How I Make Sense of the Horror of the Residential Schools in Canada

(... and other horrifying yet true stories from history)

Pair of children's moccasins are pictured at a memorial in Vancouver (from a CBC story: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canada-residential-schools-kamloops-faq-1.6051632)

***

This is the framework within which I, as a scholar of religion and history, try to make sense of the many true horror stories of history and the role that religion played in them. Here, I'm dealing with the discovery of hundreds (will probably reach thousands?) of unmarked graves in multiple former residential school locations here in Canada. The majority of those graves belong to the children who were treated horribly and even abused to the point of death in these schools, most of which were run by Christian churches (particularly by Catholic religious orders). 

 

Part I

A Conceptual Framework to Better Understand the Many Horrors of History (such as the Canadian Residential School System)

[1-The Ambivalence of Human Civilization] Human civilization is, in a deep sense, innately barbaric. A brief look at human history will sadly yet clearly show that wherever humans are, there too will be disagreements, mutual dislike, and even hatred. This results in acts of horrible violence. Of course, not to be forgotten, however, is that humans also have a deep core of compassion and kindness within themselves. As the saying goes, "There are two wolves within us; the one we feed more wins." 

[2-The Human Pattern of Development] Another crucial factor that plays an important role in this framework is the process of how worldviews develop in individuals (This applies also to whole civilizations). Humans in fact go through a predictable pattern of growth or development. It begins with being (in Stage #1) Egocentric at the start of life, a stage in which one is selfishly focused on one's self. From there, if humans are to develop properly, they should move on to being (2) Ethnocentric, a stage in which the person transcends one's selfishness and includes one's "tribe" or "insider group" as valuable as well.

[3-Beyond Ethnocentricity] Today, in our more interconnected and diverse world, it is common sense that one should not stop at the ethnocentric stage because there is more necessary development to undergo. From an exclusive love of one's "tribe" (ethnocentric), people should grow further into being more (3) Worldcentric, a stage in which also those considered "Others" should be valued as deserving: of at least a just and humane treatment and, if possible, of friendship and care as well. The highest stage would be being more (4) Cosmocentric, a stage in which not only humans but also other living and non-living things (our whole cosmos even!), become the objects of our concern and care. 

[4-Ethnocentricity as Dominant in History] Most people and civilizations in history though have been mainly ethnocentric. The vast majority have lived their lives viewing the world from a "tribal" point of view which is based on the following mentality: “my 'tribe' is better than others," "my tribe has a higher truth"; or even, "my tribe is the superior one among all others." That is still true even today for most of the world's population. One dark aspect of an uncritical ethnocentricity is that people who we consider "Others" are dehumanized in our worldview (they seem "less than human"). This leads to us treating them in negative ways without feeling too much guilt. Another thing to note: the ethnocentric worldview is also characterized by a “mythic-literal understanding” of the tribe’s foundational principles (aka, stories, teachings, dogmas). For example, God appointed white people to bring civilization to the whole world; Hitler is the German nation’s saviour; America is the new chosen nation of God, etc.

Important to note here: When you are in a certain stage (particularly, Stage 2: Ethnocentric-Tribal), you can only see what this stage's worldview lets you see. You find it hard to put yourself in another’s shoes (which is more characteristic of Stage 3). Therefore, you think that this tribal-centered worldview is the truth; you are not so concerned with the "others." You think their worldviews are wrong or inferior. You usually cannot think critically about the worldview of the stage you are in because that is the pond (as it were) in which you are now swimming. It follows that you can only objectively and critically evaluate lower-stage worldviews. 

[4-My "Tribe"]  My "tribe" can mean many things: my family and extended family, my clan, my village. Particularly important for our topic here, “tribe” also refers to: my race, my culture, my social and economic class, my gender, my religion, etc. It is natural to value one's "tribe" but uncritically overvaluing it unfortunately results in neglecting other groups or, worse yet, marginalizing, discriminating, and even causing harm to others.

Hence the importance in our present context of studying disciplines such as critical race theories, postcolonial and liberationist theories, and (particularly in my field of religious studies) integral theories of religion that apply developmental theories of worldviews to particular religious mentalities.

[5-"The Imperial Gene"] Human civilizations are, moreover, innately imperialistic. Imperialism is the lust for dominance and control over others that lies at the heart of civilizations. If a particular civilization acquires enough power, it is usually tempted to use that power to exert control over others. That has often happened in history when one human group moves out to conquer and dominate other groups. 

[6-Western Imperialism] At a certain point in world history, Western civilizations acquired tremendous power through advances in science, technology, and the production of goods that resulted in the development of better means of transportation, more powerful means to wage war and other intellectual and material resources. This power was a catalyst for certain Western powers to exert their dominance over "weaker" groups either in the West itself or beyond the West. When Westerners conquered other non-Western groups, they also developed a hubris that made them think that their own Western civilization was superior to the conquered ones.

I happen to apply the framework here to Western civilization because of our particular topic but it is important to remember that the barbarism, violence, imperialism, and the hubris of civilization are not only "Western" problems. They are universal problems that appear when the conditions are right or when this particular "wolf is fed." I am half-Japanese and I lived in Japan for a long time. Thus, I know very well that in Asia for example, Japan, a non-Western imperial power, is a clear example of malevolent imperialism in recent history. One can also look at the history of slavery around the world to see that it is a universal barbarism that has been practiced in varying forms in all civilizations.

[7-The Process of Colonization] Here in North America, when Westerners arrived from Europe and encountered the indigenous people who were already living here, all the above-mentioned factors came together and produced a "perfect storm" as it were, that would be disastrous for the indigenous people. The Europeans brought their civilization with them and colonized this land (as they did elsewhere in the world). While we acknowledge that European civilization has many good things in it, we must also point out that the colonization process was characterized by all of the above-mentioned factors, namely, an ethnocentric mentality that was convinced of the superiority of Western civilization and its religion (Christianity) and that looked down upon other cultures as inferior. Present also was an imperialistic lust bent on conquering people, obtaining their lands, and making the new land into a colony that would benefit the mother country at the expense of the original inhabitants of the land. This whole process, moreover, frequently utilized barbaric violence to achieve and maintain such a colonial order. 

I am referring to my present location--North America. If this process is applied though to different settings in the world and historical periods, it will show that there are remarkable similarities in the patterns that imperial powers use to colonize other people and lands. Imperialism and colonialism then are fundamental human problems. Here in North America though, the aggressors were Europeans and their descendants.

Jesus as Source of a Spirituality that Transforms the World

 

Christ of the Breadlines by Fritz Eichenberg

Jesus of Nazareth

Source of a Spirituality that Acts to Transform the World 

--Key Summary Statements: A Bare-Bones Description-- 

Introduction 

In this piece, I would like to propose Jesus of Nazareth as a major source of a spirituality that is both rooted in a non-dual/unitive consciousness of reality (everyone and everything as One in God) and acts to transform the world into a better place where “Shalom” is present. I will take “Shalom” to mean: the totality of all good and wholesome things, particularly, benevolence, social justice, peace, inclusivity, compassion, forgiveness, and harmony.

To that end, let me begin by stating that Jesus of Nazareth --acknowledged as “the Christ” (as recoverable by a balanced historical-critical study of the New Testament)-- is supposed to be the heart of Christian faith and spirituality. (This assertion is from Catholic theologian Hans Küng.)

Before going further, let us start by situating the figure of Jesus, his cause, his teaching, and ministry, within the context of the world’s great spiritual-wisdom traditions and the many spiritual masters throughout human history. In this way, we could see both the commonalities and the distinguishing characteristics that Jesus has vis-à-vis other sages and their traditions. Thus, we could also be more aware of both the commonalities that the Christian tradition shares with other wisdom-spiritual paths and the particular characteristics that give it its special character, albeit free of any claim of superiority. 

Let’s begin then by describing what many spiritual teachers have called “the Perennial Philosophy.” It is a theory that attempts to describe the common spiritual core present in all humans and all spiritual-wisdom traditions. It can also be considered the root of all spirituality.

For descriptions of what I mean by "religion" and "spirituality," consult my essay: Why Religion and Spirituality Matter as Part of One's Education

Part 1 – The Perennial Philosophy

Source for Part 1: Roger Walsh MD, PhD, Essential Spirituality: The Seven Central Practices to Awaken Heart and Mind (Wiley, 1999), pp. 6-9. I have done some minor annotations and revisions to the text. 

[1] What’s the “Perennial Philosophy”?|  Thanks to global communication, for the first time in history, we have all the world's religions, their wisdom and their practices, available to us.  ... What do the different [spiritual-wisdom] traditions have in common?

Beneath the hundreds of different cultures, claims, and customs, there lies a common core of both wisdom and practice at the heart of each authentic tradition. By "authentic tradition," I mean one capable of offering a direct experience of the sacred, and of fostering true spiritual growth and maturity in its practitioners. 

Many scholars and spiritual practitioners have called the essential common core of religious wisdom "the perennial wisdom" or "perennial philosophy" (PP). Why "perennial"? Because these profound insights into life have endured across centuries and cultures and have been taught by the great sages of all time

Developed over thousands of years, the perennial philosophy is a treasure house of humankind's curated wisdom. Vast in scope, profound in depth, it offers numberless insights into the nature of life and love, health and happiness, suffering and salvation.

At its heart lie four crucial claims--actually observations--since they are based on direct insights by advanced spiritual practitioners about reality and human nature.

For Further Elaboration: Materialist and Spiritual views of reality;

 

[2] (First Thesis of the PP) There are multiple dimensions in reality. (In Walsh's words: There are two realms of reality)

[jkk] In order to avoid being too “dualistic,” I would rephrase this to: Reality is greater than what we can access with our senses and what science can empirically prove at this point.

The first is the everyday realm with which we are all familiar, the world of physical objects and living creatures. This is the realm accessible to us via sight and sound and studied by sciences such as physics and biology.

But beneath these familiar phenomena lies another realm far more subtle and profound: the realm of God, of “the Spirit” (also known as the realm of Consciousness, Mind, the “Ground of Being”, the “Sacred”, Tao [道- Japanese, michi – Way] and other names). This dimension cannot be known through the physical senses and only indirectly through the physical instruments of science. Moreover, this realm creates and embraces the physical realm and is its source. This domain is not limited by space or time or physical laws, and hence it is unbounded and infinite, timeless and eternal.

[3] (Second Thesis of the PP) Human beings partake of both realms

We are not only physical but also spiritual beings. We have bodies but we also have at the core of our being, in the depths of our minds a centre of transcendent awareness. This centre is described as pure consciousness, mind, spirit or Self and is known by such names as the neshamah of Judaism, the soul or “divine spark” of Christianity, the atman of Hinduism or the "Buddha nature" of Buddhism. This divine spark is intimately related to--some traditions even say inseparable from and identical with--the sacred ground or foundation of all reality. We are not divorced from the sacred but eternally and intimately linked to it.

[4] (Third Thesis of the PP) Human beings can recognize their divine spark and the secret ground that is its source  

What this implies--this is absolutely crucial--is that the claims of the perennial philosophy do not have to be accepted blindly. Rather each of us can test them for ourselves and decide their validity based on our direct experience.  Although the soul or innermost Self (because it is non-physical) cannot be known by the senses or the instruments of science, it can be known by careful introspection [jkk annotation] and by practicing some essential practices recommended by the world’s spiritual-wisdom traditions that could awaken heart and mind. (See the link below)

This is not necessarily easy. Although anyone can be graced with spontaneous glimpses, clear sustained vision of our sacred depths usually requires significant practice to clarify awareness sufficiently. This is the purpose of spiritual practice. When the mind is still and clear, we can have a direct experience of our “Self.” This is not a concept of, nor an intellectual theory about, the Self. Rather, it is an immediate knowing, a direct intuition in which one not only sees the divine spark but also identifies with and recognizes that one is the spark. Sages from Judaism and Sufism, from Plato to Buddha, from Meister Eckhart to Lao Tsu have agreed on this. 

…

Compared to this direct realization of the sacred, mere book learning and theoretical knowledge are very poor substitutes, as far removed from direct experience as a text on human reproduction is from the embrace of a lover. 

  

[5] (Fourth Thesis of the PP) The perennial philosophy's fourth claim is that realizing our spiritual nature is the summum bonum: the highest goal and greatest good of human existence   

Beside this, all other goals pale; all other delights only partly satisfy. No other experience is so ecstatic, no other attainment so rewarding, no other goal so beneficial to oneself or others.  ... 

Again this is not wild dogma to be accepted merely on the word of others or on blind faith. Rather, it is an expression of the direct experience of those who have tasted these fruits for themselves. Most importantly, it is an invitation to all of us to test and taste for ourselves. 

** [end of excerpt from Walsh’s work] **

 

How does one concretely go about—what the Perennial Tradition calls— realizing “our highest good” or waking up to our spiritual nature? The same Prof. Roger Walsh spent 3 years researching all the major spiritual and religious traditions of the world and he summarized what he calls “essential practices” that all the greatest sages and spiritual practitioners throughout history have engaged in for the purpose of awakening heart and mind. You can read a summary of these essential spiritual practices HERE 

For Further Elaboration: Spiritual Experience; Unitive, Non-Dual Consciousness;  

Let us now proceed to reflect on Jesus of Nazareth, the central distinguishing factor of Christian faith, within the context of spirituality outlined above and how Jesus himself can be the source of a spirituality that acts in order to transform the world into a better reflection of “the Reign (or Kingdom) of God.”

 

Part 2 - Jesus of Nazareth as a Great Contemplative-in-Action

[6] Jesus as Sage and “Spiritual Master”

Jesus of Nazareth, believed in as “the Christ” (the anointed one), is often predominantly portrayed as divine in Christianity. That unfortunately obscures the fact that before he was worshipped as God, Jesus as a historical figure, as a flesh-and-blood Jewish person who lived in the First Century CE, was, without doubt, a profound mystical-contemplative “Spirit Person” (cf. Marcus Borg) who let his deep spirituality overflow into powerful action to realize concretely a kind of “order” that he called “the reign of God” (aka, “the Kingdom of God”) in his own concrete place and time. (Notice that the “reign of God” is, first and foremost, supposed to be present in the here and now and not in some otherworldly paradise or heaven.)

In other words, Jesus of Nazareth can very rightly be considered a “contemplative-in-action” or a model of the balance between contemplation and action. He is one of the great sages and spirit persons in human history (such as the Buddha, Lao-Tzu, the Prophet Muhammad, etc.) who were experientially connected to a greater reality and who made that non-dual/unitive experience the vision for transforming the world. By “non-dual/unitive experience” we mean: the experiential knowledge of sages and spiritual practitioners that everyone and everything are all united with “the ONE.” It is clear that these spiritual practitioners and masters are living embodiments of the principles of the perennial philosophy stated above.

For further elaboration: What is the “non-dual” or “unitive” experience or consciousness? How can we cultivate an appropriate spirituality? How to do a Meditation-Mindfulness practice? Lectio Divina? Discernment practices? Roger Walsh’s ‘Seven Essential Practices’ to Awaken Mind and Heart can be an important reference (see link above); Illustrate with a spiritual experience (e.g. Thomas Merton’s).

Consider the Catholic monk Thomas Merton’s “unitive” experience while walking on a city street:

In Louisville, at the corner of Fourth and Walnut, in the center of the shopping district, I was suddenly overwhelmed with the realization that I loved all those people, that they were mine and I theirs, that we could not be alien to one another even though we were total strangers. It was like waking from a dream of separateness, of spurious self-isolation in a special world, the world of renunciation and supposed holiness…

This sense of liberation from an illusory difference was such a relief and such a joy to me that I almost laughed out loud… I have the immense joy of being man, a member of a race in which God Himself became incarnate. As if the sorrows and stupidities of the human condition could overwhelm me, now I realize what we all are. And if only everybody could realize this! But it cannot be explained. There is no way of telling people that they are all walking around shining like the sun.”

Then it was as if I suddenly saw the secret beauty of their hearts, the depths of their hearts, where neither sin nor desire nor self-knowledge can reach, the core of their reality, the person that each one is in God’s eyes. If only they could all see themselves as they really are.  If only we could see each other that way all the time.

(from Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander, 1966)

What's the Meaning of Life and Other Perplexing Questions

 Four Perplexing Questions: Why is there no “happily ever after”? / What is true love? / What’s the meaning of life? / Why “Happiness” may not be the best word to describe your life goal?

(These reflections are already part of our efforts to review the different things we’ve been studying so far in this course on the perplexing issues of life. Please watch the four short video clips from the SOL on the four perplexing issues presented here.)

Review: The Greater Reality, the Big Background and Faith

     One of the major things I’ve been arguing for so far in this course on the so-called “Perplexing Issues” of life is this: Having the “Big Background” provided by the spiritual-wisdom traditions (the religions) of the world is an important help in enabling us to give better responses to the many perplexing issues (existential questions, ultimate questions) of life. And that “Big Background” can be accessed by the attitude of being (at least) open to the possibility, or even having faith-trust that there is a bigger dimension of reality, one that is not yet accessible by conventional science but has been taught by the spiritual-wisdom traditions from the very beginning. This bigger “Spirit” dimension that encompasses everything else is also known in various spiritual-wisdom traditions as “God”, “the Sacred”, “the Numinous”, “the Ultimate”, etc. 

    Many of the greatest sages and spiritual teachers in history have claimed that they experientially know this greater dimension through spiritual experience (AKA, mystical/contemplative/religious experiences). There are techniques that can increase the possibility of experiencing directly this sacred dimension taught and transmitted by practically all the spiritual-wisdom traditions. (If you want to review what philosopher Ken Wilber says about that, please go here.) 

    This view which acknowledges that humans exist in and can access material and spiritual dimensions is expressed in what is called "the Perennial Philosophy." If you want to review what the “Perennial Philosophy” claims about reality, please go here. 

 

   When that openness to the “Greater Reality” is in place, we acquire a wider and better perspective of reality and the bigger context of where we are in our efforts to give responses to the different perplexing issues of life. As we learned when we covered the topic of “Faith” (faith as a fundamental attitude of trust in the goodness of reality), this faith is the source of our continuing decision to trust that reality is good and that life is worth living and even fighting for.

     If you want to review what we discussed about faith-as-trust, go here. 

 

Four Other Perplexing Issues

     With that fundamental attitude of openness to and optimism for life, we can better go about trying to give more concrete responses to the different perplexing issues and existential questions of life. Here, I will suggest tackling these following big questions:

·         Where are we going (in an existential sense)?

·         What is true love?

·         What’s the meaning of life?

·         What is a better way than the word “happiness” to express our goal in life?

     To give some responses to these questions, I’ll be enlisting the help of the School of Life (SOL) once again. You already know them well. You know that the SOL is basically a secular school of philosophy. You can review the “eight rules” of the school of life here. 

     So, what you’ll get from the SOL are basically secular answers to these questions. Still, I think that the SOL has many excellent insights that we can use in practical life and if one has the “bigger background” (I refer to above) to complement the insights of the SOL, I think one can acquire an even deeper spiritual wisdom! (For a further discussion of the SOL's philosophy set in the context of a "Greater Reality," please go here.)

Where are We Going?

     This question can be asked in different senses. Here we are posing this question in an existential sense. This can be expressed alternatively as: Where is my life headed? What should I aim for in life? What are the “goals” that would give my life greater meaning? We often dream of a “happily ever after” goal to our life and efforts. This dream can be the cause of the many attachments and cravings we have in life. Recall that many spiritual-wisdom traditions (such as Buddhism and also Christianity) tell us that cravings and attachments can be a big obstacle for us to acquire true wisdom. Roger Walsh in his ‘Seven Essential Practices’ has, as practice #1: Transform your motivation: Reduce craving and find your soul's desire. You can review these practices here.

     However, in its usual brutally frank yet wise way, the SOL tells us starkly: “There is NO ‘happily ever after’”. The “goal” of living is the “journey” itself! View this short film (5:37) and reflect on it - Why There’s No Happily Ever After. 

What is True Love?

     Love is commonly known as “the greatest” thing in life (see 1 Corinthians 13:13). So one of the most urgent perplexing issues is: What is true love? I’m sure that you have heard many explanations of love both religious and secular. In line with this, the same Roger Walsh in his ‘Seven Essential Practices’ has, as practice #2: Cultivate emotional wisdom: Heal your heart and learn to love.

     I think that the SOL has a fresh perspective on the nature of true love. View this short film (5:37) and reflect on it - What True Love Really Is.

What’s the Meaning of Life?

     Of course this question is one of the most asked existential questions. Each religious or spiritual-wisdom tradition tries to give us answers to this urgent question. Let’s see what the SOL suggests about this question – (4:59) What’s the Meaning of Life? 

Is the "Pursuit of Happiness" the Major Goal of Life?

     This is another one of the “biggies.” Nowadays, we often hear that the pursuit of happiness is one major goal of life. But is it really? Why is there so much unhappiness both in our lives and in the lives of others? Here is another fresh perspective from the SOL. It says that perhaps the word “happiness” is not the best way to express the goal of life. It then takes a hint from ancient Greek philosophy and urges us to consider instead an alternative way to express what we should be trying to reach in life – Why ‘Happiness’ is a Useless Word and an Alternative (3:28).

***

    You don't have to agree with any of the above perspectives. What is more important is that you listen with an open-minded attitude to different perspectives, reflect on them, and formulate your own critically thought-out answers to those different perplexing questions of life.

What is Religion? Six Insightful Statements (from Marcus Borg) to Describe It

 

What is Religion? Six Insightful Statements to Describe It

By the late Marcus Borg (biblical scholar and theologian)

Found in the public domain at the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHIv-c-Rpzw&t=0s&index=2&list=WL  /  (from 08:30 to 21:05) / Annotations by Julius-Kei Kato

(The main text is a transcript of Marcus Borg’s talk. Italicized parts within square brackets [ ] are my own [jkk’s] annotations.)

 

Marcus Borg:  I will develop this part of my lecture by describing a general understanding of religions with six statements. All six statements are commonly affirmed within the academic study of religion. That is, there is widespread agreement amongst scholars of religion about these statements. In each case, I will put the statement into a very short sentence and then of course explain it.

 

[1] Religions as Cultural-Linguistic Traditions

First statement about religions: "Religions are cultural - linguistic traditions." That’s pretty abstract but it's actually a very helpful definition. Let me repeat it: Religions are cultural-linguistic traditions and I owe this language to George Lindbeck of Yale Divinity School. I'm not sure that it’s original with him, but that's where I ran into it. And what it means to say is that each religion originates within a particular culture. And thus, it uses the language and symbols of that culture. So, in that sense each religion is a cultural-linguistic tradition. Moreover, if that religion survives for any length of time and, of course, all major religions have. If that religion survives, it becomes a cultural-linguistic tradition in its own right. That is, it becomes a way of construing the world, of structuring the world, and it has its own particular language and symbols.

     And thus, being Christian or Jewish or Muslim is a little bit like being French or Italian. To be French means not only knowing French (the language). It also means knowing something about the ethos of being French. It means to have lived within a French world and to have that world structure your vision of life. And of course there's a sense in which being religious is different from this as well because it is a much more universal identity - one that transcends national, ethnic, and racial boundaries but nevertheless it is very helpful to think of religions as cultural-linguistic traditions, each with its own language, symbols, etc.

 

[2] Religions as Human Constructions

Second statement about religions, "Religions are human constructions". Religions are human constructions or human products. This is a corollary of the first statement of religions as cultural-linguistic traditions. Religions are human creations and, within that, I'm including their scriptures. Their scriptures are human products, and thus for Christians, the Bible is a human product. The religions’ teachings, their doctrines, their rituals, and their practices, all of these are human creations, human constructions.

     This time I'll use a phrase from a Harvard religious scholar, Gordon Kaufman. Kaufman speaks of religions as " Imaginative human constructions." And by imaginative he doesn't mean imagined, imaginative and sort of a negative sense of the word as when we say about something that sounds really far-fetched or that's really imaginative, not in that sense but imaginative in the sense of both creative, as well as using the language of the imagination, the language of images and symbols, and story, and so forth.

     Now, of course not all religious people would agree with this statement that, "Religions are human products or human constructions." Within the three major Western Religions, the Abrahamic traditions, as they are commonly called, there are many who would say that their religion comes from God, that it's a divine product and not a human product. I think you are all aware that official Muslim teaching is that, the Koran was dictated by Allah to Muhammad. Within Judaism, Orthodox Jews, not all Jews but Orthodox Jews typically affirm that the Torah including the laws given to Moses on Mount Sinai that are included in the Pentateuch but also the ‘Oral Torah’, all of it was given directly by God to Moses. And of course, fundamentalist Christians typically claim that the Bible is a divine product, and thus infallible and inerrant. But, within the framework of the academic study of religion, these claims look like a common human tendency to ground their sacred traditions in God. That is, if lots of religious traditions say this (that “our traditions come from God”), we can say then that one of the characteristics of religions is that they tend to ground their traditions in divine origin. 

[When seen in a humanistic way, we can say that, in order to strengthen the claims that religions make, some of the key figures involved in the institutionalization of a particular religious tradition established at a certain point in history the notion that this particular religion (e.g. Christianity) was “revealed” directly by God. Seen from a more theological or faith perspective, we can say that religions often have their origins in a powerful religious/spiritual experience of certain people at the start of the religion’s history. Reflecting on their profound spiritual experience, they concluded that this experience was a revelation of God, hence, the religion that was born out of that experience “came from God”.]

 

[Borg’s statements #1 and #2 are not theological evaluations of religions. That is, they do not come from a perspective of faith. They are a result of looking at the phenomenon of religion from a purely humanistic standpoint. We can consider them, therefore, as coming from the discipline of religious studies, which does not presuppose any faith but studies religion as a human phenomenon. The statements below, however, contain some faith perspectives. Although they are still affirmed by many in the academic study of religion, they can be considered as grounded more in the discipline of theology, which presupposes religious faith but tries to deepen its understanding of faith through reason.]

 

[3] Religions as Human Responses to the Experience of the Sacred

Now, those first two statements both stress the human origins of religion. The third statement brings God back into the picture, namely, "Religions are responses to the experience of the sacred or the experience of God, or the spirit." Those terms are ones I use synonymously and interchangeably. I take the reality of God very seriously. I am utterly convinced that there is a “More,” to use [philosopher and psychologist] William James's marvellously generic term for the sacred -- a stupendous, wondrous “More,” and I am convinced that this "More" has been experienced in every human culture, and that the origin of the major religious traditions lies in experiences of the "More". So, I see religions as human products but as human products created as response to the experience of the sacred in the particular culture within which each emerged.

 

[4] Religions as Wisdom Traditions

My fourth statement, "Religions are wisdom traditions." And I owe this statement to a man I'm honored to call my friend, Huston Smith [He was a widely respected US professor of world religions]. He speaks about this a lot--of religions being wisdom traditions. Wisdom (in both religion and philosophy) is concerned with the questions: "How shall I live?", "What is life about?" [Religion attempts to respond to humans’ most perplexing questions – also known as “ultimate” or “existential” questions.]  This is what the religions to a large extent are about. They are disclosures of how to live, and by that I don't mean just morals but something more comprehensive than that. They are disclosures of what life and reality are about, and it's not just that they have responses to that question, but they are the accumulated wisdom of the past of centuries of thinkers. [An insightful way to refer to the activity of learning about religions is the expression A.W.E. ‘Ancestral Wisdom Education’, as proposed by theologian Matthew Fox.] This wisdom ranges from very practical wisdom to theological and metaphysical wisdom. The religions are a treasure trove of wisdom.

 

[5] Religions as Means of Ultimate Transformation

Fifth statement: Religions are means of ultimate transformation. I'll repeat the sentence, religions are means of ultimate transformation, and I owe this short statement to Fredrick Strang, author of An Introduction to Religion textbook, published some 25 years ago or so now. Let me unpack that definition. Religions are means; it's partly that they're not ends, okay, but it's also that they are means in the sense of that they have a very practical purpose; and that practical purpose is ultimate transformation. And when we speak of ultimate transformation, we mean not just psychological transformation (important as that is) but ultimate transformation in the sense of spiritual transformation, in the sense of the transformation of the self at its deepest level. That is the very practical purpose of religion, and that transformation is from an old way of being to new way of being, from an old identity to a new identity. And the fruit or product of this transformation across religious traditions is compassion, becoming more compassionate beings. This is central to all the major religions and the saints of the various traditions look very similar in this respect.

 

[6] Religions as Sacraments of the Sacred

And sixth, and finally, "Religions are sacraments of the sacred." Religions are sacraments of the sacred. Now, let me define the word sacrament here. Those of us who are Christians are familiar of course with the two universal sacraments of the Protestant and Catholic traditions and then of course the five additional sacraments of the Catholic tradition itself. But I'm using the word sacrament in a broader sense and not just to refer to those two or those seven.

     Namely, a sacrament is a mediator of the sacred, or a sacrament is mediator of the spirit. A sacrament is anything finite and visible through which the spirit becomes present to us. Now, in this broad sense, nature can be a sacrament; music can be a sacrament. Okay, virtually everything in human history has, for somebody, been a means whereby the Spirit has been mediated to them. [This is the meaning of “a sacrament” in the broad sense: Something that makes the sacred present and tangible for us humans in our world.] 

     Now, to apply this definition to religions, the purpose of religions is to mediate the sacred [to make “the Sacred” present and tangible in a concrete way]. The purpose of their scriptures, their rituals, their practices is to become a vehicle or a vessel for the sacred to become present to us. Now, if one takes this seriously, it also has an effect upon what we think being religious means. Within the Christian tradition over the last 300 years (especially for Protestants but for Catholics as well because this is generally true of what's happened in Western Christianity since the Enlightenment), there's been an enormous emphasis on ‘believing’ as what it means to be a Christian: that to be a Christian means believing in the Bible and Jesus, and God, or in Christianity, or whatever. Well, if you see religions as a sacrament, the point is not to believe in the sacrament. The point is to live within the tradition and let the sacrament do its work within you; to let the sacrament mediate the reality of the sacred to you. And it seems to me that this is the purpose of the Buddhist tradition, the Muslim tradition, the Jewish traditions, and so forth -- that they are means whereby the sacred becomes present to people and works within people.

*****

How to Meditate? My Suggestion - "Vital Reading"

 

Meditation Described Briefly (by spirituality teacher Roger Walsh)

Meditation is a universal practice found in practically all spiritual-wisdom traditions. It is basically a concentration technique that has two key elements: 

1. First, choosing a focus for attention. This is usually one's breathing (in and out). But it can be extended to an emotion, a thought, a part of one's body, etc. It can even be applied to a sacred word or mantra (as it is done in the prayer-practice known as "centering prayer"). 
2. Second, when one notices that one's attention has wandered elsewhere, gently bring it back to the point of focus.

The heart of the method is to gently turn your attention back when it wanders to other places. Our minds--as Buddhism often teaches--are like restless, wild monkeys that jump from tree to tree ("the monkey mind"). When one can tame this restless, wandering mind and train it to focus on something, then the spiritual path can progress in earnest. (cf. Roger Walsh, Essential Spirituality, pp. 155-56)

A Suggestion on How to Meditate - A "Vital Reading"

For the absolute beginner, I would recommend starting with 10 minutes every day and aim to expand that eventually to 15~20 minutes. For people who are especially addicted to being mentally engaged (often, distracted) with technological gadgets, that can seem daunting. But it is necessary to resolve and set out to "just do it" (as the Nike ad says).

There is a popular spiritual practice in the Catholic Christian tradition called the "Lectio Divina." That means "Sacred [Divine] Reading." It is a time-tested and proven method of reading the scriptures in a prayerful manner. It is based on a simple method that can be summarized in the following steps: (1) Read -- (2) Think -- (3) Pray -- (4) Act.

I will adopt and tweak a bit the 'Sacred Reading' method and propose it to beginners or people who want to progress further in their meditation practice. First, I'll rename the practice to "Lectio Vitalis" (Latin) which I take to mean "a life-sustaining reading." We can call it in English "Vital Reading" for the time being and take "vital" to mean primarily "life-giving, life-sustaining, life-affirming," but also as "important" for cultivating and sustaining one's spirituality.

I name it this way because this practice is meant to sustain us in our life and help us both to go deeper within and also transcend ourselves. In this way, we tap into the resources that--the spiritual wisdom traditions say--can sustain, affirm and lead us to greater peace, balance, and wholeness. It is not only meant for religious believers but for everyone as long as they feel that they can use meditation for its many potential health, psychological, and spiritual benefits, as even science clearly shows nowadays. It is described as a "reading" because it presupposes an attitude of openness and listening to what life itself is teaching us - adopting an attitude that Zen Buddhism calls "the Beginner's Mind" (初心者). All of that is what the expression "vital reading" implies. 

The method I propose here will take the traditional lectio divina steps with a few tweaks. Instead of "Read" as step one, I will add--what I think--is a more fundamental first step. Let me propose the following steps then (BReTMA):

1. Breathe
2. Read (or Recall)
3. Think
4. Meditate
5. Act

The Method: Nuts and Bolts

The different steps explained more in detail:

1. Breathe - This is the time to quiet and calm your heart and mind. Concentrate exclusively for a short while on the breath (deep in-breath / deep out-breath) until you experience some measure of inner calm. Note well that in many contemporary explanations of meditation (whether secular or broadly "Eastern"), this first phase is already what meditation is all about. This is what one should mainly be doing during one's meditation time. If you feel that you want to adopt that practice because you feel that going to the other steps would "clutter" your meditation practice too much, that is of course OK and good. Refer to the simple description of Roger Walsh above. If you feel you need more structure though, you can proceed to the other steps.
2. Read / Recall - You can use a literal text here or--what I'd like to call-- a "life text". I use "text" in the wider sense of the term. A "text" can refer to practically anything (an event, something you read, something you witnessed, a phrase you heard in a movie, a beautiful nature scene, etc.) that struck you or stood out for you recently and to which you would like to direct some reflective and meditative attention. Remember: when something "strikes" you, that usually means you need to discern some important lesson from that thing because it has a special significance for where you are in life now. If you use a written text, it can be your religious tradition's scripture (Bible, Quran, Teachings of the Buddha, etc.) or a book with short excerpts that is good for meditation purposes (for example, short passages from spiritual teachers or collections of great teachings). It is not advisable to read passages that are too long.
3. Think - This is when you reflect on what you have read (or the "thing" that stood out to you from life). This phase is when we engage in the active, cognitive reflection on what we have just "read". We actively discourse about it interiorly, in our minds: trying to understand more deeply its meaning and implications, drawing out conclusions, making connections, etc. We can also ask ourselves: What does the text say to me? Religious believers can also incorporate prayer into this phase.
4. Meditate - I differentiate "think" from "meditate." In this "meditate" phase, we tone down the busy interior cognitive/reflective activities going on in our minds about the text, select a key word, phrase, or thought (like a mantra or a "sacred word" in the practice called "Centering Prayer") and savour it, make it sink deeply into ourselves by slowly repeating it for a while. This is a move away from active thinking to a more "contemplative" phase in the process.
5. Act - We end the session by asking ourselves 'How will I act in response to the reading I've just done?'. Then we go back to life and try to practice our resolution.

Those steps might make the 10-15 minutes of 'Vital Reading' survivable for absolute beginners, right? For more advanced practitioners, this process will definitely be "too busy," way too active and structured. Feel free to tweak it as you see fit. Those steps are not set in stone at all. The main goal is  to train your mind to be less distracted and focus for a little while on a point that will hopefully lead to more interior peace, balance, and wisdom. 

The God-Question and What Really is “Faith in God”?

 

PART 1: Dimensions of the God-Question

“God” as a “Symbol” of the Human Effort to Wrestle with Life 

     As humans, we wrestle with life and its many apparent absurdities. I have come to conclude after many years of studying religion that, seen from a humanistic standpoint, “god” is primarily a symbol of the human effort to wrestle with life’s difficult questions … such as the “why” of natural calamities or epidemics (very relevant to us in now 2020-21 as I write!). In other words, when humans try to make sense especially of great suffering (such as the one caused by the COVID-19 pandemic), many of them have and continue to invoke “god,” imagining a supernatural and powerful Being with the ability to stop disasters from happening or to turn things around when the situation becomes quite bad. Again, analyzed from a humanistic standpoint, a god who might directly intervene to alleviate the world’s suffering primarily seems to be a symbol of the trust and hope that continue to live on in our hearts, which in turn give us the strength and courage to go on with the struggle as we face the different painful challenges that beset us in life. I understand and respect that. However, I also want to acknowledge its severe limitations.

     On the positive side, “god” is also a symbol of the human effort to dance with the glorious aspects of life. This has to be kept in mind too although here we will deal with the connection between “god” and dealing with suffering.

     Now, as we have seen, Christianity (and, as far as I know, any other religious tradition) has no easy and conclusive answers to the question of <why do life’s sufferings happen?>. To expand on that by rephrasing it, let me say unambiguously that the “God” invoked by Christianity usually does not have answers to the big “Why” question of calamities such as chaos-generating and deadly epidemics. It’s enough to look at God’s answer to the fabled Old Testament character Job when he requests some answers to the question of his undeserved suffering. God in the book (Job 38-39) proclaims that human wisdom just cannot plumb the mysteriousness of God’s ways (recall “limit experiences”) and so it (human knowledge-wisdom) amounts to nothing before God. That is another way to say that all our human efforts to understand the wherefore and whither, the why and the <to what end?> of suffering are practically pointless in a sense, because we will never get any satisfactory answers.

     Even Jesus in the New Testament gospels does not make an effort to answer these questions. Rather, what the Christian tradition (embodied especially in Jesus) presents is an invitation and a summons (and this is very important), first, to refrain from judging, because we really do not know everything; second, to be compassionate for the sufferings that all of us have to endure; and, third, to act resolutely and lovingly to alleviate suffering.

     But the plot thickens with regard to the god-question. If that is so, what use is there for “god” then? Is it any good to have faith in a god who seemingly cannot even supply us with adequate answers to our questions about the apparent random suffering that is visited upon us in life (such as COVID-19)?

     I think that this question is crucially important especially for people who consider themselves religious believers. Some will simply choose to ignore it for fear of rocking the boat too much and losing their “simple, childhood” faith. As a scholar of religion and theology, I have wrestled with this question through the years and I’ve realized that unless one faces this gnawing question squarely in the face and attempts to give some response to it, I’m afraid one will never shed a childish faith and advance to a more mature stage of being a believer. So let me share my two cents’ worth coming from some of my efforts over a long time to make sense of the God-question.

 

“God” as a Hypothesis about Reality

     One of the most useful and thorough books (although a bit on the cerebral side) on the questions of
God’s existence and nature that I’ve come upon thus far has been the Catholic theologian Hans Küng’s Does God Exist? An Answer for Today [1980]. There Küng uses a good amount of space to survey and analyze the many efforts to prove, be agnostic about, or deny the existence of God through the centuries. When he comes at last to stating his major conclusions about God’s existence and nature, he starts by positing God as a human hypothesis. God as a hypothesis, Küng proposes, would be the answer to humanity’s most ultimate questions. Apropos that, we can say that these three following questions are probably the most important and consistent “ultimate” questions that human beings have asked:  Who are we? Where do we come from? Where are we going?

     Küng points out that if God does exist (hypothetically!) there would be meaningful answers to those questions. Therefore, in answer to ‘Who are we?’, God would be the ultimate ground of being that defines our identity: We (and all of reality) are all grounded in God; we carry in ourselves—as the Bible says—the divine image (Imago Dei). Thus, God is the “primal ground” for all life and reality.

     In answer to ‘Where do we come from?’, God would be the source, the creator and sustainer of all human and natural existence. God is then the “primal support” of everything.  Finally, in answer to ‘Where are we going?’, God would be the (primal) goal in whom everyone and everything will ultimately find their fulfillment.

     Therefore, the ideal hypothetical situation is that all human and natural life takes on a deeper meaning with this awesome “God” as the ground, support, and goal of everything that is. And that would make life definitely worth living to the full, despite the acute menace of fate and death, apparent emptiness and meaninglessness, sin and suffering. This, I can say, is a rather sophisticated way of expressing the traditional God-believer’s ultimate reasons for having belief in God.

 

The Unprovability of God - Revelation

     Let me underline that in the reflections above, God, we can say, is a hypothesis that humans have and continue to put forward in order to make sense of life. However, there is one big problem that is seldom stated in a straightforward way: It is commonly acknowledged in the discipline called the philosophy of religion that, despite the best efforts of many brilliant minds throughout history, there is actually no definitive way to prove conclusively this hypothesis that God exists. What Küng has stated above is merely that, if the hypothesis of God were true, then all life and existence would take on a deeper and fuller meaning.

     Meanwhile, religious traditions (such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) have emphasized the notion of divine revelation: that God has—it is believed—revealed to some chosen humans the very nature of the Divine and also certain firm truths about God and about life which are trustworthy and reliable.

     Well, I don’t like to enter too deeply into this line of discussion here. Let me just state my personal and very honest opinion on the notion of revelation. I may sound like an agnostic here but bear with me: I honestly think that the concept of revelation just does not speak anymore to many people in our contemporary world—especially people who have not been raised to believe that there is a God. Moreover, a detailed historical study of, say, Christianity and of its different supposedly firm and solid revelations (as I have done professionally for practically my whole life as a scholar of religion) will reveal instead that these grandiose claims about “revealed truths” should always be taken more modestly because all so-called “truths” (that not only Christianity but practically any religion proclaims) actually bear the tell-tale marks that they are all too human (more than divine!)—that is, these “truths” are anthropologically, historically, and culturally conditioned in a radical way. 

    It is seldom acknowledged that these very “human” truths have been imbued with an aura of sacredness and infallibility by some authority in the tradition’s history more than anything else for the purpose of forging a given community’s identity through a common belief in supposedly “revealed truths” rather than as a witness to conclusively demonstrable truths. Despite that, I continue to be a person of faith-trust for reasons I cannot explain sufficiently here but let me just say now that I am a very, very “modest” believer (hoping that I will have to explain my reasons for being so on another occasion). For these reasons, I do not usually like to take the path of “divine revelation” when attempting to speak about “God” to present-day people (to myself first and foremost!) who are on the whole historically conscious and are trained to think critically through things.

     The more fruitful path to take for me when we attempt to study religion and the idea of God (or gods) nowadays, especially when it is done in the context of a growing number of people in my (Western) context who consider themselves SBNR (Spiritual but not Religious), “Dones” (We’re “done” with religion!), or “Nones” (We have NO religion!), is rather to understand religion and the idea that there might be a God as first and foremost a human endeavour to search for meaning. “God” functions then as a way that humans have made use of in order to add meaning to life or to make some sense of life—life which many times can be very mysterious indeed.

     Can there be other ways of making life meaningful other than positing the God hypothesis? Of course there are! This is by no means the only way to “create meaning.” But it is probably the way by which most people have tried to make sense of life and reality throughout human history. That is why it is still important that we study the God-question if we are to understand humans and everything connected with them.

What Comes After Religion? - Transcript and Annotations

 

School of Life: What Comes After Religion? (Please watch the video first!)

Published: Feb 4, 2015

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL--1Z_g4DE&list=PLV7Diz4DTv4mnAutv5CEqN7Y9HRKmejor&index=18

Accessed: 2021-02-01

(The main text is a transcript of the ‘School of Life’ video. Sub-headings and parts in blue are my own annotations. The concluding reflections are also my own)

Secularization

Fewer and fewer people believe nowadays. It's possible that in a generation, there simply won't be religion across Europe and large sections of North America, Australia and Asia. That 's not necessarily a problem.

Above, we find a brief description of the rapid process of secularization taking place in the so-called “developed world.” Of course, institutional religions think that this loss of faith and belief is a problem. How do you see the matter? Is the demise of religious belief and institutional religions a problem?

Why Religions were/are Important

But it's worth thinking about why people made up religion in the first place and what we're doing with the needs and longings that led them to do so. 

Examining the origins of religion and what were/are the human needs that religions have met in human history --- is a very important task!

At one level, religions are about asking us to believe in something. And when people say they can't believe, they tend to stop right there with the whole religion business. And often point out all the horrid things that religions have undoubtedly done and continue to do. But in this sense, belief is almost the least important and definitely the least interesting side of religion.

“Religious belief” often involves trying to give our intellectual assent to mythological ideas that cannot be proved by science (or has been disproved) by science.

The Valuable Things Religions Teach even in a Secularized World

What's fascinating is all the other stuff religions get up to. For example, the way they regularly gather people around and, strikingly, tell them to be nice to one another. Or the way they create a sense of community, acting as hosts, making sure that granny and the child, the big chief and the little guy learn to see each other as human beings rather than abstract entities.

Religions use rituals to point stuff out to us and lodge it in our fickle minds. For example, that the seasons are changing or that it's the time to remember your ancestors. That the moon looks pretty or you can atone and make a fresh start or that it's rather amazing that there's food on the table. Religions know we're not just intellectual creatures so they carefully appeal to us via art and beauty. We think of beauty in one category a frivolous and superficial thing, and truth and depth in an another. Religions join them together. They build temples, cathedrals, and mosques that use beauty to lend depth to important ideas. They use the resources of art to remind us of what matters. Their art is didactic. It's directed at making us feel things: calm, pity, awe ---

Those are the things (above) that—the School of Life’ thinks—are the valuable lessons we can learn from religions which we ought to continue practicing today, even in a secular age. The following statements below are why we still need the things that religions used to and still deliver to its adherents.

We may no longer believe, but the needs and longings that made us make up these stories go on. We're lonely and violent. We long for beauty, wisdom, and purpose. We want to live for something more than just ourselves.

Below we find critiques of the superficiality and inadequateness of contemporary society from ‘the School of Life’

What Modern Society Focuses On

Society tells us to direct our hopes in two areas: Romantic love and professional success. And it distracts us with news, movies, and consumption. It's not enough, as we know. Especially at three in the morning.

The Lessons We Need to Learn

We need reminders to be good, places to reawaken awe, something to awaken our kinder, less selfish impulses. Universal things which need tending like delicate flowers and rituals that bring us together. The choice isn't between religion and a secular world as it is now.

 The challenge is to learn from religions so we can fill the secular world with replacements for the things we long ago made up religion to provide. The challenge begins here.

***

Some Concluding Comments (by jkk)

On the one hand, the ‘School of Life’ adheres to an atheistic, materialistic worldview. It does not believe that there is any “Greater Power” (such as God, the Spirit, the Holy) out there. On the other hand, it thinks that there are many valuable things we can continue to learn from religions aside from the supernatural claims (which it does not believe).

My own (as well as many other “scholar-believers”) position is a bit different. I continue to hold that a standpoint of faith (in a Greater Something or “God,” if you will) is still possible and even important today, even for someone who believes in the value of science and progress but is also aware of its limitation. My definition of faith is that it is primarily a trust in the goodness of reality and life – that trust is often linked with a greater power, but it need not be. It is enough to hope that there is some greater power with which all of us are connected (For a more detailed description, see: https://spiritual-notandyet-religious-jkk.blogspot.com/2020/04/part-3-epidemics-and-god-covid-19.html )

I absolutely agree with scholar-spiritual practitioner Roger Walsh MD, PhD that if we think of life and reality as—in his words—“disenchanted” (just material) as ‘the School of Life’ does, we run the risk of living in a world devoid of meaning and significance. That would lead to us feeling adrift, without any sense of a higher purpose. That, in turn, would lead to more meaninglessness and depression. (See Walsh, Essential Spirituality, 1999, pp. 195-196)

I do agree with ‘the School of Life’ though that religions over-emphasize mythological beliefs. This is a problem for contemporary people who live in a world with an advanced level of science and critical thought. I am, therefore, also for shifting the emphasis on—what the same Roger Walsh—calls “transconventional religion” (I’ll write more extensively about this in a future post) with a greater emphasis on ethical and spiritual practice that would enable one to have genuine “awakening” experiences. These in turn will lead to a deeper experiential sense of the “spiritual” unity of everyone and everything. And that is the core truth that all spiritual-wisdom traditions (aka, the religions) teach.

---