Symbols of Great Religions and Eliade's Concepts - Term Paper Example

? Religion and Theology   Symbols of Great Religions and Eliade's Concepts Introduction Mircea Eliade was a Romanian scholar who is best remembered for his contribution in the History of religion while serving as a professor. It was during his academic career that he published many studies on religions which have been highly influential till the modern times. Most of Eliade's works emphasized on Shamanism’s archaic religions, West and Asian religions. He is also remembered for the role he played when he founded the ‘History of Religions’ which is a world renowned academic journal and he is also appreciated as being part of the editing team of the ‘Encyclopedia of Religion’. Eliade is not just remembered for his work of writing but also his conceptualization of religion’s nature which proved to be of great significance in the history of religion. Some of his concepts include; sacred, Coincidentia oppositorum, profane and hierophany1. Taking an example of these concepts, hierophany was a representation of a sacred manifestation of the various forms of different cultures. This Eliade's concept enabled other religion historians to study both the local and historical manifestation of this puzzling phenomenon. Eliade did not stop at that he came up with several claims about the functional principles of religious rituals, myths, and architecture providing a sacred environment experienced partly as origin of the world and spatially as the historical time before the world begun. It was Elaide’s belief that the most significant modernity characteristics were found in the Western encounter with archaic, the Eastern and other alternative traditions that are religious. He believed that the outcome of the above encounter was the formation of a new form of humanism. The position Eliade took concerning religion in his work led a number of controversies and criticism but this didnt stop him from becoming one of the legendary figures when it comes to the history of religion. This paper is going to focus on the thematic focus of Mircea’s legacy as engaged by Rennie, his famous concepts, criticism as well as controversies of his works. Eliade’s Famous Concepts Coincidentia Oppositorum In this concept, Eliade claimed that most of the rituals, mystical experiences and myths involve Coincidentia Oppositorummeaning a ‘coincidence that is opposite’. He refers to this concept as being the pattern of myths. Most of the myths according to Eliade bring out revelations that are twofold. This to him was an expression of the different positions of the opposition that was diametrical to the double divine figures coming up from the same destiny and principle. This happened after a reconciliation of different versions at eschatology illud tempus. The Coincidentia Oppositorum manifests itself in the divinity nature through benevolent, simultaneous, creative, terrible and serpentine ways2. Basing on this concept, Eliade states that Yahweh can manifest himself both as being wrathful and kind. That is the mystical of Christian’s God as being gentle as well as terrible. He also went further to consider the mystic of the Chinese and the Indians as they both tried to have a state that had perfect neutrality and indifference leading to an opposing coincidence where pain and pleasure, repulsion and desire, heat and cold are taken away from God’s awareness. Eliade insists that the appeal of this concept is in the deep dissatisfaction of any man depending on his conditions and situations. According to most of the mythologies, the mythical age fall out led to a significant change in the ontological world structure. Now that Coincidentia Oppositorumentails contradictions, it stands out as a representation of laws of abolition of the world that is fallen. Sacred, Profane and Hierophany The scene where Moses had his shoes off before the ‘burning bush’ is the basis of this concept. Elaide in his writing, states that religion viewed in general rests bringing out a clear distinction between the profane, and scared. This according to Elaide is whether it is the Gods, mythical or God in question as the Sacred consists of all the value and reality. The rest acquire reality to an extent that involves only the sacred participation. His understanding of religion is built on his hierophany concept. Hierophany concept entails more and older God’s manifestations restrictive concepts. From the religious perspective, Eliade’s argument on heirophanies touches on orientation and structure of the world leading to a sacred order3. The nonreligious experience of the profane space can only be split geometrically; meaning that it lacks qualitative diversity and thus no orientation caused by inherent structure virtue. This implies that profane space offers man no behavioral pattern. Contradicting the profane space, the hierophany site consists of a structure that is sacred on to which men who are religious conform to. A hierophany leads to an absolute reality of revelation as opposed to surrounding expanse that is unrealistic. To provide a justifying example of this concept, Eliade uses the Moses story where he halted before the manifestation of Yahweh before the burning bush and having his shoes off his feet. The dissatisfaction of traditional men on post-mythical period manifests itself in separate and torn feelings. In most of the mythologies, the lost mythical period has been regarded as a Paradise. This state is a paradoxical with existing contraries without multiplications and conflicts from mysterious unity aspects. The coincidentia oppositorumconcept is an expression to wish for the recovery of the mythical Paradise lost unity as it reconciles opposites and Unifies diversity. Elaide’s Religion Philosophy Although Eliade took on religious history as a profession, his scholarly work was heavily dawned on psychological and philosophical terminology. More so, most of his work had several philosophical arguments on religion. As a result of this, Eliade has been accused for promoting a type of theological agenda that is under the historical scholarship guise. On the other hand, Eliade is also appreciated as a better understood scholar who willingly opens up to sacred experience discussions and their consequences. The ‘Transonscious’ and Anti-reductionism In his study on religion, Eliade dismissed a number of approaches which he considered to be reductionist. Eliade considers that a phenomenon on religion can in no way be reduced to being a product of either history or culture. He goes further to argue that though religion includes the economic and social man, nevertheless, all the above factors that are conditioning do not contribute to the spiritual life. Basing on the position of ant-reductionist, Eliade is totally against the criticism directed to him about overgeneralizing as he looked at the universals and not particulars. Eliade agrees that the phenomenon of every religion has been shaped by specific history and culture forming it4. Eliade is still against those scholars he terms as ‘existentialists philosophers’ or ‘historicist’ who fail to appreciate man in a general view looking at them as particular men coming out of particular situations. He goes further to state that consciousness transcends of human beings is in no way reducible to its cultural and historical conditioning. He even comes up with suggestions of the transconsious possibility. By taking this position, Eliade does not imply anything that is mystical or supernatural. By his argument, Eliade puts symbols, motifs, nostalgias, and images which are evidently universal and which cannot be simplified to cultural and historical conditioning. “Primitive Ontology” and Platonism Eliade regards the traditional men as to have had the notion that their identity and reality were acquired only to a certain level of their involvement in supreme reality. According to the traditional man, the profane world proved to be meaningless and anything coming out of such a world was a result of an ideal conformation to a mythical model. This reality view was taken by Eliade as being a significant section of the primitive ontology. At this juncture, he compares Plato’s philosophy similarities to those of eternal model’s transient imitations. Plato was viewed as a philosopher who was outstanding regarding primitive mentality. He was a great thinker who managed to provide life models with philosophic validity and currency and archaic humanity behavior. With regards to ‘Theory of Forms’, Eliade argues that its ontology which he considers as being primitive is persistent in Greek philosophy. He appreciates Platonism as being the most exclusively elaborated primitive ontology version5. Criticism of Eliade’s Work Overgeneralization Most of Elide’s cites are made up a variety of rituals and myths which he based on to support his own theories. Despite this effort, Eliade has come under a lot of criticism of over-generalizing most of his scholarly work. Most of religion scholars believe that he does not provide sufficient evidence in his ideas as they are always universal, principles and general thoughts on religion. Some scholars have gone to the extended of claiming that though Eliade is regarded as the most influential and popular religion contemporary historian, specialists in sociology, history of religion and anthropology have always dismissed or ignored his works. G. Kirk, who is a famous classicist came out strongly criticizing the way Eliade laid emphasis on Australian Aborigines as well as Mesopotamians had real, being and becoming concepts yet he was short of words for them. Kirk went further to argue that Eliade had overextended some of his theories like his claim that noble savage modern myth was out of the tendency of religion to idealize the mythical period that was primordial. To Kirk, this was extravagant and marked repetitiousness thus resulting in dismissal of Elaide by many sociologists and anthropologists. Kirk argued that Eliade’s theory on eternal return was plagiarized from the Australian Aboriginal mythology functions after which Elaide went ahead to have the theory applied in other mythologies that were not relevant. According to Kirk, the eternal return theory does not describe the Greek mythology or Native American’s functions accurately. In his conclusion, Kirk states that Eliade ideas can only be considered as being mythical valuable perceptions but not a guide to an accurate understanding of those myths6. Wendy, Doniger, who succeeded Eliade at University of Chicago also looked at the eternal return as failing to put all the rituals and myths into application though he appreciated that the theory may be put into application while refering to some of the rituals and myths. She also admits that Eliade made several over-generalization in some of his work but argues for him by stating that the position he took of arguing widely for universals enabled him to view patterns which covered the whole globe and the entire history of man. Wendy concludes that whether the theories were true or not, they remain useful as they are used as a basis for religion comparative studies. She added that these theories are in such a way that they provide room for the current data which Elaide couldn’t access during his time. Lack of Empirical Support Many researchers have also criticized some of Eliade’s scholarly work as lacking empirical support. These researches claim that Eliade did not provide enough methodology for religion’s history and making the discipline to be an empirical science. However, the same researchers agree that the history of religion should not be made an empirical science in the first place. One of Eliade’s statements that came under scrutiny is the one which he claimed that the sacred is human consciousness structure that has been distrusted as it is not provable empirically. He said that since history; no single scholar had ever turned up the category sacred basics. Eliade was also accused of his style of ignoring religion’s social aspects. Alice Kehoe, a famous anthropologist highly criticized Eliade’s work especially the one on Shamanism. Kehoe dismissed Eliade arguing that he was a historian and not an anthropologist. She went further to insist that Eliada never conducted any research on the field or interrogated any indigenous groups which were recognized for practicing Shamanism thus his work is believed to have been synthesized from already researched sources and he did not even bother to site the sources. Professor Bolle thought otherwise as he argued that the approachs taken by Eliade in all the work he wrote or published were empirical7. Far Right and Nationalist Influences Although neither of Eliade’s work had ever been subordinated in his political beliefs, he has been associated with a number of schools of thoughts on politics like the Trairism interwar in Romania and his Evola where he drew inspirations from Fascism. As an academician, Marcel Tolcea argued that the Evola work was an interpretation of the work published earlier by Guenon. Eliade on his side remained linked with the ideologies that were far right in his contribution to academics. Evola who never stopped to defend mystical fascism core principles, at one point protested when Eliade failed to site both Guenon and Him. Elaide response was that his work was based on the interests of a contemporary public and not an initiation of obscure circles. It was also notated that some of Eliade’s work was engrossed with Zalmoxis’s cult and its monotheism. His conclusion on the history of Dacian was interpreted as being a contemporary partisan of the nationalism of Protochronist8. Controversies Eliade’s early works were seen as being highly tolerant of the Jews as well as the Romania’s Jewish minority. He is remembered for the way he condemned the policies adapted by the Nazi that were anti-Semitic accompanied by several anti-Jewish attacks on Nae Ioenescus in a moderate but cautious way. Eliade is also regarded by others as being anti-Semite. A good example is when Sebastian Mihail wrote in his journal that Eliade’s 1930’s actions clearly indicated that he was an anti-Semite. Sebastian claimed that that he had been a friend to Eliade till when Eliade started being committed to politics. Eliade had been accused for taking part in helping Sebastian write controversial articles regarding the Warsaw and the Jewish resistance. Eliade later admitted that he regretted not being in a position to redeem Sebastian as his friend as he was later involved in a car accident and died. It was observed that before he was involved in anti-Semitism, Eliade had kept away from issues touching on the Jewish. This was not the case as a Vremea text dated 1936 indicated that Eliade had supported the accusations of Iron Guard as they rose against the Jewish. Eliade was then questioned about the reasons why he supported the movement against the Jewish. Eliade denied any involvement in writing the text by claiming that his picture, picture’s caption and signature found on the text had been used by the editor of the magazine after he failed to get his contribution. The author also stated that he had no intention of publicizing the article in the first place. Later but still in the same saga, a diplomat in London stated that Elaide had identified himself as the iron Guard guiding light movement9. Another Eliade depolarization after he had begun his career as a diplomat also faced some mistrust issues by a close friend by the name Eugine Ionesco. Ionesco claimed that after the World War II ended, the beliefs of Eliade from the way he had shared with him were that everything had been lost and that communism had emerged the victors. This was part of the succinct and harsh reviews made by Ionesco about intellectuals who had been inspired by Legion with most of them being former friends and friends. Later in his final years of his career, Eliade’s discipline publicly exposed and criticized Eliade’s activities regarding the Iron Guard. Eliade also faced more criticism with regards on how he was involved politically with fascism and ant-Semitism from scholars like Daniel Dubuisson, Adriana Berger, Florin Turcanu, and Leon Volovici. All the scholars tried to analyze the position taken by Eliade’s on anti-Semitism in his work as well as how he was associated with anti-Semites contemporary like Julius Evola. Volovici remained critical that Eliade was involved in both supporting the Iron Guard and the spreading of anti-Masonry and ant-Semitism in Romania. However, other scholars such as Rennie have insisted that there has been no evidence until now showing Eliade’s real involvement, services rendering and membership with any totalitarian organizations, fascist and membership movements. Rennie also claimed that there is no evidence of Eliade’s support for the ideals of the nationalists after their violent nature was exposed. They went further to state that no political belief’s imprint in the works of Eliade as well as the claims on how Eliade criticized political agendas. The version of Elaide concerning his involvement in politics is seen as to have several unverified and inaccurate claims. He publically denied of ever being involved in Buna Vestire10 Conclusion Mircea Eliade is appreciated as being one of the most recognized and respected scholars of histories on religion. The concepts introduced by Elaide into the early religion works proved to be very significant and were based on in the development of other concepts and ideas by other upcoming scholars. Even though considered as outdated, his concepts were in such away that they could accommodate both the historical and modern times. Despite his legendary contribution, Eliade’s, work has faced a lot of criticism and controversies. Some of the criticism includes; his work being regarded to as being over-generalized, lack supporting evidence, not being original as to have been developed from already existing work and not appreciated by other scholars. The main controversy facing his work is the position he took with regards to the Jewish. Some of his friends and scholars as well as written documents indicated that Eliade indirectly was in support of the movements that were against the Jewish. Elaide never at any time admitted to be in support of the anti-Jewish movements. Despite the criticism and the controversies; Mircea Eliade legacy still lives on especially with regards to history on religion; a positive legacy. Bibliography Allen, Douglas. Myth and religion in Mircea Eliade. New York: Routledge, 1998 Allen, Douglas. Structure and Creativity in Religion: Hermeneutics in Mircea Eliade’s phenomenology and New Directions. New York: Mouton, 1998. Eliade, Mircea. Yoga: Immortality and Freedom. New York: Princeton University Press, 1980. Faivre, Antione. Modern Western Esoteric Currents in the Work of Mircea Elaide: The Extent and List of Their prersence. Rennie, Brain. Reconstructing Eliade: Making Sense of Religion. New York: SUNY Press, 1996 Wedemeyer, Christian & Doniger, Wendy. Hermeneutics, Politics, and the History of Religions: The Contested Legacies of Joachim Wach and Mircea Eliade. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010 Read More