
When asked the question: "Why did 19th
century Transcendentalism die?" my reply is "It didn't." Perhaps technically
speaking, in the narrowest sense of Transcendentalism as a 19th century
philosophical construct, its formal frame did pass on. But regarding its
spirit--and to be understood, Transcendentalism insists that spirit be
considered well above letter--it appears to me that Transcendentalism is
inextricably woven into the fabric of modern religions. It may not remain
within the "traditional" religious tenets that Transcendentalism once argued,
i.e., the validity of Jesus' divinity, the problematic idea of God as Trinity,
or the recognition of miracles. These topics linger as points of contention
but Transcendentalism is no longer acknowledged as an opponent in the debate.
What remains instead is an increasingly global sense of environmental responsibility
within the religions, resting upon a foundation of thought remarkably similar
to that of Emersonian Transcendentalism. I
maintain it is the residual spirit of Transcendentalism that draws
our sense--our perception--of religion, and our sense of the natural world,
ever closer together, as we try to determine what is the best way to live
spiritually here on earth.
A painting must have a vanishing point
in order to illustrate perspective. Although the picture can be viewed
from an infinite number of angles, the vanishing point remains steady on
its plane. The viewer’s reaction to the picture can and likely will change
according to the angle of their sight—their visual perception. They may
even decide the artist chose a poor perspective to begin with and so argue
against the entire premise of the picture as skewed with no decent interpretation
possible. In that case, debate is impossible. For instance, the argument
between two camps, in which one side declares the existence of God while
the other denies even the possibility of any "higher power," is an example
of such a complete rejection: each side maintains that the other's perspective
is so hopelessly flawed that all resulting perception is tainted.
However, for the sake of this discussion,
we’re assuming everyone involved concurs that the "vanishing point" is
good. The point, which remains ever steady on its plane, is the idea that
the natural world was divinely created, with specific intent and for specific
purposes. The answers to the questions of who created the world, how it
was created, and why it was created, are merely the differing perceptions
of those who hold the already expressed perspective. There
will be no attempt to supply new answers to those questions in this paper!
I am seeking the similarities and differences expressed in the answers
already offered and accepted by the four belief systems listed here. It
is these already given answers which are to be reviewed in these pages.
Again, while perceptions may differ
dramatically, another shared perspective to be examined here is the one
that states that, in order for the divine purposes of creation to be fulfilled,
the physical circumstances of the natural world--the environment--must
improve.
The agreed-upon perspective is that the
task is clear: we are required to put forth our best effort in determining,
as far as humanly possible, the intent and purpose of the
divine plan, so we may then follow the direction of the original blueprint.
That some action is mandatory is part of the general perspective: “What
is the best way to go about completing this task?” The differences lie
in the varied perceptions of what action(s) form the best response.How
do the different religions answer the question--and how much variation
is there in their replies?
For the purpose of this paper, it is established
that God created the natural world in which we live. Also, the act of creation
was completed with intent and purpose. Finally, we come to the third perspective
to be examined in these pages. All of the religions discussed here seem
to incorporate Emerson's Transcendentalist thought, most clearly delineated
in these lines from Nature:
"Particular natural facts are symbols of particular spiritual facts. Nature
is the symbol of the spirit" (939). A distressed environment is symbolic
of a distressed spirit. Furthermore, each religion presented here seems
to agree with of Emerson's theory of the connected Oversoul insofar as
the points that state that all entities in Nature are connected, and the
well-being of humankind is connected to Nature. More specifically, each
religion cited here agrees with these major principles of Transcendentalism:
each person must act as an individual. While responsible for learning and
living by the tenets of one's particular religion, in the end the individual
must answer to his or her own conscience and act upon the guidance of his
or her own "inner voice," the human intuition which Emerson believed was
the individual's divine spark and their connection to the infinite Oversoul.
However, it is not possible that the individual's act, whether of comission
or omission, remains confined to that self's experience; every action does
have a reaction. The inevitable ripple effect makes each individual action
universally effective.
Emerson's Oversoul is the connected universe;
it has other names: Walt Whitman calls it the float, Sally
McFague says it is a quilt. Whatever its name, and in spite of its
unfathomable proportions, it trembles at our touch and we all sense the
vibration. The reparation of the natural world necessitates handling it
with care. Assuming that all agree the task is mandated, how does religion
plan to make the physical world fit for divinity? How are the perceptions
different or alike? What views or solutions reflect 19th century Transcendentalist
philosophy? Has that philosophy evolved in the 20th century?