An Attempt at Understanding Religions

Most religions are built around a strong God and doctrine, but can there be a religion without a well-defined divinity? What is its purpose and what are its qualities?

For many of us, religion is a way to address an immediate need. This may be towards a desired outcome such as success in occupational, familial, financial or similar, or to avoid undesirable outcomes such as ill-health or failure of some sort. This is the religion of need and it consists of rituals and prayers.

Another large group of people looks to religion for an identity, to provide a focus or structure in life. For them, religion provides a well-defined place in social group, differentiating them from others. It gives them activities to do – productive within their group – which in-turn offers them a reason to exist within the confines of the religion. This religion is characterized by doctrines, rules and sects. In some cases, there is a well-defined hierarchy and often logic for its own superiority. We term this the religion of identity.

The above two descriptions define religion for most people. Indeed, when we talk of religion, we usually talk only of these forms.

But beyond these two versions, there are at least two others where religion becomes personal and somewhat ill-defined. The first of these addresses individual development – physical, mental or spiritual. This religion offers frameworks within which one can focus on improving specific aspects of oneself. It contains by exercises in self-discipline, challenges to overcome or goals to achieve. We can call this the religion of self.

The final form of religion is one that helps us understand the world around us. Here, the individual attempts to make sense of cumulative or specific aspects of nature, including of living beings. This may be termed as the religion of knowledge or enlightenment. This is perhaps the most ill-defined of all and contains a variety of approaches. For those that want to go beyond existing knowledge in their areas of interest, the path is nebulous at best. Being individual dependent, it is pluralistic as each path requires a different method of inquiry. As the number of practitioners in each form grows, they form loosely organized structures to preserve their learning and facilitate new entrants to their paths. But, at least among the more learned, there is an acknowledgment that they all represent different paths to the same goal.

The religion of enlightenment includes various sciences too; while we may not see science as part of any religion, practitioners of sciences follow the same path as those pursuing religions of self and enlightenment. Indeed, the earliest sciences were conceived by people of religion who saw it as part of spiritual development.

We all may not recognize the last two as legitimate religions, but for some ancient philosophies – especially Oriental and those that look into inquiry – these represent true religion. Philosophies such as Yoga, Nyaya, Samkhya and Vaiseshika in early Hinduism, Ajivaka, Buddhism and Jainism, Mu’tazila in Islam, the philosophies of Socrates and Aristotle, and Gnosticism in early Christianity are all representations of this form. So much so, some Upanishads in Hinduism’s Vedas dismiss ritualistic religions and learned sciences as inferior and proclaims knowledge that is realized by oneself as superior.

The God of each religion is also different and defined by goals of that religion. In the religion of need, God represents the perceived ideal of that particular need with the ability to give when prayed to; for those seeking wealth, God is the wealthiest and most philanthropic entity, for those trying to cure a physical ailment, God represents the wisest and ablest physician with the power to cause or cure ailments, and so forth.

The God in the religion of identity is more anthropological – the strongest, most powerful, compassionate and in some cases vengeful, entity that ensures success and superiority of his or her own group over others. These groups also frequently get into religious conflicts over opposing philosophies, to emphasize their superiority or in some cases, claim ownership of resources arising from their doctrine. These conflicts do not just occur between religions of identity, but also with other types of religion which are seen as a threat to their doctrines. The persecution of Gnostics by the early Church, that of Mu’tazila by Orthodox Caliphs all point to opposition of introspective religions from more popular sects, particularly those that were establishing an identity for themselves.

The God of the religion of self is quite nebulous and followers of this type of religion usually look to teachers or mentors rather than Gods. Nevertheless, they acknowledge a Superior Power that has made their endeavor possible and provided a structure to it. The God in the religion of enlightenment is also abstract and in many instances, agnosticism or atheism is common in early phases. Rationalism is a necessary quality for practitioners of this religion and a God that alters the course of nature or events to suit the wishes of particular individuals or sects is illogical. As the practitioner evolves, God becomes a more omnipresent and abstract entity, but without any anthropological characteristics and the practitioner becomes spiritual rather than religious.

All major religions provide space for practitioners of all four types. They have introspective origins, but over time have developed qualities necessary to appeal to a broader audience. These take the form of religions of need and identity. This is partially an acknowledgement that at various stages in our lives, we require different forms of religions to help us evolve. No one form of religion can address all stages of human evolution. It is not a coincidence that the various types of religion mirror different stages of development.

Nevertheless, it is observed that as society grows larger, religions of the first two forms become more dominant. Individual introspective paths are more difficult to pursue as space for their followers is reduced, and they are often viewed with suspicion. In the end though, without the last two forms, human growth becomes stunted – mired in insecurity and conflicts.

Plant Intelligence, Industrial Farming and Modern Health Issues

Sometime ago, I came across a documentary on plant intelligence which started a train of thought on some of the health issues we face today.

The documentary starts with a study on the sudden deaths of greater kudu antelopes in South Africa’s game reserves in the late 1980s, a period of severe drought. Scientists eventually traced the cause of deaths to the presence of tannin in their gut and identified local acacia trees as the source of the tannin. It was noticed that acacia trees on which the kudus grazed had a higher tannin content as did trees downwind from them. Kudus which grazed downwind were affected and were more prone to dying.

Tannins are toxins that plants develop as a defense mechanism. When a plant is attacked by pests, it generates tannin as a way to ward off or even kill the attacker. Scientists concluded that the tannin that killed the kudus was deliberately produced to dissuade the antelopes from grazing, which the acacia trees saw as a form of attack. Furthermore, the first tree was able to communicate the attack to other trees downwind so that when the kudus reached them, they were ready with the tannin.

In other words, the plants were able to sense an attack and consciously developed a mechanism to stop it. And they communicated this to other plants in their vicinity to help them prepare for the coming attack.

The documentary covers a lot more on how plants react to stimulus in their environments – they respond to music, sleep and wake up, and even have social lives. Clearly plants are far more evolved than we think. They have coexisted long with many other species – symbiotically with some and antagonistically with others – and some have more gene sequences than humans. They can not only sense what is going around them, but are also capable of defending themselves – lethally if need be.

Carrying this thought further, what happens when we cause stress in plants, especially those which we consume? Most modern humans, especially us urban types, think of plants as nothing more than photosynthesis machines and a lower member of the food chain. Many farmers too, view plants as primarily a source of revenue – a thought institutionalized by industrial or factory farming.

Like animals, plants in industrial farms are subject to stresses. Concepts like monoculture, overuse of fertilizers and pesticides, frequent transplantation, alien environments and removal of all surrounding organisms – friend or foe – are unnatural practices, something plants in the wild are not used to. It is natural to expect plants to be affected by these practices and eventually react through defense mechanisms. The mechanisms may not just be producing harmful chemicals, but decreasing beneficial ones.

Our question then becomes – do they? A quick search of allergy statistics in the US reveals an interesting trend – food allergy rates are increasing. While allergies are traced to certain foods or individuals, the actual causes are yet to be determined. The rates are higher in developed countries where industrial farming is practiced more and growing faster in countries where industrial farming is a recent development. There is speculation on what could the cause for this increase, but scientists have noticed that non-industrialized societies seem to show a lesser incidence of allergies. Autism, which has been linked to certain chemicals, also shows similar trends. We can add cancer to this list. Some causes of these health issues are well established, but many are still not understood properly.

Effects of industrial farming are felt on other species as well: colony collapse disorder (CCD) in bees is observed more in industrial farming environments. Other insects and birds too are affected, though their declines are more traceable to habitat destruction and loss of sustaining species.

If it is true that our farming methods trigger lethal plant defense mechanisms, it has far reaching consequences for us. All humanity is directly or indirectly dependent on plant life, but our understanding of plants is minimal. Coupled with the force of industrialization, this ignorance could translate to abuse. We are noticing issues around us that could be viewed as reactions to this abuse, given what we have learnt about plant behavior.

What is the solution? A logical first step would be to step away from the industrial farming model we are following today. We need a deeper understanding of life around us and a more humane approach to other species in our surrounding environment. We may see ourselves as the apex predator, but in the end we are as much part of the same ecology system as those species that sustain us and our well-being is dependent on theirs. There are glimmers of hope – farmers are starting to question some of the existing models and explore others. There is also realization among consumers and citizens in general, of the damage we are causing to the environment through adoption of industrial farming, stressing the lives of other species around us. Our challenge is to make them more widespread and mainstream.