[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
Buddha was the supreme physician, in that through his yogic powers he was
able to provide the most effective form of treatment to a person based upon
her or his psychological type, is one deeply rooted in the Indian notion of the
guru-óise"ya, teacher-disciple, relationship, as well as in Buddhist concep-
tions of upa\ya, method. Inasmuch as one would grant psychopomp status
to the yogin, it must be tempered to the degree that in Classical Yoga and in
Indian Buddhism, an individual s own efforts toward realization or liberation
are usually considered the most significant. On the other hand, we must not
forget that the guru is often considered of utmost importance in pointing the
Yoga, Shamanism, and Buddhism 63
student in the right direction, the tantric idea of the sadguru, or true guru,
the teacher who gives the priceless gift of a glimpse of realization, being the
epitome of this idea.
REINTERPRETING THE ENSTASIS-ECSTASIS DISTINCTION
Within the realm of Hinduism and Buddhism few who have spent any time on
the subject of meditation or yoga have not been influenced by Eliade s
thought. His definition of sama\dhi (and also dhya\na) as enstasis as opposed
to ecstasis has become part of the language of academic work on meditation
in the context of both Hinduism and Buddhism. Beyond the enstasis-ecstasis
distinction, Eliade s conceptions of religious specialization, religious vir-
tuosity, and mysticism are ripe for further examination and elaboration. He
classifies shamanism as being within the realm of mysticism:
In other words, it would be more correct to class shamanism among the mys-
ticisms than what is commonly called a religion. We shall find shamanism
within a considerable number of religions, for shamanism always remains an
ecstatic technique at the disposal of a particular elite and represents, as it
were, the mysticism of a particular religion.35
Substituting yoga for shamanism here would seem coherent according to
Eliade s definition. Similarly, Eliade elsewhere describes the shaman in terms
that are applicable to yoga: they transform a cosmo-theological concept into
a concrete mystical experience. 36 Eliade here forwards a conception of mysti-
cism that functions as a framework for his broader understanding of religious
experience, albeit one not developed substantially. It is possible that through
further examination of Eliade s notion of mysticism, we may be in a position
to further understand the motivations behind his postulation of the enstasis-
ecstasis distinction and other aspects of his theory. As noted earlier, Eliade s
notions of religious specialization hinge upon ideas such as mysticism that
suggest that particular individuals have special types of religious experience, a
type of firsthand knowledge that gives them unique status and reputed powers.
Questions regarding the utility of the idea of mysticism and of typologies
of religious experience and practice are currently at the heart of much contro-
versy in religious studies. As we noted earlier, there are particular problems
with postulating cross-cultural ideas of mysticism. Many difficult questions
have been asked with regard to the need to contextualize religious phenomena
and the degree to which privileging individual experience has ramifications for
the study of religion. With Eliade s work in particular, recent studies by Dou-
glas Allen,37 David Cave,38 Carl Olson,39 and Bryan Rennie,40 among others,
64 Sama\dhi
have brought about a substantive reexamination of Eliade s theoretical position
and its viability as part of the methodology of the discipline of religious stud-
ies. Some of Eliade s more ardent critics have ranged from social scientists
who view his theory as a proto-theology, such as Ivan Strenski41 and Robert
Segal,42 to scholars who see Eliade s theory as an exotic secularized Byzan-
tine Christianity. 43 Other scholarship, exemplified by the work of Russell
McCutcheon,44 has brought to the surface questions regarding the ideological
foundations of Eliade s theory. Common in all of these discussions have been
questions regarding Eliade s phenomenological emphasis and the problems of
relativity, verifiability, and ideology associated with it. Such discussions of the
viability of Eliade s theory may well reflect questions of the viability of the
History of Religions methodology and of comparative religion on a broader
scale. Comparative theory that addresses postmodernism and critical theory
has begun to emerge in such works as A Magic Still Dwells45 and in a recent
collection of essays entitled Changing Religious Worlds: The Meaning and
End of Mircea Eliade.46 Rennie s Changing Religious Worlds is probably the
most representative of the range of contemporary scholarship trying either to
move with or move beyond Eliade s theory.
Following Rennie s assertions of the ongoing utility of the History of
Religions as a methodology,47 it can be argued that a profitable direction in
which to take this research is one that recognizes the valuable insights of Eli-
ade s phenomenology while addressing the problems inherent in the individ-
ualistic and experiential focus that is characteristic of Eliade s History of Reli-
gions. Eliade s privileging of the subjective dimension of religious
phenomena was based on an attempt to prevent the reduction of such phe-
nomena to delusion, mental disorder, and ideology. While taking such an
approach may have suited the academic milieu of Eliade s time, it is clear that
the context and pretext of the study of religion have changed dramatically and
as such are much better suited to accommodate both critical and empathetic
perspectives. A new phenomenology may be developed that moves beyond
the uniquely psychological focus of Eliade s phenomenology toward one that
recognizes the tension between psychological factors and sociological and
environmental ones. In the context of yoga and shamanism, recent research on
shamanism and ecstatic religion found in the work of I. M. Lewis48 and in the
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]