Religion or superstition in Nepal?

Simonthepilgrim

I came across this article in today's Independent:
Search for a Kumari

It gave me pause for thought as do any such manifestations of cultural context expressed in religious terms, including the growing discussion about the next Dalai Lama when Tenzin Gyatso passes.

From a Western point of view, informed in the rhetoric of 'rights', let alone the noises from the reductionist materialists and market-worshippers, the whole notion of choosing an infant, removing them from their family, raising them apart, etc. has uncomfortable overtones. In the case of the Kumaris, there is also the problem of the inherent sexism which sees menarche as some sort of debilitating event.

At the same time, I wonder if I am wrong. But, if so, why do I object to some other cultural-as-religious practices around women such as the imposition of specific forms of dress and behaviour?

Politically, too, I am amused by the effect of the abolition of the Nepalese monarchy on this tradition. If nothing else, it points up the political dimension of the kumari tradition.

I must ponder further on this. What do you think?

federica

I think it would be interesting to contact the reporter and ask "What happened next......?"

Jason

Simon,

My intial thoughts are that I find such traditions to be superstitious, that I disagree with removing young children from their families and placing them in situation that can potentially be harmful to their mental health and well-being; but, at the same time, that I do not fully understand the cultural, poltical, religious, and social circumstances involved and that people should have religious freedom. The problem is, what is more important in cases such as these, religious freedom or the welfare of the child? It seems to me that, to remain consistent, my views necessitate a line be drawn somewhere, and once it is crossed, action must be taken.

For me, this is a painful dilemma in that I hate to impose my beliefs upon others but, on the other hand, I hate to turn my back on what I perceive to be innocent children being harmed by certain beliefs and practices. In general, I think that supporting education on a global scale, or at the very least in places where education is severly lacking, is the best approach in that educating people in subjects such as critical thinking, health, mathematics, reading, science, social science, writing, et cetera, as well as gradually exposing them to different ideas such as gender equality, will help to give them a broader outlook on life and the tools to question long-standing traditions without directly imposing a specific set of beliefs on them.

I admit that this is not a perfect solution by any means, but it is the best compromise I can come up with that does not take the two extremes of imposing my beliefs upon others or turning my back on what I perceive to be innocent children being harmed by certain beliefs and practices. Even so, there is no right or wrong answer to these types of questions because everyone sees these kinds of issues from different perspectives, e.g., my views on gender equality is based upon a certain set of beliefs just as sexist views are based upon a certain set of beliefs, and I can see no objective basis for any of those beliefs that are not influenced, at least in some way, by a variety of cultural, poltical, religious, and social circumstances. Those are my intial thought, at any rate.

Jason

ragyaba

Simon--

Although I honestly have to admit that the distinction between “superstition” and “religion” escapes me, I think that you have brought up an important issue in terms of practice, as well as touching on one of the most serious problems Buddhist theory faces—will face—as it moves to the West. Is Buddhism a religion?

But first, the initial issue, as I see it, is to what extent should one impose one's own sense of morality on others? [And, conversely, to what extent should one allow obviously incorrect views to propagate?] If one were to take the Politically Correct position, I suppose that one would argue that all cultures are created equally, and that one has no right to impose one culture's norms on another culture. Who, after all, died and made you—or the culture you represent—God? What right do you have, after all, to tell people how to think?

I don't buy it, but I think that's how the Politically Correct crowd would put it. I don't buy it because it seems to me that scientific truth transcends cultural norms. Suppose there is a culture out there somewhere that believes that the moon is made out of blue cheese. Now, for them, the moon is actually made out of blue cheese. But, by any objective standard, they are wrong. Flat out wrong.

So, is Kumari really a goddess? Just about as much as I am, I would say.

Which brings us back to the original question, but now we can look at it with a slightly different perspective. Someone far wiser than I once told me that the whole secret of success is to do what you can do—and what you can't do, don't sweat. This takes the question out of the realm of idealism and puts it on the ground.

Now the question becomes, what chance do you—or I—or an outside organization have of actually changing the situation? I would suggest that the chances are pretty much slim to none. When we try to push our opinions on another culture or another nation that is not interested in our opinions, we might as well try to teach a pig how to dance. It wastes our time. It annoys the pig. It doesn't accomplish much of anything.

Which is why I would suggest that the recent PR stunts concerning China and the Olympics have been just that: stunts. They have been designed by a Western audience, for a Western audience, and have accomplished about all that they are ever going to accomplish.

The kumaris, I would suggest, would be hindered by outside interference more than helped. From reading the article, it seems to me that the institution is on the way out, and any efforts by foreigners to hasten its decline could well have the reverse effect. Nobody's going to tell me what to do in my country! Do I tell you what to do in yours? It's easy to see how a certain amount of stubbornness could set in ... but, left alone, the situation looks like it will resolve itself in its own way, in its own time.

But we should do what we can do. If you want to do something good for humanity, why not make an effort to free Iraq? That's a humanitarian cause that is—in theory, anyway—well within the scope of our ability to influence. At least once a month I write a letter to my representatives in Washington—where I am sure they are very carefully read and recorded before being thrown away. But, in theory at least, I am able to influence these people. In theory, I have absolutely no influence in Nepal.

Another thing Westerners can do is to free ourselves from our dependence on petroleum. The United States has about 4% of the world's population, but consumes about 25% of the world's oil. Now, assuming that Hubbert was right, and we have passed the point of peak global production, what country do you suppose will be hurt the worst by rising oil prices? Wouldn't it be kind of a good idea to promote alternative energy sources as much as possible? That's something else that we can do.

Now I'd like to look at this question from still one more point of view—rather than asking about Westerners imposing cultural norms on others, I'd like to ask about the extent to which the cultural norms of Buddhism in the East should be accepted—or even tolerated—in the West. I would like to touch on this because virtually every statement in this article about Kumari—excepting for the age limit—could be applied to every major reincarnated lama in the Tibetan pantheon.

The cultural moon-of-blue-cheese aspect of Buddhism, as I see it, is the unquestioned acceptance of Buddhism as a religion. If it is, why would the West need it? We have plenty of religions already, as well as a new age movement that can get along quite well without Buddhism in the first place, thank you very much. We have saints, shamans, sorcerers, magicians, priests, high priests, ministers and mystics enough. We don't need more gods. We don't need more True Believers. We need more understanding.

I would suggest that the human mind is about as susceptible to catching religion as the human body is susceptible to catching a cold. There is no known immunization, and there is very little by way of a cure. The Buddha, however, did give us the stone of the Kalamas to throw against the goliath of religion ... unfortunately, it worked better in the Bible than it did in the Buddha's own time ... see this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Haunting-Buddha-Religions-Formation-Buddhism/dp/0195168380/

Perhaps religion will, like the poor, be always with us. The Stone, sad to say, has been given little but lip service over the years ... speculations have become dogma, mental states have become gods [with more lip service about nonreification], and tradition has become religion [with all of the appropriate quotation marks around “worship.”]

Tibetans are not by any means the only Buddhists who give passing lip service to the “emptiness” of deities, but they are, in the West at least, only the most obvious. Anyone who has spent any time at all in Asia will find a host of Buddhist gods alive and well [and the Kalama Sutta dead and forgotten] from Thailand to Japan. The Zen that has been transmitted to the West would have nothing to do with religion, but the Zen that is on the ground could match the Catholics saint for saint.

So, when I read an article like this one about the kumaris, I have to chuckle a little bit. Among other subjects, I teach a class in critical thinking. I remember once a student told me, with complete sincerity, “I'm not superstitious. I'm a Christian.” I have no doubt that somewhere, some time, some student has said to his instructor, with complete sincerity, “I'm not superstitious. I'm a Buddhist.”

One of the great myths that Buddhism tells itself is that the multiplicity of opinions is to be understood as the co-existence of equally valid paths, perhaps one easier to negotiate while another is harder, one straight while another is indirect. All, however, lead to the one goal worthy of pursuing: “liberation from suffering.” Each individual in his particular life chooses the path which is the best and the most suitable [at least from the point of view of the individual], but everyone is guided in such a choice by karmic conditions, which determine one's greater or lesser spiritual maturity, one's higher or lower ability to understand and to actualize the supreme truths taught by the Buddha.

I take exception to this notion.

I do not think that all paths are equally valid.

I think that religion has crept into Buddhism almost from the very beginning and has become a cherished belief, and just like any other cherished belief, it relies on a minimum of facts and a maximum of emotions. When we were kids, “My mother told me so,” was generally sufficient to have us all believe in Santa Claus. As adults, “My pastor [Imam, Roshi, whatever] told me so” is generally sufficient to have us believe whatever our pastor [Imam, Roshi, whatever] wants us to believe. Factual evidence has very little effect on such beliefs because they are not primarily based on facts in the first place. Mythos over logos. Emotion is stronger than logic.

“Reason, of course, is weak, when measured against its never-ending task. Weak, indeed, compared with the follies and passions of mankind, which, we must admit, almost entirely control our human destinies, in great things and small.”—Albert Einstein

The mystical experience is often the cornerstone of religious thought. Christians have them, Jews have them, Muslims have them, Buddhists have them, druggies have them. The Buddha himself probably had them, but was smart enough to realize that mysticism does not lead to liberation. And, while I do think that the odds on two people thinking exactly alike is about the same as it is for two snowflakes being identical, it seems to me that there is a big difference between a snowflake and a hail stone.

For example, one might take this obvious description of a mystical experience at face value: “Suddenly, I felt my head clear. I had the sensation of being one with the universe, of having lost all the little bitternesses and private wishes that kept me at odds with other people. I felt as if I stood at the pinnacle of the universe and was in tune with its universality as well as with all of its multifarious particularities. I was immersed in an ecstatic, exalted sensation that made me feel weightless and tingle from head to foot.”

If one were to research mystical experiences, I'm sure that one could find thousands of similar writings. What brought on this particular experience? A devotion to Christianity? Islam? Buddhism? Drugs, maybe? Maybe the question is simply irrelevant. Would the experience be less valid if I quoted a few more lines from the same book: “From now on I would focus on my own shortcomings and make stern demands upon myself so that I could transform myself into a seasoned Marxist revolutionary in China.”? [The quotes are from pages 162 and 163 of this book:]

http://www.amazon.com/Man-Who-Stayed-Behind/dp/0822326671/


Religion is like using a raft to get to the other shore, and then carrying the raft, not so much out of gratitude, but more as if one couldn't walk on one's own two feet without it.

Don't pick up your raft and walk.

Lay down your raft and run.





Books worth reading:

http://www.amazon.com/CIVILIZED-SHAMANS-Societies-Smithsonian-Ethnographic/dp/1560986204/

http://www.amazon.com/Religions-Tibet-Giuseppe-Tucci/dp/0520063481/

http://www.amazon.com/Madmans-Middle-Way-Reflections-Modernity/dp/0226493172/

http://www.amazon.com/Mothers-Sons-Chinese-Buddhism-Alan/dp/0804731527/

http://www.amazon.com/Buddhism-Taoism-Face-Scripture-Iconographic/dp/0824831691/

http://www.amazon.com/Buddhism-Chinese-Society-Jacques-Gernet/dp/0231114117/

http://www.amazon.com/Text-Father-Seductions-Literature-Buddhisms/dp/0520242769/



Modern Psychology:

http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Explained-Pascal-Boyer/dp/0465006965/

http://www.amazon.com/Being-Certain-Believing-Right-Youre/dp/0312359209/

Simonthepilgrim

Dear Ragyaba,

First of all, thank you for having taken so much trouble to share your thoughts. It is a plasure to come back from holiday to get into the serious stuff.

It was, indeed, my intention that the whole notion of different treatment for children, often as infants, identified as special in some way. The more I reflect on it, I realise that it is amuch wider debate and can include how we, in the West, treat 'special'children - but that is a prayer-flag of a different colour, and a different debate.

You say a lot and I shold like, pro tem, to address what you say here:

One of the great myths that Buddhism tells itself is that the multiplicity of opinions is to be understood as the co-existence of equally valid paths, perhaps one easier to negotiate while another is harder, one straight while another is indirect. All, however, lead to the one goal worthy of pursuing: “liberation from suffering.” Each individual in his particular life chooses the path which is the best and the most suitable [at least from the point of view of the individual], but everyone is guided in such a choice by karmic conditions, which determine one's greater or lesser spiritual maturity, one's higher or lower ability to understand and to actualize the supreme truths taught by the Buddha.

I take exception to this notion.

I do not think that all paths are equally valid.

Of course, here you have it. This is the heart question. But I think we often miss the point. What the heck do we mean by "valid"? I think that you will find many Buddhists who would not agree with the statement that all paths are valid - possibly as many as among Christians. The notion of equal validity is more marginal than you assume.

Many commentators suggest a hierarchy with (surprise! surprise!) their own path as the best. Very few allow full equality to other versions.

There is, however, a possibility of common ground, as you point out, in outcome defined as "liberation from suffering".

srivijaya

ragyaba wrote: »

Is Buddhism a religion?

Hi ragyaba,
A superb post and a real pleasure to read. I think Buddhism, like many other things, is what a person wishes it to be. If you need something to believe in and worship, you've got it. If you'd prefer a strictly philosophical system, you've got it.

From what I understand Buddha never taught either of the above but as you have shown, it doesn't prevent it being used in such ways.

Kris