cultural context of religious experience - quote of Vine Deloria Jr.

I unintentionally got drawn into a book called God Is Red by Native American scholar and writer, Vine Deloria Jr. over the holiday break. This one paragraph hit me being a practitioner of a religious system that is technically 'foreign' to me, and perhaps more importantly as a former member of Iskcon:



Just to give a bit of background, Deloria is comparing specifically Christianity with Native American religious belief, but he includes at least Buddhism, and I assume other non-Christian religious movements in America. It seems one problem ACBS had with the introduction of Iskcon to western and European countries was he preached transcendence, but was very determined to keep the cultural packaging intact to the degree the packaging ultimately began to unravel the whole program in the time after his departure, leaving many feeling cheated, and without the desired religious experience.

Furthermore, in my own experience, my practice of Vaisnavism in America and my practice in India are as though two completely different worlds (which I should say, is distressing). Although Krishna is everywhere, he doesn't seem to be just anywhere. I am intrested to read the interpretations and reflections of others on this passage and related trains of thought.

An excellent topic, and one that I am also grappling with.

Clearly, Deloria does not seem to have really thought about it. My first objection would be that there is not just one kind of religious experience.

Then there are so many other kinds of human phenomena that we would not expect to be able to standardize, even though we may be able to find patterns. Is there a language or political system that can be "distilled from its cultural context and become an abstract principle, etc."?

I should have posted the preceding paragraph too, as the other doesn't make much sense in and of itself. Here they are in order:

Thank you for starting this thread, Angrezi. It is a fascinating topic.


ACBS comes across to me as thinking on a concrete level. He may use abstract concepts but what he means by them are anyway concrete representations or examples of these concepts -- what you call "packaging". Like when he famously says, "Interpretation means change."


When in ISKCON, I couldn't relate to the rule of cleanliness requiring that one wash the floor and especially one's feet after eating. (I ate on large metal plates and wore socks or tights.) I followed the rule but uneasily, as a burden. I knew some "brahmanas" who always washed their feet afterwards etc., I think their motivation was to be strict, renounced and faithful.

Then after ten years in ISKCON, I went to India. After my first meal in an Indian temple -- it was in Puri, at Haridas Thakur's samadhi -- I understood perfectly well why both the floor and the feet needed to be washed. At that point I also understood, of course, how unnecessary it was to do the same in my European ashrama context. What a relief, to bring these "religious rituals" back into the realm of ordinary common sense!

Finding one's place in a religious culture may be easier when one approaches a religion as it is, in its natural environment -- not when one has bought an imported version with all kinds of meddling and fixing already in it, all kinds of (unacknowledged) neck-breaking social experiments as in the case of ISKCON, and all the burden on the followers of having to overcompensate for the founder's own anxiety and need of self-assertion. It may be easier then to keep the
tradition anchored in the context and not make it bigger than life.

On the other hand, if we do not feel at home in the religious tradition of our "own" culture and opt for something exotic instead, it may be seen as pointing out to lacks in our own culture.

Many have pointed out the perils of following each and every single rule of a foreign culture by rote. In many cases, rote-following of rules may indeed look impractical especially in the context of transplanting a "foreign" culture into a European environment or so. However, there is such a thing called sadacara, which is is an essential component of a devotee's own personal practice and is meant as an impetus tp maintain the optimal consciousness necessary to follow a particular path. Many other Indian spiritual sects have specific rules of sadacara that are followed by their sadhakas.

In India, Krishna plays a flute, in America, he plays the clarinet. Don't let Krishna trick you by not recognizing Him with all His different robes and instruments. Dance with Krishna reflected in all the cultures of the earth.

I am more worried about translating the understanding than the sadachara. There are basic principles, but you cannot clutter a European or an American with piles of rituals.

I think a symbol system can be quite resiliant. Christ on the cross seems to be intelligible all around the world. Krishna on the chariot with Arjuna, Krishna playing the flute, the Divine Couple, these are all similarly powerful and without any cultural blockage.

I think Deloria is wrong when he says that a symbol system cannot be divorced from its cultural context. Islam, Christianity and Buddhism have all done so. The richness of their systems, developed over centuries, makes it possible for people to pick and choose their own understandings from within a library of meanings--Jaroslav Pelikan's book on Christ Through the Ages shows how the Christ image changes from one century to the next. Harvey Cox's Christ is quite different from, say, that of Theresa of Avila. But each religion has its own "genius" that is like a sun, with the rest of its manifestations spiraling out of it.

To a degree you are correct, Jagat. In America, Christianity is doing quite well divorced from its cultural context.

"If English is good Enough for Jesus, its good enough for our kids."

A certain former Texas Governor on the subject of bilingual education.

Sure the symbols have some meaning but the essence of what the symbols mean in a coherent system as a guide to what was the intent of the symbols may be lost or fragmented as seems evident in this Christian Texas Governor and others.

But I feel what Deloria is getting at is that humans are hard wired for the religious experience (union with God) and when the juice is turned on and unobstructed by conditioned meanings and all conditioning, filtering and belief systems are let go, the "feel" of what that experience is, is the same.

But I don't agree with that, at least not entirely. Because there are different kinds of religious experience--different kinds of relations with God, etc., that are quite distinct from cultural distinctions.

Deloria:

It seems technology is at present redefining the meaning of the "local situation" and cultural distictions. For example I am in contact with my Goswamiji in Maharastra almost weekly by internet; I recieve photos from festivals at his Haveli practically before the insence is finished buring. Projects such as the Gaudiya Granth Mandir make many Sanskrit texts that would have taken much time to find by rifling through dusty bookstores in India, easily accesible to anyone with a computer and an internet connection. Discussion sites such as this serve as a type of 'virtual-village', in which topics related to faith and practice are discussed by individuals whose physical locations span the globe.

In the modern (or post-modern ) world the geographic boundaries of culture are more and more challenged and increasingly irrelevant, at least in religious (and economic) concerns. (Which could perhaps also help explain the current rise in religious fundamentalism and extremeism worldwide).

Deloria's mode of thought seems to be centered around the Native Americans' experience with Christian imposition on their way of life, and in this context his ideas stand, yet they seem to not be applicable universally.

But I have heard many native Americans to whom Christianity speaks loud and clear. Even if native Americans were to revert to their root spirituality, they will not be able to have it "as it was." Their culture is changing or would have to change, with the imposition of European culture.

Ummm... no. Native American spirituality is not based on beliefs or exterior forces and conditionings but Spirit which is internal. It is our European culture which is being challenged and must change.

Jagat asked me elsewhere to post a 'Postmodernism 101' but here it is already above.

For succinct theoretical context and some striking insights to this dilemma (and it is very much a dilemma, one which cuts right to the heart of all our ideas of who or what we are, sacred or 'secular') read this piece by an American Muslim commenting on a book by a living Oxford philosopher which shook the academic world:

http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/whosejustice/1.htm

For the writer's biography, quite shocking surely, go here:

http://www.philosophersmag.com/article.php?id=815

Babu's point is apt: different beliefs are fundamentally different.

Postmodernism has been misused by its popularisers. Probably because what it represents is so shocking - a vindication of fundamentalism! (or more accurately fundamental isms, at least as the only starting point 'we' have, as the above article argues). (Postmodern understanding leads to putting scare quotes " " around everything except tradition. There is certainly a difference between fundamentalism and tradition, especially when the tradition is Thomism, as it is for MacIntyre, but that distinction is lost on most people.)

Yet why should that be so hard to accept for those of us who have spent years on the boundaries of 2 different cultures? Particularly those of us who became aware of the sentience of animals, and the difficulty of conceptually separating them from humans (= animal rights)? No objective support for universalism (ie universal 'human' perspective) has been found, either through philosophical analysis or biological research.
So why do we cling to it?

Namaskar-
Thank you for the excellent topic. Recently this question came up in a way in my own life. My wife and I were trying to work out the order and dates of Samskaras for our son. I spoke to the pujari at our local Kali bari and asked whether we should "bother" with Namakarana, shaving etc, or just go straight to Annaprasanna as that is the predominant cultural norm among the Bengalis that make up the majority of our temple's congregation. He replied that we are not following Bengali culture, or any specific culture for that matter, but "the Vedas". I thanked him- but actually, what does that mean? Should we have Gomedha, or if we were really following the Vedas, should my family and I even be allowed in the temple at all let alone planning samskaras for our mleccha baby? It seems he was arguing for universal principle over specific cultural normatives, but why have these rituals at all? Each one is full to the brim with cultural info and mores-puja vidya kriya, social norms, even the food to be served as Prasadam- total Bengali home cooking. Very confusing.