Evidence of Rastafari-My Experience in Jamaica

One important thing to keep in mind while reading the Wikipedia entry on the Rastafari movement is allegory. In order to understand Rastafari one must understand it from a Rasta's point of view. If one does not, one will not fully comprehen the concepts. For example without an allegorical frame of mind it is hard to accept that Rastas believe that smoking pot results in Enlightenment.

Relating my experience to the article...
"Rastafari developed among an oppressed people who felt society had nothing to offer them except more sufferign"
Wikipedia states that the Rastafari movement emerged among the working class and peasant black people. It also states that there were confrontations between poor black Rastas and middle-class police. Jamaica society is set up much differently that America's. I was amazed to see the poorest of shacks at ground level yet right above the shacks on a hill would be grand mansions. Since they live so close, it would be hard for poor Jamaicans to share the same religion as the upper class since the division of life is so prominent. The Rastafari message encourages Rastas to be content with who they are and their lifestyle. It encourages them to not be envious of the rich. This message would appeal to the poor since would be so easy for them to envy the rich because they can see their lifestyle everyday from their own shack. Rastafari gives people a way to deal with their reality and a purpose to live each day, even if it is in poverty.

Smoking cannabis
An important place to visit for any Rasta is the Bob Marley Museum, which was a Marley's former residency since 1975 in Kingston, Jamaica. The Museum is engulfed in lush vegetation, an important part of the Rasta faith. On one side of the museum is Rita Marley's organic garden. It is still as healthy as it was when she lived there with Bob. It is said to be the healthiest garden in all of Jamaica. This relates to the Rasta view of the importance of natural earth. On the other side of the house is the oak tree, which was Bob Marley's favorite place to smoke. His cannabis plant is still in the yard and is still extremely healthy.
In my tour group were three men, one was from Jamaica and the other two were from other Caribbean islands. When we were standing by the oak tree they started to smoke their joints ni rememberance of Bob Marley. The tour guide told them that it was illegal to smoke but they could not understand...they stated that Bob Marley would have wanted them to smoke there. And this is probably true...this relates to the part of the article where Rastas smoke to gain Enlightment and to be at one with the earth and to exert their consciousness.
Going to Jamaica helped me to better understand Rastafari in two ways: it allowed me to see the purpose the religion serves for the lower class. Since they live next door (literally) to the rich it would be easy for them to be envious but Rastafari encourages them to love the earth which does not require any wealth, to not be obsessed with materialism, and to just love who they are. Secondly, by visiting the Bob Marley Museum and my interaction with the three Rastas, it is obvious that Rastas never forget their past and the founders of their religion; they have deep respect for them.

Response to Imtiaz's Post on "Metropolis"

I agree with Imtiaz's post on Metropolis, posted on April 26. Imtiaz stated that he viewed Metropolis completely in a religious context. He also noticed the director's attempt to reach to specifically to the wealthy class and warn them of the suppression of the lower class and what dangers the future holds.
I really thought it interesting what Imtiaz noted about the symbolism of the Eternal Garden. He thought the Garden represented Heaven (Upper World) and the factory/Lower Class as Hell (Lower World). I immediately took the Eternal Garden to mean Eden, but I like Imtiaz's interpretation better.
It's also very interesting that Imtiaz compared Jon Fredersen to God. My immediate reaction was that of course he couldn't be God because he was evil. Yet, as I thought about it more I realize that this comparison is relevant. For example, in the Bible God is seen as all merciful, etc. etc. But in the Qur'an God is noted in two starkly different ways: he is seen as merciful but more frequently seen as a wrathful God, much more like Jon Fredersen. In order to be fully convinced in the comparison of Jon Fredersen to God, I would have to see a more merciful side to Jon Fredersen.

Ethiopia as the Next Zion

While reading the Kebra Negast I found it interesting that the Ethiopians consider Ethiopia rather than Israel to be the Zion. This makes me think of the Mormons and how they consider a city in Ohio to be the Zion. This brought up two thoughts in my mind. First I think that Zion serves the purpose of making a generic, worldwide religion accessible to groups of people. It allows them to feel close to God, thinking that they were called upon him to establish Christianity in their region. It's hard to feel close to a religion when the Zion is miles away. Secondly, I really do not think there has to be one Zion. Historically, yes, Israel is known as the Zion but I think in our modern age Zion as changed to be a state of mind. Zion can be anywhere for people as long as a place is named Zion for a religious purpose only.

I also found it interesting that in the Kebra Negast Queen Sheba's character is the focus on many pages. In the Qur'an it is mentioned that Queen Sheba rules but I do not think it goes so in depth with her story like the Kebra Negast. I think this reflects the society and the role of the female. It's interesting that you can have historical, religious texts that are very similar in message (Bible, Qur'an, Kebra Negast) yet different parts are tweaked to fit the structure of society at that time and they persist that way throughout history...no one tries to rewrite them to fit the modern society.

The Religion Found in Metropolis

What I noticed about Metropolis was how similar the society seemed to the drug society in "A Brave New World." In both societies people seem to be living in accordance with rules imposed upon one ruler of the community. They go about their daily life with no emotions as drugs, or in this case a machine, takes control of their lives. They are made not to think but to just go through the motions. To me, this symbolizes a lack of religion in society. It seems as if society is based solely on science and not on emotions. I think this may be what the director had in mind when filming Metropolis.

I do not agree with what was mentioned in Monday's film discussion that the director made the film without a specific purpose in mind. I believe that he saw something wrong in early Twentieth Century society that he wanted to bring to people's attention; the best way to do this during the time period was through film, the most popular form of entertainment. I believe that he may have seen a problem arising between science and religion. Now, the boundaries here may not be strictly science and religion but could also mean having a life run by convenience and machines versus a simplistic life where the heart rules (for example, a country life versus a life in urban Chicago). As a comparision with the film, "A Brave New World" is run by the feelings evoked by machine-made drugs. As soon as the lead character starts having romantic feelings for a woman, he is chastized. Metropolis is set up in the same fashion.

When the film starts out the society is so bland as workers drag themselves to work. Yet the film lightens up when Maria enters the picture, acting as a prophet similar to John the Baptist. She gives the workers hope of a better, more purposeful life. This is what religion does to most societies; it allows people to think both with their heads and their hearts and allows them to feel.

Overall I think Metropolis was written and filmed with a specific purpose in mind to show what society was like, what its faults were, and what would happen if the faults escalated without correction. I also think the religious themes were intentional to compare science and religion and the necessity for both in any society, just as each person needs both the head and heart to survive.

Reply to Catrina's Blog

This a response to Catrina's Blog which she posted on April 17, 2007. In her blog she focused on Augustine's "On Christian Teaching," where Augustine created a way to look at all religious texts and thus all religions. Augustine's sytem was to look at love and good and lust as egotism and therefore bad. Catrina disagreed with this saying that religion, like humans, evolve and it is never unified so how can clump these wide array of ideas under one organized "roof."

I agree with Catrina. I feel that, yes Augustine came up with an intelligent way to approach religious texts which may have worked well in his era but our set of values and ways of looking at religion have differed and thus I doubt that his approach would work efficiently for us as it once had for Augustine. For example, how would we apply this system to Tibetan Tantric Buddhism? Tibetan Tantrics actually advocate the use of sex because they see it as a way of cleansing the body. The the equate the point of ejaculation as a stage of enlightenment. Tibetan Tantrics clearly advocate the feeling of lust because they find a use for it in their belief system. Clearly, Augustine's system cannot apply to all religions.

I agree with Catrina that we cannot solely adhere to Augustine's model but that we need to accept the contradictions we find in religious texts within our own religion and also acknowledge the differences between religions and use these understandings to shape our view of religion as a whole.

A Close-Minded View of Islam

I found Sam Harris's article "The End of Faith" ridiculous and bordering on the irrational. I was left feeling insecure about his knowledge on the subject his article discussed. Basically Harris views Islam as an aggressive religion with the intention conquering the world through murders. Although he states that his argument is of faith and the difference between faiths I see no trace of this argument in his article. In my opinion he is giving readers reasons why Islam/Muslims are an inferior religion. It seems as if he has a bias of all Muslims. For example, on pages 108-109 he states that people should not praise Muslims for their advancements in education and technology. He states that there are better people in other countries who may be uneducated but they do not commit acts of violence.

From what I recall from Islam, there is a sect of Islm that adheres to the belief of self-sacrifice for the will and love of one's creator; they feel a call from God to perform self-sacrifice. It was Muslims from this sect of Islam that performed the terrorist acts on 9/11, I believe. Also, these Muslims are very similar to Japanese Kamikaze soldiers.

Relating this article to our class, Harris is either failing or intentionally omitting the use of allegory. Harris does not even attempt to apply an allegorical method in his "understanding" of Islam. For example he writes that the "bottom line is that devout Muslims can have no doubt about the reality of paradise or about the efficacy of martyrdom as a means of getting there" (113). Yet how does Harris know that their thought process/ways of conceiving the path to Paradise is not different from ours? Harris errs in two ways: taking things too literally and not attempting to understand the thought process of Muslims (which could be cured if he applied allegory) and two, that from the very start of his study he seems to have a "Westerner ego"where he sees the Western thought process as superior to that of the Arabs. It makes me wonder how Harris would approach religions such as those of the Ancient pre-Colombian Mayan and Inca, where sacrifice plays a significant part of their belief system.

Applying the allegorical method to Zohar and other mystic religions

The complete understanding and use of allegory is imperative in openly understanding all religions, not solely modern religions. This is especially true in studying the mystic side of any religion such as Tibetan Tantric Buddhism and Zohar, Jewish mysticism.

So, what is allegory? Allegory is essentially saying one thing and meaning another, such as with the use of metaphor. For example, in his commentary on Lamentations Origen refers to Jerusalem as the human soul. Allegory is poetic in that it allows room for interpretation. During our class lecture on April 11th we stated that allegory was useful in interpreting ancient religions because it adds a spiritual side to the historical facts. I agree with this but I strive to emphasize the importance of applying an allegorical method to studying various forms of mysticism.
The Wikipedia article on Zohar states that practitioners of Zohar assume four kinds of Biblical exegesis (to extract what is written in the text the way it was written, from dictionary.com): peshat (literal), remez (allusion), derash (interpretive), sod (mystic/secretive). These allow for a well-rounded interpretation of Zohar topics and symbols. Without applying the exegesis method to Zohar ideas, an outsider may omit meanings/symbols that provide the base of a mystic religion and thus have an incomplete understanding of a religion. This is prominent in a situation in where an outsider would take the literal meaning of Zohar's use of erotic terminology. Zohar mystics do not use the erotic terms in the literal sense; instead they attach a deeper meaning to the terms to illustrate the relationship existing between God and man.

This allegorical method is also extremely important in studying Tibetan Tantric Buddhism (the mystic sect of Buddhism). Tantric has four initiation stages that practitioners must undergo. To explain my point, I will deal specifically with the second initiation stage. Within the second initiation stage practitioners consume the five nectars. The five nectars are urine, blood, semen, brains, and excrement. Taken in a literal sense, Tantrics would seem inhumane and disgusting but this ritual has more importance when looked through an allegorical lens. Tantrics also refer to the nectars as ambrosias as they each have their own cleansing function in order to purify a Tantric's body. Urine cleanses mind, blood cleanses merits, semen cleanses speech, brain cleanses acts, and excrement purifies the body. Thus through an allegorical method outsiders learn of the true meaning behind mystical ritual which will add to their complete understanding of a religion. For example, the overall goal in Tibetan Tantric Buddhism is to utilize both the body and the mind to attain Enlightenment which is why Tantrics place so much importance on cleansing the body.

The main point is that if outsiders rely solely on literal meanings they have too much opportunity to examine a religion with a closed mind and are able to place too much judgment on what they think they see. Allegory creates a clear lens for outsiders to look into, allowing them to understand a religion in a truthful way, a way in which the practitioner would understand it.

Does the "Grizzly Man" show any sign of religion?

For the odd yet sentimental film that it is, I do think the Grizzly Man conveys some form of religion in what he does. For this specific blog, I am going to define religion as a belief or practice that does something emotionally for people. With this definition I am assuming that people do not practice in order to gain physical incentives.
Every summer for fourteen years the Grizzly Man faithfully traveled to Alaska and spent months living among the grizzlies. He did not do this for money or recognition. He only did it because he felt a strong connection to the grizzlies. This ties to my definition of religion because the Grizzly Man did not perform his "ritual" every summer to gain physical incentives; what he did was purely on an emotional level.
Alaska was his sacred place. When he was there it seems as if he was at peace. This is the same sort of feeling religion evokes from people. Even though certain rituals may look absurd to the human eye, we perform them becaues they allow us to create a sacred place for ourselves on Earth.
We may think the Grizzly Man's documentary on grizzlies to be odd and dangerous but his interaction with the grizzlies is a ritual for him because he "performs" it faithfully every summer for a few months. He does not perform the ritual to gain physical incentives such as money or fame but instead performs the ritual to create a sacred space for him on earth.

Lamentations

Lamentations deals with the aftermath of Jerusalem when the Babylonians seized Jerusalem. At this point, religion is extremely important to the Jews. It is almost as if there exists a "parent-child relationship" between the Jews and religion. The Jews show an obvious fear of God. At one point in the text this fear seems like hate, if taken at facevalue. For example, it is said in 2:5 "The Lord has become like an enemy; he has destroyed Israel." Here, it is as if the dad has just punished the child and the child is saying "I hate you and it's all your fault!" Yet the child does not really mean it because in the next breath Lamentations states in 3:25 that the "Lord is good to those who wait for him, to the sould that seeks him," and in 3:31,32 "for the Lord will not reject forever. Although he causes grief, he will have compassion." Deep down, the Jews know that they have sinned and their consequence was the destruction of their once thriving, beautiful city.

Lamentations is the reaction Jews have towards the end of Jerusalem. It is evident that the destruction of Jerusalem is viewed in a purely religious way, therefore suggesting that religion is the center of life for the Jews. Society and way of life is shaped by religion. Also, religion defines good and evil and the Jews adhere to these definitions. This also shows the introduction of a monotheistic religion. Jews do not have a concept of spirits or multiple gods; they know that it is God alone who watches over them. Jews will always link various events to religion whereas in the Paleolithic and Holocence periods events were linked to nature or animal spirits. For the Jews, if something bad happens they will think about the concept of sin and look to see how they sinned and how they deserved the punishment God bestowed upon them. Likewise, if a good event occured they would automatically praise God. As religion plays a major role in the course of events, it gives Jews control of the future of their people and surroundings. They realize that God gives them choices and it is up to them to decide. If they sin, they know there will be consequences but God will always give them more choices. If they do the right thing, God will be merciful and fair by rewarding them.
Basically Jews live their life according to religion and truly view themselves as children of God.

Response to J.B.'s Blog on the "Indian Mounds of Wisconsin"

When I was reading the article on Indian mounds, I took for granted that Indians built the mounds because they were religious and had ceremonies strictly for the gods. I like that J.B. found that the mounds could be looked at with two views. One being that the Indians had ceremonies to thank God for what they were given. The second view J.B. describes as more karma-istic in that the Indians had ceremonies because they thought they had the power to control the weather. This second view is a very intresting concept that I think should be explored further.
Even in the article, the author sometimes doubts the truly religious aspect of the mounds since they tend to disappear after a time...the author often attributes the disappearance of the mounds relating to the fact that the Indians didn't need them after focus turned to agriculture rather than death ritual ceremonies.
I wonder then what purpose the mounds had for Indians; if they held a strong religious symbolism (connecting the middle world with the upper and lower worlds) would the mounds just have disappeared? Perhaps their "fading-out" points into a different direction, one without heavy religious symbolism...maybe the possibility of mounds serving as a function in society such as good weather for crops.

Diffusion of Religion

The article on Indian Mounds of Wisconsin differed from the other articles we read in class on the Neanderthals and the Holocene period in that religion is an established part of Indian society, so much that it begins to have an influence in other aspects of society such as a source of group definition, protection, guide to living, and science.
With the Neanderthals there was more of absence than presence of religion. We first see the beginning establishment of religion in the Holocene where more religious symbolism was seen in the art, yet religion was not an obvious establishment in the Holocene since archaeologists and anthropologists debate the presence of religion in art. Within the Indian tribes of Wisconsin and other areas of the Midwest religious symbolism is noticed in the patterns on pottery.
At this point, it cannot be doubted whether or not Indians were religious or not.
What I noticed is that certain symbols that are taken as religious in the Indian mounds can be traced back to Paleolithic art and can possibly answer the question as to whether drawing of animals contains religious symbolism or is strictly early humans' interest in science. Indians, like the ancient Maya, classified the world into three parts: upperworld, middle world, and lower world. With this cosmology, certain animals were attributed to each part. For example, birds were usually representative of the upperworld. In the mound effigies, Indians would often depict human beings dressed up as birds and acting as shamans (107).
For Guthrie to say that Paleolithic art reflects only the scientific interest of the artists is to say that Indian art has the same reflection. Yet observers would not make that assertion straight away because of what they know of Indian religious beliefs. By studying Indian mounds, it is obvious that religion is an important aspect since they use it to define their clans, to predict the weather, to help their crops, et cetera but I also think it serves as a good example that it is possible that there was an earlier form of this same type of religion in Paleolithic art.

What is the meaning behind Paleolithic art?

In his article, The Nature of Paleolithic Art R. Dale Guthrie argues that the widespread notion of what most people think Paleolithic art means is detrimental to the overall essence of cave art. Most people like to see what Guthrie calls a magico-religious (Guthrie, 8) aspect of Paleolithic art, an attempt to "search for clues to the symbolism and ritual meaning hidden in the images (Guthrie, 5). Guthrie states that this harms the overall picture of Paleolithic art in that people refuse to see any other meaning behind the drawings. Personally, I disagree with Guthrie's argument. I do think that it is important to analyze cave art attempting to seek out different meanings such as religion, science, et cetera but I disagree that "Paleolithic art has suffered" (Guthrie, 8) from the religious approach.

I feel that finding religious meaning in Paleolithic images is a reasonable and unavoidable approach. Since early humans had no obvious form of organized religion it is really unclear what sort of beliefs they had, if any. Guthrie states that "organized religion is a potent force, and religious stories shape our collective perceptions" (Guthrie, 9). The question that Guthrie asks here is whether or not the public including archaelogists and anthropologists truly find religious symbolism in Paleolithic art or are they only hoping to find it. I think it is a little bit of both. Of course people are hoping to find it and they find it in part because religious symbolism is present in the drawings. Religion, whether organized or not, is a way in which humans can relate to and understand one another. By finding religious meaning in Paleolithic art, it is our way of finding some similarity between us and early humans and a way in which to understand what they valued in their society.

Guthrie states that overuse of the magico-religious approach creates a distortion where at "its worst it has presented early peoples in a distorted light as superstitious dolts totally preoccupied with mystical concerns (Guthrie, 10). Rather, Guthrie sees Paleolithic art as portraying "people in close touch with the details of a complex earth" (Guthrie, 10). I do not think that readers or Guthrie should rule out the possiblity of animals as a symbolic ritual object for early humans. I find it hard to believe that early humans would draw images of animals based solely on their scientific fascination of physiology and biology without a trace of religious symbolism. In my opinion religion of early humans while not an organized form is prevalent in their artwork. I believe that animals served a ritualistic purpose for early humans and it is through their art that they aim to show this religious symbolism.