In this article I would like to share one of my ideas regarding religion and the choice of the spiritual path. There are many religions, but how to understand which is true, which is not afraid of this phrase, is suitable for you personally? For this, I came up with the term "Effective Religion". I warn you that my somewhat utilitarian and down-to-earth approach may inadvertently offend someone’s feelings. If you think that your feelings are easy to offend, and if you really do not want to think about the essence of your religiosity and leave everything as it is, it is better not to read the article, so as not to experience dissonance.
Before turning to the idea of “Effective Religion”, let me write about that phenomenon in the religious world, which always amazed me and from which, in fact, the idea of “effective religion” grew.
Religiousness by territory
And the fact that I was always amazed was the unshakable confidence of representatives of various religious trends, traditions and trends that it is their religion that is the only way to spiritual salvation, while all others are mistaken.
Most Christians have "unbreakable" and "most convincing" arguments in favor of the truth of Christianity and the falsity of other directions. But the most interesting thing is that Muslims have the same arguments, but only with regard to the truth of Islam. The same can be said about the Jews, Hindus and representatives of other religions.
(Not to mention the divisions and contradictions between the sects of Christianity, the directions of Hinduism, etc. That is, the detailing of the depth of this antagonism is much deeper).
All these people are united in the conviction that only their understanding of the nature of the "Absolute", "God", and "universe" is true.
Even more surprisingly, most religious people give their eternal salvation at the mercy of purely arbitrary factors: he who was born and lives in Europe professes Christianity only because he was born where the most common religion is the teaching of Christ. A person from the Middle East is likely to be a Muslim or a Jew, and from a more distant East a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Sikh, a Shinto who also professes the traditions of his country.
I want to say: “Hey! Wait a minute This is about the spiritual path, the Absolute, the salvation of the soul! These things seem to be high above the factor of territorial birth and local culture. If, indeed, there is only one truth, then how can one choose which one to follow based only on which religion is common in your territory and which sacred book fell first in your hands? ”
Exactly! Most Christians did not read the Quran, Bhagavad Gita, Buddhist, Hindu Sutras, texts of Confucianism and Taoism. And vice versa! They simply chose what the surrounding majority confessed, recognizing this as an absolute truth. It’s not even right to speak about choice here, because it wasn’t there! And all this against the backdrop of a decisive confidence in the correctness of their own spiritual choice.
It turns out that all religious wars, all world victims of religious repression, all crimes motivated by fanaticism grow from purely random factors of culture and education. "I was raised in a Christian country, in a Christian environment, unlike you, and although I am not familiar with your religious tradition, I am right only on the basis that I was lucky to be born in the West, and you are not right, because I was born in the East and therefore, you must forcibly join my views / be punished! ”
Oh my God! What nonsense!
But does this mean that we must reject all “local” religions, moving towards a universal and universal one? Not at all. I just want to say about the conscious choice of religion and the conscious attitude to my own religiosity. And therein lies the concept of "effective religion." Already in this very phrase the outlines of a certain alternative approach to the question of religiosity are outlined.
We are not accustomed to use such a utilitarian word in relation to the most sacred. Rather, for us, our own religion is the instance of unconditional truth, deep emotional experience, rather than efficiency. But wait, now it will be clear what I am leading to.
The concept of "effective religion" is based on several important prerequisites.
Premise 1 - The objective assertion of a certain religion as an absolute transcendental truth is an absolutely unproven thing, an instance of emotions, personal certainty, but not an objective state of affairs.
Simply put, the belief that only a Christian, "New Testament" God exists with all its attributes embedded in Christian doctrine is only faith. Just like belief in the existence of pagan gods or faith in Krishna, Shiva, etc. There is no objective reason to believe that one faith is “better” than another and is closer to the truth.
What, wait? You say that there are some miracles that “prove” the existence of your God’s religion? But if you study other directions, then there you will find phenomena, wonders, which are attributed to the God of this direction!
Or maybe you "personally communicate with the Virgin!" Perfectly! But while you communicate with her, the devout Sufi in a hot country merges with God, Buddhists in a state of deep meditation are bodhisattvas, past and future buddhas, and the yogi in the Himalayan cave dissolves into the impersonal Brahman! Amazing, isn't it?
No one has ever returned from the dead. There is no evidence that there really is a cozy Christian / Muslim paradise or reincarnation. Some studies of the latter were carried out, but did not receive recognition in the scientific community, so the issue of reincarnation is still open. However, different people have the experience of communicating with angels, as well as the experience of their past lives.
I must say at once that I do not want to deny the existence of God by writing off all these phenomena as hallucinations. Here it would be appropriate to assume a kind of connection to the "common source", taking various forms, projected on the cultural stratum of different people.
In general, some people earnestly believe in Christ, others fervently praise Shiva. It is impossible to declare with 100% certainty that one of them is more right than the other. Perhaps everyone is right or wrong. But this we also cannot know. This is a matter of faith, individual emotions, conditioned both by the personality characteristics of a person and the factors of culture and education, and not by the properties of the Absolute itself.
Premise 2 - Religions can do good and benefit people
Someone has already decided that such reasoning will look very organically in the mouth of some atheist scholar proposing to abandon religion. But I’m not leading to this at all. On the contrary, I am sure that religions carry or can carry benefits, both for a specific individual and for society as a whole.
They provide not only a set of moral rules, but also certain techniques (prayer, meditation, fasting, breathing practices, etc.) that help people develop moral, spiritual and volitional qualities, feel calmer, happier, feel communion with something , to become kinder and more tolerant.
What distinguishes me both from a militant atheist and from a deeply religious person is the lack of interest in the question of "truth" or "falsehood" of religion. Religion interests me more like technology, technology of attaining certain states of consciousness and the development of particular personal qualities. And in this sense, in my opinion, religion can have a valuable and irreplaceable function.
Effective religion
And here we are closely approaching the idea of an effective religion. If, on the one hand, religions are useful, and on the other, we cannot know for certain which of them is truer than the rest, how can we evaluate them?
Yes, the afterlife is hidden from our observation. But what is available to our understanding is our earthly existence and the influence of religion on it.
The concept of "effective religion" means that we no longer consider any one religious teaching as an indisputable truth, which does not accept doubt. On the contrary, we ask questions, we try to understand how this religion meets the quality of our lives, satisfies our pursuit of happiness, harmony and peace, that is, how effective this religion is.
We cannot know for sure whether that spiritual path that we have chosen is true in a transcendental, otherworldly sense and whether it answers the absolute truth. We can only believe in it.
But what we can do is look at our life, at the life of those around us and ask ourselves questions. Does my religion help me to be a more harmonious, balanced person? Does this religion provide tools and technology so that I can cope with both daily failures and strong emotional turmoil, grief and despair? Does my religion help me to embody the values that it proclaims: love for all people, compassion, control of passions, peace of mind? Is my religion more a helper of my spiritual development than a jailer who paralyzes my will and restricts my freedom?
If the answers to these questions are more likely to be positive, then such a religion can be considered effective! Within the framework of this concept, we avoid theological disputes about the essence of God, the Absolute, about what is not available to direct experience, and talk about the things that we can understand and comprehend: our earthly life and the influence of religion on it.
The effectiveness of religion can be assessed not only in the context of individual benefit, but also public. Does a certain spiritual teaching help society to become healthy and harmonious, to prevent both internal and external aggression?
(Of course, here I give an example of a very rough assessment. Many factors must be taken into account, such as the degree of religiousness of society (for example, people in India are much more religious than people in Russia, although the latter consider themselves to be Christians formally, but very often they do not profess values and rituals of the teachings of Christ), the cultural and social context of society, the temperament of people, etc.)
In the latter case, we evaluate the effectiveness of religion on an objective plane: is this or that religion effective for most members of society? But this does not mean that this concept cannot exist in the subjective plane: what religion is more suitable for a specific individual. That is, despite the fact that there are obviously some general standards of efficiency, and we can probably say that some religions are more effective than others in general (for most people), this does not mean that they will be more effective for each individual person. (Therefore, later in this article I will talk about two layers of efficiency: objective, general and subjective, particular)
Nevertheless, I would like to further identify those features of religion that, in my opinion, correspond to its effectiveness.
Layered and versatile
What do I understand by multilevel and versatility? This is the ability of a particular teaching to be accessible to all kinds of people, of very different levels of development. I'll start with an example.
When Buddhism began to infiltrate the West, part of Western intellectuals marveled at the “elitism”, “intellectuality”, and “practicality” of this doctrine against the background of the familiar to them “dogmatic” and “ritualized” Christianity and enthusiastically accepted the Eastern teachings. But Buddhism was “leaking out”, that is, it passed through in parts, in an incomplete form. According to some scholars of Buddhism, such hated intellectuals as rituals and ceremonies were contained in the earliest teachings of the Buddha, moreover, Gautama himself encouraged pilgrimage, worship of the relics of the saints.
And right! Because religion should not be purely elitist! Because not every person is capable of perceiving subtle truths that require special states of consciousness, sophisticated teachings, which require a developed intellect to understand. Not everyone is able to realize mystical experiences, a feeling of unity with "God" through diligent practice. But each individual needs a state of peace and integrity. And if someone needs rituals, acts of worship, pilgrimages for this, so be it.
Critics of the ritualization of religions overlook the fact that rituals also play a utilitarian, psychotechnical role. They calm the mind, adjust it to a more subtle work. Despite the fact that I can’t call myself a representative of any religion (although I sympathize with Eastern teachings), I often do some short rituals before practicing. Agree, if you devote a little time to, for example, in peace and quiet to light a stick of incense (it would seem, what a folly!), This will help you to think less about your daily activities during meditation.
Religion should be available to everyone! Therefore, it should contain as a layer for initiates (these are Hesychasm and other mystical directions of Christianity, Sufism in Islam, Zen in Buddhism, Kabbalah in Judaism (by the way, a cursory analysis of the data of mystical directions reveals surprising similarities between them. Mystics from different religions are in many ways different on the other side, they agree) and a more understandable and accessible area for all people: a description of ritual actions, rules for conducting ceremonies and rituals, ways of pilgrimage, etc. (this area already varies greatly in different currents x). But, in my opinion, the mystical, elite stratum should not be locked in, and at least slightly integrate their practices into things more accessible to all people, such as occurs in Eastern religions (the orientation to the development of consciousness, meditation is already in the most basic principles Buddhism). In the Abrahamic traditions, this stratum is more closed and closed to the uninitiated (most Christians are not familiar, for example, with the breathing techniques of Hesychasm, “Christian yoga and meditation”).
Available methods of self-development. Practicality
They are in all religions: prayer, meditation, fasting, breathing techniques. But often their implementation does not receive much attention, which is strange, because it is on them that the spiritual development of man depends. An effective religion will not allow its representatives to form an opinion that their salvation depends only on the formal execution of norms and rituals (although this is also important).
Effective religion places great emphasis on the development of consciousness, the perfection of virtues, it teaches how to manage with anxiety and fear, doubts and self-criticism. (And not only prescribes prohibitions and restrictions, but also shows how HOW we can become better) Indeed, no one doubts the fact of the existence of earthly life with all its hardships and sufferings.
Relevance and uniqueness. Protection against religious deviations
An effective religion must avoid double interpretations. It should have built-in protection from manifestations of fanaticism and deviations, from the realization of sadism and cruelty under the guise of piety. On the one hand, this protection can be presented in the form of practical advice on spiritual development.
In my opinion, extreme manifestations of religious fanaticism, religious cruelty are the result of an undeveloped consciousness. A fanatic is a person who has not learned to cope with lust, cruelty, greed, thirst for power, but now he has received the alleged right to exercise these qualities under the guise of religiosity. Morally, he is no better than criminals, although he thinks he is righteous. Therefore, it is so important for religion to give clear and precise instructions for self-improvement so that a person clears his mind of defilements and vices before performing rash acts under the banner of his faith.
In addition, the very texts of religion should clearly spell out the norms of righteous behavior and take into account unacceptable actions (taking into account historical analysis), including those disguised as religiosity (for example, the inadmissibility of religious persecution, violence, "inquisitions").
Religious practices, fasting should also not harm the person, nor lead to the suppression of desires, nor give birth to new vices and deviations. An effective religion should not avoid consistency with scientific data, psychology is not in a cosmogonic sense (questions of the origin of the world - they will never converge here), but in matters of a balanced development of personality.
Consistency
In general, it is difficult for religious doctrine to be consistent, especially with regard to paragraph 1 (multi-level), different levels may conflict with each other. Богословы сделали все, что могли, чтобы увязать идею о милосердном христианском Боге со всей его ветхозаветной жестокостью, человеческими жертвами, причиной которых стал ОН, чтобы соединить концептуальным мостом Ветхий и Новый Завет, увидев в смерти Иисуса Христа искупление первородного греха, восходящего к книге Бытия.
Вероятно, в мудреных построениях богословов все эти противоречия снимаются, но не в головах обычных людей, опирающихся на здравый смысл, который обнажает весь этот антагонизм между ранними иудейскими корнями христианства и более поздними греческими влияниями, между древней еврейской религиозной книгой и учением Иисуса Христа. Иногда кажется, что христианство - это попытка объединить две совершенно разные религии в одной.
И дело не только в этом, а в том, что, стремясь достучаться до как можно большего числа людей, религия неизбежно рождает новые противоречия. Это закономерный процесс и никакое учение нельзя в этом винить. Опять же это вопрос многоуровневости. Одним людям нужно предоставить пищу для интеллектуального познания Бога, другим для экстатических откровений, третьим - идею любви и заботы, а четвертым (кого уже ничего не берет) - страх перед вечными муками. Поэтому в рамках одной религии мы можем видеть и Бога милосердного, любящего и Бога жестокого, карающего.
Тем не менее, структурный, идеологический каркас эффективной религии можно строить более логично и последовательно, избегая всяких острых углов, противоречий. Достаточно изящный, по моему мнению, в этом построении - это буддизм. Идеи Бога там нет, а она как раз может рождать массу путаницы и вопросов ("Если Бог милосердный, откуда все это страдание?"). Там нет ни наказания, ни поощрения: всю ответственность за моральные провинности "вершит" безличный закон причинно-следственных связей. Каждый сам может "спастись", обретя просветление, а космогонические вопросы (вопросы возникновения мира, смысла жизни) остаются за гранями буддистского дискурса как не важные. То есть буддизм "нащупал" способ избавиться от лишних противоречий просто путем того, что не стал создавать множество "сущностей" (таких как Бог, смысл жизни, наказание и поощрение) в рамках своей доктрины. То есть он куда более минималистичный и поэтому стройный. Но многим людям она покажется более противоречивой, чем ближневосточные религии. Все мы разные и я просто высказываю свое мнение.
Зачем все это?
Я понимаю, что тема, которую я здесь затронул, достаточно глубока и сложна, требует обширных познаний и глубокого анализа на уровне целой серьезной исследовательской работы, на которую, конечно же, данная статья никак не может претендовать. Я вижу, что эта статья не дает какого-то конечного ответа на вопросы, цельной идеи и способа ее реализации. Скорее это способ выразить мои взгляды на религию вот в такой форме.
Я признаю, что я могу лишь "заигрывать" с темой, но цель этой статьи была не создать какую-то концепцию и протолкнуть ее в массы, а заставить людей, которые ее прочитают, думать немножко по-другому, всколыхнуть мышление и фантазию, разбить конформистские установки и заставить взглянуть на некоторые вещи с иного ракурса. Если вы останетесь при своем прежнем мнении - отлично. Моя задача будет выполненной, если данная статья заставит вас хоть немножко задуматься.
Эффективная религия - это путь к тому, чтобы перестать воспринимать религиозные течения (особенно в той форме, которой они до нас дошли) бездумно, вне рамок всякого критического осмысления, как делают глубоко религиозные люди. Но в то же время не критиковать религию, как одно большое заблуждение вообще, как делают атеисты. Я пытаюсь взглянуть на отдельные аспекты религиозности, признав тот факт, что ритуалы, религиозные верования и традиции могут нести пользу, только разную.
Это способ заставить людей задуматься о своей религиозности, а влиянии своих религиозных взглядов на жизнь. О том, что религии создавались людьми и могут быть несовершенны. И результатом этого может быть не только смена религии или отказ от оной. Итогом осознанного отношения к религии может быть также углубление и обретение большей уверенности в своей традиционной вере!
"Чем является для меня моя вера? Стала ли она для меня источником поддержки, способом духовного развития, или же она превратились лишь в формальный ритуал, поддерживаемый мной из страха? Какие изменения мне следует провести в религиозной сфере, чтобы моя религия стала для меня более эффективной?
Предлагает ли она мне доступные способы саморазвития? Является ли она для меня непротиворечивой, или мне приходится идти на конфликт со здравым смыслом, чтобы поддерживать все эти взгляды? Исповедую ли я ее по велению сердца или только потому, что все вокруг ее исповедуют?"
Несмотря на то, что каждый человек, как и я, может считать в общем и целом одни религии эффективнее других, каждая отдельная религия, может быть как более, так и менее эффективной, в зависимости от того, как вы ее используете.
"Взрывать неверных" и достигать неповторимого единения с Богом, рождая в себе любовь и сострадание в коллективной суфийской медитации - это разные по своей эффективности индивидуальные акты осмысления одного и того же религиозного материала.
"Эффективная религия" - это попытка показать, что все религиозные споры о том, "какая религия истинная" не могут привести к правде и примирению участников конфликтов.
Мы не можем знать, что из религий правда, а что ложь: каждый будет настаивать на своей традиции. Куда как большее значение имеет то, носят ли носители какой-то религии в себе ее добродетели. Если буддисты или индуисты в среднем менее агрессивные, более терпимые и сострадательные, чем христиане (или наоборот), то это куда больше говорит в пользу буддизма (или христианства), чем все богословские споры!
Если какой-то священник, приходя домой, бьет свою жену и жестоко наказывает детей, то чего стоят все его знание священных текстов?
Мы должны обратить внимание на это, на то, что поддается нашему наблюдению!
Эффективная религия значит, что мы перестаем принимать собственное религиозное воспитание, как данность.
Если бы мы посвящали чуть-чуть больше времени изучению чужой религиозной культуры, чужих духовных традиций, мы бы обнаружили больше родства, чем различий между нами. Было бы куда меньше причин для ненависти.
И, конечно же, данная статья была моей попыткой пофантазировать как может выглядеть религия будущего, так что можете смотреть на нее как на художественное, утопическое произведение и не воспринимать ее слишком серьезно.
