Sep

20

Buddhism in Thailand

Filed Under Buddhism | Leave a Comment

I just finished writing a paper on Buddhism in Thailand and I wanted to point out 2 ideas that are important in understanding Buddhism. These observations apply specifically to Buddhism in Thailand, but I think they also play a role in other contexts.

1. 2 ways of being Buddhist:

a. Monks:

- Seek to follow the teachings of the Buddha
- Observe a more philosophical and “textbook” form of Buddhism
- Study and follow the Tripitika (Theravada scriptures).
- Keep over 200 rules as part of the sangha.
- Have a strict moral code to follow

b. Laity:
- Unfamiliar with philosophical Buddhism
- Mostly unfamiliar with the Tripitika
- Concerned mainly with gaining karmic merit by giving offerings to the monks
- They worship the Buddha and a variety of gods and spirits
- They have 5 moral commandments to follow

2. Buddhism easily assimilates other religious beliefs:

Buddhism in Thailand is a mix of Theravada Buddhism, Hinduism, and animism. Thais believe in karma and reincarnation, but they also devote much of their time in appeasing and worshipping local gods and spirits. These gods and spirits can bring them either fortune or misfortune in this life. Therefore, having the gods and spirits on one’s side is very important.

The image above is of a shrine on the grounds of a large hotel in Thailand. It is someone’s job at the hotel to go and place offerings at the shrine each day to ensure the prosperity and safety of the hotel. The usual offerings are incense, fruit, flowers, and soda in a bottle. Almost every house and business has a shrine where they place offerings each day.

Remember that…

First, Buddhism tends to have two ways of being Buddhist, one for the monks and one for the laity. “Textbook” Buddhism is often foreign to the average lay practitioner.

Second, Buddhism easily assimilates other religious beliefs. Buddhism in Thailand includes elements from Hinduism and animism. Ch’an (Zen) Buddhism in China is a mix of Buddhism and Taoism. In Japan, Buddhism and Shinto are often intertwined.

Sep

9

Harold Netland’s critique of Religious Pluralism

Filed Under Religious Pluralism | 2 Comments

For one of my seminars I am reading Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith & Mission by Harold Netland (2001). I would highly recommend this book to anybody interested in religious pluralism. Netland begins by discussing the cultural context that has given rise to postmodernism and religious pluralism (the belief that all religions are more or less equally salvific).  Netland then proceeds to analyze and critique religious pluralism, focusing extensively on the model proposed by John Hick, one of the leading proponents of religious pluralism.  Netland finishes by proposing an Evangelical theology of religions. 

In one of his chapters Netland presents what he sees to be some of the problems with religious pluralism. I would like to present a few of them:

1. Pseudopluralisms: some advocates of religious tolerance and what appears to be religious equality are actually “covert inclusivists.”  That is, although they appear to be saying that they accept all religions, they actually believe that their own is superior.  For example, the Dalai Lama is a known proponent of religious tolerance, yet for him “salvation” is ultimately attained within Buddhism.  He does not overtly seek to convert people to Buddhism because of his belief in karma and reincarnation; it is not because he thinks that all religions are equally true.

2. Reinterpretation of beliefs and Reductionism: Religious pluralists in order to make their model “work” are forced to reinterpret religious beliefs in a way that would be unacceptable to orthodox believers of the various traditions.

3. Personae/Impersonae: The problem of whether God/the Real/Ultimate Reality that religious pluralists describe is personal or impersonal is another weakness of religious pluralism.  Pluralists are unable to convincingly explain how “the Real” can be personal for theists like Muslims and Christians and impersonal for others like Zen Buddhists and Advaita Vedantists.  If pluralists end up attributing either a personal or impersonal nature to “the Real” they will be privileging some traditions over others, which is what they are supposedly trying not to do.

4. Ineffability: Religious Pluralists argue that “the Real” is ineffable and has a nature that is beyond the concepts that we have.  Although we are unable to fully comprehend God, this does not mean that literally none of the properties attributed to God actually apply to God. According to Netland, this is “self-referentially incoherent” since at least the property of being ineffable would apply to God.  Thus, God would not be beyond all our categories of thought and language.  Moreover, Netland points out that if no substantial qualities can be properly applied to God then the appropriate response would be “agnostic silence” since we would know nothing about God.      

To conclude, Netland argues that a genuinely pluralistic model must be coherent and must not privilege any particular religious perspective.  When discussing with so-called pluralists remember that pluralists are usually forced to either distort the religious beliefs of others or they unintentionally end up privileging a particular religious tradition (usually it is their own).