Tweet
Another question which I was thinking on for a bit of time.
A lot of people, specially in the West, tend to consider religion as something imposed on society, something which a few people made up, in order to make society confirm to their vision.
On the other hand, the predominant Indian attitude is that religion is something that evolves out of society, and thus changes as society changes, but changes society as it itself changes. It's a much more organic relationship.
After some thought, I came to the conclusion that this was primarily because the main "Western" religions, in today's context, are monotheist, and very legalist - that is, they mandate a code not just of morality and a set of spiritual or philosophical guidelines, but also a code of laws. This code of laws was not just in the form of general principles, but in the form of ironclad rules, leading to its being imposed by the religious authority of the times.
The problem arose when this legalist code could not adopt to changing circumstances - given that it was dictated in God's name, changing it became impossible.
The issue is that now, strictly following the rules of any monotheist religions is absolutely impossible.
The further consequence is that this leads to a slow death of religion, for that which cannot change and adapt is doomed to perish.
A question then arose: how can we salvage the good parts of the monotheist tradition, and renew and resurrect the tradition itself, which has fallen to sorry depths?
There are two questions I would like to pose here:
a) Does society influence religion more, and thus lead to an evolving religion, or is it the other way around, and
b) Is there any way to rescue a religions tradition which has fallen into the "imposition" pattern, where it imposes itself rigidly and inflexibly on its society?
I've already given my opinion on the first question. How would the posters here, who have been raised in predominantly monotheist societies, respond to the second?
A lot of people, specially in the West, tend to consider religion as something imposed on society, something which a few people made up, in order to make society confirm to their vision.
On the other hand, the predominant Indian attitude is that religion is something that evolves out of society, and thus changes as society changes, but changes society as it itself changes. It's a much more organic relationship.
After some thought, I came to the conclusion that this was primarily because the main "Western" religions, in today's context, are monotheist, and very legalist - that is, they mandate a code not just of morality and a set of spiritual or philosophical guidelines, but also a code of laws. This code of laws was not just in the form of general principles, but in the form of ironclad rules, leading to its being imposed by the religious authority of the times.
The problem arose when this legalist code could not adopt to changing circumstances - given that it was dictated in God's name, changing it became impossible.
The issue is that now, strictly following the rules of any monotheist religions is absolutely impossible.
The further consequence is that this leads to a slow death of religion, for that which cannot change and adapt is doomed to perish.
A question then arose: how can we salvage the good parts of the monotheist tradition, and renew and resurrect the tradition itself, which has fallen to sorry depths?
There are two questions I would like to pose here:
a) Does society influence religion more, and thus lead to an evolving religion, or is it the other way around, and
b) Is there any way to rescue a religions tradition which has fallen into the "imposition" pattern, where it imposes itself rigidly and inflexibly on its society?
I've already given my opinion on the first question. How would the posters here, who have been raised in predominantly monotheist societies, respond to the second?
Comment