I’m reading Philip Goldberg’s American Veda, and I’m noticing some interesting things about the ways that Westerners think about the Eastern spiritual ideas they adopt (and adapt).
For example, a chapter about several high-profile guru scandals concludes with some thoughts on how these scandals, painful as they were for many of the people involved, helped spiritual seekers become more savvy. Despite the continuing presence of “dewy-eyed zeal” around gurus, Goldberg says that Westerners looking to Eastern spiritualities for guidance have become “more autonomous” and “less vulnerable to flawed gurus and oppressive institutions.” One reason for this, he suggests, is the ability to look at gurus as practitioners of a science of consciousness rather than as religious figures, so “their teachings can be viewed not as divine truths but as hypotheses to be tested” (and presumably rejected if they are found wanting).
What I am curious about is whether it is something intrinsic to Eastern spirituality that enables Westerners to view its teachings as hypotheses to be tested, or whether this is possible because most Westerners were not raised to view its teachings, practices, and leaders as sacred or in touch with the divine. (I suppose it might be some of both.) The Catholic sex scandals come to mind here; people who demand that the pope be called before an international court for his part in the cover-up are denounced by some as disrespectful, but it’s hard to see on what possible grounds the pope could have earned the right not to be held responsible other than simply by being a religious figure that people have been taught not to question. What would it take for a culture-wide shift, in the more religious parts of the West, to the belief that Western religious teachings and leaders should be evaluated by the same standards of agreement with physical reality and decent behavior as other beliefs and people?
Another interesting example is the Western attitude toward meditation and yoga. The mainstream scientific establishment has focused on the health benefits of these practices, both physical and mental (reducing the stress response, lowering blood pressure, increasing the ability to focus, etc.). For many Westerners, yoga means only the postures, whereas in its homeland, the postures are only one part of the practice of yoga. Some yoga advocates and meditators don’t approve of this stripping away of the spiritual qualities of these practices. (The description of this in the book reminded me a bit of the Christians who complain about the largely secular meaning of Christmas to many people.) To me, though, this development strikes me as being positive overall. For those who seek transcendence, I can’t imagine it’s hard to find someone who will offer to help you get there. For those who don’t, narrowing the focus to the physical and mental effects is a way to understand and apply some useful things the species has learned about how to live well in a human body with a human mind, while dropping (or relegating to the status of myths) the parts that contradict what we know about how the world works. And again, I wonder if it’s easier to follow this process, which in my opinion is beneficial on the whole, with a religion that you were not raised in.
America the “melting pot”? We take what we like from one culture and mix it with the other things we’ve taken and invent something new. Perhaps because Americans don’t have as deep a cultural identity as most other nationalities? I really think much of the need to be spiritual falls in the realm of needing to belong to a group and identity and if it’s an underdog culture all the better. It’s really the American way.
“For many Westerners, “yoga†means only the postures” I’ll attribute that to the attempt to gain acceptance, for what ever reason. Making it non religious makes it more accessible to those who think of them selves as Christians. Fundamentalists have pointed to things like yoga as the “foot in the door” to corrupt the believer. I think Iranian clerics see Valentines day observances similarly. Catholic adherents might also criticize the “stripping away of the spiritual qualities of these practices”, not only in Iran but in western modern culture.
I Guess I’m thinking that these things aren’t uniquely American but we may have better opportunity to accept them that others in the world.
This is kind of out of context and I may be making this up out of whole cloth but I fixated on “… useful things the species has learned about how to live well in a human body with a human mind,…”. I’m intrigued by the preexistence of some kind of conciseness or sole that’s implied buy that statement. It’s amazing how deep those kinds of ideas are. I would very much love to not dismiss that idea. I really want there to be a sole. That statement was probably totally unintentional but for some reason I picked my interpretation. I could have also gone off on some kind of transhumanism thing because that’s in my mind lately.
I think the interest in various non-Western religions &c. by Americans comes down to spiritual exoticism. If you’re tired of what you’ve got, a change looks good. If making that change has countercultural cachet, so much the better for those dissatisfied with the status quo.
At the same time, it is much easier to question ideas that are not widely accepted in our culture. If nothing else, those pursuing any kind of atypical lifestyle are likely to spend a fair amount of time explaining themselves to friends, family, and various other meddlers. The reasons they come up with might not be any good, but at least they’ll have been forced to give it some thought.
I think that Patrick is right about the allure of the exotic for many people, but that this applies also in many contexts that are not explicitly “spiritual” and for many people who would not use that word to describe themselves. Many people treat yoga as a sort of alternative medicine, and while yoga appears to have legitimate benefits, I’d guess that the people who try it are statistically more likely to be among those who find themselves attracted to homeopathy and other alternative treatments that the scientific establishment has largely dismissed as quackery. Open-mindedness is great, but sometimes the open-minded tend to be short on objectivity.
On the other side of the coin, you have those for whom anything remotely “exotic” is something to be feared:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39553520/ns/us_news-life/
Excellent points, all!
@zero: It’s really interesting to hear what you picked up on in what I wrote. I was thinking of humans as a bunch of animals with some unusual capabilities (i.e., consciousness) who had learned things about how to live a good life within the biological limits of being animals (subject to illness, death, our own neurochemistry and cognitive biases, etc.) while also being aware of both our potential for understanding and our mortality. After my mother died, for a while I thought how great it would be if she really did have an immortal soul, as I was taught when I was a child. The more I thought about it, though, the stranger the whole idea seemed. I realized that she lives on in the people who knew and loved her, and for me that’s enough.
@Jay: Thanks for the link. I was just reading in American Veda about how some Indians object to the way the West picks and chooses certain aspects of yoga without doing more to acknowledge it as a spiritual practice and give credit to its Hindu origins. Coincidentally, I ran across an article today that shows the suspicion and mistrust on both sides (Christian and Hindu) of this particular cultural exchange: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article7172361.ece
@Mary – “narrowing the focus to the … mental effects” is exactly what is done by “adding” religion into it. Religion has scam artists, just as science and politics do. But for the most part, religion is not a scam, it’s all about the mental effects. I mean, once you learn that 99% of what the human mind ever contemplates is bogus, it’s not too hard to guess that the way to program the human mind is by feeding it bullpoop.
@Jay – “homeopathy … that the scientific establishment has largely dismissed as quackery.” Not so. The study of the placebo is such an integral part of science that it is often overlooked, the way we overlook the block foundation that holds a building up. A scandal erupts when it is revealed that The Drug Companies have known all along that their medicines are no more effective than placebo. I think this is unfair, because “no more effective than placebo” is still pretty good for many ailments.
And I have a question for the so-called baptist in the MSNBC story…which famous historical figure said, “seek, and ye shall find”? Christianity is very much a seeker’s religion.