What then is the consequence of the two ‘senses’ in Geertz theory, being models ‘of’ and ‘for’ when applied? As mentioned in his second axiom, these grand conceptions of the world “establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men”, which are propagated deep within use of certain upheld symbols. Geertz defines a motive as “liabilities to perform particular classes of act or have particular classes of feeling.” In Advaita, the motivations which propel a person to a certain practice could be, for example, the notions of samsara and moksha. In believing in this notion, one views their life as a repeated cycle (samsara) in which they look to free themselves eternally from (moksha). From this motivation, one’s actions
…show more content…
Fundamentally, this ‘model’ of the world presented by Advaitins is not only deeply rooted in the symbol of Om, it looks to explicate our ontological existence and shed light on practical matters of our reality, such as human condition and it’s afflictions, material and worldly desires and social relations. The ‘model for’ reality in Advaita could arguably be regarded as the ascribed ‘practices’ the guru offers to their disciple/s and the doctrinal teachings of scripture. These practices are many and varying, but include; “discrimination between all things eternal and non-eternal… the attainment of the means such as tranquillity and self-control… and being a seeker after final release.” This conception of the world that is propagated by Advaita is religious not because it puts forth a set of practices and conventional beliefs, but in that it’s sacred symbols are employed (meditation, scripture, the guru, Om) to put forth some idea of a ‘transcendent truth’, which is a necessary aspect according to Geertz. Humankind is desperate to fill the void of uncertainty they experience in life, such as one’s ontological origins, and attempt to reconcile this feeling by the application of transcendent …show more content…
Geertz clearly demonstrates how religion and our cultural and psychological processes surrounding religion are ultimately semiotic. We as humans conceptualize categories in which we ‘web’ ourselves into, looking beyond our common-sensical perspective in attempt to quell our uncertainties about the unfathomable truths present with the world. Through the use of deeply rooted symbols, which have been upheld for generations and generations in a common language, Geertz demonstrates how any religious system in a practical sense can be academically studied. He demonstrates clearly how one’s religious conceptions become factual in our subjective regard, and how through the acceptance of symbolic over-arching authority, one’s motives and actions are reflective of so. The most important contribution Geertz proposes in his work is the vagueness in which his interpretation can be applied. Some, like Talal Asad, argue against his notions of intrinsic symbolic conceptions and their connections to the outside world, arguing they are para-consistent at best. I argue against Asad in saying that any symbol can be conceptualized independently to shift our motives or intentions without offering a substantive explanation towards a larger reality beyond our worldly understanding, whether it is related to a real world empirical occurrence or not. The importance of Geertz symbolic interpretation is
Fundamentally, this ‘model’ of the world presented by Advaitins is not only deeply rooted in the symbol of Om, it looks to explicate our ontological existence and shed light on practical matters of our reality, such as human condition and it’s afflictions, material and worldly desires and social relations. The ‘model for’ reality in Advaita could arguably be regarded as the ascribed ‘practices’ the guru offers to their disciple/s and the doctrinal teachings of scripture. These practices are many and varying, but include; “discrimination between all things eternal and non-eternal… the attainment of the means such as tranquillity and self-control… and being a seeker after final release.” This conception of the world that is propagated by Advaita is religious not because it puts forth a set of practices and conventional beliefs, but in that it’s sacred symbols are employed (meditation, scripture, the guru, Om) to put forth some idea of a ‘transcendent truth’, which is a necessary aspect according to Geertz. Humankind is desperate to fill the void of uncertainty they experience in life, such as one’s ontological origins, and attempt to reconcile this feeling by the application of transcendent …show more content…
Geertz clearly demonstrates how religion and our cultural and psychological processes surrounding religion are ultimately semiotic. We as humans conceptualize categories in which we ‘web’ ourselves into, looking beyond our common-sensical perspective in attempt to quell our uncertainties about the unfathomable truths present with the world. Through the use of deeply rooted symbols, which have been upheld for generations and generations in a common language, Geertz demonstrates how any religious system in a practical sense can be academically studied. He demonstrates clearly how one’s religious conceptions become factual in our subjective regard, and how through the acceptance of symbolic over-arching authority, one’s motives and actions are reflective of so. The most important contribution Geertz proposes in his work is the vagueness in which his interpretation can be applied. Some, like Talal Asad, argue against his notions of intrinsic symbolic conceptions and their connections to the outside world, arguing they are para-consistent at best. I argue against Asad in saying that any symbol can be conceptualized independently to shift our motives or intentions without offering a substantive explanation towards a larger reality beyond our worldly understanding, whether it is related to a real world empirical occurrence or not. The importance of Geertz symbolic interpretation is