Destruction of Buddhist statues

Just continuing along with the idea of Buddhism and art, I'm fairly sure that most people are familiar about the destruction of the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan back in 2001.  Not going into the political/religious nature of the whole situation, I just found it rather disheartening at the time to see such a wonderful work of art and human ingenuity torn to pieces.

Honestly...something like this must be seen to actually be believed - a mere picture does it no justice.  Still, it is interesting to think about how events from way back then, during the flourishing period of the Silk Road and the role it played in spreading religious beliefs far and wide are still holding a considerable deal of influence even today in modern times.  I suppose it just goes to show that time does not matter and even the smallest of events can hold a key role in future events.

 Destruction of a statue by the Taliban in 2001

Buddhist Art

Art, whatever you  may personally define it as, is always a beautiful thing to reflect on, I've found.  It's a medium by which people from virtually all cultures and societies can relate to.  It is a medium by which ideas, stories, feelings and emotions can be expressed and interpreted, in a variety of ways.

Religious art, in particular, is a fascinating 'grouping', if you may, of art that I've particularly enjoyed examining.  I've just always found myself quite intrigued by the manner and style by which many of these are produced - in particular, Buddhist statues...vast ones, built upon mountain sides through primitive means many years ago.  From this week's readings, I was quite surprised to see that the Buddha is actually portrayed in a number of different 'styles' from the one that I am used to.  In my house, when I was growing up, my parents had a miniature jade Buddhist statue, that looked much like this:

It was my impression that this was the 'only' representation of Buddha - a large, jolly, laughing bald man.  How utterly wrong I was!  Not only from the fact that this is not the only representation of Buddha (there being much smaller versions of him), but the fact that there is not just 'one' Buddha per se, as I generalized.  I suppose that'd partly explain why I soon found myself looking at very different images of a Buddha:

It was only after further reading into the week's assignment that I saw how the spread of Buddhism into different countries and cultural groups soon found itself being influenced, in no small ways - including the very portrayal of the Buddha.  In particular, the Kushan portrayal of the Buddha - fully attired in the traditional attire of the particular cultural group - is quite different from the large laughing Buddha (which is, in fact, not technically a portrayal of the Buddha himself - a common misconception that I've been a victim of!)

Still, I found it quite interesting to see, further on on my own research, the different ways by which various cultural groups will interject their own cultural 'imagery' into a, once, foreign religion.  I suppose it's just one of many ways by which a new religion can be made into a more 'acceptable' thing within a new society - inter-graining it somehow with an already existing culture so that it appears more common than 'outsider'.

Video: Buddhism on the Silk Road

I thought that this was a fairly appropriate video, going with the theme of Buddhism that we'll be going over in class next week...I still can't get over just how exactly they were able to carve out those magnificent statues that are embedded right in the mountains

Zoroastrianism and its influence

I will confess that I knew virtually nothing about Zoroastrianism before going through the readings from this past week in the course reader - as always, it's quite an enjoyable experience to learn something new.

What struck me as the most interesting thing was the similarities that I was able to draw from this ancient tradition to more 'recent', mass-practised religions.  There is in Zoroastrianism the belief of creation from a Higher Being or Authority, much like the three Abrahamic traditions - these are apparently evident in the themes laid out in the Gathas and seem to be followed, more or less, in the Bible, Quran and Torah.  The basic principals and concepts is spread out between all four of these traditions - the idea of purity, good and evil in the universe, life and death, which involves the idea of an afterlife, are just a few of the main themes that can be seen in Zoroastrianism, and in turn in the Abrahamic traditions.  In that way, it would seem like Zoroastrianism has a degree of influence upon those traditions, perhaps in a manner by which they can trace their roots back up to it.

Just looking at this picture, I can't help but

find it quite reminiscent to Christian artistic portrayals of Jesus Christ

It's interesting drawing up these sort of connections between seemingly different religious practises and examining similar themes and ideas that come up.  In that way it's a pretty unique way to examine the history of a religion - backtracking and seeing what sort of other traditions may have had some sort of influence on how said tradition is shaped and practised.  Similarities are clearly seen in this way, and I think it wouldn't be too far from the truth to draw up this sort of connection.  Doctrinal similarities from the Gathas, and even some of their prescribed practises are somewhat similar in manner to some of the Abrahamic tradtions' practises.  Emphasis on cleanliness, prayer, purity and goodness - these can be traced up and seen in the older Zoroastrian tradition.  It's just interesting to see how a tradition, now a minority in terms of practise, has had such an incredible influence on traditions that are now far more dominant, in practise.

Zoroastrian Sadah Feast 

Group Topic #1: Studying Religion - A Reflection

I think pretty much everyone has their own sort of definition of what "religion" is before they ever step foot into a RLG course at UofT.  I know for a fact that I did, and it was quite a generalized idea that I followed with.  To me, "religion" was generally centralized around the 'major' faiths that are practised in our world today - the Abrahmic religions, Hinduism and Buddhism were pretty much the only things I'd seen as a "religion".  "Religion" was a very straightforward thing - there was belief in some sort of cosmic deity or being(s) to whom practitioners prayed to, as per requirements.  There were some institutionalized rituals that were (expected to be) practised by adherents.  Most of these faiths had some sort of sacred or religious texts that "told" them what it was they believed in and how they were expected to live out their lives.  A very basic, and straightforward definition.

But it's really once I started taking courses under this program that I came to realize just how simplistic I was being with my understanding.  There is just so much....more to it.  And it surprised me to read just how much work had been put into this concept that I'd once found so simple - work that has been going for a number of years and from which numerous volumes of dedicated research and theories has been assembled.  I never really did bother to consider the more "ancient" forms of belief that were in practise before the documented rising of the Abrahamic religions.  The idea of magic, shamans, animism and various ancient superstitious beliefs being practised opened up a whole new way for me to understand and examine religion.

It's an age old question though - what exactly is religion?  Clearly, the exposure to all these new ideas and belief systems marked my old definition as very limiting and therefore unusable.  But it's a question that has been plaguing the scholarly field for decades.  I think it's hard to really pin down on a suitable definition for what religion is, mainly because it's not necessary that all practises out there will have all the components that the definition calls for...and yet, they may have some of them.  Is it possible to be considered a 'religion' if something only has a portion of the 'agreed upon' components?  If not, what exactly would this belief system be considered, if not 'religion'?  Various scholars have given their own definitions of religion and, as was expected, faults can be found in virtually all of them.  Personally, I'm rather fond of Geertz's definition of religion that defines it as:

"A religion is a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic."

Despite the fact that I don't think it is a purely concise and full-proof one, I still prefer it over what else is out there - I suppose I'd call it the 'best' of what's at there at the moment.  Still, I find that it captures a lot of the elements and general idea that I'd expect to see in a system organized around a particular set of beliefs.  Of course, someone of a particular faith may not take so kindly to this definition - the idea that their beliefs are nothing more than a concept with an "aura of factuality" may be considered even insulting to some.  Still, I think as a scholar of religion, we're not here to debate whether or not something of a religious nature is true or not true, we're just meant to be working with the facts and what we have.  In that sense, I think this definition works quite well in that it's not focusing on a particular religious faith as being more 'true' than other...again, adherents to one probably wouldn't think the same.

What really sort of amused me was some of the terminology that was used to describe some of these older belief systems.  The idea of an 'evolutionary model' of religion and references to beliefs of the past as 'primitive' and 'savage' seemed very arrogant on the part of the scholars who coined and used those terms.  I just can't really buy the idea that the religious beliefs we have today are any more 'advanced' or 'civilized' compared to the 'savage' ones of the past.

I do agree with the idea of how beliefs from these early systems have, in some way, helped shaped some of the beliefs that are practised now - for example, going with animism and the idea that everything has an essence, or a 'soul' as it'd be referred to now.  The idea of a "soul", or at least some sort of personal essence in human beings (and even in inanimate objects) is generally an important main concept in a number of religions.  Not only does the "soul" appear in today's faiths, it's also the elements of myths and rituals that also come up as incredibly important to most current religions.

I don't necessarily agree with the idea that a society can be judged as 'advanced' based on its evolutionary level of a practised religious faith though.  This just goes back to the idea of how I think it's unfair to label earlier practises as 'savage' when, in fairness, I don't really see much difference in how most of them would be even considered as 'backwards' to practises used today.  They were different, yes - but I don't see how something like institutionalized worship found in Christian churches is more 'advanced' than ancient shamanic rituals.  Both are just varying forms of practising beliefs and rituals - they are unique in their own manner, but no more or less than the other.
There's definitely a lot more to religion than I had originally thought.  It is a far more complex thing than what I had considered it before.  General worship and prayer is but a small portion of the elements that ultimately make up a religious belief - and even then, it's not necessary for these particular elements to be a part of it.  That is the whole complex nature of defining what religion is.  Again, while I do consider Geertz's definition to be the best of what's available, I'm still hesitant to say that it is a full-proof one.  I think it'd be fairly difficult to really capture a definition that encompasses religions collectively in one phrase, without any sort of exceptions.

Sogdian Merchants on the Road

I thought it was quite amazing to read up about how the Sogdian merchants alone were able to dominate pretty much all of the trade of the Silk Roads from the second century BC up until about tenth century AD, around the end of the Tang dynasty's era of rule.  Just thinking about that time frame alone is pretty mind-boggling, especially considering the vastness of the Silk Road route, the number of various ethnic groups who traded around it, and the fact that it was plagued with attacks and excursions by bandits and other armed groups.  To be able to overcome all those factors and still play a leading role in such an important economic route is nothing short of amazing for a group of people.

Although they did not seem to have much lasting luck in terms of their military power, they were still able to preserve their status as the dominant leaders of the entire Silk Road.  Their language quickly became the common trade language along the route and their influence was key in aiding with the spread of religions along the Silk Road.  It just goes to show that military power is not necessarily the only major influencing force that one can hold - economic and trade power is, I would argue, far more powerful than arms could ever hope to be.

They were, without a doubt, a very economic and trade-minded people.  In a way, they were a 'gentler' version of more warlike groups.  Whereas groups like that instilled the idea of combat and physical toughness with their younger members from an early age - training and conditioning them for combat - the Sogdian instead focused more on education and commercial skills from very early ages.

Their culture undoubtedly relished in the exposure it received to a variety of other cultures and goods.  Being active traders, they were easily able to bring in resources and exotic goods from foreign cultures into their own.  It's the main way that most cultures develop, evolve and change over time - influence and exposure to the ideas and goods of other cultures, which then get incorporated into one's own.  The Sogdian did it themselves, to an extent - they aided with the spread of religions, and were actually key players in China and their quest for the Heavenly Horses (see post). 

In 'return', Chinese artistic influence - wall-painting, for example - came upon Sogdian art

It's interesting to see how these 'trade-offs' work between cultures - each one influencing each other in some way, in a variety of degrees.  For the Sogdian, they were perhaps a key player in aiding China with achieving considerable military power with their calvary units.  In return, the Sogdian flourished under their trader-based cultural lifestyle and had personal developments with their arts and ideas.

Horses and Resources

The one thing that really stood out of this week's assigned chapter reading was the importance that the Chinese Han court apparently placed on accumulating a variety of resources and goods from their enemies and subjects in order to advance their own culture, technology and civilization in general.

China actually apparently found itself at the mercy of some of its enemies, notably the Xiongnu tribals - so much to the extent that the Chinese found themselves giving them 'gifts' (as opposed to the term 'tribute').  Still, China itself received its own degree of resources as gifts/tributes from other peoples.  In this way, the Han court found itself in command of a variety of important resources.

Perhaps the most notable 'resource' that the Chinese acquired was the Heavenly Horses from Yuan.  I found it interesting that these horses were the main reason that the Chinese declared a four-year long invasion against the Yuan in order to acquire these horses - undoubtedly a massive military campaign.  Still, as the chapter later discusses, these horses - renowned for their 'bloody sweat' - were the perfect addition to compliment China's already relatively powerful army.  Given the advantage that their calvary units have them against marauding tribes and invaders, it would appear that the horses were a worthwhile acquisition.  Even after their loss of 6,000 of their horses, the Yuan were forced to deliver a yearly tribute of two new horses to the Han court, given the difficulty that the Chinese encountered when attempting to breed them.  Again, this just goes to show the importance that lay behind diplomacy and the tribute system in aiding the Chinese empire to strengthen its power.

Another interesting aspect behind diplomacy was the idea of hostages and matrimonial alliances - of which can be seen in European history as well.  It seemed to me that daughters, or princesses, were a valuable 'commodity' if you will, in that they were useful in sealing alliances between various groups.  Now whether this is 'morally correct' by today's standards is irrelevant (although I would argue it's a practise still played out in some parts of the world), but it is interesting to see the different manners by which alliances were forged and broken, with both these matrimonial alliances and the idea of taking and holding hostages - often princes from a court.