Religion in India: Mixed into Everything

In the beginning of the unit concerning religion, the central question posed was about how religion shapes different people’s realities and their lives as a whole. Throughout the course of the unit so far, I began to neglect that question and focused more on the specificity of certain religions, its practices and beliefs, their impact on history (historical significance) and the connections between different religions and branches of ones alike. Although, when asked to go through aspects of life and lifestyles in India, I really tried hard to bridge together those two concepts and establish a good foundation as to attempt to answer the overarching question, or find somewhat parts of evidence which I could use to back up my argument about religion in general. Anyways, what struck me to see when I reached the website was that religion one out of twenty four different topic to be discovered and looked upon. What? I had thought that the sole purpose of the assignment was to learn more about vast religions in the world, but here it said that religion was a minuscule fraction of the aspects of daily life in India. So, from the get-go, I forced myself to really critically think and find out how religion was incorporated in this given assignment, and what it would serve use to me in the development of my understanding of religion, generally speaking. So, after going through five different gateways, I had solidified a generalized opinion/argument about religion which I will soon use evidence to back up. I concluded that religion includes, covers, influences, is a result of, and is a part of everything (daily life) which consists of any individual or group of people. Religion is, usually (or in this case is) the root cause of everything; everything is an outcome of or is a result of a certain religion--and encompasses a specific aspect(s) while doing so. 

I’m going to start of with backing this up with the Ganges River. That river is used for everything, centralized right in the middle (geographically) of India, running through the entire region, assisting populated areas to fulfill the need for water. This river was relied on for an enormous variation of things, from agriculture to food and water, to hygiene, to history, and ironically, to religion! Who would have thought that a river would have anything to do with religion? This was my first attempt in bridging that gap that I had mentioned before. The river, it said, was the terrestrial home of Ganga, I highly regarded and powerful goddess in India’s religion. It has been the prided home of that religious figure ever since, and because of that, logically, the river would be established as a sacred, religious place. Therefore, it is favorable and “promising” to use it for such purposes as agriculture, drinking, bathing, and even use it as a deathbed for some, being a popular place to dump one’s ashes in (for a sense of goodness and prosperity). Bathing in particular is a big deal in this region (in the river itself) as it serves as a purifying ritual, symbolizing the washing away of one’s sins and evil within them as the goddess which inhabits the river interacts with the bather. And upon death, the spreading of one’s ashes in the water may improve ones lifestyle, afterlife, or humanity. So, clearly this is not anything comparable to the Chicago River, as the Ganges River is so much more than just a river. As it is a primary source for many aspects of their life, the fact that religion is incorporated with it and makes it that much more unique, special, and valuable clearly alters the way someone in that society views the world, nature in particular, than someone not in that culture. Like I said before, millions of people in Chicago neglect and discard the Chicago River, even though it has a historical importance (not so sure about religion...). Although, in India’s culture, one will view the (somewhat same!) river completely different as religion plays a part in it, therefore altering the way that one perceives their reality and aspects of their life. One more example. 

In the science and medicine section, it explains how India is characterized by its extensive scientific contributions. Although, the continuation of the sentence completely changes the meaning of the sentence! It says that in addition to the scientific contributions, its rich philosophical tradition integrates science and religion together so they coincide with one another. This basically says that science is a direct result of religion. It even goes on to describe how people in India began to practice ancient systems of science (astronomy and mathematics to be specific) and that the modern systems of science are merely advancements off of what was before. Isn’t that what religion is, too? The individual application of something greater that changes over time? So, religion changed the way people in India view science because their religion (or general upbringing) altered the way they view scientific reasoning, applications, and methods! Their religious history involves science and math, and therefore, the religious aspects play a significant part in the scientific and mathematic doings throughout their culture. So here is another example, of science an religion--two completely different aspects of life on opposite sides of the scale--which come together and create something different as a result of one another to change the way people view something. So, the River and science both support how religion is integrated into all (many more examples) aspects of life, and has a major cultural and traditional influence. Now that this is proved in India, I wonder how it could be proved and examined in my own life.

The Question of Constantine

In class today we talked about Constantine, his reign, and his importance in the Roman Empire/influence on Christianity. Although we did not elaborate on one of the many questions Mr. Moran proposed, I wanted to talk about one of them and try to answer it as best as possible. The question was: to what extent was Constantine a Christian? Was he a believer of the religion? As many historians and studiers of Constantine may try to delve into his history, religious backgrounds, and influences/influence in order to determine his actual participation and involvement with the religious force and efforts. As this may be a valid way to solve the unknown, there are two defects which must be strongly considered. First, it might be incredibly inefficient, time consuming, and almost impossible to figure out what is sought to be, as one must examine almost every angle of Constantine’s life, before, during, and after, as well as all of his surroundings, etc. Secondly, it can rationally be said (through previous knowledge and research done by many) that blatantly, we can never know for sure. Unless Constantine miraculously comes back and tells us exactly what he was thinking and what he did behind the scenes and in general history, there is no “possible” way to understand Constantine’s Christian involvement throughout his lifetime. Regardless, my argument/answer to this question is that--it doesn’t matter! and the question is somewhat valueless and will not lead anywhere. I think a better question to ask would be: What was Constantine’s effect on Christianity? Why did he have this effect? (that second part getting into the individual history stuff again but does not focus on his individual but rather his surroundings, his past, and his present histories/times). I say it does not matter (to the original question) not in the sense that I don’t care about Constantine, but more in the terms of through studying general patterns and themes of history we know why he would have done something, and that he did in fact have a profound effect on the religion. That’s exactly why it doesn’t matter! We know that Constantine had an enormous, vast effect on the religion of Christianity because he brought the religion to everyday-people’s terms and popularized it, “legalized” it in a sense, introduced it to go in accord with government and politics, and overall just allowed the religion to reach new heights through making the general population accept and practice/widespread the religion. Whether or not he was a Christian is beside the point! As he only officially converted on his deathbed itself, it may never be known if Constantine was an official Christian during his actual reign, and the extent to which he believed and practiced the religion is up in the air. But through history, we understand that Constantine had an extensive impact on the religion and even though he may not have been one, he opened up the door for and set million of other people throughout history on the path towards practicing, believing, and participating in the religion of Christianity. He marketed Christianity and created the investment opportunity for people to take during his time and onto the rest of time up until now; Constantine was a great Christian figure who set the movement of the religion that would play such a significant role throughout history to come. Now, the question comes out to be: does a religious figure need to be religious? What are the qualifications of a religious figure? 

The Caste System: Constructing Religious-Social Realities

The notion of religion being a mean by which people increase or decrease the amount of/use of power in society is a very prominent throughout history, and even in modern history. Although, (one of) the first religious-social societies which heavily combined the two aspects of life into one powerful and eminent force was the origins of Hinduism in the Indus Valley Region between 3500 and 1800 BCE. There were rankings of groups of people who were all involved in society, but in different, unique ways. The highest ranking that one could be in was the “Brahmins”. This level of society included priests, teachers, scholars, and other highly educated and exposed individuals. I believe that they were the highest ranked because they had the most to offer throughout society as they were the ones to educate others which would eventually follow them; naturally, those in the highest rankings tend to also have the highest priority and significance, so it makes sense that the teachers would preside first. Second, there are the “Kshatriyas”. This rank consisted of warriors, fighters, and royalty. Interestingly enough, royalty in this case was not the highest priority (as history plays out it becomes clear that royalty, sometimes as a result of religion, is the number one), and I think it is because in the time period back then, religion was their government, and once that governing need was fulfilled the royalty really had nothing to do except carry out family name and tradition--and control/maintain the region, somewhat. Next there was the “Vaishyas”, mostly traders and economic workers. This makes sense because an economy as a very functioning and somewhat essential part of life throughout history, and there is a pattern that when an economy disfunctions, the surrounding society(s) disfunction as well--so the ones who controlled and participated in the economy were definitely above the lower ranks of society. Lastly there was the “Shudras”, which were made up of farmers, servicemen, artists, laborers, and the working class in general terms. This sort of set the foundation for societal classes throughout history, as almost always until very modern history, the working class/the ones who provided the living essentials and add ons (like art, etc.) were at the lowest ranks of society since they were the ones that allowed everyone else in society to prosper and fulfill their roles in their respective ranks. They were the basis of society--literally. Surprisingly though, that is not all! There was an even lower class of people which were labeled as “Untouchables”. The name speaks for itself, as they were so low in ranking that even the people in the “Shudras” would consider them as inferior, and could not comprehend to even touch them--a little extreme, much? Regardless, this was the Caste system which ruled India and Hindus life for a while, and it was all based off of religion, indirectly though. 

The whole system of the Caste was hereditary, which meant that the people in each ranking didn’t have to do anything to be classified that way except being born--and once they were in, they could not get out for as long as they lived. The higher the rank, the higher the wealth and importance. As a result of the high influence of Hinduism (a religion), the Caste system implied that the ranks determined the religious rankings and significance of each individual. This makes sense as the priest, religious figure, made the cut off for the top priority. Anyways, the religious classifications also instituted a social, economic, and power system by which society operated, but the power classes were heavier than all the others, outweighing them. The Caste system is a perfect example of religion being used as a mean to gain or in this case, maintain power. The people in the higher rankings of the system used religion as an excuse to be powerful and used religion as their way to distribute and effectually use their power to their intention. Here, we see that religion itself becomes the institution in history by which social status (and thus economic, political, etc. statuses) were gained and maintained. Religion had begun to classify people and control how they live their lives. For our purposes, it perfectly exemplifies a way that would make someone in history think a certain way or do a certain thing. We’ve been asking what makes someone do something...this is a potential answer: in the case of a person living in this period in history, their religion would classify them in a specific ranking, therefore dictating to them how they should live their lives--and what ever they do, their incentive is based off of their religious-social placement. Their ranking and means by which they live their life would make people do or think a certain way, thus answering our overarching, historiographical question. Someone’s religion would transform their reality into something unique from any other’s because their religion would place them in such a classification/ranking (in this case, the Caste system), and whichever placement they are in, the way they see the world, act, and form realities are all an outcome of their religious-social organization and placement, thus answering the question of how religion contributes to constructing one’s reality in history.

The Success and Expansion of Christianity

Christianity rose to become one of the primary religions in the world. It proposed a change in society that allowed for people to perceive the way they live their general lives in and outside of religious boundaries differently. This change in how people viewed the world was received very positively, openly, and thoroughly, allowing the religion to rise up in terms of popularity/numbers and expand its boundaries. Specifically, what was unique about Christianity which appealed to so many people throughout early history was that its philosophies and principles redirected religious organization as well as social organizations which improved individual behavior and relationships, ultimately helping Christianity to rise up in popularity. This change in the ways of looking at relationships with other humans, not just about one’s relation with their deity, brought a new understanding of humanity to the table, altering the world which was overflowing with cruelties and negative action against humanity; in other words, Christianity proposed a change to the way people live their daily lives, and that change was widely yearned for and accepted. 

Christianity also posed dramatic change on the virtues which people observe and reflect upon in their daily lives. Christian principles were viewed as somewhat of a handbook by which people used to understand how they should act and participate in society. This was a significant difference between Christianity and most other religions at the time (e.g Judaism, Islam, etc). The contrast really promoted the new religion to a new level, as the main difference included that most other religions expressed requirements that needed to be fulfilled in order to be a participant in the religion. Judaism required the ethnic classification to have a Jewish ethnicity, for example. Christianity merely formed something more than a religion, and everything which encompassed the religion was just a guideline by which believers would follow and adapt for--it established a social format. This is the essential reason why Christianity became such a dominant world religion: it created an organizational framework about social relationships on a basis of religion. A Christian would then have the freedom to live the Christian philosophies and beliefs to the extent desired, which changed the world around humans, socially speaking. It was a unifying force which cancelled out all concepts of division, whether that be ethnically, socially, economically, sexually, etc. There were no requirements, therefore Christianity was much more open, and consequently more expansive and sizable, soon to be growing exponentially throughout history. The religion prompted liberating social relationships between people and united them through their differences; all barriers were broken as far as Christianity was concerned. Differences or requirements didn’t matter, religiously. That’s what made Christianity so special, prominent, and expansive: it was more than a religion--it introduced a new way of life which people sought for.

Prophet versus Missionary Analysis

A missionary is someone who dedicates their life to convincing others about something, in this case, a religion. Missionaries spread the word around and attempt to draw in as many people as they can to convert them into a new belief, broadening the acceptance and tolerance of such beliefs. Essentially, a missionary is a religious activist. In Paul’s case, his interpretation and perceiving of Jesus was spread through his individual views and experiences. This relates to the overarching concept of how history is created and why we study it, as the core foundational history of Christianity of based off of what we know was there and what was told to us; in religious, missionaries played an almost essential role in the “what was told to us” part. Also when considering missionaries, historical diffusion comes into play and very much so assisted the missionaries in achieving their goals of spreading the good word of a new religion or belief. Once spread to one area or group of people, or let alone an influential individual, history would do its part in establishing a great historical significance of the growth/expansions of ideas and beliefs throughout history. It was hard enough to reach someone and convince them of a radical idea, but once done, their job was pretty much over, as that individual would inhabit their beliefs and new ideas, spread them to others, only to be continually passed down through generations to initiate a new historically religious presence. Regardless, missionaries lead to more converts which lead to more believers, ultimately exaggerating, expanding, and popularizing religion throughout history (no believers = no religion!). This whole cycle of believers trying to seek others to also become believers provoked religious significance throughout time. 

Prophets, on the other hand, are people who advocate or speak in a visionary way about a new belief, cause, or theory. They are the ones throughout history who have established a personal connection with their religion and see it in a different way that nobody else can; but it is their job to enlighten and allow such enlightenment and achievement to continue throughout generations so that their religion and religious practices and all that it encompasses is not lost, but is passed on and further expanded to newer heights that cannot be reached alone, or without such insight, knowledge, and visionaries as prophets were. Cultural diffusion played a role, but a much smaller, indefinite role in the history of prophets. Think about it; missionaries spread the word but prophets gave, or initiated/introduced the word. Historical diffusion would not expand on and continue/greaten the visionary beliefs but would rather impede it from moving on; things which historically diffuse tend to have a history or previous significance, which is why missionaries were so successful and powerful. Prophets, on the other hand, were a  much more diminished, not powerful force as they must have individually preached their beliefs to one, and try to gain historical significance as an individual rather than a group or religion as a whole. It was a much slower, tenuous process, and therefore, prophet’s ideas were not that well spread and were not as successful as missionaries. Not to say that none were (there were some very influential and immensely significant prophets in religious history), it was just less common and more challenging.

When comparing a missionary and a prophet, one can establish yet another middle ground. Prophet qualities can easily fit those of a missionary, as both are there to spread ideas, gain significance, and advocates for something greater. Although, they are not interchangeable because missionary characteristics do not necessarily fit those of a prophet. A missionary does not make predictions, or have individual, visionary insight to the religion/beliefs of a prophet; they merely advocate and popularize while prophets create a new belief or concept and advocate on behalf of their individual practice/belief. Therefore, these two terms are not exactly interchangeably usable, but do share some notable characteristics which are greatly accounted for when observing religious history. 

Cult Versus Religion Analysis

Religion can be defined as the belief in and worship of a controlling, divine power, especially of a god or multiple gods. A cult can be defined with three main qualities: the first being a less amount of practitioners or participants than there are in the prevailing religion, the second being the concepts and beliefs of a cult must be outside of the mainstream of religion, and the third being that there is an iconic figure or thing to which admiration is shown and proved to. In other words, the practices of a cult has to be radical of the prevailing concepts (disregarding the admiration of a figure or thing). The differences are proved instantly by observations the definitions of the contrasting religious practices and practicers. To start off, in this case, the size off the practitioners and believers matter. Rationally, if more people are doing something, (more) people will regard it as a valid, credible practice. But, if there are less participants of a smaller group on the sidelines of the prevailing force (being religion in this case), (more) people will view it as an invalid, irrational, and a non-authoritative practice. A cult is much smaller in size of followers and practicers than there are in religion. Stemming off from size, the validity of the philosophies, beliefs, and actions of the group consisting of a smaller amount of people would be considered as less significant, rational, and credible to society. If less people are doing it, the cult would be deemed as a minority of society and something that is outlandish to the standards and philosophies of religion, therefore classifying it as it is. Oppositely, religion has many, almost an uncountable amount of participants and practicers which are engaged in religion daily, societally, and popularly; it much more widespread, accepted, and mainstream than that of a cult. Another defining quality of a cult is a the factor of admiration in the direction towards a figure, object, or other “thing”. This is where the two terms come into leveled playing field, and somewhat of similarities begin to emerge. A middle ground exists between cults and religions. It all begins with the similarity between the definitions of cults and religion which proved to be the starting point of the crossovers which will be explained shortly. Both religions and cults have a principle which holds core to the foundations: the admiration, worship, and following/attending to a higher (divine) figure, thing, or theory. From this, as time progresses, changes occur as cults can transform to religions, and religions can transform to cults. Let’s use Christianity (Paul) for an example. Paul began as a cult, with a small number of practitioners (only himself), a radical idea of Jesus being a direct descendant of god, and looked up to Jesus, worshiping and admiring him. The stage of a cult’s existence is set; but Paul went around and picked up a surprisingly large amount of followers which, through the process of historical diffusion, turned into an exponentially large amount of practitioners who participated and agreed with Paul’s theories and beliefs. Also, with the popularizing of his ideas and a large percent of society practicing those beliefs, the ideas of Christianity transitioned from those sitting on the sideline of society to those which had a large role in religious life, becoming mainstream. All along, they kept on admiring the overarching figure which guided the religion, Jesus. Now, everything that began as a cult turned into something that is the exact opposite of a cult--a mainstream, greatly practiced religion. The cult’s status transitioned into a religious status, which proves how a cult and a religion have similarities and a middle ground between the two exists, one that allow one to transition into the other interchangeably.