Splitting this up because this goes in a *very* different direction.
This is... totally a thing that can and did happen. Or rather, does happen. We do a similar thing today even subconsciously when we name our cars and give them personalities. See anyone who thought ship spirits was a thing a few hundred years ago or ghost trains on railways... Or anyone who uses Alexia, Cortana, or anything else programed with a personality. Our smartphones have a lot in common with minor gods/kami/etc. and how people *write* about worshiping/using them and sacrificing to them so they do things they want them to do.
People talk about worshipping and sacrificing to their cell phones to the extent that they find their cell phones beyond their control.
Again, this is all true, but I don't see how it runs counter to anything in my argument. It rather tends to support my argument, in fact.
Think of people worshiping/sacrificing to a specific diety like how people keep paying to keep rolling on gacha games. Only the gacha game is "will we get rain instead of hail this year?" And the gacha keeps giving you *just* enough of the thing you want from it to justify rolling on the gacha. You *know* it works some of the time, just not all the time, but it's enough to keep you with it and playing.
And don't ask how many game players the world over treat the Random Number Generator like it's some kind of actual higher being with a personality (in their heads). Complete with different ways to "set" the number generator (rituals) and the general idea that if they got a really *good* roll, that means they won't get another one for a while. This one works really well because (a) everyone knows how Random Number Generators *actually* work and (b) everyone knows that because RNGs are *seeded* (based on a non-random input number) they themselves technically do have some control over what the outcome is far down the line. And they want to exercise as *much* control as possible and come up with different things they *think* works based on humanity's shoddy pattern recognition.
Again, the RNG, being random, is beyond their control, and when a thing is out of a human's control, that's when humans start to indulge in magical thinking. And from magical thinking, religion is born.
Humans are just... drawn... to giving things personalities that fit how that thing functions in the real world... and it's not that big a leap to think that if something has a personality, there might be a way to influence that personality...
Yes. It's called personifying, but I'm sure you know that.
As someone who is religious, I'll answer this... with the very large caveat that my religion is on the very far end of the "you cannot control god" spectrum. It should be noted that does *not* mean there are things you do not have control over. Especially in regards to how you yourself react and act in relationship to the world at large (and the ramifications of those actions in the afterlife). Just that trying to "control god" is a futile effort and is the height of arrogance.
I didn't say religious people try to control god. I said people turn to magical thinking when faced with forces they cannot control, and they seek to bargain with those forces. One such bargain would be when god says, "these are the rules you have to live by, and if you adhere to them, you will no longer need to fear death." Death is probably the biggest thing that's beyond human control. Humans can't control god but they absolutely can, in most religions, have a contract and a relationship with him. Thus, instead of being a tool (as a summons is), god is a person. God usually also has an agenda.
In a very real sense, there is something "more" to the world than what is physically "there". The animating force of people's spirits/souls/personality is perhaps the most obvious indicator of this followed up by the beauty of the natural world. What is the point of something so... non-utilitarian as a person's souls or aesthetics that they would both (a) exist and (b) stir up uncontrollable emotions in people. They aren't "needed" strictly speaking for the world to really function. So why are they there?
Well, you are now arguing from belief. I don't happen to share this belief. I disagree that souls exist, so I deny the foundational premise of your argument, and since you cannot prove the truth of your premise and I cannot disprove it, that's as far as we can go.
I didn't quote the remainder of your post because there's no call for me to respond to it. I respect your beliefs but I don't share them.
Religion takes a scary, random, ultimately meaningless world that has man at it's mercy and makes it into a world man can have *some* aspect of control over and find meaning/fulfillment in. Note that it's less "complete" control that religion is after and more like "enough" control vs "no" control.
Yes. However, the summons of FFVII are not random (people know exactly how to control them), are not scary (because humans control them) and do not have man at their mercy. Now, if there was an origin myth which said the summons were originally powerful, frightening deities exerting a sway over humanity, which were then, for some reason, and by some un-named agent, reduced to their current role as tools to be wielded by humanity, that would make sense.
They never use the summons in any way other than a singular attack. If we're looking for canon representations, there is no other use. Meaning, we have no evidence they are slaves or totally in control.
Further, we have to define what a summon materia and a summoned beast actually are. I believe evidence points to them largely being a memory, meaning, I don't think Ifrit is in that stone. I think a memory of Ifrit is. If that's true, people in FFVII are simultaneously "controlling/enslaving" a summon while not controlling a higher deity. It's like they get to create an echo of that thing, rather than control the whole thing. Does that make sense?
I think that's how we're supppsed to understand the matter anyway. Bahamut's Assess data quite nearly confirms it:
"A legendary summon recreated in virtual reality. It is the manifestation of a dragon king revered by the original stewards of the planet. According to oral tradition, there are many Bahamuts, each with their own powers and forms."
---
By the way, the Crisis Core Complete Guide did verify for the Compilation that the Wutaians worship Leviathan:
"The Water God
The people of Wutai worship the water god Leviathan as their guardian deity. Within the game, this is demonstrated by the inclusion of a sacred statue of the water god in the courtyard of Fort Tamblin."
And this is still true for the remake, as shown on the Leviathan loading screen or when using Assess on Levi:
"A non-elemental entity capable of tremendous physical attacks. The patron deity of Wutai, this giant, serpentine entity is said to have quelled great many calamities."
"A summon recreated in virtual reality. This entity is a tutelary dragon deity said to protect people from natural disasters. Today, most of its worshipers live in the vicinity of Wutai."
Apparently Bahamut also is "often worshipped during times of war," according to the loading screen featuring him, though it's unclear whether Shiva has likewise been worshipped. Her Assess data says that the summon is "the manifestation of a queen who once healed the planet's wounds with ice." Whatever the hell that would mean.
---
In short, religion is an elaborate apparatus that comforts us by letting us believe we can control forces which are, in fact, outside our control. Even a sincerely religious person would have to agree that the practice of their faith is a type of covenant with their god or gods, in which both parties know what is expected of them: the human provides worship and follows the rules, and the god provides the good stuff (e.g. food) and refrains from smiting them with the bad.
As I said, the Summons-Gods of FFXV are a good example of this kind of deity... although even in Eos it doesn't seem that people have an established form of popular worship for these entities.
Titan is probably the only exception to this. According to Ignis, "His unceasing toil and the Meteor's might form the tenets of worship for the locals of Duscae."
---
In a very real sense, there is something "more" to the world than what is physically "there". The animating force of people's spirits/souls/personality is perhaps the most obvious indicator of this followed up by the beauty of the natural world. What is the point of something so... non-utilitarian as a person's souls or aesthetics that they would both (a) exist and (b) stir up uncontrollable emotions in people.
I know that. Indeed that's a significant point in my argument whole point. Let's use the weather as an example. I think we can all agree that pre-Industrial Revolution humans had no means of controlling the weather. Our inability to control the weather was inconvenient to say the least, and often deadly. So we personified the forces that create the weather and then imagined the spiritual world where we can, indeed, talk to, pray to, negotiate with, placate, and so on, the forces that control the weather. Or at least we believe we can. If you're someone who believes that by praying to God or Zeus or Amaterasu you can ensure that the sun shines on your wedding, I'm not going to disrespect your faith. My point is that if human beings actually could control the weather in the same way that we can control a rake or a car or, in FFVII< a summons, we would have no reason to invent and worship weather deities.
I'm seeing a disconnect here. If you're depicting a faith as entirely made up, fabricated, and pointless... you are disrespecting that faith. Aren't you? I'm not trying to attack you with this statement. You mentioned Anthropological perspectives... the field of Anthropology is going through some serious growing pains as it is finally reconciling with post-colonial theory. Historically, Anthropology has always functioned from a western standpoint and it's been deeply problematic in understanding many cultures around the world. Post-colonial anthropologists try to jetison notions of universality and try to understand a culture from their own viewpoint... which often means expanded concepts of gods and the like.
Now, if there was an origin myth which said the summons were originally powerful, frightening deities exerting a sway over humanity, which were then, for some reason, and by some un-named agent, reduced to their current role as tools to be wielded by humanity, that would make sense.
Yeah... I think this whole time I've been operating from some sort of pre-Shinra days when Materia was presumably less popular/commodified, and so fewer people understood and/or controlled these things. Is this where we departed entirely? I'm assuming the Church of God in Aerith's story/the slums, and the religious references elsewhere are holdovers from an older more "pre-modern" time.
Because bad guys make them fight the heroes? Again, I'm not sure I'd describe summons as slaves for this as I don't know that the actual summoned beast is manifesting, rather a simulacrum of it is. I'm not sure they bending Ifrit to their will or a manifestation of Ifrit... which is important on a metaphysical level. If the Summon Materia calls for that being and grants the user power to make it do whatever I happily and fully cede all points. However, if the summon materia only allows the caster to set a summon beast (or its manifestation) out to attack something, then this isn't something in control.
To use the dog on a leash example, if someone can only call their dog to them, cannot get them to stop attacking someone, peeing on the carpet, chewing things, not jumping on people, barking, etc, they don't control that dog. That one use doesn't warrant a "master-slave" over that dog. In dog training, we'd say that owner doesn't have control over their dog.
For me, this all hinges on just what Summon Materia is and allows folks to do - I think it's essentially only an incantation/spell for a singular sort of response: Manifest and attack that thing.
We may all disagree, but that lacks "control" of a sentient, living thing. (Are these things even sentient or living?!)
These manifestations are why I believe what I believe. The summons are... I don't know... echoes/avatars that get manifested through memory and spiritual power/mana/magic (whatever we call MP in FF7's reality). They're something akin to the Remnants of Sephiroth - they are and aren't him simultaneously.
I don't think religion is pointless by any means. It serves many useful, positive purposes. I also don't believe that souls, or spiritual planes, or gods, or anything like that, exists, so to that extent I do believe it's made up, though not consciously and deliberately fabricated. I know that religious people hold their beliefs sincerely and I would never think they are stupid or misguided. In fact I envy people with a strong faith. But if there's a gene for religious faith, I lack it.
That said, I don't agree that expressing my personal opinion on religions in general or any given religion in particular is per se disrespectful, though the language used could be either respectful or disrespectful. I try to use respectful language. We all have the right to hold beliefs about religion and express them. I don't think it's disrespectful to religious people to tell them that, in my opinion, their religion has no basis in reality. I actually feel it would be kind of an insult to their intelligence, and their faith, to pretend I share their beliefs when I don't; it would be tantamount to assuming their faith is so weak or so infantile it can't tolerate any expression of dissent. Are we going to say, "Don't tell them you don't believe in their god, honey, they might get upset." No - that's how we treat children, not adults. I can tell them what my opinion is, and they can tell me I'm mistaken, and we can agree to disagree and thus live together harmoniously.
Respecting peoples' religion means respecting their right to freely practice their faith unmolested. It doesn't mean pretending to believe what they believe, or pretending that you think there's any truth in it when you don't. If a fundamentalist Christian came to me and told me that i was going to burn in hell forever for my atheistic, materialistic beliefs, would he be disrespecting me? I would say No. I'd say he was being quite rude, since nobody asked him, but he's entitled to his belief and he's entitled to express it. We draw the line when he says, "Since you're going to hell for being an atheist, we might as well send you there right now. Everybody, burn her!!!!"
Post-colonial anthropologists try to jetison notions of universality and try to understand a culture from their own viewpoint... which often means expanded concepts of gods and the like.
And that's a good thing. But are we saying that we can only understand a religion if we believe in that religion? Because if we don't believe in that religion, it logically follows that we think it is fabricated, even if we can see its usefulness.
People don't worship their cars. They don't kneel down and pray to their cars. There's no religion based on negotiating with cars so that they will take us where we want to go. Some people personify their cars, but that's not the same thing. Human beings tend to personify and anthropomorphise just about anything that moves.
There's a semi-joke in Anthropology that *anything* can be called a "ritual implement" because everything in life is a ritual. And frequently "worship" is some kind of ritual. So are a lot of other things in life that were *frequently* some kind of ritual way of trying to include a god in someone's life.
It also seems that you are dividing the *intent* that makes worship "worship" from an "act" of worship a bit to much. While may religions have things that are *specific* acts that are considered worship, there's also many that indicate *anything* can be worship if it's done with the right intent. Including normal, everyday life activities.
Going by ancient standards, people absolutely do worship their cars. They clean them, they feed them (gasoline), they spend exorbitant amounts of money making sure their cars are in the best shape they can possibly be. They might not be *calling* it worship, or saying they're doing so with a worshipful attitude (in the "sacred" sense of the word worship), but the actions line up very well with how worship has historically been practiced by some people. We all know what we mean when we say "that person worships their Ferrari" and it's never in the sense of a person bowing down and praying to something.
There are many people (myself included) for who worship is... a lot less "active" and a lot more "passive" in certain ways (in terms of attitude). You ask me what my worship looks like and it would be "analyzing the object of worship to death". Or even "it's the thing I am the most obsessive about". I worship what I beleive in when I create art. I worship what I believe in when I clean my house. I worship what I believe in when I drink iced coffee. "Worship" has nothing to do with kneeling down and praying in a specific way for me. There's no difference between living life and worship; it's all part of one thing. I'm never *not* worshiping (or at least, that is what I *want* my life to ideally be like).
Like I said, that's not for *everyone*; there are certainly people for whom "worship" and "living life" are two very different activities they don't do at the same time. But it is certainly true for some people currently and it was true for a lot of people living in the past.
Well, you are now arguing from belief. I don't happen to share this belief. I disagree that souls exist, so I deny the foundational premise of your argument, and since you cannot prove the truth of your premise and I cannot disprove it, that's as far as we can go.
No one is asking you to believe it or even arguing about it. You asked where religion comes from and I gave you an answer. I wasn't "arguing" from any specific point of view (or at least, I was trying not to). Religion does exist and belief that it *works* in some capacity is at the heart of most religions.
A lot of religion comes down to belief and/or faith. Usually in something that can't be seen some of the time or all of the time and yet the *effects* of that thing can be seen. The thing that is there, but can't be seen is what the belief and/or faith is about. Some people have a harder time with that, other people don't. That said, there are quite a few religions that have the idea of belief/faith being something that isn't stagnant. Strong faith doesn't start out strong... It is often something that is practiced and gained over time. How that happens differs from religion to religion.
If you *can't* argue religion from belief, then there's not a whole lot to talk about when it comes to religion. I am... a bit... concerned... by how something that has been very important to so many people across history (and is still important to so many people today) can be dismissed with "I don't believe it" like it can just be hand-waved away as being "not real" and therefor not being something worth talking about. The fact that it was important to so many people kinda means understanding how those people understood their own religion and belief and faith is a worth-while endeavor for understanding their motivations. Does it mean that they were necessarily *right* about it? No. Does it mean what they thought can be dismissed because it's not "factually" true? Also no.
I honestly think we are talking about two different things, Obsidian, or else we are mutually misunderstanding each other. Believe me, as a historian I am very well aware of the immense power and importance religion has had in the lives of people through history. It seems to me that a lot of the misunderstanding is arising from the fact that we define key terms differently. You may not believe me when I say that I am already well aware of all the points you raise in your answers; nevertheless, that is the case. This discussion has wandered far, far away from its starting point, which was this dialogue from the novel:
“I’ve heard that there’s a church in the Sector 5 Slums. In the past, people gathered here and prayed to God, but nobody comes here anymore. I’ve been thinking that we should hide here a little…”
“I’ve heard about God! Does he really exist?” Aerith was surprised.
“According to his believers, he does. I heard that when they pray, they get empowered.”
“Pray…?”
“It’s something like us Cetra speaking to the planet, although I don’t really understand it. But, since no one is coming to the church anymore, there probably aren’t any believers. It’s too bad for God, but it seems like it’s great for our situation.”
And the question of whether the God referred to could be one of the FFVII summons.
I agree that this discussion really has nowhere to go.
But are we saying that we can only understand a religion if we believe in that religion? Because if we don't believe in that religion, it logically follows that we think it is fabricated, even if we can see its usefulness.
No, but seeking a broader/deeper/less Eurocentric definitions of religious concepts is important. This ranges from souls to gods to control/influence over them, to the purpsoe of spirituality and much more.
For example, at the start of this, you said people wouldn't worship things they can control. Yet Kami are something both controllable and uncontrollable - and this is the Japanese word for "god" as close as we have it. So we have to explain why things are worshipped, controlled, interacted with, etc all at once and move away from omnisicent deities as the only definition of god. Something like this would be the above stated goal of anthropology.
Another example is our sticking point of "worship." It's inappropriate to think that folks in non-Abrahamic religions worship their deities in any manner similar to the mixed awe/reverence/fear used in Abrahamic faiths. We have to dig down to what these people mean in their part of the world and figure out why we hold the beliefs we do about what they believe and what they mean by it.
A Shinto deity in a shrine being called upon in battle to perform an act on behalf of a warrior is not at all a stretch of imagination or understanding in a Shinto faith. If this is where the folks designing Summons are coming from, we probably need to jetison an Abrahmic view of "gods" to understand what they're meaning here.
At any point, we have gone well past any point in this thread. Lic, you mentioned being a historian. You and I are going to have to follow up on that soon... I'm writing my dissertation for my PhD in history right now.
" It's inappropriate to think that folks in non-Abrahamic religions worship their deities in any manner similar to the mixed awe/reverence/fear used in Abrahamic faiths."
That's true, but the 'god' Ifalna refers to is - shall we say engaged with by its believers - in a western-style church and is prayed to by its followers, on whom it bestows power in return for their worship, so it seems like a fairly Abrahamic kind of god. Ifalna observes that this belief system is very different from the beliefs of the Cetra.
If the Shinto deity is called upon to perform an act for a warrior, must the deity obey? I don't know.
How does Shinto worship differ in its goals and objectives from Abrahamic religion? (Obviously its rituals are different).
For example, it seems that one important goal of Cetra spiritualism is to cultivate the spirit energy of the planet. - or to put it another way, to maintain the right balance between man and nature so that both can mutually thrive. Another is to "find their promised land", a phrase which has been much discussed and which many people thinks refers to Cetra finding their place in the Lifestream after death. In Abrahamic religions there is a close, specific connection between obeying god's rules and attaining life after death, but in the Cetra belief system, people don't seem to need to be 'holy' or accumulate merit in order to attain their promised land.
" It's inappropriate to think that folks in non-Abrahamic religions worship their deities in any manner similar to the mixed awe/reverence/fear used in Abrahamic faiths."
That's true, but the 'god' Ifalna refers to is - shall we say engaged with by its believers - in a western-style church and is prayed to by its followers, on whom it bestows power in return for their worship, so it seems like a fairly Abrahamic kind of god. Ifalna observes that this belief system is very different from the beliefs of the Cetra.
If the Shinto deity is called upon to perform an act for a warrior, must the deity obey? I don't know.
How does Shinto worship differ in its goals and objectives from Abrahamic religion? (Obviously its rituals are different).
For example, it seems that one important goal of Cetra spiritualism is to cultivate the spirit energy of the planet. - or to put it another way, to maintain the right balance between man and nature so that both can mutually thrive. Another is to "find their promised land", a phrase which has been much discussed and which many people thinks refers to Cetra finding their place in the Lifestream after death. In Abrahamic religions there is a close, specific connection between obeying god's rules and attaining life after death, but in the Cetra belief system, people don't seem to need to be 'holy' or accumulate merit in order to attain their promised land.
We have examples where some of these deities are compelled to follow those commands. This the Chikata Fujiwara. His four devils are kami. Whether it's a kami like Amaterasu or the Golden Devil, their "beings" are the same, they are "kami."
Shinto rituals, I think I've explained this, is often to create harmony, keep the deity clean, and let them perform their natural functions. Let nature take its course without pollution as much as possible. (It is an inspiration for Cetra I think, loosely at least). Shinto thoughts on the afterlife/heaven aren't anywhere near Christianity's. Shinto doesn't have "merit" collection either. If anything, there is a focus on not gathering pollution/kegare.
What I've read of Shinto beliefs mirror the Lifestream and the Cetra a lot more than anything "Western" or of the Judeo-Christian religions. Anything in fiction that has a "cycle of life" or "reincarnation" aspect to it's afterlife is almost always inspired by Eastern Religions rather than Western Religions. Western Religions tend to have some kind of "afterlife" people *ideally* don't move on from after they die (and remain fully aware of). While in Eastern Religions, cycling through varrious lives (and often *not* being aware they are doing so) is the "default" afterlife. There's not so much an "afterlife" as there is "living again as something else".
The thing with most anime/manga is that regardless of what the religion's aesthetics are like, most of the way worship is done and described is always based on Shintoism or Buddhism. Even if the trappings of it are Western. It's just that the "look" of Western Religion is considered "exotic" in the East. Unless there's a *very* good reason not too, I tend to default to most religions as described in Japanese Media as being inspired by Shintoism or Buddhism as that's the most common religions in Japan (and what the authors are most familiar with). It has *rarely* not turned out to be the case that this is what is going on.
So yes, a lot of anime/manga essentially culturally appropriate a lot of Western Religious Stuff without taking into consideration what it actually means in it's original context. Or rather, they tend to view Western Religious practices through their own lense of religious practices and match it up to things in their own religion even if it's not *exactly* a direct match.
Because bad guys make them fight the heroes? Again, I'm not sure I'd describe summons as slaves for this as I don't know that the actual summoned beast is manifesting, rather a simulacrum of it is.
You said "They never use the summons in any way other than a singular attack. If we're looking for canon representations, there is no other use." But lengthy battles are not singular attacks ...
What I've read of Shinto beliefs mirror the Lifestream and the Cetra a lot more than anything "Western" or of the Judeo-Christian religions. Anything in fiction that has a "cycle of life" or "reincarnation" aspect to it's afterlife is almost always inspired by Eastern Religions rather than Western Religions. Western Religions tend to have some kind of "afterlife" people *ideally* don't move on from after they die (and remain fully aware of). While in Eastern Religions, cycling through varrious lives (and often *not* being aware they are doing so) is the "default" afterlife. There's not so much an "afterlife" as there is "living again as something else".
The thing with most anime/manga is that regardless of what the religion's aesthetics are like, most of the way worship is done and described is always based on Shintoism or Buddhism. Even if the trappings of it are Western. It's just that the "look" of Western Religion is considered "exotic" in the East. Unless there's a *very* good reason not too, I tend to default to most religions as described in Japanese Media as being inspired by Shintoism or Buddhism as that's the most common religions in Japan (and what the authors are most familiar with). It has *rarely* not turned out to be the case that this is what is going on.
So yes, a lot of anime/manga essentially culturally appropriate a lot of Western Religious Stuff without taking into consideration what it actually means in it's original context. Or rather, they tend to view Western Religious practices through their own lense of religious practices and match it up to things in their own religion even if it's not *exactly* a direct match.
Your first paragraph seems to be at odds with your second and third? If the Cetra faith is meant to be coded as Shinto, and the faith associated with this Church of God in the slums is cast as alien to a Cetra, then it stands to reason this church wasn't utilized for a faith that's meant to be basically Shinto with Western aesthetics.
Your first paragraph seems to be at odds with your second and third? If the Cetra faith is meant to be coded as Shinto, and the faith associated with this Church of God in the slums is cast as alien to a Cetra, then it stands to reason this church wasn't utilized for a faith that's meant to be basically Shinto with Western aesthetics.
I'm saying it's more likely that *both* of them are largely coded off Shintoism. Or Shintoism and Buddhism. Or some combination of their ideas. The fact that the Church is styled to look "Western" doesn't mean a whole lot. It's like how Shinra is styled to look American even when it's a very clear example of a zaibatsu conglomerate.
I don't know if wikipedia is the best source, so if you guys reject it I'll find another, but for now this is what it says about kami:
"They can nurture and love when respected, or they can cause destruction and disharmony when disregarded. Kami must be appeased in order to gain their favor and avoid their wrath."
From this description, kami are not under the control of humans. Of course there are always exceptions to any rule, but if this description is correct, for the most part kami cannot be commanded by humans, and so must be managed via the rituals of religion.
"The kami's earliest roles were as earth-based spirits, assisting the early hunter-gatherer groups in their daily lives. They were worshipped as gods of the earth (mountains) and sea. As the cultivation of rice became increasingly important and predominant in Japan, the kami's identity shifted to more sustaining roles that were directly involved in the growth of crops; roles such as rain, earth, and rice.[10] This relationship between early Japanese people and the kami was manifested in rituals and ceremonies meant to entreat the kami to grow and protect the harvest."
According to this, it seems gaining the goodwill and cooperation of the kami is essential if human beings are to survive: they assisted hunter gatherers in their daily lives and they helped the harvest grow. But the human beings could not summon them at will, command them to do this, and expect to be obeyed. The kami had to be managed, through prayer, ritual, offerings etc....
"The pantheon of kami, like the kami themselves, is forever changing in definition and scope. As the needs of the people have shifted, so too have the domains and roles of the various kami. Some examples of this are related to health, such as the kami of smallpox whose role was expanded to include all contagious diseases, or the kami of boils and growths who has also come to preside over cancers and cancer treatments."
"Not only spirits superior to man can be considered kami; spirits that are considered pitiable or weak have also been considered kami in Shinto."
But the fact as simple a word as "pray" is an oddity requiring explanation for the other group does mean a lot.
Expanding on this, it would be one thing to accept the very Abrahamic looking religious structure as a stand-in for general spiritual and/or religious flavor if it were simply following the aesthetic and sensibilities of the rest of its setting.
Here, however, we have a deliberate contrast drawn in dialogue to a very old -- even if not quite "ancient" -- elaborate religious structure whose very construction runs antithetical to the classic beliefs and practices of an established-as-older, literally ancient spiritual belief system ... for whom the most basic spiritual practice of the other belief system is unfamiliar, much less what other rituals may have been practiced in the structure under the eyeglass.
I cannot imagine any storytelling sensibility where the author would intend the reader to conclude these two spiritualities are meant to be inferred as fundamentally similar. And that's before bringing in any sense of real-life context having to do with Abrahamic aesthetics or Japanese sensibilities specifically, but once we have done that -- there's really no question.
Yes. It's a pretty short piece of dialogue to be building such an elaborate argument on, but it does seem to be the case that Ifalna regards the religion of the "church-people" as different from the spiritual practices of the Cetra. From the little we see, the relationship between the Cetra and the Planet is one of equals, each working to support and sustain the other, whereas the relationship between the church-people and their god is a top-down one, where they pray to it, and it gives them "powers".
However, she also says she doesn't know a lot about it, so who knows?
I'm still puzzled over whether there is meant to be any distinction between "spirit energy" and "soul" (please don't instruct me on how these terms mean something different in eastern spirituality; I know that). What I mean by 'spirit energy' here is specifically the Lifestream inside each living thing that flows back into the river of life circling the planet when they die. What I mean by soul is the unique essence of the self.
Are they, in the world of FFVII, the same thing, and both re-absorbed into the Lifestream when people die? Or does the soul go somewhere else?
I think, but I might be wrong, that a difference between the world of FFVII and the "cycle of life" concept that appears in many eastern spiritualities is that in the "cycle of life", the thing being reincarnated - the soul, the essence, the self, the energy, whatever - retains its integrity. Your soul, for want of a better word, may be a tree in one life, a dog in the next, a human in the next and so on, but it's always the same bundle of spirit energy. Whereas in FFVII, spirit energy flows back into the Lifestream when something dies and all gets mixed up together. Thus, when a kitten, for example, is born, it contains a little bit of tree, a little bit of human, a little bit of fish, a little bit of Cetra, and so on.
Eastern "life cycle" model of reincarnation (?maybe? don't know if this is right) - same soul cycles through a number of lives.
I think in some forms of Buddhism, maybe also Hinduism, the ultimate goal is to escape the cycle of reincarnation.
"Lifestream" model of reincarnation - each new living thing gets a bit of its spirit energy from a huge range of previously living things. Less "reincarnation" (where the soul persists, and keeps getting new 'sleeves' of flesh) and more like recycling, maybe?
I'm still puzzled over whether there is meant to be any distinction between "spirit energy" and "soul" (please don't instruct me on how these terms mean something different in eastern spirituality; I know that). What I mean by 'spirit energy' here is specifically the Lifestream inside each living thing that flows back into the river of life circling the planet when they die. What I mean by soul is the unique essence of the self.
Are they, in the world of FFVII, the same thing, and both re-absorbed into the Lifestream when people die? Or does the soul go somewhere else?
The soul is one's spirit energy. They are one in the same. What makes you "you," are the combination of memories, thoughts, feelings, personality and everything that makes up your living soul. It becomes part of the collective swell of spirit energy known as "Lifestream" and flows around and around the planet. Eventually it mixes together and what happens after that is just a sea of chaos.
The Lifestream by that definition is also the Planet's soul. And this is why it's rare for beings such as summons and of course Sephiroth to be able to maintain their ego when dead. Usually that doesn't happen.
That's another reason why summons are unique, and high level existences that would be considered divine in some form or fashion. They don't just fade into the collective stream of consciousness, they instead evolve from it and become different. See Bahamut with at least 5 different variants in FFVII.
That's another reason why summons are unique, and high level existences that would be considered divine in some form or fashion. They don't just fade into the collective stream of consciousness, they instead evolve from it and become different. See Bahamut with at least 5 different variants in FFVII.
That's a wildly different take from mine, which basically just follows FFIX's explanation on different versions of summons: different traditions make for different collective memories, which then crystallize into different summon materia.
I want to preface this with my background so folks can understand where I'm coming from on it - it's not to claim an expertise but rather share my own internal experience so folks can understand my stand point.
Since 2008, I've been involved in a Japanese Martial Art that's a syncretic combination of Mikkyo and Zen Buddhism with Shinto and Shugendo. By about 2010, I suppose I could say this had started to become my religion of sorts. I don't think of it as big picture faith, but it's taken up a fairly large part of my life, and each subsequent trip to Japan, I visit temples and shrines and dig in a little more. I stay with my teacher in Japan, who is a semi-priestly dude. He's lived in Japan for almost 30 years, speaks fluently and has translated books. He is American. His 27 years were exclusive in training with our grandmaster (before his recent retirement).
So the grandmaster, and his master before him, are pretty steeped into esoteric teachings (such as the Buddhist Mikkyo) other stuff comes from onmyoji magic. It's a pretty weird combination to step in to - even the dojo is a shrine with specfici rules about how to interact with the kami inside. But like I said, it's syncretic. The line between "this is buddhist" and "this is shinto" doesn't exist within that space. It's pretty bizarre to see. I teach East Asian history as a grad student and I'm nearing the end of my PhD - I have the skills and time to dig into studying Japanese history and need to do so professionally. It allows me to contextualize some of this.
All of this is where I come from on speaking of Shinto and Buddhist religion. The only other thing I can add here is I've been on a pretty deep spiritual journey through yogic practices (not-American, but India-based) that matches up with a lot of that and allows me to wrap my head around this stuff from that angle too. This isn't at all to position myself an expert, just that I have an experience and that experience colors my perspective on it.
Lic, you have a great handle on it. There's one thing I'll add that I've learned in the past couple of years:
Eastern "life cycle" model of reincarnation (?maybe? don't know if this is right) - same soul cycles through a number of lives.
I think in some forms of Buddhism, maybe also Hinduism, the ultimate goal is to escape the cycle of reincarnation.
There's a book called "The Demon's Sermon" (that's the English name) and in it is a passage of a fellow who is speaking about reincarnation. He's basically worried about what he'll be next. He sees the caterpillar become a butterfly, and he wants to be a bird but is worried he'll be a clam. The point, however, is that a clam won't worry about being a clam.
The "escape" of the cycle is to embrace the cycle and realize that we are all the Earth and all parts of it, that there's no boundary. It brings us a lot closer to the Cetra idea, doesn't it?
I like to think of the Cetra model (and I'll bastardize the term "pyreflies" here) as a soul is ~20 Pyreflies, and when you die, those float back into the Lifestream, deposit memories and then re-enter the physical world as new life, but not always the same ~20 Pyreflies. So maybe an ancient Highwind is reincarnated as Cid, but it might only be 3 of the old Highwind's pyreflies. Heck, this could mean the entire party is all one reincarnated dude!
While I haven't read much in the eastern theology specifically stating this, it was recently explained to me through yogic practice that this is very much their understanding of reality. We could basically break the world up into the 5 cosmic elements, but that's not life. There's an underlying "electricity" that moves us. This cosmic energy (whatever you want to call it) is from what everything grows and takes form, death is just a return to that, and life is just an expression of it. Since the cosmic energy thing is all one thing, it does mix in reincarnation. So when this was explained to me, it was very much the Cetra model.
It's weird when people you speak to express the cosmic theology of a video game as their real life worldview, but you first learned that in a video game!
That's a wildly different take from mine, which basically just follows FFIX's explanation on different versions of summons: different traditions make for different collective memories, which then crystallize into different summon materia.
That's true but they're all "Bahamut." Differing versions of Bahamut, perhaps throughout the ages or regional variants. And because there are multiple Bahamut materia, it means Bahamut's spirit energy has been crystalized into materia several times.
It's like how Sephiroth spawned several remnants of himself from the Lifestream in AC. They're all different aspects of his consciousness/soul, but they're all connected to Sephiroth.
So summons are dead entities summoned out of the Lifestream? That makes sense to me.
Not everything that is divine is necessarily worshipped, in the sense that we believe it has powers to either help or harm us and therefore we take steps to keep on its good side.
@ waw, does that yogic understanding sound a bit like physics to you? It does to me: the division of everything into matter and energy and the synergy between them. That said, I'm not up to date with contemporary physics and maybe the distinction between matter and energy is getting blurred just like everything else.
I suspect there is much greater difference between eastern religions, and even between different branches of Buddhism, than there is between Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
You teach East Asian history? Great - I will pick your brain for my CHY4U World History course, the worst history curriculum ever designed.
I recently completed my "world history Bridge certificate" so please, hit me up! I'd love to chat about it. I knew there was a reason I liked your posts! *historiansquees*
@ waw, does that yogic understanding sound a bit like physics to you? It does to me: the division of everything into matter and energy and the synergy between them. That said, I'm not up to date with contemporary physics and maybe the distinction between matter and energy is getting blurred just like everything else.
This was actually the follow up conversation. He said something like, "It's all the same thing!" Whatever we call that... energy... whether it's chi, a cosmic force, Lifestream, Mako, electrons and subatomic particles, so forth and so on, it's all the same thing. The elemental atoms that are in me were once in dogshit and once in Caesar or something like that... so are we not reincarnations of all things - even spirituality aside?! Yeah, that's how the thought went anyway.
The one wrinkle in all this is that the Lifestream doesn't really "forget" people's past lives itself. The memories of their past lives are in still in there. Heck, the Wshipers prove this by people who *would* live in the future trying to set things up so that they *will* live in the future. Even the Cetra manage to hang around in the Lifetream a long time after death (and they're not exactly the only ones to do so). There seems to be a delay between people dying and them loosing their sense of self in the Lifestream and their energy being reborn as something else. So it sounds like an "delayed" reincarnation rather than an immediate one. And the Planet will always remember you in an case.
Keywords from the 10th Anniversary Ultimatum that are interesting...
Planetology
『FFVII』 『BC』 『CC』
The study of the circulation of life within the Planet. It is a sequence of events, systematized as follows. "When a life dies, the spiritual energy of the will and the heart does not perish, but returns to the Planet, and the Planet brings forth the next life." From this perspective, the use of mako energy is considered a problem by planetologists as it interferes with the circulation of life and causes the lifeblood of the Planet to be drained. TL Note: "心" is "heart"
Mako
『FFVII』 『BC』 『CC』 『DC』
The raw material used for the production of energy. Shinra used to pump it up from the interior of the planet using its mako reactors. In addition to being used to power all the everyday conveniences of life, it has also been used as the foundation for the latest military technology, such as the creation of materia and the creation of SOLDIERs. Mako is synonymous with the spiritual energy of the life that makes up the Lifestream, and its overuse will ultimately mean the death of the Planet in the not-too-distant future. Therefore, after Shinra was dismantled, the world is searching for a way of life that does not rely on the convenience of mako.
Mako Overdose
『FFVII』 『BC』 『CC』 『LO』
A term for the spiritual collapse caused when a living being falls into the Lifestream or is exposed to high concentrations of Mako for an extended period of time. The Planet's memory, a vast amount of information, is condensed into Mako. If a person continues to be exposed to Mako, a large amount of knowledge will flood the brain beyond its capacity to handle, making it difficult to maintain normal spiritual activity.
Materia
『FFVII』 『AC』 『BC』 『CC』 『DC』
A high-density condensation of raw mako in a solid and stable form. In some cases, it is formed naturally in places where mako is abundant, but most of the time it is artificially manufactured using technology developed by Shinra. Many of them, such as magic materia like "Fire" and "Blizzard", can be combined with weapons to give the user enormous combat power. The more it is used, the more powerful it becomes, because it is a condensed form of the knowledge remembered by the Planet.
The Lifestream
『FFVII』 『AC』 『BC』 『CC』 『DC』
The vast flow of spiritual energy that a Planet dwells in. Like the bloodstream flows through the human body, it circulates through the Planet and eventually becomes the source that gives birth to new life. All living things born in this way will ultimately die and return to the Lifestream. When this circulation of energy is carried out normally, the Planet is abundantly cultivated.
What I find interesting is that Shinra, at one point, had Planetologists working for it (Lucrecia and Grimoire). And they were specifically looking into "megafauna" born out of the Lifestream. *Someone* at some point in early Shinra thought that whatever the Cetra were writing about the Lifestream (and the beings "in" in the Lifestream) was real and worth looking into. (Which shouldn't be too surprising given what the Jenova Project started out to do). So... YMMV on how much the Cetra's beliefs really died out rather than morphed into something slightly different without their input as time went on.
Also worth pointing out is that the Planet's memories are in mako/materia. At any rate, the Planet's memories of *something* is in summon materia... and that something probably really did happen. I think it's safe to say that at some point in time, the Summons really were "real" in a sense and the Planet has kept the memory of them around for a long time as materia. The Remake gives us a good example with Shiva.
This also brings up how in FFVII, magic *is* memory in a very real sense. To cast magic with materia, people are using their own energy to interface/interact with the Planet's memory and... bring that memory back into existence (if for a short time). Which... interestingly seems to be *why* materia get stronger over time rather than weaker. By using them, people are giving the Planet more things to remember that are similar to whatever memory is in that exact materia. Which is effectively generating more spirit energy/mako over time as a result...
So while reincarnation of spiritual energy is going on... there's also the sense where the/a memory of whatever died still sticks around in the Lifestream long-term. I don't know if you could say that the memory of life is... really self-aware or not... but the Cetra's spirits/memories are. Zack and Angeal managed to stay self-aware in the Lifestream for several years after they died and it was never presented as a bad thing. So... there seems to be enough evidence to suggest that it *might* be the case. (Remake and the Whispers give even more evidence that this "self-awareness in the Lifestream" applies to a lot of memories/entities other than the Ancients).
There seems to be a delay between people dying and them loosing their sense of self in the Lifestream and their energy being reborn as something else. So it sounds like an "delayed" reincarnation rather than an immediate one.
I'm never sure in anything real-world wise that I've studied whether folks believe one way or the other whether reincarnation is immediate or delayed. I see no reason why various eastern world views couldn't involve that delay.
But speaking of all this reincarnation and such, I don't think we have any character that is actually a reincarnation of someone from the past. Like, say, Rufus being a reincarnation of someone who fougth Jenova long ago and... I don't know how... but tapping into those memories (No evidence for something like this). With so much of the FFVII material focused on the cycle of the Lifestream and understanding that in a way, things don't ever really die and that we are all connected... It stands out to me. Harkening back to the first post in this thread about possible sequel material and keeping things "fitting" in line with the actual canon, that stands out to me as both a possible character (villain or hero) or something we may see Remake etc touch upon.
I get that by the time a portion of Lifestream reincarnates into new life, that new life is made up of multiple components of previous entities, and/or has effectively "dumped" it's memories into the Lifestream. (I'm noticing we really don't have codified language around some of this and I'm veeeeery uncomfortable about it XD) so it'd be very unusual for a character to grasp past-life memories. But... it would still be interesting and it stands out that we don't have that.
*historiansquees*