How 'Content and Form' in Music, Ritual and Language are Related to Meaning/Understanding

I would argue that to view ritual as text is to come up with a precise meaning of what ritual really is. In other words, the meaning(s) of ritual can be directly found in some form of text. In practice as Bell and other scholars have done, to reduce the meaning(s) of ritual to a text is very problematic. In this sense, I believe that ritual and text imply one another but not directly. More precisely, I think that language can not fully engage the ‘meaning’ of a certain experience.

In fact, I will use a pictorial example to illustrate my point. My aunt who is a nurse told me last week that she had too train two co-op students from UfT. While training one of the students expressed that taking the blood pressure of a patient is easy to understand in a theoretical sense but difficult in practice. The students were graded C+ in practice but received A’s throughout there textual studies at UfT. Therefore, the difference between text and actual experience or ritual is vast. One may experience ritual different from another and thus have different takes on what the meaning is.

Sharf describes the alternative of focusing more on the per formative aspect which he illustrates tends to answer the question of how do participants come to do what they do?, instead of What does it mean? (250) I believe that there really is no alternative to understanding what ritual really means, because underlying this question is whose ritual gets discussed? In this sense ritual by different groups of members are practiced differently. Obviously then different meanings are given and thus, to apply one meaning limits it to only one group of individuals. Therefore, text can be considered “form” in which ritual is the ‘content’ as experienced by different groups.

This brings me to the discussion of ‘content’ and ‘form’ in music language and ritual and Sharf’s theory that ritual and music are more alike than language in the sense that one cannot distinguish content from form. (251) If languages’ content and form can be distinguished, then wouldn’t ritual and music be distinguishable because it employs language? More precisely, since music needs language and ritual needs language couldn’t one analyze the language within that context (music or ritual) and come up with meanings, much like Weber did? However, as seen in Masuzawa’s text language used to imply certain meanings in the progression of history was viewed by many as problematic. In this light, language constitutes its own variations and problems. Thus, language as seen in Masuzawa’s text complicates this whole notion of not being able to extract the content from the form. Thus, I argue that music ritual and language are equally alike.

However, what I think Sharf was trying to point out was more the idea that language in form (written) is different from the content (meaning) of the word under discussion. On the other hand what music sounds like or ritual looks like (form), is directly related to what we are suppose to understand (content). In this sense the form implies the content. As seen in my blog I disagree with this assertion because language like experience whether musical or ritualistic can bring about different understandings and meanings. More precisely, one could read a text and have a totally different take of that text compared to another individual, as well as one could have multiple understandings of ritual or musical experiences.

Relationship Between Religious Texts and Religious Experience
My view on the relationship between religious texts and religious experience is best understood by outlining first how Foucault describes the relationship between power and knowledge. He emphasizes, “we should admit that power produces knowledge (and not simply by encouraging it because it serves power or by applying it because it is useful); that power and knowledge directly imply one another; that there is no power relation without the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at the same time power relations.” (Discipline and Punish, pp.27f.)

Foucault presumes that there is a direct relationship between power and knowledge by asserting that they “imply one another” directly. Much like how Foucault argues that power and knowledge are directly related, I argue that religious texts and religious experience assume the same relationship. More specifically, I believe that religious texts are the product of religious experience. Religious experience in this respect refers to a direct encounter or being in the presence of the divine or some supernatural being, and religious texts are writings produced for the worship of a Deity. Thus, it is only when one has a religious experience can they be able to compose a text that focuses on worship of that Deity. On the other hand, through vigorous study of a religious text one can acquire the knowledge of the practices needed to be followed in order to have a religious experience.

In this respect, religious experience needs to be accounted for in religious texts. But, then we ask ourselves, can religious experience be ‘accurately’ accounted for in a religious text? When a text is compiled from experience, there can be no ‘accurate’ account. In other words, a representation of something can never be entirely truthful or correct. I personally don’t think that a religious text should have to accurately reflect experience. At the end of the day, religious experiences are sometimes described to be unexplainable. In this regard the feeling embraced by the practitioner, whether it is a realization of some sort or a transformation, is difficult to put into context. In this view, the religious experience is not accurately accounted for. With any oral tradition, there is bound to be information that is left out or emphasized more according to the person who encounters the religious experience. This is the case because every religious experience brings out different meanings to each practitioner. I guess this can account for why within Buddhism and Christianity we have this divisiveness over the meaning and essence of what religious experience is.

In brief I don’t believe that texts can give an accurate account of religious experience but a somewhat accurate account. Having said this, I do believe that it is important for texts to establish enough details just in order to guide individuals toward a religious experience. As mentioned earlier it is not so much whether religious experience is accurately portrayed in a religious text, but a matter of religious experience and the religious texts implying one another.
Posted by aveisha at 8:29 PM 0 comments

Nineteenth Century Scohlars and Comparative Theology

“Comparative theology is a new area of though as yet largely unexplored in which to establish the truth of Christianity” (Masuzawa 78). This method of comparative theology that Masuzawa explores in chapter 2 of his text illustrates the massive presence of nineteenth century Europeans seen through my study of religions.

Comparative theology which emphasizes Christianity as a progressive development and the one true supreme faith becomes a tool employed by many European writers. The idea behind this is that by becoming well learned in other religions, one would be able to demonstrate the truth in the Christian faith. My study of Hinduism and Buddhism emphasizes this idea. Both religions become more important or constructed through the increased interest of British scholars. In fact both Hinduism and Buddhism ceased to exist on the subcontinent until the Europeans grouped together large amounts of cultural manuscripts and texts, transmitted them to the oriental learning centers where they were edited, translated and made accessible.

Due to the increased attention being paid to other religions in literature, scholars “favorably on Christianity, to justify the presumption of its superiority over all other religions…”(Masuzawa 73) In this view, any other religion became important only to substantiate Christianity. More specifically, the presence of the nineteenth century Europeans are very fundamental when look at any type of history. What is given prominence in terms of, what becomes a matter of particular interest and emphasis is highlighted by particular scholars. In addition, religious history begins with the nineteenth century scholars. It is then that an increase of knowledge of different cultures and religions. Therefore, whatever the nineteenth century Europeans found important in their studies of religions, this information was what was made accessible.

One can simply say that because of this, the history of religions or the classification of facts (or phenomena) into past and present relies solely on the research gathered or paid attention to by the presence of the nineteenth century Europeans.

However one must keep in mind that the scholars are to give self-conscious sightings of their point of view. Even though bias was very common as seen when Masuzawa points that most scholars were Christian, assumed a Christian audience and thus favored Christianity (in comparative theology). She adds what remains important though is that these scholars were held in high esteem and were highly educated.

These Christian scholars whom in light of other religions fought endlessly to justify the high position of Christianity and in so doing how things were categorized and theorized, whether they made religions more dignified or degraded them was represented in that light. More particularly, the nineteenth century Europeans set out the discourse the history of religion would take.