CHINESE RELIGION REDISCUSSED
165
the possibility of a popular religious world view that is not clearly developed and consistently structured. The popular concept of "soul" is an example: the division of yin “soul” and yang “soul” does not work in a consistent way and often exasperates the logical mind. If one proceeds in a logical way one arrives at misinterpretations. If the differentiation of temple types is linked with concepts of pollution vs purity, one comes to wrong conclusions.
I can point out several examples where the author's reasoning goes astray. On p. 142, he writes that "Ancestral temples are off-limits to all ghosts except ancestors". This is a tautology if one keeps in mind why ancestral temples are built in the first place. "In community temples the converse (the opposite?) tends to be the case, ..
"This again is obvious: the community temple is built as a centre for community worship. The cult of the dead is considered a private matter that belongs to the family, and as the author elsewhere acknowledges, only those ghosts who may be a threat to the community as a whole, are pacified through community rituals.
+
On p. 144: "The bones of the deceased are never kept in the home with the spirit tablet. . .”: an obvious and unnecessary statement. The bones as in all cultures belong in the grave, and only in some cultures where cremation is practiced are they stored in special depositories as, e.g. pagodas. These, author says, "are carefully segregated from the deity altars or the tablet halls." This is of course so, since pagodas must be seen as extensions of graveyards or cemeteries.
On p. 148-149 it is said that “bone temples" are not appropriate temples for enshrining community gods". This again is obvious: "bone temples" are not meant to be community temples in the first place. Buddhas on the other hand, are not believed to be contaminated: they are beyond the duality of life and death or do not suffer death, having attained nirvana. This reasoning is unconvincing. Buddhas are enshrined in "bone temples" for totally different reasons: putting the tablets in their presence symbolizes the Buddha's welcoming his devotees to his Pure Land. Moreover, what about bodhisattvas? They have not entered nirvana like the Buddhas. We have here to do with a great ideological difference between Buddhism and the folk religion: Buddhas and bodhisattvas transcend this impure world. Although living in this world, they
CHINESE RELIGION REDISCUSSED
165
the possibility of a popular religious world view that is not clearly developed and consistently structured. The popular concept of "soul" is an example: the division of yin “soul” and yang “soul” does not work in a consistant way and often exasparates the logical mind. If one proceeds in a logical way one arrives at misinter- pretations. If the differentiation of temple types is linked with con- cepts of pollution vs purity, one comes to wrong conclusions.
I can point out several examples where the author's reasoning goes astray. On p. 142, he writes that "Ancestral temples are off- limits to all ghosts except ancestors". This is a tautology if one keeps in mind why ancestral temples are built in the first place. "In community temples the converse (the opposite?) tends to be the case, ..
"This again is obvious: the community temple is built as a centre for community worship. The cult of the dead is considered a private matter that belongs to the family, and as the author elsewhere acknowledges, only those ghosts who may be a threat to the community as a whole, are pacified through community rituals.
+
On p. 144: "The bones of the deceased are never kept in the home with the spirit tablet. . .”: an obvious and unnecessary state. ment. The bones as in all cultures-belong in the grave, and only in some cultures where cremation is practiced are they stored in special depositories as, e.g. pagodas. These, author says, "are carefully segregated from the deity altars or the tablet halls." This is of course so, since pagodas must be seen as extensions of grave. yards or cemeteries.
On p. 148-149 it is said that “bone temples" are not appropriate temples for enshrining community gods". This again is obvious: "bone temples" are not meant to be community temples in the first place. Buddhas on the other hand, are not believed to be con- taminated: they are beyond the duality of life and death or do not suffer death, having attained nirvana. This reasoning is unconvin. cing. Buddhas are enshrined in "bone temples" for totally different reasons: putting the tablets in their presence symbolizes the Bud- dha's welcoming his devotees to his Pure Land. Moreover, what about bodhisattvas? They have not entered nirvana like the Bud- dhas. We have here to do with a great ideological difference be- tween Buddhism and the folk religion: Buddhas and bodhisattvas transcend this impure world. Although living in this world, they
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.