COV19

• BUD
• BUD-CHI

Buddhism’s forthcoming assimilation of Brahmanism and the Future of Religion

At the end of 2017, the Chinese movie star Jet Li, who has filmed with other Hollywood movie stars like Sylvester Stallone, was featured on the cover of a Buddhist magazine in Hong Kong. The magazine interview cut to the chase when Jet Li told the story that he had been suffering from hyperthyroidism, and frankly confessed to having looked death in the face at one point.

In fact, as early as three years ago, another magazine in Hong Kong with coverage in media entertainment had published another article reporting Jet Li as being tormented by the  aggravation of his medical condition, and certain internet sources in Mainland China had also publicised rumours of Jet Li’s impending death.

It was in the photos of those media reports of Jet Li’s impending death that he looked gaunt and emaciated, which presented a glaring contrast to his composed demeanour in the more recent interview in the Buddhism magazine. It was as if Jet Li had shattered rumours of his death once and for all, which begs the question of what exactly had happened during the intervening period?

As will be unveiled in this article, Jet Li’s mysterious survival conceals an incredible secret of religion that could not have been foretold.

According to reliable insider information, Jet Li had been practicing Buddhist Tantrism for many years and learned from his Tantric Guru that his doom days were approaching. Guided by  the Guru, he set off to seek rescue from a woman called “Chow Ming” in Hong Kong.

This Miss Chow Ming whom Jet Li sought after used to be a nobody of Hong Kong citizenship. That all changed in 2011 when an inconceivable incident happened to her. One night, Miss Chow Ming became possessed by a divinity, and even had the epiphany of having seen and conversed with the Buddha and Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara.

The so-called “entity possession” is an extraordinary phenomenon that has been variously reported in ancient times and in the modern world, and in various parts of the world. In short, it refers to the bizarre occurrence that the corporeal body of a human is being is usurped or accessed by unknown entities. Such incidents that people mostly heard of in the past were commonly understood as possession by a ghost or other spirit entities, which rarely ended well. However, the very peculiar case concerning this Miss Chow Ming is that she was not possessed by a ghost, but by a divinity, the “Phra Phrom”, who is colloquially referred to as the “Four Faced God” in Asia and has numerous followers in Thailand.

Upon being possessed by “Phra Phrom”, Miss Chow was bestowed with psychic abilities. She then became a psychic medium and provided divination services to customers in Hong Kong for patronage fees. Before concealing her true identity, the bold claim was made on her website set up for divination services that she could channel and communicate with Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara and other divinities. While some will think it was merely self-aggrandized bluffing, yet it was indeed what happened.

The story unfolds that Jet Li having learned from the Tantric master of Miss Chow’s unusual gift with divinity possession, surmised that she could save his life. Therefore, he embarked on his search for her whereabouts and eventually became acquainted with Miss Chow. It has been said that Jet Li had also been advised by the Tantric master that he had karmic connections with Miss Chow, who could even become his other half in the future, if it is to the will of Li.

How are we supposed to reckon with such an inconceivable incident of a well-known film star in Asia seeking rescue from divine beings at the brink of life and death?

Phra Phrom and the Brahmanical Religion

There are many people in Asia who have heard of the deity “Phra Phrom”. It has been said that some celebrities coming from the Hong Kong and the Taiwan entertainment circles made the pilgrimage to Thailand every year to pay homage to the “Phra Phrom”.

Although the worship of Phra Phrom prevails in Thailand, the belief in Phra Phrom didn’t originate from Thailand. His true identity is “Brahma”, the chief god of the Brahmanical Religion from India. There is a peculiar bearing about Brahma in that he is considered as unworthy of worship in India, while the worship of him only became widespread in another foreign country, namely Thailand. Since the countenance of Brahma was portrayed as having four faces, he was also colloquially referred to as the “Four Faced God” in Asian countries.

As for the “Brahmanical Religion” or “Brahmanism” headed by the god “Brahma”, apart from the Buddhist circle, not many people in modern times are aware of this ancient religion. Many people have heard of Buddhism which originated in India, but in fact, Brahmanism was the pioneering protagonist of indigenous religions in India and made its first appearance in the Indian continent well before the rise of Buddhism. The three principal foundational doctrines of Brahmanism are (1) Veda being divinely inspired (note: veda is the most original and classic scripture in Brahmanism and also Hinduism); (2) ritual sacrifice performances are all powerful; and (3) Brahman is the highest (note: Brahman is the social class of the high priest of Brahmanism under the ancient Indian social system). All these doctrines run contrary to the spirit of Buddhism. Though the doctrines of Brahmanism are already out of fashion, many of the Indian religions have absorbed the philosophy of Brahmanism and other elements. Above all, Brahmanism amalgamated with various other religious sects and philosophical streams in ancient India, from which derive the modern day Indian religions, which are collectively referred to as the “Hinduism.”

Hinduism diverges from the mainstream religious tradition in the Western world, which is “Monotheism” with belief in the one and only God, as Hinduism veritably epitomizes the radically different “Polytheism” in worshipping a multitude of gods and deities. However, Hinduism doesn’t have an integrated system and theology like other religions but embodies various religious sects with vast differences. As such, some scholars consider that Hinduism may be best understood as a cultural heritage of India rather than as a religion. There are widely held beliefs within the  Buddhist circle that Brahmanism represents false doctrine and the methodology of spiritual practices that could lead its practitioner astray, and Brahmanism is commonly referred to by the Buddhists as “Tirthika” which is a Sanskrit term meaning “path outside of Buddhism”, while taking on the connotation also of “heterodox teaching”, “heretics” or “heresy” in Buddhism, with a negative implication of rival religious streams.

Those who have travelled to India might have heard of the “Caste System” in the continent, which was inaugurated under Brahmanism’s socio-spiritual sovereignty in ancient India and divided the Indian people into four distinct social classes. The highest social class was called the “Brahmins” (also spelled “Brahman”), who were the high priests of Brahmanism, and the rest of  the clearly demarcated social hierarchy structure followed. Each social class had its appointed professions and means of livelihood which weren’t allowed to be mingled, and inter-class marriage was forbidden. It could be difficult to imagine from the standpoint of Western culture that Indians used to be convinced by and willingly submitted to such rigid and inhuman religious dictation. After India became independent from the colonial system and gained its independence in 1947, the legal status of the Caste System was officially abolished.

When it comes to Buddhism, many in Asia have heard of Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara of the Mahayana Buddhism. The modern portrait of this divine being took the form of a solemn feminine image and is widely revered as “Guan-yin” in China. In fact, Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara originated from Brahmanism and used to be the deity “Aśvin” in Brahmanism. When Buddhism first arose in India around the 6th century BC, Brahmanism was still the dominant religious stream in the Indian continent, and Buddhism as a new religious/philosophical stream not only absorbed certain doctrines of Brahmanism but also included in its pantheon certain divinities consecrated by Brahmanism, including the “Aśvin”. Afterwards, the goddess “Aśvin” was transformed into “Hayagrīva” (meaning ”having the neck of a horse”) in Buddhism, and later Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara. The Chinese newspaper “China National Daily” once reported that the image of Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara used to take the masculine form, and first became a feminine form during the sixth dynasty of China. After a series of transformations, the historical fact that Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara originated from Brahmanism is now rarely known.

Brahmanism first expounded the doctrine of Reincarnation

Speaking of Buddhism, even those who have not been taught elementary Buddhist doctrine would have heard of this phenomenon called “Reincarnation” (Sanskrit: Saṃsāra), which attests that a soul reincarnates in different life forms repeatedly over many lifetimes. Nevertheless, the concept of reincarnation did not originate from Buddhism but the Brahmanical Tradition. Reincarnation is one of the principal doctrines of the Brahmanical Tradition. The Brahmins believed in reincarnation, and as the legend goes, the first dead man was called “Yamaraja”, who was in charge of the Kingdom of the Dead and later became the Lord of the Dead in Chinese mythology.

The Sanskrit term “Saṃsāra” from which “Reincarnation” was derived has the meaning of “aimless wandering” with the connotation of “cyclic, circuitous change”, and suggests that all phenomena in this world including life, matter and existence follow certain principles of cyclicality or pass through a succession of states, much like seasonal changes. Buddhism taught that the life and death of human beings also embody the form of transmigration, by which consciousness would leave the flesh after death and, after going through certain post-mortem processes, enter into another newborn life, which could be one of many possibilities including, but not limited to, a human, an animal, a ghost or livestock. During these re-birth and re-death processes, the status of immediate existence of a being/person is called “This Life”, the life form of the previous incarnation is called “Past Life”, and the next incarnation is called “Next Life”. The process is  continuous and cannot be interrupted, i.e., all sentient beings are caught in the ever-recurring cycle of Saṃsāra, to be born and reborn in various realms and forms life after life. What’s more, there’s more suffering than happiness in many realms in this process of reincarnation. All the spiritual practices of Buddhism are underlined by the ultimate purpose of aiming to liberate oneself from reincarnation eventually.

The question of whether there is an ultimate existence, beyond life and death, which plays the part of the vessel that holds the myriad of a lifetime of experiences is a deep and profound one, and one that people would rather not bother with when they are still young and healthy, but eventually have to come to terms with at the critical moment of life and death. In modern times, some Western researchers in the field conducted experiments with subjects undergoing past-life regression under deep hypnosis to reveal identities and recollections of events of alleged past lives. While the findings could be controversial, there seem to have been accumulated abundant case studies which apparently point to the existence of reincarnation and the soul. Although Buddhism does not emphasize the concept of an immanent soul, Buddhists are well acquainted with the phenomenon of reincarnation.

It has often been said that the four afflictions of birth, ageing, sickness, and death are the lot of every man. Despite the advancement of modern medical science, suffering in this world is still inexorable, and every sentient being who has ever lived has to endure some form of suffering. For many in Third-world countries, they can’t even afford the necessities of food and shelter. Buddhism also speaks of suffering arising out of psychological pain, such as failure to pursue what you desire, having to separate from your dearest or loved ones, etc. In Jet Li’s magazine interview mentioned at the beginning of this article, he also shared his apprehension of the terrifying nature of reincarnation. Many people might share the same feeling that apart from the few fortunate ones, everyone in the world has specific struggles in his or her life, perhaps more, perhaps fewer. Often life could bestow more bitterness than pleasure or happiness, or make one feel that the toil of life is grinding.

Both Buddhism and Brahmanism taught reincarnation but their interpretations diverge. Brahmanical Tradition believes that humanity has an eternal “Atma” (which can be understood as the soul in modern days) as the principal vehicle of reincarnation, but the Buddhist concept of reincarnation does not involve the “Atma” or soul. Buddhism believes that the so-called soul of human beings is ultimately comprised of the “Five Skandha” — in brief : (i) Form, (ii) Sensations, (iii) Perceptions, (iv) Mental activity or formations, and (v) Consciousness — the five elements that constitute a sentient being which will inevitably disintegrate and perish in the end, and that there’s no such thing as the external “Atma” as the Brahman would have believed. Since the two religions hold different views on the mechanism of reincarnation, they also digress on the methodology of spiritual practice towards the liberation from reincarnation

The “ Noble Eightfold Path” of Buddhism refers to the early summary of the eight important steps and approaches of Buddhist practice to liberate its followers from the painful cycle of rebirth with reincarnation. Above all, the “Right View” (also commonly translated as “Right Perspective”, “Right Outlook” or “Right Understanding”) comes as the foremost of the eight practices, i.e., the right view is the primary basis of well-founded spiritual practice in Buddhism. From the perspective of Buddhism, the doctrines and concepts of Brahmanism are wrong views, and spiritual practice derived from wrong views naturally cannot attain the goal of liberation from reincarnation. The Buddhist generally believes that Brahmanism’s doctrine is flawed and improper teaching that will mislead all sentient beings into the wrong path, thus the so-called “heterodox teaching” or “heresy”. Certain Buddhists are aware that a handful of writings of Bodhisattva Nagarjuna (note: Nagarjuna was one of the most important Mahayana Buddhism philosophers) aim to refute the erroneous views of Brahmanism.

The Connection Between Chow Ming and Phra Phrom

Divine beings will not readily patronize mere mortals like you and me for no good reason, so it’s not difficult to surmise that there must be an essential reason for Brahma to have come into Chow Ming, the mysterious woman behind Jet Li. According to the channelled message from Brahma and recounted by Miss Chow, it turns out that before she was incarnated into this world as a human being, she was the beloved soul mate of Brahma in another realm outside this world, and at the end of Miss Chow’s life, she will leave this world to reunite with Brahma again. In early Buddhism, those who had advanced far along the path of Buddhist practice and attained enlightenment were said to have realized “Arhatship”, the highest achievement of spiritual  realization which enabled liberation from reincarnation. For Miss. Chow, these highly desirable blessings are readily available because of her fateful connection with Brahma.

According to witnesses who have visited Miss Chow, the Phra Phrom/Brahma statue to which Miss Chow makes offering was hung behind her bed, so that when she is lying or sleeping, the statue is facing her lower body and the soles of her feet, the filthiest parts of a human body. In Asia, ordinary people would not dare to position a religious idol like this, as it is considered a defilement of the deities, thus showing that Miss. Chow Ming must have a close connection with Phra Phrom to be bold enough to do so. Apart from being closely related to Phra Phrom, Miss Chow will also shoulder critical religious responsibilities and become a prominent figure in Buddhism.

Despite the fact that Brahmanism and Buddhism both originated from India and have thereby given rise to competition between the two religions, after revival for centuries, Buddhism has developed in a remarkable way in many countries, while conversely, Brahmanism has been on the path of decline. Hence the decree from Brahma is to have Miss Chow Ming take up the religious mission of the integration of Brahmanism into Buddhism, so as to take advantage of the prevailing influence of Buddhism to revive Brahmanism. As Miss Chow Ming has a close karmic connection with Brahma beyond this life and this world, she has been bestowed with the destiny to bring about the integration of Brahmanism into Buddhism. Not only this, Miss Chow might have had the chance to give birth to a child who would grow up to become a Bodhisattva and such affiliation would also be conducive to the integration of Brahmanism into Buddhism.

Speaking of the pre-existence of an incarnated soul, those who have a basic knowledge of Buddhism could have already surmised that, from the perspective of reincarnation, this is not the first time that Jet Li and Chow Ming have known each other. Such speculation was confirmed by channeled information from Brahma. It is also because of the inter-life connection between the
two, Miss Chow Ming could have the karma to save Jet Li’s life, but had it been someone else in a similar despondent situation, chances are she might not have been able to offer much help at all.

Chow’s conspiracy to usurp religious power

Now people would be asking: How did such a bizarre episode of Jet Li became known?

As it turns out, it was because this woman behind Jet Li did something terrible that caused her to be criticised behind her back and made things spread.

Here’s what happened: Brahma’s decree was to have Miss Chow Ming see to it that Brahmanism would be integrated into Buddhism, but naturally, such a daunting religious mission couldn’t have been accomplished by herself alone. The original intention of the Brahmanical gods was for Miss Chow Ming to have a partner, such that the two of them join forces as the protagonists behind the scene and work together for their remaining lifetimes to accomplish this religious mission.

At first, this partner became perplexed after he learned of Brahma’s decree for him to serve Brahmanism, as he became aware that Brahmanism was explicitly identified by Buddhism as the “heretics” or “heresy” which connotes false doctrine that could lead its follower astray. Therefore if he availed himself to Brahmanism, he could be committing wrongs against many, and hence his inner conflict and hesitation. Meanwhile, this partner was engaged in the financial profession, and religions generally disapprove of such practices in this industry like stock trading, as they involve speculation, so this partner was also concerned about having to give up on his profession.

In the end, through the mediation of Miss Chow Ming, the partner reached a consensus with Brahma that if Brahma allowed him to continue with his financial business, he would devote the rest of his life to serving Brahmanism. All of these arrangements were concluded through Miss Chow acting as mediator having recounted Brahma’s messages. During the process, she became wary of her partner, fearing that he could overwhelm her in the future by accomplishing more landmarks for Buddhism and Brahmanism than herself, so that her status with the two religions would become threatened.

So the partner promised to dedicate his life to serve Brahmanism and it appeared to be all settled, when unexpectedly Chow Ming delivered another message from Brahma revoking the agreement. When the partner questioned why Brahma went back on his word, and whether Chow Ming had delivered the wrong message, it further incited Chow to have this partner eradicated from her sphere of influence.

With Brahma’s loyal patronage, Chow become uninhibited and used her partner’s hesitation with Brahmanism as the Buddhist-referred “heresy that leads people astray” to slander him as an unfaithful apostate to Brahmanism, and further set up traps for him to plunge into so that she could frame him. In the end, Brahmanism discharged the partner’s religious duties and excommunicated him from the religion, while Chow Ming not only solidified her religious status but also further entrenched her power by taking all credit for the great cause of integrating Brahmanism into Buddhism.

The Buddhists preach another concept that is closely associated with the idea of rebirth, namely, “Karma” — the spiritual principle of cause and effect whereby the intent and actions of an individual (cause) influence the future lives of that individual (effect). That is to say, it is not a matter of chance occurrence that you have a particular destiny and fateful encounters in this life, but those are the accumulated consequences of what you did in your previous existence. If you planted good causes in your previous lives, you would reap good returns in this life; while had you planted evil causes, it would contribute to more suffering and negative repercussions.

According to the message from Brahma recounted by Miss Chow before all these events, this partner had such a precious opportunity in this life of being initially chosen by the Brahmanical deities because, in his many previous existences, he had served Buddhism and Brahmanism and accumulated a lot of good karma and merits. At the end of the day, the partner lost the excellent karma accumulated through his many previous lives; while Chow, who already had the status as  the beloved concubine of Brahma, became even more powerful by usurping the partner’s share of credit for the great cause of integrating Brahmanism into Buddhism.

The Buddhist scripture “Lotus Sutra” says that “For indulging in various desires, one would fall into the three evil realms and reincarnate within the six realms of rebirth and existence, enduring various forms of bitter suffering”. What it says is that all sentient beings are ensnared in the cycle of reincarnation and incessantly go through all kinds of suffering. Likewise, in Jet Li’s magazine interview mentioned at the beginning of this article, he shared his heartfelt realisation that the death of the flesh is not terrifying, but that the unceasing cycle of having to reincarnate for countless times and the accompanying suffering is. Hence how to practice in order to be liberated from reincarnation became the foremost pressing issue. For many people, it’s not easy to go through one life, while Chow was even insidious and sinister enough to have ruined her partner’s merit accumulated through many previous lives.

Although Jet Li was aware that Chow was no ordinary person, he was entirely in the dark as to the iniquity of the woman behind him.

The Black-box manipulation with Religions

So it goes that one day this woman behind Jet Li would become a Buddhist master and a prominent religious figure, and no one would know that Phra Phrom had possessed her. What’s more, Brahmanism would play dumb and pretend to be utterly ignorant of the iniquity committed by Chow, for she was a benefactor to Brahmanism by bringing about its integration into Buddhism. Don’t think though that this is an isolated incident with religions — arguably, such a black-box approach to cover-ups and manipulation is rather prevalent in religions.

The most prominent of these incidents was Christianity’s opposition to the Buddhist doctrine of reincarnation. According to some literature, certain church fathers of early Christianity were supportive of the doctrine of reincarnation. The famous St. Augustine wrote in his autobiographical work “Confessions” that he used to ponder on the viability of reincarnation, and whether his infancy succeeded another age that died before it. The reasons that such possibilities were subsequently suppressed by the church can no longer be reliably established. Some have postulated that political reasons were a contributing factor. Specifically, when the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as the State religion in the 4th Century, to unify the ideology of the country and the people, views different to that of orthodox Christianity couldn’t be tolerated and had to be banned, and so the doctrine of reincarnation has been suppressed since then.

Seen in another light, the early church might have considered that if people knew that their existence was not limited to this life alone, but that there were other future lives ahead and second chances, the indolence and indulgence of human nature would inevitably lead to a downturn and lack of discipline on the path of spiritual practice. Therefore, to reinforce believers and empower them to become resolute and unwavering on the path of spiritual practice, the doctrine of reincarnation had to be suppressed. Such a standpoint also reflects the mistrust of human nature generally exhibited by religions, and the belief that humanity is not capable of controlling its corrupted side, which would also inevitably affect religious doctrine as well. Viewed from this perspective, the black-box approach to cover-ups in religions therefore stems from a positive impetus. Setting aside the true reasons behind it, such a black-box approach to cover-ups in religions is unquestionable, and it has also contributed to the obstinate position commonly found in religions.

Another example of the black-box approach in religions comes from Brahmanism itself. After the expansion of Buddhism outside India, its country of origin, to popularise the worship of Brahma, his image was suffused by Buddhism’s aura and was re-packaged as the “Four Faced Buddha” in Asia. So it goes that the four faces portrayed by this deity were said to represent the spiritual qualities of “mercy, compassion, joy and detachment” accredited to Buddhism.

In fact, Brahma’s iconic image of four faces has another authentic origin. According to Hindu mythology, once upon a time Brahma created a beautiful woman and became so infatuated with her, that his eyes pursued her wherever she went. The woman tried running in all four directions  to avoid Brahma’s gaze, but wherever she went, Brahma grew a head, until he had four heads, each of which pointed to one direction on the compass. The outside world was distinguished by the four cardinal directions of East, South, West, and North, so the four-faced image of Brahma had this connotation of sensual attachment to the outside world. This mythological tale was later told to explain why Brahma was considered to be unworthy of worship in India, for his unholy behaviour and materialistic attachment.

In effect, the four-faced image of Brahma has nothing whatsoever to do with qualities of “mercy, compassion, joy and detachment” accredited to Buddhism. However, with the uprise of Buddhism, the re-packaging of Brahma as the “Four Faced Buddha” is favourable to the modern- day spread of belief in Brahma. Also, as religions generally discourage people from probing into the truth but encourage them to believe what they have been told, few people will get to the bottom of the matter.

In the same manner, such a black-box ploy in religions will be re-enacted once again in the future, when Brahmanism is integrated into Buddhism. Then, in much the same way as goddess “Aśvin” in Brahmanism has been transformed into “Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara” in Buddhism in modern days, and the god Brahma of Brahmanism has become the “Four Faced Buddha”, other deities within the pantheon of Brahmanism would also turn into some sort of guardians or deities in Buddhism. Thereafter, with the passage of a few more centuries, just as very few people nowadays know that Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara actually originates from Brahmanism, the historical remnants of Brahmanism, which once attempted to eradicate Buddhism in its country of origin in India, would have almost fallen into oblivion, while the cover-up in religions could be continued.

However, just as early Christianity believed that people should not learn of reincarnation and therefore needed to suppress the doctrine of reincarnation, such a premise is not unlike communism in that it is a means of mind control exercised by religions out of a distrust of human nature, and was underlined by the presumption that religions are more capable than humans in choosing what kind of ideas are best for them. Alternatively, its presuppositions are not unlike the one that humans are like children, and the role of religions is like that of adults helping them to decide the ideas they should choose.

With the general naivety and ignorance of people in olden times when religions flourished, such a black-box approach to cover-ups in religions could have continued unsuspected, but when it reached this modern generation of uproarious individualism and the explosion of knowledge, it is dubious that such a ploy in religions could still hold tight. According to some statistics, the number of netizens in developing countries has more than doubled since 2009. Much like Jesus said in the Bible that all hidden things would be revealed in the last days, now that the Internet has everyone surrounded, all those secrets that religions discouraged people from investigating would inevitably come to light, be dug out and challenged. The balance between faith and reason would become the entire significant issue faced by religions in this century.

Orthodoxy against Heterodoxy

In this interesting anecdote, Chow Ming was given the opportunity to have framed and slandered her partner as an unfaithful apostate to Brahmanism because the partner was convinced that Brahmanism is the Buddhist-referred “heresy that leads its practitioner astray”. One could have asked: Did the partner bring about his own destruction by not paying Brahmanism its due respect? Given that there are so many religions in the world, why is it that Buddhism has always been pointing its finger at Brahmanism?

Let’s explore this question from the historical development of the two religions. Buddhism first appeared on the Indian continent between the 6th Century BC and the 5th Century BC. This period fell into the ancient history referred to by the German philosopher Karl Jaspers as “the Axial Age”, which he described as an important period in the history of human thought, when new ways of thinking among religions and philosophies arose in the Eurasian cultures of Persia, India, and China in a striking parallel development, all the while without any evidently obvious cultural ties between the participating cultures. During this period, the influential Chinese philosophers Confucius and Lao-Tse were spreading their ideologies in China, and all the Chinese philosophical schools came into being. Meanwhile the Buddha was born in India.

It was then the heyday of Brahmanism in ancient India, when a wave of opposition against its power arose in the ancient Indian society. The protestors was collectively referred to in history as the “Śramaṇa movement”, who opposed the Veda’s authority and the spiritual domination of the Brahmin priests, while they were also against the social inequality of the Indian caste system headed by the Brahmins. It is generally believed that Buddhism was one of the mainstreams of the “Śramaṇa movement”. However, the influence of Brahmanism in ancient India was significant and the Śramaṇa movement eventually failed.

Since then, Buddhism literally vanished from its origins on the Indian continent for centuries, while it continued to expand and flourish in other foreign countries. Some scholars believe that the disappearance of Buddhism in India is partly related to the resistance from Brahmanism, and such opposition between the two religions which cannot escalate to open confrontation may not be unrelated to the fact that Buddhism has always regarded Brahmanism as the opposing heresy.

If a religion is considered as a heresy by another because of insurmountable doctrinal differences, the contrariety between Buddhism and Christianity is much more evident, compared to that between Buddhism and Brahmanism. However, that Buddhism has always been pointing its spearhead at Brahmanism is somewhat related to the fact that the two religions both originated in India and therefore engendered direct competition. That being the case, a similar standpoint of opposing non-orthodox streams is a widespread occurrence and found in many religions. How did this obstinate position with regard to religions take shape?

As it is with many other intellectual faculties in the world, the unfolding of theologies and ideologies in religions must undergo a history of development, a process of debate, elucidation, and deliberation. The final winners that come out of this process would eventually become the school of “orthodoxy” later in history. However, owing to the depravity of human nature, humans could distort the facts and religious doctrines for their own benefits, much like the case of the former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, who, when committing himself to the reversal of global climate changes, also encountered resistance from parties with vested interests seeking to cover up the global crisis.

Accordingly, once a certain point of view and interpretation has been incorporated into the orthodox teachings, in order to prevent people from misinterpreting the doctrines for selfish reasons and thus causing disturbances, other alternative opinions that have not been incorporated into the orthodox teachings must be suppressed, excluded and depreciated as “heterodoxy”, which inevitably become neglected over time. Moreover, religion emphasizes faith, and if a religion appears to be internally split and have different mutually exclusive opinions contradicting one another, how can the religion engender even the most fragile faith amongst its followers?

Nonetheless, the process of the development of theologies and ideologies in religions could also inevitably have involved the power struggle of the incumbents. Given the inevitability of influence from corrupted human nature, the premise that all the religious ideologies which have been admitted as orthodoxy are the only truths, whereas alternative views that have been excluded as heterodoxy are totally unfounded could be entirely off-the-mark. Also, as religions have always flaunted the inadmissibility of defilement and adulteration, they most definitely would have  wanted to have these dilemmas kept silent, not openly mentioning any questionable circumstances.

The clear demarcation between right and wrong championed by the social systems of human civilization have also contributed to the one-sided orientation of religions. Our upbringing, modern education, and social values also tend to implant in us a way of black and white thinking, much like the existence of only one “correct” answer for the multiple choice questions in public examinations, while all other options are “wrong”. With spirituality, things are seldom like that, but they are like the vague boundary of the endless ocean, and it could be difficult to determine the boundary between “Right” and “Wrong”. However, those things in life for which it is not easy to establish clearly defined boundaries are also prone to manipulation, distortion and encroachment caused by the lack of self-discipline in human nature.

Since the spiritual realms in religions and spiritual practice transcend ordinary states of consciousness and go beyond the scope of common knowledge into unknown realms, if those realms are not entered according to certain established and tested protocols, this could also pose certain hazards to followers and believers. Therefore, to accommodate the constitutions and level  of understanding of most people, it is understandable that religions have to establish specific inflexible agenda and guidelines as to the correct principles that are meant to be universally applicable for all to follow. Also, religions emphasize “Faith”, while most people tend to equate “Faith” and “Belief” as the same thing. If a religion shows the lack of a resolute position before its followers or appears that its position and ideologies are not absolute, but something that could vacillate or be regarded differently from different angles, how could the religion go about inculcating strong convictions amongst its followers? Thus a deeply-rooted, obstinate position has taken shape in religions that only orthodoxy should remain and heterodoxy has to be banned.

Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy are not clearly demarcated

If we accept that, like other disciplines, religions also have a certain pattern/mode that can be discerned, it could be ascertained that Buddhism has more apparent similarity to Brahmanism, which has the same Indian origins, as compared to Christianity and other religions. Buddhists speak of everyone having this “Buddha nature”, while the Brahmans believe that everyone has an “Atma”. Both religions emphasize inner transcendence and self-realization, and the pursuit of self- liberation from reincarnation through spiritual practice, which contrasts with Christian theology that everyone has “original sin” from the beginning and one cannot achieve self-salvation, but must rely on salvation through Jesus and God’s forgiveness, so Buddhism and Brahmanism are very similar concerning principles and ideologies.

There are no two patterns exactly alike on butterfly wings, still scientists would classify different butterflies as the same species rather than something different altogether. Religions on the contrary tend to do the opposite thing and therefore the common ground between Buddhism and Brahmanism was overlooked, while the focus was instead on arguments such as the metaphysical question of the existence of the “Atma” versus “Anatman” (note: meaning “Non-Self” in Buddhism, i.e., there is no immanent “Atma” as the Brahman would have it), when these differences were originally intended to be matters underlying different paths of spiritual practice rather than metaphysical dissertation. Therefore, the divergence between orthodoxy and heterodoxy were amplified and the two religions gradually drifted apart as if the two religions were disconnected and had nothing to do with each other.

Religions also like to claim that their original protagonist preached the only, unchanging truth, while latecomers offering alternative interpretations are almost always heretics that  distorted the truth. In other words, the original religious doctrines represent the only truth that will not be corrected by the changes of the times. If we view the dichotomy between Buddhism and Brahmanism from this usual insistence in religions, then the situation becomes even more ambiguous. In fact, viewed from the perspective of the diverse Indian religious sectarians,  Brahmanism arose on the Indian continent well before Buddhism and is supposed to be the qualified orthodoxy, while Buddhism and Jainism, which emerged afterwards, can be regarded as the later peers. In fact, on this issue, Buddhism and Jainism have always been considered as heterodoxy from the perspective of Hinduism. Some of the Hindu sects even believe that the Buddha is the avatar/embodiment of Vishnu, one of the chief gods in Brahmanism. The author of this article has once seen on the Internet comments which, supposedly written by Christians, said bluntly that Buddhism is the soiled descendent of Brahmanism. Though such comments showed no due respect, yet it hit the bulls-eye that Buddhism is far closer to Brahmanism than other religions.

Since even the Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara of Mahayana Buddhism came from Brahmanism, when did the latter religion become the heterodoxy that has nothing whatsoever to do with Buddhism? This begs the question whether the unbridgeable demarcation of orthodoxy against heterodoxy, as certain Buddhist elders would have it, is entirely justified or if it has gone too far. So it turned out that some moderate Buddhists who were aware of the situation have taken the middle- ground and proposed that “Buddhism has reformed the doctrines of Brahmanism” to explain away the dichotomy between the two religions. Indeed the doctrines and ideologies of the two religions cannot be entirely the same, but in fact certain deeply-rooted Buddhist concepts such as karma and reincarnation, liberation through spiritual practice, etc., did not originate from Buddhism itself but were inherited from Brahmanism.

The Interdependence of Religion and Conscious Evolution

Perhaps some Buddhists would propose such an evidently valid counter-argument to the foregoing discussion: After so many centuries of practicing Buddhism and verification by the Buddhist elders, many Buddhist followers have attained higher states of spiritual enlightenment or even liberation from reincarnation, while Brahmanism is already set on the path to decline. Does this not prove already that Buddhism is the correct orthodoxy while Brahmanism is merely heresy?

Undoubtedly, Buddhism is an authentic and effective method of spiritual practice. However, besides proving that Buddhism has a solid foundation and is suitable for most people to follow, the above Buddhist counter-argument in fact also illustrates that the religious ideologies of Brahmanism are less apt to connect with the religious consciousness of people outside the Indian continent, and therefore its historical development could not have proceeded as well as Buddhism. Furthermore, with the migration of many centuries, Brahmanism has been drifting farther away from the religious needs of modern people.

Compared to other religions, since Buddhism does not emphasize faith and beliefs,  it is highly adaptable and encompassing. Not only is Buddhism readily accommodating to the psychological and spiritual constitution of the majority, it is also more tolerant of other religions and more accessible to integration with other religions. However, in the case of Brahmanism, it is a highly indigenous religion that first arose within the ancient Indian culture many centuries before Buddhism, and its practice is closely tied to the culture of the ancient Indian society. As such, it is destined not to be able to flourish and expand beyond the Indian continent, as Buddhism did. Therefore, we have seen the historical development where “Indian Buddhism” has given birth to “Chinese Buddhism” (which encompasses specific Buddhist schools such as Pure Land Buddhism that were splintered from Indian Buddhism) in China. Conversely, it wasn’t that easy for Brahmanism to evolve from its religious practice an ideology and system that suited the consciousness of the Chinese people.

Just as if we want to fully master a foreign language, we also need to comprehend the foreign culture behind the language, in order to fully understand the deeper meaning of the vocabulary and expressions, likewise we cannot appreciate a religion independently of the collective consciousness and spirituality of the specific historical period and underlying cultural background. The relationship between the two are closely and intrinsically linked. The Buddhist’s summary denouncement of Brahmanism as heresy, or the Western rational approach to the understanding of Hinduism is not unlike making critiques while comfortably sitting high above in the academic ivory tower. Nor is it going to appreciate the contributions made by Hindu religions towards the evincing of religious sentiments endowed within the ancient Indian consciousness, and their propriety under the unique spiritual dimension and cultural background of ancient India. Such contention was also reached because we are standing in this time and space looking back from the perspective of modern people, and judging Brahmanism that dates back to the ancient Indian consciousness thousands of years ago. In fact, after the passage of further centuries when the human consciousness reaches a different level, there might also be room for revisions within today’s Buddhism.

Contrary to what religions would have us believe, religions cannot exist independently of the collective consciousness of humanity within a specific time and place. The Chinese civilization is one of the most ancient in the world, yet they were not able to develop their own religion, so that China is one of the few countries without a national religion. Except for Taoism which could barely be counted as a Chinese religion, the Chinese folklore of worshipping the heaven and earth spirits, etc., does not belong to a religion. The author has seen Chinese people who explained this away as the results of long-term struggles in Chinese history, so that religious life could not take shape within China. Meanwhile the German philosopher Hegel nailed it on the head with his keen observation that the Chinese do not tend to have an inner life with definite contents within themselves, which is also saying that Confucianism doesn’t have evident features of spirituality or transcendence. Since religion needs to correspond to the inner spiritual dimension of humanity within a specific time and place to play out their roles, and such qualities are mostly not evident within the Chinese collective consciousness, naturally the market for religions could not have been readily established within Chinese society.

An important aspect of religions is the internal religious experience and the spirituality drawn out of it. Even for the seemingly external religious elements such as religious rituals, before they became petrified by the organised religions that are common in the modern world, they are meant to complement the internal religious experience rather than be regarded as an isolated religious element. The Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung understood the archetypes within the human psyche as universal, archaic patterns and images that derive from the collective unconscious, which are actualized when they enter consciousness as images or on interaction with the outside world. They are autonomous and hidden forms which are transformed once they enter consciousness and are given particular expression by individuals and their cultures. History, culture and personal context shape these manifested representations, thereby giving them their specific content.

The original set of archetypes typical to all members of a group, and out of which they formulate meanings, contexts, and patterns within the group, contributed to the internal knowledge shared by a plurality of people within a culture. Patterns of commonality among individuals naturally evolve to bring clear unity to those structures within the collective human experience, including religion, and they react to certain impulses from the outside world in similar and predictable manners and give rise to collective meaning. As such, the effects of religious experience upon and within any given individual are mediated continuously by the collective consciousness into which he is born, such that the internal representation of external religious elements present in any given society could be vastly different across divergent cultures in a different time and place. This is particularly so with the subtler dimensions of the human psyche such as religions.

Even when we set aside the question of whether humans have pre-existence as taught by the doctrine of reincarnation, and thereby possibly contributed to certain innate tendencies within this life, those who are observant enough can tell that each of us came into this world not as a white sheet of paper, as science would have us believe, but with certain innate predilections that reveal themselves over one’s lifetime. This understanding could be gleaned from modern astrology which can draw an inference of one’s character and disposition from his/her natal hour and birth locality. A human being’s religious orientation also has such a predilection. Some people are more suited to follow religious paths in which dedication elements are more prominent, whereas others are more suited to religions with an elevated emphasis on rationality and practice, like Buddhism.

The question that religions have been evading is whether we should ignore the varying dispositions and predilections of the human psyche to impose upon it the so-called only truth proclaimed by religions. Under the familiar premise promulgated by religions that it holds the only truth or the only way, and that truth or the only way is universally accessible to all, personal religious predilections and alternative orientations naturally could not have a foothold. Setting aside the question of whether indeed there exists the only truth or the only way, if that only truth or way does not harmonize or reciprocate with your psyche, what’s in it for you with this only truth or way? It has never been the case that receiving intellectually a specific set of ideas as the truth would do any good for your spirituality.

It is said that the Buddha used to advise people not to believe in anything without proving it by themselves; hence some western scholars also acknowledged that the Buddha’s teaching is very pragmatic. Buddha used the raft as a metaphor — that after crossing the river, one can throw away the raft and it’s no longer necessary to hang on to it. It is very likely that Brahmanism and other paths outside of Buddhism turn out to be precisely what Buddhism has been saying — that they cannot help you reach the other shore (note: the “other shore” is a Buddhist metaphor for attaining “Nirvana”, which marks the release from rebirth in cycles of reincarnation), but then again there is no such thing as a raft that fits all, while Buddhism has also admitted that most people could not reach the other shore within a lifetime of spiritual practice. If this one raft outside of Buddhism fits the spiritual constitution and psyche predilection that has been bestowed upon you in this life, there could be some grounds to let it serve as your instrument to take you to a certain midway point, before going further on the long journey of further lifetimes to come.

There may be a point of fine balance here as to whether there is room for the individual’s adjustments on top of religious principles and guidelines that are meant to be universally  applicable for all to follow; and whether there is also room for concession with alternative heterodoxy views. It could well be that the sweeping importunity that there is only one truth or way could amount to merely a matter of opinion.

The Dark Side of Human Nature and Moralising of Religion

In this incredible but true anecdote, Miss Chow framed and slandered her partner to usurp religious power, and in the end, ruined the partner’s meritorious karma of many lifetimes. Only God knows the regret of how many lifetimes ahead it would take before he could make up for the mistake, which in itself is already a kind of great suffering that humanity could go through. While Jet Li was naive and entirely in the dark that the woman behind him was as venomous as a scorpion, such perniciousness is even worse than the three poisons/unwholesome roots (greed, enmity, and ignorance) referred to by Buddhism, and shows how evil human nature can be.

As the saying goes, money is the source of all evil and induces us to do bad things, yet it is partial truth at best. Money only amplifies our inner selves, our true selves. All of us have within ourselves this innate dark side of human nature to varying degrees, and we need not resort to those mottos of “condemn the sin, love the sinner” coined by society to cushion interpersonal conflicts and sugar-coat human nature. Human nature intrinsically has such a layer that we would rather not face in ourselves. It doesn’t necessarily take a psychopath to commit the most abominable crimes. Everyone has this seed of evil inside that awaits the day to sprout and reveal itself, and this time, it was unleashed in the hands of a religious figure.

The formidable dark side of human nature is behind the reason that all religions emphasize moralizing to mollify the humanity and suppress the evil side of human nature. However, this time, Brahmanism as a religion, when faced with the dilemma of choosing between righteousness and its own interests, chose to turn its back on morality and acquiesced to the iniquity committed by the beloved concubine of Brahma, for she is a benefactor to Brahmanism by bringing about its integration into Buddhism. Thus this dealt a sharp blow right on the head of traditional religious morality.

Although religions may not concede this possibility, it could well be that morality has never been the highest ideal in heaven and earth as taught by religions, but just like the legal system, morality is more a product of civilization contrived by human society. Sigmund Freud considered that civilization owes much of its existence to the necessity of the suppression of human desires, and while it may not entirely be a complete point of view, it indicated that the suppression of human nature is a very real façade of civilization. The two principal instruments to maintain intact the operation of a civilized society are laws to restraint human behaviour and morality to moderate the human mind.

Chinese society in olden times bespoke much of morality, but the brutal treatment of livestock and animals was commonplace. The level of consciousness that truly embodies the essence of morality would have us treating our animal compatriots with more mercy, and would  not have them prisoners in tight cages while awaiting slaughter, or polluting and destroying their forests and natural habitats in the name of modernization. However, apart from a small number of humanitarian organizations, morality is confined only to the scope of interpersonal affairs to protect our human rights. Whence has it been that morality represents the highest ideal in heaven and earth as taught by religions?

If we accept that an essential function of religion is to make people understand Man’s place in the universe, then looking at the prevalent injustice in the world, whence has it been that there exists a moralizing principle between heaven and earth to right the wrongs and set things straight? This begs the question when Bin Laden blew up the World Trade Centre and shattered many families, yet God did not intervene, was it because of the justification put forth by religions that “God will not interfere with human free will, so neither will he forbid people from evildoings”, or simply because there is no such moralising principle indwelling in the universe?

The religious admonition “God is watching everything you do” could well be the literal case that God — in this context, understood as the higher principle indwelling in the universe — is merely watching, but not imparting any moral judgement of “right” and “wrong”, which is construed by human society, yet we as humans inevitably could have difficulty in accepting such a possibility. Viewed from this perspective, there is no direct or inescapable correlation between moral principles and religion, which is also saying that the moralising façade in religion is not the purpose and meaning originally intended of religion.

Human civilisation tries to replace the conscience within humanity with a set of recognised moral standards for the sake of the functioning of human society, and religion must follow suit for it needs to be integrated into human society. Such a moralising façade in religion is very well received and even lauded by human society, for just as Chow could unleash her evil side uninhibited when condoned by Brahma, once the human mind reckons that there is no moral judgment from God, it can commit all kinds of evildoing.

That being the case, as the values of people have changed, the moral concepts that religions have always relied on are becoming outmoded and behind the times. Allow the author to draw on the recent sequel of films adapted from the erotic romantic novel “Fifty Shades of Grey”, in which the leading characters are filmed as a young couple practicing the sexual play of sadomasochism. In the past, religions would have told us that those who indulge their lust not only would be admonished by traditional moral values, but would also be cursed by God as they have nothing to do with the “chastity” and “holiness” of religions. Now such abomination detested by religions can be put on the cinema screen as an ordinary thing, and the SM-practicing couple are even portrayed as exemplary young lovers. Not only did those religious exhortations against abhorrent “sins of the fresh” virtually vanish without trace, but the film’s leading character was even blatantly named “Christian Grey” — “Christian” is synonymous with believers in Christianity — thus casting naked irony on traditional religious values: that human nature and infinite worldliness are inexplicably complicated, with good and evil often embodied in the same person, one side going against the other while also complementing each other. Whence was the case of the dull, black and white ostentation as religion would have it?

The tendency of religions to take on the false semblance of abiding by dogmatic moralizing is closely associated with its penchant to condemn human nature. None of us are spared from one or even several of the “Seven Deadly Sins” (greed, jealousy, lust, anger, indolence, arrogance, and addiction) denounced by the medieval Catholic Church, and very few people can reach the holy standards of religions. That being the case, the shame and guilt caused by such a lofty pretence of religions to condemning human nature conversely made it difficult for most people to enter the doors of religions, and thereby deprived them of the spiritual exaltation which is made possible by the spiritual dimensions of religions. Many people have heard that Jesus was born into the world for the sake of sinners. The Bible narrates that Jesus didn’t avoid the tax collectors and prostitutes who were caught up in shady deals or indecency, but approached them. When Buddha said that he was reincarnated not for the righteous but the evildoer, he meant the same thing. The question begs to be asked whether religion merely belongs to those holding on very tightly to the concept of “Right” and “Wrong”, or actually belongs to the common people who are ridden with flaws. Humanity is full of flaws and imperfections, yet religion’s penchant to condemn human nature is also revealing itself to be antiquated and passé. If religion cannot not lay down its bigoted moralizing and let itself get closer to more people, it will also accelerate its own demise.

Religion’s misguided subjugation of conscience to morality

The moralizing in religions tends to be absolute and emphasizes external obedience, but as our world and our humanity are becoming more complicated, it is calling into question whether abiding by a set of immutable doctrinal rules is able to adapt to the modern world. Compared to the absolute moral values commonly found in religions, the controversial “Relative Moralism” in philosophy also takes into account whether the individual who is performing a certain act sincerely believes that the action is wrong when he/she has done that. Simply put, for the Amazonian cannibals, there is no question of ethics or morality when it comes to killing people because their culture does not consider this to be “wrong”, so the ethics of civilized society cannot consider them guilty.

Inevitable problems then arise if conscience, rather than morality, is the final testing ground that humanity is built on, for in exercising the individual’s conscience, everyone could come up with a different measurement and perspective. The harsh reality is that there is also an abounding number of individuals that have little or no conscience. If there’s no consistent standard of judgement and objective criteria, wouldn’t the world order revert to anarchy when conscience takes precedence over morality?

The modality of religions that prevailed up to the immediate past assumed the form of “organized religions” to expedite the indoctrination of religious ideologies into human minds. Since organized religions cannot subsist independently of human societies, they have to accommodate the imperatives of human societies. Thus the development that religions have made with the false semblance of abiding by dogmatic moralizing has become much more prominent than the examination of the inner conscience of humanity. Wayward though it be — it is not the original intention of religion to observe moral obedience without examining the inner conscience. If we could absolve our sin by following a set of moral codes or ethical standards, similarly we could entrust moral judgement to artificial computer intelligence which has been programmed with a code of ethics, but we all know in our inner being that it cannot be this way. It is with our conscience that we must eventually judge ourselves and ultimately bear responsibility.

Morality cannot replace conscience. What is genuinely precious is the human conscience, and only the latter is the glorious manifestation of human benevolence. Compared to conscience, religious moral values that tend to be rigid and require absolute obedience are makeshift and appealing as an easy way out. True morality is not like that; it is much more difficult and often even ambiguous. It requires us as a conscious people to exercise our conscience under specific circumstances to judge our appropriate response. It also requires us to use our uniquely human sense of morality to wrestle with the realities of life that often do not present themselves in downright black and white terms; and indeed, by so doing, we consummate our humanity. This is the ordeal that we all face as conscious human beings, and the role that religion can play is to provide guidance for this complex subject of life, rather than replacing conscience in humanity by a set of rigid but straightforward moral doctrines.

Religions also cling to the pretence of upholding the righteous and punishing the wrongdoers, but this time, Brahmanism as a religion did the contrary and acquiesced to the evildoing  committed by the beloved concubine of Brahma, for she is a benefactor to Brahmanism by bringing about its integration into Buddhism. How is one supposed to employ a simple moral code to judge whether such complicity is for “Good” or “Evil”?

Behold the karmic entanglement of this panoramic but mortal world — there is always more than one perspective from which to observe facts and motives; whence has it been that there exists only one convenient succinct conclusion as the moralizing imperatives with religions and social conventions would have it? All sentient beings going through the toils of this world — and even our own — are enmeshed in this grand dream of reincarnation (note: the “grand dream” or “big dream” is a Buddhist metaphor to connote the meaning that our existence in this life or this world is ultimately illusionary — as the saying goes “life is but a big dream”), sealed by our own consciousness and can only follow our inveterate nature to do all sorts of wrongs that hurt ourselves and others. One may see through this human predicament but cannot go beyond it, which is the greatest sorrow in life.

The Buddha’s original intention and a vital facet of religion is to guide the human soul to find true wisdom and sublimation. So the Buddha did not  speak  of  “Good”  and  “Evil”  but “Ignorance” (Sanskrit: Avidyā). The Buddhist-termed “Ignorance”, which is also sometimes translated as “incorrect understanding”, goes beyond the dictionary definition and does not suggest failure or wrongdoing, but rather a spiritual ignorance that prevents the individual from  connecting to the source of being and the true self. As such, it encapsulates deeper connotations that go beyond the religions that flaunt the dualism of Good and Evil. Seeing through this, there is no need to cling to the central polarising premise of Good opposing Evil often held by certain religions, and the moralizing criticism that comes with it.

However, the human ego makes it difficult to see things from such a perspective. Instead it is more convenient for humans to accept the simplistic dualism of Good and Evil and the moralizing critique of “Right” and “Wrong”. Thus the over-emphasised moralising façade of religions has traditionally gained more legitimacy in society. When reaching this era, where people no longer hold on to morality in their hearts, religion has to untie itself from these moralizing schemas to be able to restore its original intent and meaning.

The Crisis of Faith and its Compromise

One could ask: when religions like to put up the pretence of upholding the righteous and punishing the wrongdoers, why would Brahmanism connive with Chow’s evildoings?

To begin with, we can draw on the meaning which underlines the name of a Hollywood movie released last year — the film “Ragnarök”. The story of “Ragnarök” originates from Norwegian mythology and refers to a series of future events when all sorts of natural disasters occur and some major gods die, which is not unlike the doomsday depicted by the biblical Armageddon. Later, “Ragnarök” was popularised by a 19th-century composer with one of his titles being “Twilight of the Gods”.

When we arrive at this generation, people have heard of Christianity and Buddhism, yet apart from the native Indians and those within the Buddhist circle, how many have heard of Brahmanism? The present state of affairs for Brahmanism — which used to be the leading Indian religion many centuries ago — is not unlike the setting of the sun from its peak position during the dusk hours. It could well take a couple more centuries for Brahmanism to fall into oblivion. In other words, Brahmanism — with its pantheon of gods and deities — has literally reached the “Twilight of the Gods” as its untoward status quo. As Chow has been designated to be a benefactor to bring about the integration of Brahmanism into Buddhism, Brahmanism has few options but to connive at Chow’s evildoing in order to orchestrate a comeback.

Because Buddhism does not base its foundation upon “faith” and does not advocate the worship of deities, it doesn’t fit right into some people’s understanding of “religion”. Some Western scholars prefer to understand Buddhism not as a religion but a non-secular philosophical system or path of spiritual practice. Although this perspective may not be comprehensive, it follows that in this generation, when religions are challenged by science and rationalism respectively, Brahmanism as a religion cannot but resort to Buddhism as a non-religion in order to survive. It may well be the case that Brahmanism is not the only religion facing such threats, hence revealing the crisis of the coming demise of human religions. Thus, incidentally, the prophecy of “Ragnarök – Death of the Gods” happens to be a fitting allegory for Brahmanism but also importantly — on a macro level — the end of religions as we know it.

Religion emphasizes faith; whereas science and rationalism emphasize reason and rationality. The two have never been easy to compromise. Under the dominance of science and rationalism in the modern age, the authenticity of religious belief has been inevitably attacked, and human faith in religions has been shaken far more seriously than in any other period in history. Westerners describe the situation as the “crisis of faith”, while religions with their usual depreciating undertone against secular attitudes call it the “unbelieving generation”. Under such a siege, the never-compromising position held by religions in the past is gradually yielding. The Bible’s Book of Genesis recorded that God created heaven and earth, which was the consistent belief held by Catholicism for many centuries. However, with the predominance of modern science, if you believe that God created everything, you might be looked upon as superstitiously irrational. So when the incumbent Pope Francis gave a speech in Vatican City in 2014, he recognised that the conflicting scientific postulates of “Evolutionism” and the “Big Bang theory” could be true, but explained that both scientific theories were not incompatible with the existence of a Creator – arguing instead that they “require it” because God intervenes behind the scene.

The veil is pierced – that just as Brahmanism has to connive with Chow’s evildoing for the sake of facilitating the integration of Brahmanism into Buddhism, Pope Francis has to compromise with the middle-ground that Biblical records do not violate science. However, when there is room for revision and compromise in the “Truth” proclaimed by religions, can there still be grounds for “Faith”?

So it appears that religion has been overwhelmed by science and reason, but this time, the woman behind Jet Li could have undergone such a science-contradicting paranormal experience of being possessed by a deity, and sounded an alarm for human science: Human rationality and knowledge is extremely limited. There are still many mysteries in the universe that human beings cannot comprehend. For matters such as religions or spiritual realms that cannot be quantified or rationalised, science prefers to set them aside as irrational or as superstition. When we take a step back, the so-called superstition is to believe something without sufficiently evident reasons, so believing that science and rationality could explain everything is also a form of superstition. Stephen Hawking described human beings as not unlike an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star, which could be understood as implying that while human beings are unique, they may not be the highest wisdom in the universe that can understand everything.

In essence, before the more recent endeavours to integrate the factor of human psyche into science, the development of science in the last century is still primarily confined to a valid working hypothesis, which presupposes specific operating principles behind observable phenomena which are sufficient for us to understand and cope with our world. However, the scale of substantive science often ends there. An example is modern medical science is already able to fully grasp the functioning of our physical body, such as explaining the operation of the heart, etc., which is sufficient to safeguard our health, but science still cannot completely resolve the fundamental mysteries of life. This situation regarding science can be discerned from the fact that as early as the eighteenth century, the author of the novel “Frankenstein” already had this whimsical idea of connecting the mutilated limbs of deceased animals and reviving the creature via high-voltage currents, so as to create life. However, even today, science still fails to create life by combining biological elements that make up the organism, nor can it fully explain the mystery of where life originated. Immanently, the universe has many mysteries that cannot yet be entirely expounded by human beings, and it is also because of these hidden mysteries that the universe reveals its beauty of clandestineness and profundity.

The approach of religion of the passing age attempted to provide people with a simplistic but ultimate “answer” for the afterlife dimensions that goes beyond human comprehension, and beseeched people to believe the answer as the “Truth” proclaimed by religion. Meanwhile, religions also acquired the power of controlling people’s minds through their submission to the authoritative “Truth” that religions propagated. Because religions of the passing age equated “faith” with “belief”, while at the same time intolerant of having different views within its religious framework, these dilemma have led to the practice of discouraging people from making up their mind but to believe what they have been told. Submerged by these factors, the deeper meaning and origin of religious doctrine has become difficult to discern or unrecognizable. The natural course ensured for religions to have developed into its prevailing pattern of emphasizing the superficial indoctrination of dogmatic cognition, external obedience, and moralizing, while the more profound spiritual aspects of religions have become thin and emaciated. Hence modern religions are devoid of meaning and as lifeless as old newspaper of two months ago.

Such a predicament in religions is increased by people’s tendency to equate “Faith” and “Belief”. Hence we see that some Christians would argue the existence of God by debating that everything in the universe appears for a reason and there must be a creator behind it all, whereas Buddhists would adopt the findings in quantum physics to prove the “emptiness” (Sanskrit: Śūnyatā, meaning all things are devoid of intrinsic existence and nature) tenet in Buddhism, by explaining that the seemingly solid physical objects are actually mostly empty spaces on the atomic level. All of these may well be true, but there is in fact a deeper level of meaning of faith in religions. Just as you don’t need “faith” to believe your mother is female, when the day comes for the existence of God to be proven, whence would there still be room for “faith”? All these are unnecessary detours compounded by the conflicts between rationality and the inordinate emphasis on belief according to the passing mode of religions. It’s a beautiful thing to have faith in Jesus and mother’s love, but proving the existence of God is not the original heart of the matter intended by religion. As the greater universe has been shifting into new aeon, the human psyche and perception of religions are altered from the past, thus calling into question whether the so-called immutable “truth” in religions also needs to adapt to the changing times and make adjustments.

Against the backdrop of the immutable “truth” proclaimed by religions, the “ultimate reality” could well be just like the seemingly contradictory words of the famous physicist Richard Feynman: “If you think that you understand quantum mechanics, then you don’t understand quantum mechanics”; the truth often presents itself in the form of a paradox. Buddhism preaches that all of life is suffering as the “truth” about life, which is a reality many of us could personally relate to and felt very real, and Buddhism must emphasise the monotonous view that life is this way in order to inspire people to be steadfast with spiritual practice, so that they can eventually liberate themselves from the painful cycle of reincarnation. However, as the psychiatrist Elizabeth Kubler Ross was inspired by her extensive experience of caring for dying patients, the most beautiful people are often those who have known defeat, suffering, struggle and loss, and have found their way out of the depths. Life is full of suffering, as Buddhists rightly have it, but it is also the case that the human soul can find its own meaning through tribulations in life, and such qualities of humanity as sensitivity, compassion, and a deep loving concern often are also fortified by the suffering in life. In other words, humanity is also consummated by sufferings, which in itself is already a paradox of life. Therefore, the Buddhist preaching that all of life is suffering is a very real facet of life that many of us can relate to, yet it is not the only vantage point.

Henceforth, the truth that religions have been telling people to believe may well be one facet of the ultimate reality rather than its totality. While Science cannot fully unravel the mysteries of the universe, the simplistic answers that religions offered us also may not be the complete picture of the ultimate reality. It may well be the case that the ultimate reality is like a spiral. When you have traversed one of its layers and thought that you had already glimpsed its whole profile, there comes a still deeper layer below it, and so on without end. The scientific angle to understand ultimate reality is analogous to probing each deeper layer within the spiral, but the way of glimpsing the complete contour of the spiral is not like that. Rather, it requires one to step back  and take a holistic view, and it is the one that glimpsed the entire spiral who could appreciate the beauty of the complete formation, which is precisely the perspective that religions were able to provide to human beings.

The evolving New Age Religion to encompass Humanism

In the controversial work “The Aquarian Conspiracy”, the American author Marilyn Ferguson draws from the popular conception in astrology that the astrological age of the greater universe will be shifting from the existing era of the “Age of Pisces” — which emphasises belief/faith — into the succeeding aeon which replaces it: the “Age of Aquarius” — which emphasises freedom of thought.

With freedom of thought soaring, and emphasis no longer laid on the indoctrination of faith and ideologies in religions, would religions be able to continue with their existing pattern? Hence such a view also indirectly unveiled the end of the passing era of religion, and for the same reason, some religious groups contended that such a view is an attempt to subvert the standpoint of Christianity. Then again, just as Brahmanism cannot but resort to Buddhism to continue into the future generation, the shifting zodiac cycle of the greater universe could not be forestalled by the complacency of religions. What we are facing could be another major leap forward in human thinking after the “Axial Age” more than 2,000 years ago.

Pisces is a zodiac sign that has a lot to do with the subconscious mind and psychology describes the subconscious mind as like the weird “dark cellar” in one’s consciousness, wherein lie the parts of images, thoughts and effects that we don’t understand or accept in ourselves. Darkness is there only because it is beyond the reach of the light beam, while we often need to be in the light to recognize the appearance of things. Likewise, where the “light of rationality” cannot shine through, we are often left with few options but to choose between “believing” or “not believing” in the existence of what we cannot recognize. Thus, synchronistically, the element of “belief” was so prominent in religions in the passing astrological age.

Pisces is a zodiac sign related to the subconscious, and if we must forcibly bisect the human consciousness according to some rational perspective of science, the sublimation of emotion and love in human nature is also more intimately related to the subconscious. Synchronistically, in the passing astrological age of the greater universe, Christianity — the world religion that preaches God’s love for humanity — has risen to become the world’s greatest religion. The Pisces glyph depicts two fish swimming in opposite directions; and Jesus — who had such great love for humanity to have sacrificed himself by being crucified on the cross — was once called the “Fisherman of men” in the Bible.

In the passing astrological age of the last 2,000 years, the emptiness and toil of life inspired humans to contemplate and search for the meaning of life and seek for consolation from religion. Such beautiful religious sentiment can only be exhibited by humanity. With the passing of the receding astrological age, such beautiful religious sentiment that inspired human beings’ dedication and profound commitment to religion regrettably has to subside. It’s grievous passing but nothing lasts forever except for change itself, while the new astrological age also provides the possibility of a new religious modality, and the vicissitude of alternation from one condition to another is imperative for the greater universe to restore balance.

The sign of Aquarius coming forth with the succeeding astrological age is one that values freedom of thought and seeks to be liberated from the constraints of society and convention. The progress of the free-thinking flow in the new astrological age could evince itself as the continuous extension of human minds, with the differing viewpoints of diverse perspectives receiving due regard and value. Its manifestation is much like the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson: “The mind, once stretched by a new idea, never returns to its original dimensions”, which presents a precise antithesis to the narrow-minded conventions of traditional religions.

Religion cannot exempt itself from the ascendancy of the new consciousness, and the obstinate ideologies in the passing practice of religions is not unlike seeing the image quality of plasma television for the first time. While the deficiency in image quality with older screening technologies was not conspicuous before and one could live with it, it has become glaringly apparent with the stark contrast to the new technologies. “What has been seen cannot be unseen”. Ironically, the obstacles that deter religions from undergoing reforms to meet the new universal flow are also because religion is the most change-resistant of human systems, for the passing practice of religion advocated belief in truth, and how could something reform itself when it encompasses the one and only truth?

Aquarius is also amongst the most humanitarian of astrological signs. The prevailing  dichotomy between faith and reason was also caused by the modality of “organised religions” derived in the passing practice of religion, which turned a blind eye on the divergent spiritual disposition and psyche predilection of individuals, and tried to apply a uniform measure to the variegated spiritual dimensions in the human psyche, which veritably could never be unified; and inadvertently tipped the scale of balance away from the soulful dimension of human spirituality. Under the premise of surrendering to the overwhelming authority of the ultimate “truth” proclaimed by religion, such mystical dimensions with personal spirituality — which were ineffable but originally precious dimensions connected to religion — were not given room for exploration and expression, and were buried. The flow of free-thinking with the new aeon would conversely bring us back to personal spirituality as the pre-eminent frontier with religion, and would have the scale of balance once again tipped back towards the soulful dimension of human spirituality.

Inevitably, the dichotomy between faith and reason can rarely find a way out by dialectic arguments beyond the human psyche, but can only be integrated within the spiritual dimensions of the human psyche. To put it more aptly, the truth that resides within the human heart doesn’t require such objective argumentation. When religion comes back to the soulful dimension of human spirituality as its orientation, the conflicts between faith and rationality will naturally become secondary and thereby fall away or be dissolved by themselves. The appearance of the Buddha effigies that were excavated in certain Mediterranean countries, such as Greece, exhibited many differences in facial features from those of the Chinese effigies. The “truth” as to which one is representative of the true demeanour of Buddha is not of much importance, because when religions are “humanity orientated”, they need to get close to the cognitive pattern of the unique cultures and collective consciousness of the clans, in order to concord and reciprocate with the human psyche. When the spiritual object is fashioned with racial affinity that the indigenous community can relate to, religion becomes more readily accessible to the human psyche, and by so doing, the development of the spiritual dimension of the clans.

One of the reasons for the decline of Brahmanism is because, later in its philosophical development, it produced a set of “deity-centred” ideologies advocating worshipping and offering sacrifices to the gods, so that one could be bestowed with all kinds of boons in the present life and go to heaven after death. Meanwhile, various sorts of sacrificial activities and chants praising all sorts of gods emerged and literally became the “idolatry” denounced by Christianity. Such a premise is no longer believed by this generation. Compared to the “deity-centred” religions led by the belief in God the creator or the polytheistic gods, Buddhism is very much “humanity-centred”, as was originally intended of religion as well. It would be all in vain for you to worship the so-called merciful Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara if you had not developed the mercy of humanity within your heart. Religion needs to rid itself of its antiquated model rather than resting on its laurels, and evolve from “deity-centred” to “humanity-centred” to meet the emerging trends of the universal flow in its new aeon.

Because the approach of religion of the passing aeon has shed limited light on the realities within the human psyche and disregards the difference in spiritual disposition and psyche predilection of individuals, it has taken on the unilateral “top-down” indoctrination of ideologies that human are requested to accept as the “truth”, as the way out for everyone’s spirituality, much as in the manner in which teachers treat their students in kindergartens. Religions of the New Age need to make adjustments by borrowing from the heuristic model of teaching, by which a problem is placed before the students and they are asked to find the solution of the problem through various literacy means and learn by self-experience.

In the religious model of the New Age, the unilateral “top-down” indoctrination gives way and evolves to become the spiritual aspirants’ self-initiated pursuit “from the inside out”, allowing space for self-exploration in the searching process, meanwhile keeping interactive and the possibility of cross-referencing different religions, tolerating the assimilation of elements from other religions that suit the individual’s needs. Also, as it is with heuristic teaching, where the teacher’s role is more about initiating the learning process, the future role of religion is more about inspiring people to integrate elements with its religion system that are suitable for themselves.

The so-called “Buddhism’s many paths to enlightenment” is ultimately a gracious generalization because after all, with spirituality and religion, everyone will need to find his own path rather than accepting one that is handed down by the church or some other authority. Under the new universal flow of free-thinking, the segregation between orthodoxy and heterodoxy will become relatively blurred, and their respective viewpoints and values will no longer lean to one side. People may well find that the path of self-seeking is tortuous and is not entirely aligned with the orthodoxy passage, but instead built on its foundation while allowing the admissibility of the unique spiritual orientation and psyche predilection of the individual.

It has been said that the English word “religion” originates from Latin “religio”, which has an imprecise connotation and is seemingly suggestive of an obligation that was incumbent upon you. In additional to also carrying the connotation of “sacred” or “taboo”, “religio” also denotes conscientious scrupulousness. In other words, the original meaning of “religio” doesn’t carry such a connotation of “thou shall worship God”. The word acquired an important new meaning among early Christian theologians: an attitude of reverence toward God and the universe as a whole. For Saint Augustine, “religio” was neither a system of rituals and doctrines nor a historical institutionalized tradition, but a personal encounter with the transcendence that we call God as well as the bond that unites us to the divine and one another. The implication is that the meaning of “religio” could have carried the connotation of personal dedication and inner connection with spirituality. The religion of the New Age is to return to this dimension, and contrary to the imperatives engendered by traditional religions’ distrust of human nature, it begins with knowledge of the transcendental aspect of one’s innermost self.

Kuddos to Jet Li

That this article could receive people’s attention is owed mostly to the reputation of Mr. Jet Li. The author appreciates that Mr. Li might not want the affairs mentioned in this article to be disclosed, and hereby apologizes. However, the matters discussed in this article are publicised to contribute to the future of religion.

Why would it be so? Let’s start to explain from an experiment with monkeys on a Japanese island.

In the 1950s, a group of scientists fed sweet potatoes to monkeys on an island in Japan, to observe their behaviour. The scientists began throwing sweet potatoes into the sand to feed the monkeys, but then one of the monkeys began washing the dirty sweet potatoes in the sea before eating and discovered that the washed sweet potatoes tasted better. The other monkeys on other islands observed this and started doing the same thing. When the 100th monkey learned to do this, overnight all the monkeys on the island overnight would wash the sweet potatoes before eating them. Not only that, such a habit seemingly could go beyond the physical barriers in nature, and monkeys in other nearby islands also learned to do so spontaneously. So scientists deduced that the participation of 100th monkey apparently brought the number to exceed a certain critical mass and drove all the monkeys to follow suit. It is speculated that there is some sort of “Morphic Field” that underlies the organization of living creatures’ minds, and when specific thoughts and ideas appear frequently, they would in turn attract more similar thoughts in return.

The crisis of religion that we are facing needs more awareness from people who ponder it, so that just like the number of monkeys on the Japanese island, we could reach the critical mass and engender enough momentum for the transition of religions into the next era. This time, through borrowing from the reputation of Jet Li, more people have become aware of the situation faced by religion in this generation, and are therefore making a small contribution to the progress of religion to meet the emerging trends in the universal flow in its new aeon.

At the end of this article, the author would like to express gratitude for Mr. Jet Li’s pardon.