Robert Sharf discussed about the experience wherein he cited that as a concept, experience has come to play pivotal role in the study of religion. In the meditation manual, Carl Bielefeldt quoted a statement in Lancet of Seated Meditation which emphasized on what one is thinking when setting so fixedly in meditation. In order to emphasize on this point, it is seemed necessary to cite the statement. It goes, Once, when the Great Master Hung-tao of Yueh-shan was sitting in meditation, a monk asked him, what are you thinking of, setting there so fixedly The master answered, Im thinking of not thinking, The monk asked, How do you think of not thinking The master answered, None thinking. Bielefeldt then applied his discussion on this conversation to Buddha. In the ensuing discussion about the question of thinking not thinking it reflected that what is important is not the position of doing thing. What he meant was that above and beyond setting meditation, there can be figuring of things. Here it reflects that knowledge and experience of what is being figured out is more important than the concept of setting meditation. It means that setting meditation is the physical form, the visible form, but what is more important is the meditation, the thinking that is going, and the knowledge and experience brought by this meditation.
In view of this understanding of Bielefeldts lancet of Meditation, it appears that Sharf is right particularly in his thesis that the term experience is often used rhetorically to thwart the authority of the objective or the empirical, and to valorize instead the subjective, the private. In the Lancet of Meditation, it depicts that the posture of master Hung-tao of Yueh-Shan setting so fixedly depicted the Buddha setting in meditation. But Bielefeldt emphasized that it is not the position or the posture that should be defined or be regarded as important but what it does. It is the subjective it was what he was thinking which was subjective that gives meaning to his meditation. It is where the meaning reside. This is what Sharf is discussing. According to Sharf, the meaning of religious symbols, scriptures, practices, and institutions is believed to reside in the experiences they elicit in the minds of practitioners.
This is true because religious experience is subjective and yet it is meaningful. Sharfs discussion on the role of experience in religion in which he said is thought to constitute the very essence of religion and that the origin of a given tradition is traced to the founders initial transcendent encounter, moment of revelation, salvation, or enlightenment is exactly the case in many religions. Here, Sharf portrayed that experience is very important in the context of ones religiosity. The concept of experience therefore as described by Sharf is that it is a concrete term which encompassed a wide area in human religiosity. That is, experience as Sharf pointed out, is a transformative state of consciousness in which a subject claimed to be in contact with the divine.
Religion therefore without such kind feeling or experience of something or of the divine is void and meaningless. John Morgan asserts that it is only after the experience of religion could reason be used to interpret and to suggest personal meaning (Morgan, 58). Thus, Sharfs discussion of experience in the context of religion is right. His observation regarding the conflict between reason and faith or between religious experience and empirical scientific verification is true. The conflict here is that while the empirical evidence suggests that all truth claims must be subjected to scientific verification, this does not apply to the religious experience as its domain is not in this material world, but to the inner spiritual world, for which the scientific method was deemed inappropriate (As cited by Sharf in Critical Terms for Religious Studies, ed. By mark Taylor, p. 95). In view of Bielefeldts discussion of position and thinking, I would say again that Sharf was right in his argument about the role of the concept of experience in religion.
In view of this understanding of Bielefeldts lancet of Meditation, it appears that Sharf is right particularly in his thesis that the term experience is often used rhetorically to thwart the authority of the objective or the empirical, and to valorize instead the subjective, the private. In the Lancet of Meditation, it depicts that the posture of master Hung-tao of Yueh-Shan setting so fixedly depicted the Buddha setting in meditation. But Bielefeldt emphasized that it is not the position or the posture that should be defined or be regarded as important but what it does. It is the subjective it was what he was thinking which was subjective that gives meaning to his meditation. It is where the meaning reside. This is what Sharf is discussing. According to Sharf, the meaning of religious symbols, scriptures, practices, and institutions is believed to reside in the experiences they elicit in the minds of practitioners.
This is true because religious experience is subjective and yet it is meaningful. Sharfs discussion on the role of experience in religion in which he said is thought to constitute the very essence of religion and that the origin of a given tradition is traced to the founders initial transcendent encounter, moment of revelation, salvation, or enlightenment is exactly the case in many religions. Here, Sharf portrayed that experience is very important in the context of ones religiosity. The concept of experience therefore as described by Sharf is that it is a concrete term which encompassed a wide area in human religiosity. That is, experience as Sharf pointed out, is a transformative state of consciousness in which a subject claimed to be in contact with the divine.
Religion therefore without such kind feeling or experience of something or of the divine is void and meaningless. John Morgan asserts that it is only after the experience of religion could reason be used to interpret and to suggest personal meaning (Morgan, 58). Thus, Sharfs discussion of experience in the context of religion is right. His observation regarding the conflict between reason and faith or between religious experience and empirical scientific verification is true. The conflict here is that while the empirical evidence suggests that all truth claims must be subjected to scientific verification, this does not apply to the religious experience as its domain is not in this material world, but to the inner spiritual world, for which the scientific method was deemed inappropriate (As cited by Sharf in Critical Terms for Religious Studies, ed. By mark Taylor, p. 95). In view of Bielefeldts discussion of position and thinking, I would say again that Sharf was right in his argument about the role of the concept of experience in religion.
No comments:
Post a Comment