Midterm Paper of Academic Study of Religion

 1.      Explaining some theories of thinkers about religion:

a.    Foucault discussion of the politics of knowledge

Foucault introduces two methods to uncover how power creates truth, which he called the archeology and genealogy. Archaeology is a method used by Foucault to find the basic conditions which led to a discourse is created. With this method Foucault wanted to find knowledge oppressed by the dominant knowledge.

The second method, Foucault's genealogy went from thinking that knowledge is not outside power. For him, Power constitutes knowledge in the sense that work and sets a benchmark mechanism that allows it to distinguish a proposition true or false; set of techniques and procedures in achieving above truth; set a status for those who are charged with saying things that are considered correct.

b.   WC Smith’s concept of reification

Smith was trying to express how the term of "religion" is formed. For Smith, the term 'religion' is simply a new term that emerged in the last two decades alone, and until now no single definition that can be used as a reference. For Smith, the religion is known so far is simply a result of a process of reification (the graduations in history). It is the accumulated experience of the individual or group that is institutionalized in history.

c.    Talal Asad’s explanation of the interplay of religion, nation state and secularism

Talal Asad conducted an analysis of secularization theory formulated by José Casanova in Public Religions in the Modern World’s book. According to Talal Asad, the theory of secularization Casanova proved entirely wrong, or at least having undermining. Asad wrote three elements that build a theory of secularization which, as already noted above, Casanova was developed, which are essential elements in constructing modernity, namely: (1) structural differentiation of social spaces growing, which resulted in the separation of religion from politics (2) the privatization of religion in its own region, (3) deterioration of the social significance of trust, commitment and religious institutions. Of these three elements, only elements of the first and third elements are expressed Casanova proved correct, while the second element (the privatization of religion) was not happening. However, in view of Asad, all the elements in the theory of secularization Casanova fails to be met, as described below.

According to Asad, the entry of a legitimate religion in a way into social debates produce a modern hybrid, resulting in structural differentiation principle (that of religion, economics, education, and science is placed in the areas of autonomous social) can no longer be maintained. Thus, the first element of Casanova’s secularization theory has failed. Furthermore, given that the entry of religion into the political debate will produce policies that are effective, and that the fanatical commitments emerged from these debates, it became less plausible if one measures the social significance of religion is only based on an index of how much people who visited the church. Thus, the third element of the secularization thesis Casanova unfulfilled.

Asad asserted that if the theory of secularization increasingly seem unreasonable in view of many people, this happens not only because of religion today plays a vital role in the modern world of nations, but also because the categories of "religion" and "politics" were related to each other more deeply than we think, a finding that coincided with the increasingly growing our understanding of the forces of the modern nation-state. The concept of secularization cannot work without the idea of religion.

d.   Richard King’s discussion of the iatrogenic effect of religious studies and his proposals to overcome

The iatrogenic effect is a medical terms. It points a damage which is caused by the malpractice of cure. Richard sees this term is applicable for analyzing the history of religious study and its practices now. Richard implies that the definition of religion now is more scientific than religious itself. Many scholars of religious studies tried to analyze religion by their standard of knowledge. For Richard, that will reduce or narrow the truly meaning of religion. Religion is not only about the scientific term or fact, but it also contains many things that cannot be determined or defined by scientific works.

Richard proposes the Robert Bellah’s approach for minimizing the reduction of religion by symbolic realism and methodological agnosticism. Symbolic realism tends to give sphere for all religious side such as religious experience, beliefs and practices of cultural, socio historical and political factors which are could be significant elements of the history of religion. After that, symbolic realism must use the methodological agnosticism which allows the depth dialogue between the researcher and his object. It is a way for seeing the object of research not only as a thing but also as a subject who has many different practice or understanding about themselves.

2.      Analyzing “Contemporary Indonesian Buddhism and Monotheism (IEM BROWN) ” by each concept above.

Short summaries

When Indonesian Government (new order regime) applied the use of One Supreme God, Bikkhu Akhin had succeeded to consolidate Buddhism’s adherent by recognizing the concept of One Supreme God. He tried to find similar word of God in the Buddhism, and he found it as Sang Hyang Adhi Buddha. He explained that it word was found it in the Javanese Old Text, Sang Hyang Kamahayanikum which is written on Mpu Sindok’s era, 10^th century. This text gave many explananation about how to achieve Buddhahood through the practice of Paramita (ten qualities). It also explained Paramaguhya (the materialisastion of Budha Wisesa) and Mahaguhya (meditation). The most important thing is about the teaching of Advaya (non-dualism) which is finished the problem of existence and non-existence. This concept is considered as a door to acceptance the concept of Pancasila with belief in One Supreme God.

a.      Foucault

The relation between Power and Knowledge is barely defined in this case. The Buddhist should define their religion as a similar way of the definition of religion by Government/state.  When state imposed their definition about religion, there is a standard of truth which is given by state. Therefore, Buddhism must follow that standard if they want to be one of the recognized religions in Indonesia.

b.      W.C. Smith

     The process of reification obviously occurs when the term of Religion has been defined by state. The strict definition of religion from government impacts many religious things. The adaptation by Bikkhu Akhin about the meaning of God is so clear tells us about the reification process. At first, Buddhism has no one concept about God. But when state gves the strict definition of religion, one of it is about God, Buddhism tried to follow it by tracking the ancient book of Buddhism, they found it and call their God as Sang Hyang Adhi Buddha. This story proves that the identification of religion is given the real thing of God in their life.

c.       Talal Asad

The case of contemporary Buddhism has strengthened Asad concept of modern hybrid betweeb religion and state. in this case, state imposed their definition of religion for giving certain understanding about religion. This imposition has given the main role of state as one actor who needs the acceptance and admission from the religion.

Besides that, the influence of religion also appears. It occurs when religion also need some categorization of religion by seeing the things that exist in the major religion such as Islam and Christian. This relationship proves that there is no special separation between state and religion. State and religion are encountering each other and giving their influences.

d.      Richard King

The problem of this article is Brown tends to say that the acceptance of One Supreme God in Buddhism contemporary in Indonesia is as political decision. He said that this is a compromising for Government’s rule about One Supreme God. It will reduce of the such religious experience occurring during this acceptance. For strengthening his thesis, Brown asserted that there was a conflict between Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism about the concept of One Supreme God. Although it truly happened, Brown tends to emphasize that conflict happened caused only by the acceptance of One God Supreme. For me, it is not true, because in Buddhism there are many schools which have many conflicts about their concept of God in Buddhism for a long time.  Brown abandoned this fact and he is really trapped by reducing the conflict among Buddhism schools.