1. We have seen that Chinese "religions" begins with a common set of five assumptions -- assumptions which are further apparent in the ideas of Tian (heaven), the Dao, and the interaction of yin and yang.

A central distinction, however, between Confucianism and Daoism turns on the question of what kind of order the world presents us. As we have seen in other traditions, there are at least two distinctions between the kind of order presumed by given worldviews:

i) is this conception of order fundamentally egalitarian, relying on a logic of complementarity (as the Daoists stress) - or is this conception of order fundamentally hierarchical (as the Confucians stress)?
ii) is the conception of order fundamentally dynamic, such that (orderly) change is "normal" and "good" (recall the Indian concept of rita) - or is the conception of order fundamentally static, such that change is seen as a (dangerous and "bad") threat to ("good") order?

In addition, the contrast between Confucian and Daoist understandings of order bring to the forefront another crucial distinction:

iii) is the order of things fundamentally within the reach of human reason, so that human beings can understand it, write books about it, learn about it through study, etc. (as the Confucians stress) - or is the order of things fundamentally beyond human reason, and thus beyond human language, etc. (as the Daoists stress)?

A) Using lecture notes and Fenton, briefly characterize these fundamental assumptions of Chinese "religions." Then explain with some care the contrasts between Confucianism and Taoism - primarily in terms of these three distinctions between their respective understandings of the order of things.

Be sure to make use of Fenton's description of the (early) Confucian conception of li and especially its social and political consequences.

B) Further describe the Dao as understood in Daoism, using both Fenton and at least two selections we have examined from the Tao Te Ching. Likewise, discuss social and political consequences of this alternative notion of order -- again, using at least two selections we have examined from the Tao Te Ching as illustration and support of your characterization of the ideal Taoist "state."

BE SURE TO MAKE EXPLICIT THE CONTRAST BETWEEN CONFUCIAN AND TAOIST CONCEPTIONS OF ORDER AND THE STATE.

2. We have developed a framework for examining how "religion" changes over time - especially given the large contrasts we have seen between preliterate/preagricultural and literate/agricultural traditions.

A) Summarize this framework briefly (one paragraph), and then illustrate the shifts described in this framework with at least one of the historical examples we have looked at - Indus River/Aryan, Neo-Confucian attitudes towards women (Fenton, 185; cf. 191), etc.

B) Given this framework - and given that indigenous Japanese beliefs (loosely captured under "Shinto") share many characteristics with preliterate/preagricultural traditions (including the prominence of women as shamanesses, etc.) - we would expect to see similar sorts of shifts occur in the development of Japanese religion, especially under the influence of "imported" Chinese and other sorts of more hierarchical belief systems.

What elements in early Japanese religious history are consistent with this expectation?

What elements in early Japanese religious history seem inconsistent with this expectation?

Be sure to include examples drawn from the 2nd edition of the Fenton text.

C) In light of your analyses in "B)" - do you need to modify or add to the framework we have used to examine these sorts of religious transformations? If so, how?

3) Guiding Question: what patterns do we notice in the post-colonial, post-WWII histories of Japan, Sri Lanka, and India regarding transformations of "religion" vis-a-vis political and social transformations?

(I will ask you to write on this using one of the "Alternative Questions" listed below - or a third alternative we may develop over the next week or so.)

Resources:

Fenton, ch. on Modern Hinduism

Gandhi, (movie, in class)

Reserve:

John Ferguson, "Hinduism and Jainism," (ch. 3 of War and Peace in the World's Religions, Oxford University Press, 1978)

K. M. Nakamura, "No Women's Liberation: The Heritage of a Woman Prophet in Modern Japan,"(from Nancy Auer Falk, Rita M. Gross, eds., Unspoken Worlds: Women's Religious Lives [Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1989]).

"Interreligiosity and Conversion," an opening paper for a conference on "Catholicism and Soka Gakkai" sponsored by the Nanzan Institute for Religion and Culture and the Institute for Oriental Philosophy

Web Resources

"Soka Net" - the homepage of the Soka Gakkai Society

"Japan-Heaven for a Religious Group But Danger for Country's Politics," The Weekly Post, Jan 11-17, 1996 - an article on Sokagakkai from the English version of the Japanese newspaper.

"Religion in Japan" - a brief summary of religion in Japan.

(Thanks to Tomo Yamane for resources on Soka Gakkai.)

Alternative Question I

Fenton observes that Gandhi's favorite scriptures included the Bhagavad-gita and the Sermon on the Mount from the Christian Scriptures (Matt. 5-7).

Develop a summary (3-5 paragraphs) of Gandhi's philosophy of nonviolence, using Fenton, Ferguson's account of Gandhi (pp. 36ff.), illustrative elements from the film, and the Sermon on the Mount.

Summarize at least one episode from the film Gandhi which illustrates an example of using nonviolence -- and, it appears, where nonviolent methods achieve the results Gandhi thought nonviolence should evoke.

Finally, comment on Gandhi as an example of how religious ideas and beliefs can work to reshape culture and politics - in contrast with the other patterns we have seen of culture and politics reshaping "religion."

Alternative Question II

We have seen that "religion" can be understood in part as a source of worldview - our fundamental beliefs concerning:

reality (ontology) - what are the most real things?

knowledge (epistemology) - what can we know, and how do we know (senses, reason, "mystical experience," reliance upon tradition, etc.)?

values - what is to be preferred, what is to be avoided?

logic - dualist and/or complementarity?

In these terms, "religion" often involves a story (myth in a carefully understood sense) involving a movement from an initial, but incomplete and misleading worldview to a more complete and satisfying worldview.

For example, in the Bhagavad-Gita Arjuna moves from an initial worldview marked by

reality = the objects of the sense-world (bodies, etc.)

knowledge = what the senses tell us

values = defined by the karmic laws of caste duty

logic = dualist

- a worldview which also results in paralyzing confusion over his moral duty in the face of conflict

to a worldview marked by

reality = a nondualistic reality that transcends the material

knowledge = a direct apprehension of this reality through yogic discipline of the body/mind and, more broadly, "the way of devotion," attachment to a specific deity

values = fulfillment of duty, but not for the sake of accumulating karma (which paradoxically reinforces the sense of self at the root of his problem), but rather with the attitude of non-attachment

logic = nondualist, complementarity understanding of unity

- a worldview also marked by clarity of mind and tranquility ("salvation")

A similar sort of move can be seen in other Eastern traditions, e.g., in the story of the Buddha's journey from the palace through extreme asceticism to enlightenment. At the same time, many Western stories follow the same pattern - e.g., Plato's allegory of the cave, Luke Skywalker of Star Wars, etc.

In these terms, "religion" is a process of transformation, a movement from an unsatisfactory (because ultimately false) worldview to wisdom (the correct apprehension of Reality and one's proper posture vis-a-vis that Reality).

This view of religion, finally, is a central piece of religious pluralism - the position that diverse religious traditions should stand in a relationship of complementarity to one another (living side by side in a posture of mutual respect, even affection - as illustrated in the classic Chinese story of the Buddhist, Confucian, and Daoist scholars laughing at their realization that they became so lost in conversation with one another that they had accompanied each other all the way to one of the scholar's home). See "Religious Pluralism: How Can We Understand Religious Diversity?", from Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, David Basinger, Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), pp. 223-225.

Eastern traditions are often attractive to Westerners because their nondualist approaches seem to issue in such tolerance and pluralism more frequently than Western traditions (which tend towards what Peterson et al characterize as exclusivism - see pp. 221-223). At the same time, especially as we examine contemporary India and Sri Lanka, we discover that Eastern traditions are also capable of disintegrating into conflict and warfare (though in ways that may rely more on using "religion" as a vehicle for civil conflicts that are rooted in other sociopolitical problems).

Two parts to this question:

A. What is your worldview? To answer this question, I would like for you to articulate as fully and clearly

i) the elements of your worldview (i.e., ontology, epistemology, values, logic, etc.) and

ii) whether your worldview has involved some transformation - especially in the context of our exploring various Eastern traditions resting on quite different worldviews?

B. Is religious pluralism of the sort we have seen frequently in Eastern traditions possible in the West? To answer this question, carefully review the article on religious pluralism, including the critiques of religious pluralism (pp. 225 ff.).

I would like to see you argue here for and/or against religious pluralism (whichever your view is) by

i) carefully describing the position of religious pluralism as presented by Peterson et al,

ii) the most important critique(s), from your perspective, of religious pluralism as presented by Peterson et al, and

iii) why you think religious pluralism may or may not be possible in the West.
In addressing this question, be sure to comment on whether or not representative Western worldviews (such as the one you've articulated in "A") would counter pluralism (i.e., as a worldview based on a dualist logic will likely take an exclusivist posture towards "other" traditions) and/or support pluralism (i.e., as a worldview which incorporates a logic of complementarity can see "other" traditions as not necessarily inferior, opposite, evil, etc.)

(You may also want to review the web document on religious pluralism which draws on Huston Smith - with a Church of Christ (Disciples of Christ) "spin".)