Also, in terms of ceremonial laws:
It is arguable that even Buddhism - which has plumbed the depths of the human subconscious, ethico-psychological impulses and the roots of desire to a greater, more analytical and systematic degree than any other creed, and so could justly be described as the most interior-focused religion - has more room for 'temporality' than Christianity.
I say this, inasmuch as the Patimokkha (code of monastic discipline) in the Tipitaka lays out some detailed rules on: 'ritual purity' for monks, the Sanghadisesas (i.e. "[do not] discharge semen or get someone to discharge your semen, except while dreaming"), he Sekhiyavatta (on how a monk is to hold himself), the Bhojanapatisamyutta (rules on food and hygiene i.e. "I will receive curries in the right proportion to the rice, "I will receive pindapāta food only until it reached the rim of the bowl", "I will not eat stuffing out my cheeks"), the Dhammadesanāpatisamyutta (rules on who you can & can't teach Dharma to i.e. "I will not teach Dhamma to someone who has an umbrella in his hand") and the Pakinnaka (a set of miscellaneous i.e. toilet etiquette "I will not defecate or urinate while standing").
From the very beginning the Buddha in the Pali Canon also had a subsidiary 'legal-political' outlook in providing explicit legal guidelines / laws of an elementary form in the Cakkavatti-Sīhanāda Sutta, Mahāsudassana Sutta, the Aggañña Sutta, the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta and the Jātaka tales for a cakkavatti or 'wheel-turning monarch' (akin to the Islamic caliph, or the Jewish 'Davidic' king):
As the Buddhist scholar Balkrishna Gokhale explains: “in the second phase of theorizing [the Cakkavatti-Sīhanāda Sutta] the early Buddhists endeavored to use the state to further the ends of dhamma by asserting the supremacy of the dhamma over āṇā [the power of the state].”
Some examples of counsels the Buddha gave to kings in this regard in the Digha-nikaya:
http://www.pass.va/content/dam/scienzesociali/pdf/acta11/acta11-villacorta.pdf
That's not to deny that in its essential spiritual teachings, the Four Noble Truths (i.e. 1. life is suffering, 2. suffering is caused by clinging, 3. one can stop suffering if one stops clinging, and 4. one can stop clinging by living according to Noble Eightfold Path), Buddhism is largely about individual seekers gathered in a sangha (monastic community) becoming arihants freed from samsara. In this sense, it definitely puts "inner" over "outer" as in Christianity, arguably even better than Christianity, certainly in its psychological sophistication. Likewise, Buddhism recognises no corporal punishments or capital punishments.
But in spite of this pronounced interiority, Buddhism still has more 'laws' or at least 'temporal advice for wheel-turning kings' to pass law in keeping with the Dharma, than anything comparable in the New Testament - which has Jesus curtly state: "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36) and eschew revealed law, corporal punishments, as well as just tartly condemning "the kings of the nations [...] who are supposed to rule [their subjects but] become tyrants, and their superiors become dictators over them" (Mark 10:42) .etc.. etc.
Jesus likewise spurned the kinds of ceremonial rules (i.e. on hygiene, food rules, purity etc.) that one finds abundantly in Judaism, Islam, the Baha'i Faith and even (to a lesser but still noticeable degree) in Buddhism i.e.:
Even in the Baha'i Faith, one finds detailed hygiene / ceremonial / purity rules as in Judaism and Islam:
And on things like the length of hair that is acceptable:
And dietary rules etc. This is the same in Judaism and Islam i.e. Islamic laws on toilet etiquette / hygiene:
As alluded to above, it is the New Testament's pronounced distrust of the "things of God" being bound up with the "things of Caesar" (as Jesus puts it in the famous adage "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21) that has indelibly haunted Christian-offspring societies and shaped the West's more limited role for religion compared to other civilizations (i.e. as a largely personal - social affair distinguished from law, a strictly demarcated 'religious' sphere that is spiritual. Important and powerful at times but still distinct).
This is not an understanding of religio that has much traction outside Christianity (as much as Westerners often bullishly assume this to be the case in their dealings with other cultures) - but it is a distinguishing feature of Christian doctrine, and one that isn't easily reconciled with the religious worldview in the Torah, Sunnah or Aqdas, in my humble estimation, nor with a schema of progressive revelation which situates Christianity as 'peg' on the ladder of religious enlightenment following Judaism and preceding Islam.
Most Christian Westerners are bewildered by the idea, for example, that a "religion" can or should dictate a special dress code, diet, purity rituals, civil laws, criminal justice and a great many other things that extend beyond "faith and morals" - because this not how the New Testament or Christian theology defines the role of 'religion' (with the exception of some later Orthodox Christians i.e. Byzantine veiling, Amish).
In the Islamic world, by contrast, most Muslims are bewildered by the idea that a "religion" could have nothing to say about such facets of human living - because the Qur'an and Hadith have intricate laws dealing with clothing, diet (halal), ritual purity and hygiene, inheritance, criminal punishment (hudud) and so on. The respective worldviews and assumptions about religion's "role" are just different. Its a case of diverse understanding of religion's role and nature, as opposed to one worldview 'progressing' upon the other. It seems to go beyond just the accidental / secondary and get to the root of what people think religion is.
In this regard, understandings of 'religion' cross-culturally are demonstrably not identical so far as I can tell. Different cultures expect different things from 'religion' and this arises from the religions themselves.
I appreciate any answers that you can provide Adrian and look forward to your reply.
It is arguable that even Buddhism - which has plumbed the depths of the human subconscious, ethico-psychological impulses and the roots of desire to a greater, more analytical and systematic degree than any other creed, and so could justly be described as the most interior-focused religion - has more room for 'temporality' than Christianity.
I say this, inasmuch as the Patimokkha (code of monastic discipline) in the Tipitaka lays out some detailed rules on: 'ritual purity' for monks, the Sanghadisesas (i.e. "[do not] discharge semen or get someone to discharge your semen, except while dreaming"), he Sekhiyavatta (on how a monk is to hold himself), the Bhojanapatisamyutta (rules on food and hygiene i.e. "I will receive curries in the right proportion to the rice, "I will receive pindapāta food only until it reached the rim of the bowl", "I will not eat stuffing out my cheeks"), the Dhammadesanāpatisamyutta (rules on who you can & can't teach Dharma to i.e. "I will not teach Dhamma to someone who has an umbrella in his hand") and the Pakinnaka (a set of miscellaneous i.e. toilet etiquette "I will not defecate or urinate while standing").
From the very beginning the Buddha in the Pali Canon also had a subsidiary 'legal-political' outlook in providing explicit legal guidelines / laws of an elementary form in the Cakkavatti-Sīhanāda Sutta, Mahāsudassana Sutta, the Aggañña Sutta, the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta and the Jātaka tales for a cakkavatti or 'wheel-turning monarch' (akin to the Islamic caliph, or the Jewish 'Davidic' king):
"a king who advances the dhamma through his governance. [...] There is widespread agreement among scholars that this represents a novel theory in the history of indian political thought, often referred to as the two Wheels of Dhamma—the identification of both religious life and political/ social life as being governed by the same underlying moral laws, and the assertion that ultimately the temporal powers were subordinate to the spiritual powers...later Buddhist thinkers identified King Aśoka (died ca. 238 b.c.e.) as having been a wheel-turning monarch"
(MJ Moore, Political Theory in Canonical Buddhism, p.39)
(MJ Moore, Political Theory in Canonical Buddhism, p.39)
As the Buddhist scholar Balkrishna Gokhale explains: “in the second phase of theorizing [the Cakkavatti-Sīhanāda Sutta] the early Buddhists endeavored to use the state to further the ends of dhamma by asserting the supremacy of the dhamma over āṇā [the power of the state].”
Some examples of counsels the Buddha gave to kings in this regard in the Digha-nikaya:
http://www.pass.va/content/dam/scienzesociali/pdf/acta11/acta11-villacorta.pdf
There is a need for an organized distribution of wealth (dana-samibhaga). This can be implemented, for instance, through a taxation policy in which the king, during bad harvests, reduces taxes or helps the farmers to pay them. The last duty of the state is that its laws and policies must be based on the Dhamma. The Digha-nikaya prescribes that the ruler must consult religious teachers and philosophers, to ensure that the creation of favorable social and political conditions would provide opportunities for Nibbana for everyone.
In dealing with other countries, the value of peace and tolerance is intrinsic in the social philosophy of Theravada Buddhism. It derives itself from the Buddha’s compassion for all beings and his recognition of universal equality which are contained in the Buddhist texts – Dhammapada, Samyutta-nikaya, Angutarra-nikaya and Majjima-nikaya
In dealing with other countries, the value of peace and tolerance is intrinsic in the social philosophy of Theravada Buddhism. It derives itself from the Buddha’s compassion for all beings and his recognition of universal equality which are contained in the Buddhist texts – Dhammapada, Samyutta-nikaya, Angutarra-nikaya and Majjima-nikaya
That's not to deny that in its essential spiritual teachings, the Four Noble Truths (i.e. 1. life is suffering, 2. suffering is caused by clinging, 3. one can stop suffering if one stops clinging, and 4. one can stop clinging by living according to Noble Eightfold Path), Buddhism is largely about individual seekers gathered in a sangha (monastic community) becoming arihants freed from samsara. In this sense, it definitely puts "inner" over "outer" as in Christianity, arguably even better than Christianity, certainly in its psychological sophistication. Likewise, Buddhism recognises no corporal punishments or capital punishments.
But in spite of this pronounced interiority, Buddhism still has more 'laws' or at least 'temporal advice for wheel-turning kings' to pass law in keeping with the Dharma, than anything comparable in the New Testament - which has Jesus curtly state: "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36) and eschew revealed law, corporal punishments, as well as just tartly condemning "the kings of the nations [...] who are supposed to rule [their subjects but] become tyrants, and their superiors become dictators over them" (Mark 10:42) .etc.. etc.
Jesus likewise spurned the kinds of ceremonial rules (i.e. on hygiene, food rules, purity etc.) that one finds abundantly in Judaism, Islam, the Baha'i Faith and even (to a lesser but still noticeable degree) in Buddhism i.e.:
"As Jesus was speaking, a Pharisee invited Him to dine with him; so He went in and reclined at the table. But the Pharisee was surprised to see that Jesus did not first wash before the meal. “Now then,” said the Lord, “you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You fools! Did not the One who made the outside make the inside as well? But give as alms the things that are within you, and you will see that everything is clean for you." (Luke 11:37-40)
"Then came together to him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashed, hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables. Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, "Why walk not your disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?" [...]
And when he had called all the people to him, he said to them, "Listen to me every one of you, and understand: There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. If any man have ears to hear, let him hear." In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.
And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable. And he said to them, "Do you not perceive, that whatever thing from without enters into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it enters not into his heart, but into the belly, and goes out into the sewer, purging all meats? And he said, "That which comes out of the man, that defiles the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man".
(Mark 7)
"Then came together to him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashed, hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables. Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, "Why walk not your disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?" [...]
And when he had called all the people to him, he said to them, "Listen to me every one of you, and understand: There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. If any man have ears to hear, let him hear." In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.
And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable. And he said to them, "Do you not perceive, that whatever thing from without enters into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it enters not into his heart, but into the belly, and goes out into the sewer, purging all meats? And he said, "That which comes out of the man, that defiles the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man".
(Mark 7)
Even in the Baha'i Faith, one finds detailed hygiene / ceremonial / purity rules as in Judaism and Islam:
"It hath been enjoined upon you to... bathe yourselves each week in water that covereth your bodies, and to clean yourselves with whatsoever ye have formerly employed.... Immerse yourselves in clean water; it is not permissible to bathe yourselves in water that hath already been used."
((Bahá'u'lláh, The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, pages 57-58)
((Bahá'u'lláh, The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, pages 57-58)
And on things like the length of hair that is acceptable:
"Shave not your heads; God hath adorned them with hair, and in this there are signs from the Lord of creation to those who reflect upon the requirements of nature. He, verily, is the God of strength and wisdom. Notwithstanding, it is not seemly to let the hair pass beyond the limit of the ears. Thus hath it been decreed by Him Who is the Lord of all worlds." (Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i Aqdas)
And dietary rules etc. This is the same in Judaism and Islam i.e. Islamic laws on toilet etiquette / hygiene:
"Not to face the qiblah (direction of prayer, i.e. the Kabah which was built in Makkah by Ibrahim, upon whom be peace, as commanded by Allaah) when urinating or defecating. This is out of respect for the Qiblah and for the symbols and rituals of Allaah. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: When any one of you sits down to answer the call of nature, he should not face the qiblah or turn his back towards it"
(Sahih Muslim, 389).
As alluded to above, it is the New Testament's pronounced distrust of the "things of God" being bound up with the "things of Caesar" (as Jesus puts it in the famous adage "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21) that has indelibly haunted Christian-offspring societies and shaped the West's more limited role for religion compared to other civilizations (i.e. as a largely personal - social affair distinguished from law, a strictly demarcated 'religious' sphere that is spiritual. Important and powerful at times but still distinct).
This is not an understanding of religio that has much traction outside Christianity (as much as Westerners often bullishly assume this to be the case in their dealings with other cultures) - but it is a distinguishing feature of Christian doctrine, and one that isn't easily reconciled with the religious worldview in the Torah, Sunnah or Aqdas, in my humble estimation, nor with a schema of progressive revelation which situates Christianity as 'peg' on the ladder of religious enlightenment following Judaism and preceding Islam.
Most Christian Westerners are bewildered by the idea, for example, that a "religion" can or should dictate a special dress code, diet, purity rituals, civil laws, criminal justice and a great many other things that extend beyond "faith and morals" - because this not how the New Testament or Christian theology defines the role of 'religion' (with the exception of some later Orthodox Christians i.e. Byzantine veiling, Amish).
In the Islamic world, by contrast, most Muslims are bewildered by the idea that a "religion" could have nothing to say about such facets of human living - because the Qur'an and Hadith have intricate laws dealing with clothing, diet (halal), ritual purity and hygiene, inheritance, criminal punishment (hudud) and so on. The respective worldviews and assumptions about religion's "role" are just different. Its a case of diverse understanding of religion's role and nature, as opposed to one worldview 'progressing' upon the other. It seems to go beyond just the accidental / secondary and get to the root of what people think religion is.
In this regard, understandings of 'religion' cross-culturally are demonstrably not identical so far as I can tell. Different cultures expect different things from 'religion' and this arises from the religions themselves.
I appreciate any answers that you can provide Adrian and look forward to your reply.
Last edited:
