Can you think of any non-soteriological religions?

[Vultar]

I don't think any religion is purely non-soteriological. Everything religious has a goal that involves some sort of delivery from a less-than-optimal state to a more-optimal-state.

I don't agree. The UBB has no sort of deliverance from a less-than-optimal state. It is up to the individual to seek whatever state they desire. (an example: I chose to resurrect myself instead of reincarnate or maintain a spiritual existance. The UBB has no specific path to follow in that regard)

 

[Iti oj]

Does it need to be avoided?

Well since salvation is unneeded it make all those religions null

 

[Falvlun]

I don't think any religion is purely non-soteriological. Everything religious has a goal that involves some sort of delivery from a less-than-optimal state to a more-optimal-state.

This sounds about right.

 

[Me Myself]

Does saving yourself counts?

 

[LuisDantas]

Is salvation (and therefore soteriology) even found outside certain branches of the Abrahamic Faiths? Does it exist in any Dharmic religion, Onkara?

 

[Onkara]

Is salvation (and therefore soteriology) even found outside certain branches of the Abrahamic Faiths? Does it exist in any Dharmic religion, Onkara?

Hi Luis
I think so (that could be discussed), Buddhism, Sikhism and Hinduism saves us from samsara.

One could argue "no one" is really being saved, but for the unenlightened there is the perception of a self or being who is suffering and wants their suffering to end (dukkha) i.e. salvation from suffering.

 

[Penumbra]

The New Age beliefs I was partially raised in from my mother were non-soteriological.

There wasn't anything to be saved from.

This probably plays a role as to why any religion that presents things as a 'problem' from the perspective of their deity seem foreign to me.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Is salvation (and therefore soteriology) even found outside certain branches of the Abrahamic Faiths? Does it exist in any Dharmic religion, Onkara?

In all of them, but of a decidedly different character.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Soteriology is the idea that we need or can be saved from something. A salvation of some kind. I am interested to know about religions which say there is nothing to be saved from.

Can you think of any religions which do not require being saved etc?

My guess is paganism could be adapted to being so. Taoism too. Any others?

How about philosophies? Nihilism is one. Existentialism is not, as it claims Nihilism is something to be saved from.

Religions, I'm not sure of anything, maybe quite a bit of Pagan religions and LHP religions.

 

[LuisDantas]

In all of them, but of a decidedly different character.

Different enough to utterly dissolve the meaning of the word, far as I can tell.


Then again, I am used to understand "salvation" as being the cure to the original sin.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Different enough to utterly dissolve the meaning of the word, far as I can tell.


Then again, I am used to understand "salvation" as being the cure to the original sin.

I think that's too narrow; salvation even in Abrahamic religions takes on many definitions, some more abstract than others.

As I said above, every religious sentiment involves a transition to a better state, even if that's as mundane as 'feeling a bit better about life, the universe, and everything.'

The sentiment of 'deliverance' is equally well represented in Dharmic religions and some subreligions take on forms similar to Abrahamic norms.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think that's too narrow; salvation even in Abrahamic religions takes on many definitions, some more abstract than others.

As I said above, every religious sentiment involves a transition to a better state, even if that's as mundane as 'feeling a bit better about life, the universe, and everything.'

The sentiment of 'deliverance' is equally well represented in Dharmic religions and some subreligions take on forms similar to Abrahamic norms.

It is indeed a narrow concept, to the point that I challenge its validity as a religious concept, full stop. Yet it is still true that I don't remember hearing of it used in any other capacity.

Or maybe I'm just unconfortable with the associations of the world. The implication is that one who has not attained "salvation" is somehow "lost". I've seen the idea abused so regularly that I would rather avoid the word entirely. It helps that there are better words available anyway. In some situations I like to refer to "transcendence". Other contexts would favor "wisdom" or "learning".

But hey, who am I to tell how you want to define the abrangence of soteriology.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

But hey, who am I to tell how you want to define the abrangence of soteriology.

Abrangence?

 

[Penumbra]

In order to sell a solution, religions first have to claim there's a problem.

Religions that don't first describe (or create) a problem generally seem to be in the minority.

 

[LuisDantas]

Abrangence?

Or scope, if you prefer. Surely some sorts of problems are valid for soteriology to deal with, while others are not.

For instance, some "problems" are simply too trivial for any religion to recognize as significant.

Others are just too obviously non-religious in nature: air pollution, for one.

It is simply not obvious (and IMO it is in fact quite arbitrary) whether there are any problems with religious significance that should or should not be considered as solvable by way of salvation. Is it salvation to, say, get a job in order to earn a salary and bring food to one's children? Is it religious practice?

 

[Badran]

Different enough to utterly dissolve the meaning of the word, far as I can tell.

I think understanding the word to be addressing concepts of escaping something, any state of mind for example, transcending any state of being etc.. would not dissolve the meaning of the word in anyway.

Rather seems to be recognizing a common element between religions. It also doesn't negate, neglect or ignore the fact that different religions propose this idea in very different manners.

In my limited experience with religions, i've never seen an exception to this. This is not to say that there aren't any exceptions; just that i'm not aware of any.

I would also include any philosophy that claims any kind of absolute superiority. In the sense that it proposes one set of ideas as more desirable than others, should be embraced, and/or that one should strive to not be in the state of mind it proposes superiority over.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Or scope, if you prefer. Surely some sorts of problems are valid for soteriology to deal with, while others are not.

I prefer words! Abrangence is not an English word - I had first thought it was. Perhaps it should be.

For instance, some "problems" are simply too trivial for any religion to recognize as significant.

Maybe, but I think you'll find that those problems are subsets of problems that religion does consider significant; any kind of state which causes dissatisfaction for example. Take (y)our religion; Buddhism, duhkha. All transient states are viewed as ultimately dissatisfactory if perceived in their limited aspect by a falsely constru(ct)ed self-identifying process of awareness.

Simple things, like a broken shoelace, are symptomatic of duhkha and Buddhism consists of prescribing (and self-administering, as one would a medicine) means for non-apprehension of duhkha in all situations. For a religion to be truly universal, one might also argue, it must be applicable in all times, in all places, for all cognitive experience. Otherwise, where is its presence and practicality?

Others are just too obviously non-religious in nature: air pollution, for one.

Is this really obviously non-religious though? I'm also a Buddhist; though of a different stripe, and I work in environmental technology in large part because of my Buddhist religious beliefs. How do I get to environmental sentiments from Buddhism?

That Mahayana, the branch which I subscribe to (and perhaps you as well?), is built on two things; shunyavada (void wisdom) and karunopaya (compassionate method of endeavor).

The bodhisattva, while being cognitively inactive and ultimately actionless, non-conceptually selfless, viewing and reifying no particular constructed subrealities, dwelling instead in viewless, spaceless, timeless gnosis, simultaneously displays activity that seems intensely concerned with activity, self-experiences of other viewpoints encountering themselves reflected in conventional, constructed objects, and their relative suffering enmeshed in the illusion thereby created.

This, perhaps, presents the most interesting view of soteriology in the Dharmic traditions; interesting in that it's turned on its head. Rather than supplicating to saviors, aspirants are exhorted to offer themselves up on the altar of rebirth to bring about the salvation of all beings; each aspirant themselves a savior of others; indeed, saving them in large part by making them saviors themselves.

Someone correctly 'living' the mahayana ideal will experience deep love and compassion for everyone they may meet, cherishing them no less than their own self, intensely desirous of their well-being, and committed to the set of actions, words and thoughts most efficacious in bringing about better material and spiritual states for them.

The prajnaparamita sutra (the foundational text of the mahayana) says that whatsoever means for materially and spiritually bettering one's society should be implemented with full commitment and livelihood. Moreover, it doesn't draw the line at society, or humanity - it includes all beings in its scope, as its goal is explicitly the succor and enlightenment (absolute awareness & absence of suffering) of all beings.

And here's where I draw inspiration in my professional work; I view the imperative of mahayana - universal deliverance - as essentially a biotechnological problem in need of such a solution. This makes me a transhumanist abolitionist by virtue of only an interpretation informed by science and modern perspectives. So, if that's the solution to a sub-optimal state, what does our sub-optimal state consist of? Currently, life as we know it is facing extinction; 30,000 to 140,000 species go extinct per day, mostly as a result of human intervention in the biosphere. We're essentially dismantling our own life support system. Aside from the ecological issues, there are also enormous public health issues with pollution, and our industrial system itself suffers from resource unsustainability which is likely to destabilize the world economically, politically and militarily even irrespective of the environmental question altogether. What does this mean, from a mahayana perspective? These are all conditions that will bring about suffering and absence of awareness, and therefore must be avoided.

Leaving aside the problems for now, and considering the ethical ideal of mahayana viz. soteriology: if we can imagine a society where everyone, somehow, has been conditioned to live in this manner - active service for the sake of others, ceaseless expression of deliverance; what sort of world would we see? To most authentically live such a philosophy, one must commit one's professional skills and time to this method; one has to combine livelihood and 'spiritual work' here.

In the theme of this work, mahayana speaks of an economy of karmic merit which underlies the exchange of spiritual gifts and services; one is not supposed to identify with the merit itself, but 'reinvest' the 'revenue' continuously like breathing in and out, not least of which 'R&D expenses' in the meditative laboratory.

To return things to considering soteriology's appliance to Dharmic religions; is this not a most unique and remarkable brand of a soteriological doctrine - even if we do not agree with it?

It is simply not obvious (and IMO it is in fact quite arbitrary) whether there are any problems with religious significance that should or should not be considered as solvable by way of salvation. Is it salvation to, say, get a job in order to earn a salary and bring food to one's children? Is it religious practice?

In light of the above, is your opinion more open to the idea that, at least viewed from the perspective of a religion's adherents, it might well be?

 

[Penumbra]

I think understanding the word to be addressing concepts of escaping something, any state of mind for example, transcending any state of being etc.. would not dissolve the meaning of the word in anyway.

Rather seems to be recognizing a common element between religions. It also doesn't negate, neglect or ignore the fact that different religions propose this idea in very different manners.

I think there's an important distinction to be made.

While it's practically true that religions don't assert that what you currently have is the best there possibly is, it's not true that all religions assert that something is 'wrong'.

The majority of religions seem to propose that there is a genuine problem in their cosmology. A conscious or unconscious threat of some sort. That their god has a legitimate enemy or threat, or that their cosmology includes some sort of trap or difficult-to-escape situation.

A minority of religions propose that while things may not appear perfect, there is no genuine problem facing anyone, and there is nothing to be saved from, and nothing can ever go wrong in the long run.

In my limited experience with religions, i've never seen an exception to this. This is not to say that there aren't any exceptions; just that i'm not aware of any.

I would also include any philosophy that claims any kind of absolute superiority. In the sense that it proposes one set of ideas as more desirable than others, should be embraced, and/or that one should strive to not be in the state of mind it proposes superiority over.

The bulk of the religious philosophy I was raised with had nothing to be saved from. Nothing was proposed to be 'wrong' or imperfect in any way.

 

[LuisDantas]

I prefer words! Abrangence is not an English word - I had first thought it was. Perhaps it should be.

You're right. I'm surprised. It seems that I overestimated the influence of Latin in modern English. Actual words with the meaning I wanted are range, reach and scope.


There is no doubt that correct religious practice should be compatible with and if at all possible actually lead to healthy and constructive choices. I don't dispute that at all. But at some point it becomes a bit excessive to talk of religion or salvation. We may interpret constructive actions by a religious perspective, and we probably should when engaged in a Dharmic faith, but ultimately it is a bit reaching to see each and every good choice as an act of religious significance. At the very least, we must alllow for the acknowledgement that many actions are dictated more by logic and knowledge than by actual religious doctrine.

Yes, of course most if not all problems of actual significance are either of legitimate interest to religion or else parts of other, bigger problems that fit that bill.

But being a part of an object of some class is not the same as being a legitimate object of that same class. The solution for scurvy is improving one's intake of vitamin C; the solution for hunger is feeding in the short term, planning and being demographically responsible in the longer term.

Those are pretty absolute truths in practical terms, and any reasonable religion will defer to them, but that is hardly an indicator of some sort of common ground among religions.

The operative word here may be "reasonable"; there are (unfortunately?) religions and religious views that are not reasonable, and that is something to keep in mind, all the more so when you want to deal with non-Dharmic religions, which often have a taboo against criticism of doctrine or interpretations of doctrine and often enough take pains to keep it. Dharma is a bit more aware of the need to allow criticism, but it too must watch and care for its own relevancy and usefulness.

(...) In light of the above, is your opinion more open to the idea that, at least viewed from the perspective of a religion's adherents, it might well be?

Of course it may be.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

I'd like to address more in your post than just this, but am lacking in energy to do so right now, and would just like to say this: I don't think soteriology is being used to denote a common thread here somehow unifying disparate religions, the category is in place to describe a certain doctrinal element of a given religion, much as one would say "the theology of [x religion]," "the ontology of [y philosophy]," etc.