Wilfred Cantwell Smith tries to elucidate the validity of defining the term religion and the magnitude of the religious life in his book “The Meaning and End of Religion”. First, Smith opines that God and history are two considerations that make religion inadequate to interpret man's religious life. In most cases this is true. It would suggest that each person has his own perception of what God is and the essence of His being or, perhaps, in some aspect this would pertain to a higher mystical/metaphysical Being. History, for all its concern, is a fragment of life. Whether a believer or an observant is concerned with the history of a particular religion is not of utmost importance.
For what we perceive or know about history might not be accurate. A scholar may take note of the historical background of a particular religion and unearth essences that he might find grotesque but such concern ends at a point, where everything is exhausted and done, the observer may never appreciate the context of his study or fully understand such religion. In this aspect, we must take note what history has told us on matters concerning God. But such area varies on a particular religion. Some religions are not even concerned with the history of God as well as the history of man. Some religions prefer to dig more on the inner substance of man rather than be concerned with the existence of a Supreme Being. Let us consider Smith's statement about this essence: "The important matter in the life of any religious community is what their religious tradition does to them." He even noted that "the whole pith and substance of religious life lies in its relation to what cannot be observed."
For what is the very core of every religion? - Faith. What about faith? Its essence lies on the very being of man's existence. It is like a paste that holds a community of believers intact. It makes them secure of their belief, their armory, their tower to lean on in times of need. An observer cannot know the essence of the religious aspect because he does not have the affiliation to such kind of religion. He however takes notes the observable facts and converts it to another aspect which the believer may not be conscious of. Smith's view that religion tends to deceive the observer of a community's religious life is somewhat intriguing. Religion, I believe, is an illustration of how man tries to cope up with his surroundings. It is man's avenue in search for truth. The very basic questions that have been kept hanging for centuries remain unanswered: Why is man here on earth? What governs the universe? Isn't religion, for its communality, tries to answer such query? And one's faith will take him into great depths, to see in himself the very purpose of his existence. These are interesting puzzles that even the most hardened atheist surmised. What about God and His purpose of conceptualizing the universe? Would it be right to say that man, to put a foundation on his beliefs, created God, or any supernatural Being, to satisfy himself and his religion? Is man a mythmaker? For Andrew Greeley, a sociologist and priest, in his book Myths of Religion (Warner Books, 1966), said: "Man the mythmaker is trying to come to terms with the problem that man the scientist tries - perhaps unsuccessfully - to declare insoluble, for ancient man was puzzled by the greatest mystery of all: the problem of human existence." He continues, "The myth, then is a comprehensive view of reality." Is God real? This is every religion's ultimate goal - to show to mankind that there is a supernatural being that governs the universe. It is thru significant experience that every believer conforms. This is what the observer cannot appreciate no matter how close he scrutinizes a particular belief. For Smith suggests, "The whole pith and substance of religious life lies in its relation to what cannot be observed." We might think that a particular group is beyond the essence of faith for practicing a kind of ritual which do not conform with the practices we were taught. Doesn't a scientist conduct further experiment when one experiment fails? But this is the very heart of every religion: to experiment until the outlines are refined. One takes man as a specimen and dissects him, studies him by parts in an attempt to uncover the core of his function. Greeley noted: "We moderns think of religion as creed, code, and cult. It is a series of propositions to be believed in, a set of moral practices to be followed, a body of ritual to be observed. Religion is humankind's way of wrestling with the ultimate; it is the set of answers, to the most fundamental and basic questions a human has about the purpose of life and of the world in which he finds himself." I agree with Smith that to conceptualize a religion is a contradiction in terms. There seems to be a moral and ethical aspect as to how a religion should be defined. The religious vocabulary seeks to conform to the nature of consciousness. What religion is trying to adhere with is the existence of an invisible and invincible Being that governs over man and nature. Philosophy professor Dr. Yevgenia Skorobogatov-Gray said "existence adds value."
A book entitled World Religions suggests: "Religions bind people together in common practices and beliefs; they draw then together in a common goal of life." This is what Smith also suggests: "Being a Muslim means living in a certain context, sociological, historical, ideological, and transcendent." To know Islam and any other religion is to bind you into the aspect of understanding its historical and sociological impact before knowing the very heart of it.
T.S. Eliot delivered in his poem Burnt Norton (from the Four Quartets) the essence of searching for that ultimate Being, thus, My words echo/Thus, in your mind./But to what purpose/Disturbing the dust on a bowl of rose-leaves/I do not know./Other echoes/Inhabit the garden./ If man is searching for that ultimate Truth, where can he find it? These echoes within man's mind do not find solace. It will remain to haunt him, it will "disturb the dust on a bowl of rose-leaves", a confusion that will linger. It is in his religion that he will redirect these echoes. Eliot further suggested it in his poem Little Gidding (from Four Quartets) the philosophy of man's search for meaning, thus, If you came this way,/Taking any route, starting from anywhere,/At any time or at any season,/It would always be the same: you would have to put off/Sense and notion. You are not here to verify,/Instruct yourself, or inform curiosity/Or carry report. You are here to kneel/Where prayer has been valid. And prayer is more/Than an order of words, the conscious occupation/Of the praying mind, or the sound of the voice praying.//The power of prayer is the essence of faith. It transforms one religion into a new one, though not completely. Prayer can't be defined but it exists as an essence in all of us.
The most powerful suggestion that Smith gave was to make religion be and not to define it because it limits "one's freedom and integrity of his faith." This poses another question: where does this lead to? We do not certainly know. If we grant man to freely exercise his religion, to the extent of giving him the ultimate independence, there would be chaos. But there would be more chaos if man doesn't have a religion of his own. It is a confusing matter. The context here is to substantiate the purpose of religion and why its definition should not be limited to the belief of a Supreme Being or practices. Here, Smith explained why: "This is because, whatever the relation between our two realms may be metaphysically or theologically, so far as the historian is concerned the link is quite clear. It is man." Can man fully achieve his goal in knowing God or an ultimate Being? This is yet to be determined.
For what we perceive or know about history might not be accurate. A scholar may take note of the historical background of a particular religion and unearth essences that he might find grotesque but such concern ends at a point, where everything is exhausted and done, the observer may never appreciate the context of his study or fully understand such religion. In this aspect, we must take note what history has told us on matters concerning God. But such area varies on a particular religion. Some religions are not even concerned with the history of God as well as the history of man. Some religions prefer to dig more on the inner substance of man rather than be concerned with the existence of a Supreme Being. Let us consider Smith's statement about this essence: "The important matter in the life of any religious community is what their religious tradition does to them." He even noted that "the whole pith and substance of religious life lies in its relation to what cannot be observed."
For what is the very core of every religion? - Faith. What about faith? Its essence lies on the very being of man's existence. It is like a paste that holds a community of believers intact. It makes them secure of their belief, their armory, their tower to lean on in times of need. An observer cannot know the essence of the religious aspect because he does not have the affiliation to such kind of religion. He however takes notes the observable facts and converts it to another aspect which the believer may not be conscious of. Smith's view that religion tends to deceive the observer of a community's religious life is somewhat intriguing. Religion, I believe, is an illustration of how man tries to cope up with his surroundings. It is man's avenue in search for truth. The very basic questions that have been kept hanging for centuries remain unanswered: Why is man here on earth? What governs the universe? Isn't religion, for its communality, tries to answer such query? And one's faith will take him into great depths, to see in himself the very purpose of his existence. These are interesting puzzles that even the most hardened atheist surmised. What about God and His purpose of conceptualizing the universe? Would it be right to say that man, to put a foundation on his beliefs, created God, or any supernatural Being, to satisfy himself and his religion? Is man a mythmaker? For Andrew Greeley, a sociologist and priest, in his book Myths of Religion (Warner Books, 1966), said: "Man the mythmaker is trying to come to terms with the problem that man the scientist tries - perhaps unsuccessfully - to declare insoluble, for ancient man was puzzled by the greatest mystery of all: the problem of human existence." He continues, "The myth, then is a comprehensive view of reality." Is God real? This is every religion's ultimate goal - to show to mankind that there is a supernatural being that governs the universe. It is thru significant experience that every believer conforms. This is what the observer cannot appreciate no matter how close he scrutinizes a particular belief. For Smith suggests, "The whole pith and substance of religious life lies in its relation to what cannot be observed." We might think that a particular group is beyond the essence of faith for practicing a kind of ritual which do not conform with the practices we were taught. Doesn't a scientist conduct further experiment when one experiment fails? But this is the very heart of every religion: to experiment until the outlines are refined. One takes man as a specimen and dissects him, studies him by parts in an attempt to uncover the core of his function. Greeley noted: "We moderns think of religion as creed, code, and cult. It is a series of propositions to be believed in, a set of moral practices to be followed, a body of ritual to be observed. Religion is humankind's way of wrestling with the ultimate; it is the set of answers, to the most fundamental and basic questions a human has about the purpose of life and of the world in which he finds himself." I agree with Smith that to conceptualize a religion is a contradiction in terms. There seems to be a moral and ethical aspect as to how a religion should be defined. The religious vocabulary seeks to conform to the nature of consciousness. What religion is trying to adhere with is the existence of an invisible and invincible Being that governs over man and nature. Philosophy professor Dr. Yevgenia Skorobogatov-Gray said "existence adds value."
A book entitled World Religions suggests: "Religions bind people together in common practices and beliefs; they draw then together in a common goal of life." This is what Smith also suggests: "Being a Muslim means living in a certain context, sociological, historical, ideological, and transcendent." To know Islam and any other religion is to bind you into the aspect of understanding its historical and sociological impact before knowing the very heart of it.
T.S. Eliot delivered in his poem Burnt Norton (from the Four Quartets) the essence of searching for that ultimate Being, thus, My words echo/Thus, in your mind./But to what purpose/Disturbing the dust on a bowl of rose-leaves/I do not know./Other echoes/Inhabit the garden./ If man is searching for that ultimate Truth, where can he find it? These echoes within man's mind do not find solace. It will remain to haunt him, it will "disturb the dust on a bowl of rose-leaves", a confusion that will linger. It is in his religion that he will redirect these echoes. Eliot further suggested it in his poem Little Gidding (from Four Quartets) the philosophy of man's search for meaning, thus, If you came this way,/Taking any route, starting from anywhere,/At any time or at any season,/It would always be the same: you would have to put off/Sense and notion. You are not here to verify,/Instruct yourself, or inform curiosity/Or carry report. You are here to kneel/Where prayer has been valid. And prayer is more/Than an order of words, the conscious occupation/Of the praying mind, or the sound of the voice praying.//The power of prayer is the essence of faith. It transforms one religion into a new one, though not completely. Prayer can't be defined but it exists as an essence in all of us.
The most powerful suggestion that Smith gave was to make religion be and not to define it because it limits "one's freedom and integrity of his faith." This poses another question: where does this lead to? We do not certainly know. If we grant man to freely exercise his religion, to the extent of giving him the ultimate independence, there would be chaos. But there would be more chaos if man doesn't have a religion of his own. It is a confusing matter. The context here is to substantiate the purpose of religion and why its definition should not be limited to the belief of a Supreme Being or practices. Here, Smith explained why: "This is because, whatever the relation between our two realms may be metaphysically or theologically, so far as the historian is concerned the link is quite clear. It is man." Can man fully achieve his goal in knowing God or an ultimate Being? This is yet to be determined.
(Published in Sun.Star Bacolod Sept. 22, 2006 under my column, The Mango Generation)
Just started my "Non-Western Religious Traditions" class. "The Meaning and End of Religion" is one of our assigned readings. I was hoping to find some cliff notes. It seems to be a very dense read!
ReplyDelete