About
Yet Another Self-Important Blog.
Rohit Singh
Email Me
Blogs
Use as directed or at your own risk.
Links
These are a few of my favourite links.
[Wed, 08 Sep 2004]
Jerusalem, Kashi, and Yin-Yang
Recently, when I was reading a book on Chinese history and culture, it
suddenly struck me-- how odd is it that 5 of the world's greatest religions
are intimately related to just 2 cities in the world: Jerusalem (Judaism,
Christianity, Islam) and Varanasi aka Kashi (Hinduism, Buddhism)!! Indeed,
I am hard-pressed to think of a major world-religion that isn't connected to
either of these cities. The only other candidates would the philosophies/religions of the Far East. But Confucianism, Taoism, and Shintoism- the major
spiritual sects in the Far East- are not religions in the real sense of
the word. They are more like philosophies than religion in that their theologies are far less developed than the other major religions. Nature-reverence, ancestor-worship and a rulebook for moral behavior is what characterizes them.
A related and interesting observation is about the similarities between the religions that share a common "holy" city. All the Jerusalem religions are monotheistic in a very unambiguous way; there really is no one else but *the* God and unless you accept him, you are damned to hell. These religions also have codified instructions for specific choices to be made in day-to-day living. "Don't work on Fridays" (Islam); "Don't work on Sundays" (Judaism) or; "Observe Lent" (Christianity).
On the other hand, the Kashi religions, Hinduism and Buddhism, are rather evasive about the whole monotheistic-vs-polytheistic issue. Hindu mythology is expressly polytheistic. But it does have a subtle monotheistic slant as reflected in the notion of the divine Trinity being one meta-entity with mutually complementary gods: Brahma (Creator), Vishnu (Provider??), and Shiva (Destroyer). Hindu *philosophy* (as opposed to the *mythology*) increases the ambivalence, by distinguishing the notion of a "Nir-gun" [ethereal] God as opposed to the "Sa-gun" [anthropomorphic] god(s). Buddhism evades the notion of an overarching God altogether by focusing on the individual and the notion of a personal "nirvana". Unlike the Jerusalem religions, both Hinduism and Buddhism are non-prescriptive religions that, in their essence, do not tell you how to live. The fact that priests in both the religions have developed a rigid set of rules for daily living is another matter. Hindu mythology, in particular, is replete with cases of revered rishis and sadhus who'd be considered distinctly unholy by today's rigid standards.
I think there are other differences as well. (Beware!! I am not a theologer!) Both the Kashi religions make it possible for the individual to reach the highest level of religious enlightenment simply by meditation and self-reflection, an option not available in any of the Jerusalem religions. In the latter, an expressed and repeated devotion to God is essential. The Kashi religions are very comfortable with the notion of reincarnations, while the Jerusalem religions are not.
In one very interesting way all these 5 religions differ from the Far Eastern spiritual sects. A fundamental belief in the latter was the humans are essentially meant to be happy and not suffer. As long as they behave well to others, they'll lead happy lives in harmony with nature, which is pretty much the most you are supposed to want. In contrast, both the Jerusalem and Kashi religions take a rather dim view of human life-- a person can't be "saved" unless he/she makes specific efforts to redeem himself. And even then, more often than not, the "saving" counts only when you are dead. A corollary of this seems to be that monks are common in these religions whereas original Confucianism/Taoism didn't have followers who gave up all worldly duties/tasks and just devoted themselves to the service of God or the search of enlightenment. Indeed, this was the basis of an argument, about 1400yrs ago, that the Taoists used to fight the spread of Buddhism: "Indians are basically evil and hence Buddhism is suited for their redemption. Chinese are basically good and hence it is not suited for us." Nice...
I am sure people have explored these parallels before. It'd be interesting to see what they came up with. To repeat, I am not a theologer/theologist/whatever!!