First Pattern: Views of the World and Life
Religions must provide answers to the great questions that people ask. How did the universe
come into existence, does it have a purpose, and will it end? What is time, and how should we
make use of it? What should be our relationship to the world of nature? Why do human beings
exist? How do we reach fulfillment, transformation, or salvation? Why is there suffering in the
world, and how should we deal with it? What happens when we die? What should we hold as
sacred? The questions do not vary, but the answers do.
Given the great variety in their worldviews, religions, not surprisingly, define differently the
nature of sacred reality, the universe, the natural world, time, and human purpose. Religions also
differ in their attitudes toward the role of words in expressing the sacred and in their relations to
other religious traditions. By examining different views on these concepts, we will have further
bases for comparison that will lead us to a more complete understanding of the world’s religions.
The nature of sacred reality Some religions, as we have seen, speak of the sacred as
transcendent, existing primarily in a realm beyond the everyday world. In other religions,
though, sacred reality is spoken of as being immanent; that is, it is within nature and
human beings and can be experienced as energy or holiness. Sometimes the sacred is
viewed as having personal attributes, while elsewhere it is seen as an impersonal entity.
And in certain religious traditions, particularly in some forms of Buddhism, it is hard to
point to a sacred reality at all. Such facts raise the question as to whether “the sacred”
exists outside ourselves or if it is better to speak of the sacred simply as what people
“hold to be sacred.”
The nature of the universe Some religions see the universe as having been begun by an
intelligent, personal Creator who continues to guide the universe according to a cosmic
plan. Other religions view the universe as being eternal; that is, having no beginning or
end. The implications of these two positions are quite important to what is central in a
religion and to how the human being acts in regard to this central belief. If the universe is
created, especially by a transcendent deity, the center of sacredness is the Creator rather
than the universe, but human beings imitate the Creator by changing and perfecting the
world. If, however, the universe is eternal, the material universe itself is sacred and
perfect and requires no change.
The human attitude toward nature At one end of the spectrum, some religions or
religious schools see nature as the realm of evil forces that must be overcome. For them,
nature is gross and contaminating, existing in opposition to the nonmaterial world of the
spirit—a view, known as dualism, held by some forms of Christianity, Jainism, and
Hinduism. At the other end of the spectrum, as in Daoism and Shinto, nature is
considered to be sacred and needs no alteration. Other religions, such as Judaism and
Islam, take a middle ground, holding that the natural world originated from a divine
action but that human beings are called upon to continue to shape it.
Time Religions that emphasize a creation, such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, tend
to see time as being linear, moving in a straight line from the beginning of the universe to
its end. Being limited and unrepeatable, time is important. In some other religions, such
as Buddhism, however, time is cyclical. The universe simply moves through endless
changes, which repeat themselves over grand periods of time. In such a religion, time is
not as crucial or “real” because, ultimately, the universe is not moving to some final
point; consequently, appreciating the present may be more important than being oriented
to the future.
Human purpose In some religions, human beings are part of a great divine plan, and
although each person is unique, individual meaning comes also from the cosmic plan.
The cosmic plan may be viewed as a struggle between forces of good and evil, with
human beings at the center of the stage and the forces of good and evil at work within
them. Because human actions are so important, they must be guided by a prescribed
moral code that is meant to be internalized by the individual. This view is significant in
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In contrast, other religions do not see human life in
similarly dramatic terms, and the individual is only part of much larger realities. In
Daoism and Shinto, a human being is a small part of the natural universe, and in
Confucianism, an individual is part of the family and of society. Such religions place less
emphasis on individual rights and more emphasis on how the individual can maintain
harmony with the whole. Actions are not guided by an internalized moral system but by
society, tradition, and a sense of mutual obligation.
Words and scriptures In some religions, the sacred is to be found in written and spoken
words, and for those religions that use writing and create scriptures, reading, copying,
and using sacred words in music or art are important. We see the importance of words in
indigenous religions (which primarily pass on their traditions orally), in Judaism, in
Christianity, in Islam, and in Hinduism. Other religions—such as Daoism and Zen
Buddhism, which show a certain mistrust of words—value silence and wordless
meditation. Although Zen and Daoism utilize language in their practices and have
produced significant literature, each of these religions finds language limited in
expressing the richness or totality of reality.
Exclusiveness and inclusiveness Some religions emphasize that the sacred is distinct
from the world and that order must be imposed by separating good from bad, true from
false. In that view, to share in sacredness means separation—for example, withdrawal
from certain foods, places, people, practices, or beliefs. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam
are among the religions that have been generally exclusive, making it impossible to
belong to more than one religion at the same time. In contrast, other religions have
stressed inclusiveness. Frequently, such religions also have emphasized social harmony,
the inadequacy of language, or the relativity of truth, and they have accepted belief in
many deities. Their inclusiveness has led them to admit many types of beliefs and
practices into their religions, to the point that it is possible for an individual to belong to
several religions—such as Buddhism, Daoism, and Confucianism—simultaneously. Such
inclusiveness has led to misunderstanding at times, as in the case of a Christian
missionary having “converted” a Japanese follower only to find the new convert still
visiting a Shinto shrine.
Vajrayana monks in Bhutan are making electronic copies of Buddhist scriptures to help make
them available to a worldwide audience.
© Thomas Hilgers
Second Pattern: Focus of Beliefs and Practices
Realizing the limitations of all generalizations, we nonetheless might gain some perspective by
examining the orientations exhibited by individual religions. When we look at the world’s
dominant religions, we see three basic orientations in their conception and location of the
sacred. 10