⭐︎ leveret ⭐︎

blaugust #2 (2025-08-03)

i wanted to discuss the main locus of all my research: law and religion. this term, law and religion, is also inclusive of law on religion, law of religion, religion of law, etc. etc.; think of any permutation of an idea that law and religion interact with each other. before delving into further, i think it'd be beneficial to define all the terms i'm using. so first: what is law? merriam-webster states:

a binding custom or practice of a community: a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority

Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Law

i find this definition to be relatively unsatisfying. the idea of a controlling authority can be problematic (for example: what about cases where ordinary people act in accordance to what they think the law is? is that still not law, even if not by a controlling authority?). i'm sure i'll have more thoughts on this once i actually take my philosophy of law class. in any case, this defintions can be considered good-enough; generally the idea of "rules that when broken carry a penalty" is what i think of. so then what is religion?

a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Religion

classic definition where the word itself is used within the definition. religious is defined as:

relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity

Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Religious

these definitions are purposefully vague, given the wide-breadth of things that can be considered "religion". it seems like a working definition based off these would be "a series of attitudes, beliefs, and practices done as devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity." yet i still feel like that is missing something. first, this seems to be problematic for even the abrahamic religions (which typically are what are undisputedly called religion): does praying to saints or venerating prophets count as a religious activity, even though they are not deities and are also not considered "ultimate realities"? i will be defining the term more to refer to "system(s) of belief and/or practices to non-human entities." again this isn't perfect; will probably revisit all this once i take my more philosophical courses lol.

so now we must consider them in conjunction, which takes a surprisingly large amount of forms! a few in example would be:

and so in this messy land of dubious definitions and infinite interactions is where i step in. i particularly look at the case of chinese buddhism and the chinese government. i look into the origins of china's distrust with buddhism (is it because of it being an ultimately "foreign" religion? is it from marxist-leninist ideology?). i want to see if white lotus societies are a major cause of this; they were a group of religious groups that believed in the imminent coming of maitreya to save them. in particular, they rebelled against the qing in the white lotus rebellion. the prc has acted pretty heavily against any religion that has similar beliefs, such as yiguandao. maitreya millenariaism is just very fascinating in that regard. note that these are movements from within the majority ethic group of china; that is, han chinese. my focus is specificially with them as i think focus is often on tibetan buddhism due to the interactions between buddhism and the state being much more obvious, but i want to see how china interacts with its most followed religion. what does it mean for the other religions when the majority religion is being affected in some sort of way?

i'm also interesting in seeing how the saṅgha (the monastic order of monks), which is meant to be considered seperate from all worldly affairs, interacts with the state. we recently have the buddhist association of china, but this is by far not a new phenomenon (see the "golden light sūtra", a famous sūtra on how rulers should protect buddhism in order to gain cosmic protection, see more at the end) nor is this restricted to just china (see every other buddhist majority nation).

besides buddhism and china, i also like looking at american indigenous religion and the usa, along with islam and france. these are different in the fact that i am looking at these in a less theoretical lens, and more "what can be done now to protect their rights?" both of them have heavy legislation against them for the primary person of assimilation and i want to see why the state does that and how to prevent this.

finally, i consider all of this interesting out of the sole fact that i think law is interesting (i like reading court cases and seeing how courts interpret law and precedent) and that i think religion is interesting (i mean its just cool seeing what beliefs people have and then how they are justified). so this lets me do both of them at the same time!

golden light sūtra

i think this sūtra is a really good example, but i'll only provide a brief introduction (due to my energy and not having a fully in-depth knowledge of it). in conversation with the four great kings (a grouping of beings in buddhism who protect the dharma and preside over each cardinal direction), the buddha proclaims as such:

“O great kings! Suppose a certain being becomes a king of humans. If he then listens to, venerates and worships this King of Glorious Sutras, the Sublime Golden Light, and also, if he respects, reveres, venerates and worships bhikshus, bhikshunis, upasakas and upasikas who uphold this King of Glorious Sutras, the Sublime Golden Light, and if, out of sympathy for you four great kings, along with your armies, retinues and many thousands of yakshas, he continually listens to this King of Glorious Sutras, the Sublime Golden Light, then, with the nectar of the waterfall of Dharma teachings, he will satisfy your bodies. The great majesty of your divine bodies will increase. He will induce perseverance, energy and power, and this will increase your majesty, glory and excellence. This king of humans will make inconceivably great, vast offerings to me, the Tathagata, the Arhat, the perfectly enlightened Buddha Shakyamuni. With all his inconceivably great and vast material resources, this king of humans will make offerings to hundreds of thousands of millions of past, future and present tathagatas too. Therefore, great protection will be accorded to that king of humans. Therefore, that king of humans will be fully protected, saved, looked after and guided. His retribution will be averted and his peace and happiness ensured. His sublime queen, royal children, retinues of the queen and all retinues at the royal court will be fully protected, saved, looked after and guided. Their retribution will be averted and their peace and happiness ensured. Likewise, all the deities dwelling in the palace will be endowed with heightened majesty, power, inconceivable peace and bliss. They will experience manifold joys. The cities and lands too will be fully protected and looked after, will be without harm and without enemies. They will not be trodden over, harmed, or attacked by a rival army.”

The King of Glorious Sutras called the Exalted Sublime Golden Light: A Mahayana Sutra

notes on terminology:

this thus shows a way for buddhism to endear itself to rulers: after all, if you support us and give us what we need, then the four great kings will protect you and save you from your rivals. pretty sweet deal!