with their chanting and interrupt as a means to draw attention to their group.
To me this is more along the lines of a church showing up with signs and shouting through a megaphone while handing out bibles than it is a respectful booth being set up to hand out information to anyone who chose to approach. I am genuinely baffled by how disrespectful, whether intentionally or not, some religious groups act in the name of conversion. I think public acts are not offensive in nature in general, but there is a time and a place to go about it respectfully. While this would definitely help the group be noticed, would being disrespectful in this way not tarnish the community opinion of the NRM and act against conversion?
------
Something I found interesting when looking at the Asian NRM's presented in the lecture is how as the movement spreads - it adapts. Hare Krishna as it was introduced to me back in Undergrad was as the professor described it when he first heard about it: strange people with orange robes and shaved heads. As shown in the lecture though, as more people joined they had less interest in the more extreme expressions of the religion - with many people in the chanting in regular clothing and not renouncing their contemporary lifestyle. Diamond Way shows a similar pattern - being born from a ascetic and celibate teaching and adapting to the contemporary world by following more hedonistic behaviors. In both cases while the more strict and limiting practices were dropped the primary teachings were still respected and used to further serve the soul and community. (Although I appreciated the clear difference in the group's attitudes towards their cultural heritage and how they interact with society.)
I am curious how many Diamond Way followers adopted the racist and nationalistic ways of thinking - does that show in their teachings and centers; as the NRM adapts to the developing western world - does it remain as diverse as the people in it or do they all follow the example of the founder?
While the lecture didn't go into too much detail about what the Asian cult believed other than worshipping their Guru, it also in a way followed a similar path in the sense that it blended "ancient Asian Spirituality" with modern technology. Diamond Way also associated religion with technology - showing that technology really can be a bridge for people to enter into NRM.
--------------------
If you had to choose one to join...
To me personally if I had to pick one to find the most interesting and if I didn't know any better would be tempted to join would be Diamond Way. In my personal practice I combine ecstatic journeying practices, a sort of meditation through dance, and the use of harnessing sexual energy as a means to connect to the divine. However I think I would also struggle a bit with it as the ultimate goal for Buddhism is breaking the cycle of reincarnation and I find that at a total opposite of my spiritual own spiritual beliefs. However Diamond Way is a type of Mahayana Buddhism which believes in the bodhisattvas and follows the bodhisattva path - which is in line with my own beliefs (mostly). So I think I would easily be able to adapt a chunk of their practices into my own, much in the same way they did with Tibetan Buddhism.
However I draw a very firm line in the sand when it comes nationalism and racism. Its denial of helping those in need (to paraphrase the quote in the lecture: "we are not trying to make the sick healthy, but make the healthy even better") directly goes against primary Buddhist teachings and so I have a really hard time with that as well. How can someone be on the path of becoming a Bodhisattva while actively turning a blind eye to suffering around you? Bodhisattvas are basically buddhas that choose to reincarnate or remain in a heavenly realm in order to teach others and lead them to Nirvana. If enlightenment comes from uniting the mind, body, and soul in harmony to the point of breaking free from suffering and becoming one with divinity/reaching nirvana - it goes against the very thing they say they aspire to be to turn their backs on the needy.
The only reason I really would choose Diamond way is because I don't think I could follow Hare Krishna's lifestyle and dedication to a single God - especially when I don't agree with all of his teachings. With polytheism I at least have the freedom to agree and disagree with my gods openly and find support in another deity should I need it.
-----
**Diamond Way and Wicca seem to have a lot in common in how they pretty much ignore the origins of their beliefs and just present what they believe as primary. They ignore the cultural and spiritual heritage until what they believe is their own thing that stands apart from its origin. Possible topic for final paper?
** The elitist and classist levels of training found in Diamond way make me think about the little bit of Scientology that I know about. Could also be good for a comparison in a paper - not sure if there is a Pagan NRM that would fit this mode of thinking though. Will need to keep an eye out for that as the course goes on as that could be a direction for a final paper too.
------
Quotes from the readings that may come in handy
- Daniel Metraux - Religious Terrorism in Japan
- These religious organizations have the main characteristics of revitalization movements in that they "rework and reshape traditional beliefs, rituals, and symbols in such a way as to make them relevant to the social-cultural and spiritual needs of the present." (1141)
- Aum followers, most of whom are in their 20s and 30s, donate all of their assets to the cult and move into Aum communes as adherents who completely cut off their association with the outside world for a communal life of little sleep and meager meals. In return, the cult promises spiritual exercises and lessons in extrasensory perception through a version of Tibetan-style mysticism as a path to true happiness and salvation. (1142)
- "I had always felt the end of the world is close at hand. With the incredible amount of environmental destruction, there is no way we can survive it unless we change our lifestyle." (1145)
- "What they experienced, in Buddhist terms, was the release of bad karma that held back the life force of the Buddha." (1145) ----> IN LINE WITH SCIENTOLOGY
- Like his yogi mentors, Asahara claims to have supernatural powers, including the ability to levitate and fly through the air. He also claims that he can teach these feats to others. Japanese television has shown some of his disciples desperately trying to achieve levitation from a full lotus position by bouncing up and down on their bottoms.(1146)
- This definitely makes me think of scientology
- "Plausible explanations to this and similar situations start from the fact that many younger Japanese are embarking on a massive search for meaning in life, and are turning to spirituality for the psychological assurances that materialism has failed to provide. While surveys indicate that the percentage of Japanese with ties to organized religion has plummeted since World War 2, many are also highly receptive to spirituality." (1149)
- "Iamasu Tatsuo, professor of sociology at Hosei University, says the "cults have their roots in the occult and mysticism. Aum is one of those that successfully gained the sympathy of youngsters craving for something supernatural." According to sociologist Ito Takashi, "the current trend of new religious groups seems to reflect young people's interest in psychic powers, which may have sprung from their anxieties about life." Another professor notes: "Once youths become aware of the sources of their anxiety, they are eager to find a quick fix. And that's exactly what the new religions offer them." (1150)
- According to a young, well-educated man in his early thirties: "AUM has given me the true blueprint. The maps provided by other religions were vague and didn't take me to any goal." The religious fervor of most members - despite implication in crimes-has not been dampened, nor have many followers been convinced to give up AUM teachings. (1150)
