Lecture I.2.3 - Confrontation of East and West in Religion

This forum is for focused discussions on The Collected Lectures of Joseph Campbell. Each lecture has its own dedicated conversation.

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

Locked
Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Lecture I.2.3 - Confrontation of East and West in Religion

Post by Clemsy »

Image

Lecture I.2.3 - Confrontation of East and West in Religion

Download this Lecture: HERE

Read the Transcript: HERE
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

bodhibliss
Working Associate
Posts: 1659
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 5:00 am

Post by bodhibliss »

Joseph Campbell, from Track 11: "The Problem of Churches & Temples":
The rite, the ritual is what counts in a religion. A ritual is an opportunity to participate in the archetypes of the soul. A ritual is a manifestation and ordered organization of mythological symbols, and by participating in the rite, you participate in these symbols. Where the churches and synagogues go wrong is by telling you what the symbols mean.
The popular conception of ritual today borders on the ridiculous, conjuring images from B-grade movies of seemingly ignorant, half-naked savages working themselves into a frenzy, or menacing Satanists in robes and hoods drawing pentagrams and making strange hand passes over nubile, scantily clad sacrificial victims. At best, ritual has been portrayed in the popular media as a means of manipulating and controlling people and circumstances to fulfill one’s desires; at worst, onscreen rites serve as a conduit for evil forces opposed to the rational, honest efforts of the good and the innocent.

Hollywood caricatures aren’t born in a vacuum, however; it’s not unusual today for otherwise intelligent, well-read individuals to disparage ritual - perhaps because the rituals we're most familiar with don't speak to the soul anymore, instead falling flat and lifeless, favoring form over substance. Many of us have experienced rituals that were nothing more than obedience to rote and repetition - nothing animated, inspiring, or ensouled.

I grew up in a small fundamentalist Protestant sect that eschewed ritual. The official teaching was that ritual was lifeless, part of the pagan belief structure that infuses the Catholic, Lutheran, and Anglican communions. Nevertheless, even though our ministers ridiculed those practices, it's nearly impossible for a religious body to escape ritual completely - we embraced a few of our own: the Lord's Supper, performed once a year on Passover; baptism (total immersion, without taking a breath before the plunge); resting from labors (and sports, TV, recreational activities, etc.) on the Saturday Sabbath, and a handful of others.

These activities felt sacred to me in my childhood - but once I grew up and left the fold I evolved beyond these traditions: Saturdays, for example, no longer had a tangible, special quality for me ... just one more meaningless ritual.

Years later, reading Joseph Campbell made ritual come alive for me. In an interview with Michael Toms (of New Dimensions radio), Campbell echoes the thought he expresses in the lecture above, stating "When you participate in a ritual, you are participating in a myth" (which I think of as experiential mythology).

Ritual takes many forms - but the point of ritual seems to be to open a portal and propel us past surface realities into an experience of a deeper reality underlying the world we perceive with our senses. Ritual allows us an experience transcendent to, yet in harmony with, that of the physical senses. A living ritual has a numinous, dream-like, surreal component - that sense of participation mystique, as Campbell labels it, using a term borrowed from Levy-Bruhl. Ego breaks down and one's sense of self both dissolves and expands beyond individual identity. Like in a play (drama, come to think of it, having evolved from sacred rituals), we suspend our disbelief, and participate in the myth

...and then we return to this world, as if waking and remembering a dream, bringing with us a gift, a tiny draught of wisdom...
That whole problem of breaking out of the field of waking consciousness into a field of dream consciousness is a basic problem of ritual...

I would say the main function of ritual is to orient an individual to the dream consciousness level, which is the productive level... Dream consciousness is further in, and it’s a creative consciousness, whereas waking consciousness is a critical consciousness. (emphasis mine)

- Joseph Campbell, The Hero’s Journey, p. 60, 61
I have participated in rituals of numerous traditions, from partaking of prasad in a Hindu temple to sweat lodge ceremonies in the American southwest, and even midnight mass on Christmas Eve - and, thanks to the perspective Joseph Campbell shares with us, these have opened me to depths I had not previously suspected.

I'm curious what forms your experiences of this might take. Are there rites in traditional disciplines that do this for you? Or have you discovered/created personal rituals that fill this role in your life?

Where do you find ritual today?

jonsjourney
Associate
Posts: 3191
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
Location: Earth

Post by jonsjourney »

I'm curious what forms your experiences of this might take. Are there rites in traditional disciplines that do this for you? Or have you discovered/created personal rituals that fill this role in your life?

Where do you find ritual today? -BB
In the realm of the personal, I have found a ritual that I participate in each Thursday evening. It is just a little jam session that occurs at a friends house where the four of us get together to allow our expressiveness to come out by way of unstructured music. It is a lot like a drum circle because of its unstructured format. Yet, as the years have unfolded (and we have only missed a few nights over the past 4 years) a pattern has developed within our creations. There are themes that emerge frequently. I believe these themes touch upon our connecting with the "music of the universe". Sometimes it is gold, sometimes it is dirt, but it is valuable none-the-less.

What is key is that we have come to truly look forward to Thursdays. Somehow the communal, expressive nature of these gatherings has created a source of release from our daily grinds. It is not as formal as a Catholic Mass or a meditating Sangha, but it offers just as much catharsis. It has led me to realize that we are living our myths and we need only recognize their existences around us.
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams

Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra »

bodhibliss wrote:'

...

I have participated in rituals of numerous traditions, from partaking of prasad in a Hindu temple to sweat lodge ceremonies in the American southwest, and even midnight mass on Christmas Eve - and, thanks to the perspective Joseph Campbell shares with us, these have opened me to depths I had not previously suspected.

I'm curious what forms your experiences of this might take. Are there rites in traditional disciplines that do this for you? Or have you discovered/created personal rituals that fill this role in your life?

Where do you find ritual today?
Hi Bodhibliss,

Ever since finding your post here I was thinking how to respond to your question about my experiences of ritual. The reason I haven't replied with anything so far is that I am a bit scared of this theme, for ritual involves so much more than one would first imagine. I have participated in Roman Catholic rituals mostly, but I have seen some Anglican, Protestant, Baptist and Unitarian rituals as well. Since the rituals of other denominations failed to impress me I thought I better not talk about them. With rituals, perhaps what we are familiar with is what going to impress. It would not surprise me one bit if a Protestant said that our RC ritual has too much frills, if a Baptist said our ritual is not so celebratory and joyous as theirs, and there is nothing wrong with saying that, I believe. Ritual has to awaken our sense of the mystical in the way we traditionally experienced, it also has to connect us to a time much before we have ever participated in the ritual and it should have significance for us in the here and now. Just this Easter I thought I saw a miracle during our traditional Easter mass. I did not think it was possible to improve on the musical element of the Easter ceremony but the St Patrick's Cathedral choir master organised such exceptional quality music that I am still in awe.

Besides placing the individual in a larger time-frame and into its own established tradition, I think ritual has a regulatory function as well. In that moment when the outside world disappears and the here and now connects with the whole of one's tradition, the ritual transforms the individual by re-aligning the self with the whole. Ritual is not merely entertainment - though it has an aspect of entertainment to it as well - it also regulates the individual and through the individual it regulates society as a whole. Ritual connects the spiritual with the mundane and the individual with the whole. Each of these functions deserves pages of explanation to begin to express the notions correctly, yet one experience of properly conducted ritual is enough to make a life long impression on our soul. So, perhaps now you see why I hesitated writing anything about this topic until now, too much to say, not enough words in my vocabulary to discuss the topic properly. :oops:

Thank you for bringing up this topic, Bodhi, it will be very interesting to see how people from different cultural background respond. If we lucky, we might even get a glimps into other ancient rituals with the help of fellow associates. :D
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com

bodhibliss
Working Associate
Posts: 1659
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 5:00 am

Post by bodhibliss »

@ Jon - I am reminded of the sense of the sacred Campbell found in the music of the Grateful Dead, a ritual in which hundreds of thousands participated over the years, rooted in the improvisational jam. I have experienced God in such settings every bit as much as in more traditional ceremonies ...

@ Evinnra - In my experience, most Protestant rituals do fail to impress - but then, the Reformation was hostile toward ritual, an attitude that remains prevalent today (indeed, many Baptists I know would be offended were I to I suggest their church has its own rituals). Hence, Joseph Campbell speaks of finding most Protestant services somewhat thin in this category, compared to the elegance of Catholic ritual.

A miracle during Easter mass - how wonderful, Evinnra! Talk about participating in the myth! (And, of course, I don't mean "myth" in the sense of something false, as it is so often used today).
In that moment when the outside world disappears and the here and now connects with the whole of one's tradition, the ritual transforms the individual by re-aligning the self with the whole. Ritual is not merely entertainment - though it has an aspect of entertainment to it as well - it also regulates the individual and through the individual it regulates society as a whole. Ritual connects the spiritual with the mundane and the individual with the whole.
A wonderful encapsulation, Evinnra. Campbell even notes that rituals are by nature often long and boring to observers, rather than entertaining, and so "ego" - my mundane concerns - is quelled with nothing to engage it, which allows the joy, elation, and catharsis to manifest.

In the West our faiths devote lots of energy to intellectualizing and theologizing - which isn't to say that never happens in the East (millions of words contained in endless commentaries on the sutras suggests otherwise); nevertheless, there seems a different attitude toward ritual and its liminal reality

... an attitude similar to that of the Roman Catholic mass, where the bread and the wine transforms into the flesh and blood of God the Son. Those who aren't vested in the ritual never experience that, even when they go through the motions - but for those who do, how incredibly powerful an experience that is!

Thank you both for sharing.

I too am curious about what personal or collective rites outside Western religious traditions speak to our Associates.

CarmelaBear
Associate
Posts: 4087
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 3:51 pm
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Post by CarmelaBear »

All societies are evil. All societies are sorrowful. All societies have inequities. But your point—your main point—is to be illuminated. Recognize things that way, then go to work if you want, but that is the first recognition. Now this is the great lesson: the horrendous nature of life, and the glorious character of it—in that monstrous Kirtimukha over the shrines. You can’t really know the God until you know that, recognize it, and humbly pass through it.

JC, page 17
The virtue of an Oriental student is sradha, absolute faith in the guru. I said I’ve never taught a student West of Suez who had absolute faith in his professor. Criticism, judgment—that’s what we ask for, and the student brings it. So this is a more complicated situation than that other. Nevertheless, reading these Oriental works, coming in touch with that Oriental world, awakens in us the notion of how the inward way can be followed, how it can be brought forward up into action.

JC, page 15
Personally, I do not have the luxury of believing that "all societies are evil", because I believe the dualism this implies is anathema. I believe that society is a reflexion of it's source, which is nature and reality and existence as we are capable of experiencing it and making sense of it. I believe that these are ethically neutral, neither good nor evil, but certainly involving the experience of consciousness and will and choice and the sorrows that come from responsibility for the inevitable messes that are the nature of nature.

There is one creation of society and the social order that looms over all others and inspired a great man to remember Shiva, who said "I am death, the destroyer of worlds". It is the prime test of the ethics of human consciousness on an institutional level, where individuals are contained by norms and process and explicit collective intent. The nuclear prerogative has been with us since 1945, and in these years, one moment to the next, the divine sense of power expressed by Shiva has become an all-too-human realization.

I know this realization through the power of the imagination. I can imagine being president. I can imagine having the authority to choose to become death, the destroyer of worlds. I can imagine a number of scenarios where such choice is inevitable.

Like every single individual human being who has occupied a position of power in relation to nuclear and other forms of massive military destructive power, I am contained. There is no impulse to use that power of nuclear energy to risk the destruction of all of humanity on this fragile planet. In these moments since the first and most important Ground Zero, individuals have exercised both restraint and caution.

There is a giant who lives inside my five foot female frame. She sees the flower of human existence and she is pleased. There is no evil in the beauty I see.

No one has pressed the button since True Man and the second world war. No accidental firings of ballistic rockets have drawn knee-jerk aggressions to counter misperceived attacks.

Society has chosen life over nuclear destruction.

Now society faces other threats and these involve other challenges. In some ways, we are not faring as well on other fronts. Green house gas remains an obstacle to any hope of reversing massive damage to our atmosphere and an obstacle to our capacity to remain intact as an ordered civilization. Personal health vies with myriad cross currents that threaten our ability to think and act with that magical, mystical balance of good sense and compassion.

There is the society who is Shiva, destroyer of worlds. There is another, restrained and cautious and skilled society that has not set off the fireworks that kill the birds and bring them down to earth in a dead heap. Truman was the president who provided the world with the first demonstration of our brave new world of planetary consciousness. With this knowledge, our world now depends for its life blood on the individual who knows what it is to peel potatoes.

~
Once in a while a door opens, and let's in the future. --- Graham Greene

Ercan2121
Associate
Posts: 824
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:15 am
Location: Istanbul

Post by Ercan2121 »

CarmelaBear wrote: Personally, I do not have the luxury of believing that "all societies are evil", because I believe the dualism this implies is anathema.
From the standpoint of individual (=hero), all societies (=all systems) are restricting (thus, evil). But I have difficulty to understand what you exactly mean here by anathema?

A J
Associate
Posts: 425
Joined: Fri May 02, 2003 5:00 am
Location: San Antonio
Contact:

Post by A J »

What a timely thread.

As I read it, I could not help but remember something I posted several years ago, shortly after I first joined this esteemed group (motley crew?).

I commented at that time on one of Bodhi's Practical Campbell essays, the same point he makes about ritual in his current OP. It was that essay that helped prompt me into returning to the Episcopal church as an active member. (The Episcopal/Anglican tradition is, I believe, somewhere in between the RC and Protestant traditions. What had initially drawn me to Episcopalianism was the practice of the Eucharist, or Holy Communion. I had personally found it a living ritual, steeped in that participation mystique Bodhi mentions above. I made the choice to return at a pivotal period in the life of the Episcopal Church US. They had confirmed an openly gay bishop, were holding same sex marriage ceremonies, and, shortly after, elected their first woman leader to preside over the entire country. However, those actions, at the same time, started a backlash in conservative dioceses, including the one that my little church was a part of. I struggled to keep an open voice in that group, primarily because of its ritual. I agree wholeheartedly with Evinra and his statement: " In that moment when the outside world disappears and the here and now connects with the whole of one's tradition, the ritual transforms the individual by re-aligning the self with the whole." That, to me is the function of ritual, and the experience is illuminating, every time.

My personal favorite part of the Eucharist comes near the end, after receiving the communion, when the participants say together, "And now, Father, send us out into the world to do the work you have given us to do...." That, in my very humble opinion, is the whole reason for participating.

Traditionally, the time between the reception and the acceptance of the responsibility it represents is a time of quiet contemplation. However, the evangelical element that was taking over our little group did not see it that way, and would have done away with the ritual altogether if they could, seeing it as a meaningless rite. They decided that the interim should be taken up with loud, joyous singing of praises. (One Sunday, my son attended with me and commented that it was easy to tell the evangelicals from the traditionalists - the latter crossed themselves and the former raised their arms above their heads.) Finally, one Sunday, a leader of this group stood and condemned those who continued to kneel quietly rather than join in. Being as I was one of that group, and after some personal mediation and soul-searching, I decided not to remain. It was the best thing, probably for them as well as for me, since I was having a harder and harder time each week not allowing my irritation to surface, and interfere with the resonance of the group. The mystique was gone for me. It was time to move on.

I feel in many ways that my personal quest to find and follow my life's purpose has gone beyond the need for that particular ritual, but I still miss it, and so far, have not been able to find a satisfactory replacement.

AJ
"Sacred space and sacred time and something joyous to do is all we need. Almost anything then becomes a continuous and increasing joy."

A Joseph Campbell Companion: Reflections on the Art of Living

CarmelaBear
Associate
Posts: 4087
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 3:51 pm
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Post by CarmelaBear »

Ercan2121 wrote:
CarmelaBear wrote: Personally, I do not have the luxury of believing that "all societies are evil", because I believe the dualism this implies is anathema.
From the standpoint of individual (=hero), all societies (=all systems) are restricting (thus, evil). But I have difficulty to understand what you exactly mean here by anathema?
In the world where it is accepted that the good guys live and the bad guys die (or are killed), the concept of evil is useful. The label describes something that is harmful, and it makes rejection and destruction both permissible and necessary.

In the world where there is no need to reject or destroy, where the MOST harmful private behavior is minor in relation to the governing collective and this behavior can be managed and understood, the dualism of good and evil is less useful than the idea that we are all part of a global whole, where everyone is appreciated even when our behavior is terrible. In a world where the collective does not visit destructive forces on individuals and succinct groups, dualism is anathema, because there would be no exceptions to the idea that human beings are all members of a protected species.

~
Once in a while a door opens, and let's in the future. --- Graham Greene

Ercan2121
Associate
Posts: 824
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:15 am
Location: Istanbul

Post by Ercan2121 »

I believe that society is a reflexion of it's source, which is nature and reality and existence as we are capable of experiencing it and making sense of it. I believe that these are ethically neutral, neither good nor evil, but certainly involving the experience of consciousness and will and choice and the sorrows that come from responsibility for the inevitable messes that are the nature of nature.
I think that there can be different sources for any social organization.

One is mind. Marx and Engels dreamt of such an ideal society and what seems to be
credible theoretically was put in practice in countries like Soviet Union.
Noone can deny that Marxism had started with very noble ideals. But other sources
shaping human groups/societies were also at work -namely, the best of systems couldn't change human nature.
Children who grew up in Moscow didn't become more civil :(

Ercan2121
Associate
Posts: 824
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:15 am
Location: Istanbul

Post by Ercan2121 »

CarmelaBear wrote: No one has pressed the button since True Man and the second world war. No accidental firings of ballistic rockets have drawn knee-jerk aggressions to counter misperceived attacks.

Society has chosen life over nuclear destruction.
Harry Truman did what he deems to be right for Americans -exactly like
Iranian leaders doing what they feel to be right for Iran. Namely, we have to consider such facts relatively (with respect to different nations) and there's no global consensus yet about what is right or better for the whole of humanity (certainly, if we are entitled to talk in the name of such a global community).
From a highly spiritual perspective, nothing is wrong because all is only drama.
Neither Truman nor Iranian leaders can be held responsible for their acts. They're only actors. But from a conventional viewpoint, we cannot argue without taking sides. Because what we experience is a state of diversity.
There are different nations. The global consciousness is 'international' (between nations) and in practice, we cannot speak of a state of oneness for humanity :?

CarmelaBear
Associate
Posts: 4087
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 3:51 pm
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Post by CarmelaBear »

Ercan2121 wrote:
CarmelaBear wrote: No one has pressed the button since True Man and the second world war. No accidental firings of ballistic rockets have drawn knee-jerk aggressions to counter misperceived attacks.

Society has chosen life over nuclear destruction.
.....from a conventional viewpoint, we cannot argue without taking sides. Because what we experience is a state of diversity.

There are different nations. The global consciousness is 'international' (between nations) and in practice, we cannot speak of a state of oneness for humanity :?
One simple fact is that since Truman's action, the diverse international community has not committed suicide. We kill for food. We kill for sport. We kill to safeguard our energy supplies. We kill for many reasons, including individual suicide and dissolution of nations like the Soviet Union. Still, those who could have set the world aflame with nuclear weapons have remained silent.

It may be the only time we ever acted as one world. I believe that those who understand the distructive power of nuclear weapons are aware of the implications of another Hiroshima-Nagasaki.

Humanity is recognizing itself in stages. Baby steps included language and travel and trade and communication. Eventually, there may be a need for coordinated action, and the nations of the world will have no choice but to act in unison.

~
Once in a while a door opens, and let's in the future. --- Graham Greene

Ercan2121
Associate
Posts: 824
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:15 am
Location: Istanbul

Post by Ercan2121 »

From here to eternity.
Pearl Harbour attack was totally
unacceptable. My feeling is
US kinda took revenge with those
bombs.
You know, here I'm not reasoning;
what I say may sound ridiculous
but that's what I feel.

CarmelaBear
Associate
Posts: 4087
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 3:51 pm
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Post by CarmelaBear »

Ercan2121 wrote:From here to eternity.
Pearl Harbour attack was totally
unacceptable.
When we used the bomb, we were the only ones with that technology, and we only had the two bombs. Equivalent retaliation was not possible.The balance was entirely on our side, and we had enough reason to make a demonstration the world would never forget.

Now, it's a different story.

~
Once in a while a door opens, and let's in the future. --- Graham Greene

jonsjourney
Associate
Posts: 3191
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
Location: Earth

Post by jonsjourney »

From here to eternity.
Pearl Harbour attack was totally
unacceptable. -Ercan
If one studies what led up to Pearl Harbor, the reasons are understandable, regardless of their acceptability. It is not as if "it came out of nowhere" like it was so often taught in schools to children. We are just not going to take the time to understand Asian history and the role of colonialism in how it has unfolded. That kind of perspective undermines our self-serving propaganda. If we did better understand why things develop the way they do, we would be one step closer to that unified global understanding that remains so elusive.

Sometimes the world turns far too slowly when compared to the speed of the mind.
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams

Locked