I've been snooping around in the anthropology of religion and I have not found much on mystical side of ritual.
That is partly because anthropology of religion is generally coming from the sub-field of cultural anthropology, and so focuses on the social and cultural aspects of religion. Mysticism is an individual, psychological, and cognitive aspect of religious or spiritual life that, while inevitably impacted by culture, has at its root the purpose of eschewing conditioning in order to pursue truth. For the most part, anthropology hasn't touched this, which has been explored far more by religious studies and psychology.
Ritual appears to be a kind of story-telling device that conveys a fairly specific set of ideas and values or it's a means of regulating emotions.
Ritual generally includes a set of ideas and values that, in the case of an organized and institutionalized religion, will have one or more doctrinally sound meanings. However, this does not mean individuals practicing the ritual will know, understand, or agree with those "approved" meanings. This is where conflict theory and other theories that deal with the diversity present (particularly in modern religions and cultures) assists in our understanding of the "ideal" culture of a religion (i.e., what is doctrinally approved) and the "real" culture of a religion (what people actually do, think, and experience). As for regulating emotions- some ritual regulates and other ritual simply opens emotional experience. A rite of rebellion, such as Mardi Gras, is meant to regulate when and how people express their dissatisfaction with social norms and governance. But something like Communion can have a very wide range of emotional effects on participants, despite its doctrinally approved meaning.
For example Luminet and Curci ( 2009): "Rituals are forms of communication through actions. They generally constitute strongly patterned and recurring forms of collective behaviour." Their principal value is ritual is communication for the purpose of "proclaiming values in order to influence opinions, authorities or social movements."
While ritual communicates through action (as well as through the use of the arts), they may or may not be collective. Ritual can be done by an individual, of course.
I would also put forth that what you'll find from anthropologists or sociologists in their analysis of the value of ritual will be different from what you'll find from a religious or spiritual practitioner viewpoint (and of course different still from a mystic). As I said above, one must consider the area of expertise and how the researcher relates the data to the subject s/he studies. As anthropologists largely study groups, not individuals, anthropology of religion has tended to focus heavily on the group dynamic.
Remember, I am not speaking here only as an anthropologist. I posted this from my own experience and viewpoint, which was as a practitioner and mystic. We can debate anthropological theory all day long, but that doesn't negate my own experience and right to have a view as a spiritual practitioner.
Debating theory about ritual doesn't get around the fundamental issue- that I think individuals should be free to do interfaith ritual if they want, and you seem to argue that people should restrict these practices because you find it offensive or meaningless.
I am not arguing someone like yourself who finds this offensive or meaningless should participate. I am arguing that every individual should have the freedom to do what is meaningful to her/himself and we should respect one another's spiritual journeys.
Anyhoo, my comments so far have dealt with only one thing: who gets to change the message?
My point is that "intended meaning" (ideal culture) is always somewhat in conflict with reality (real culture) anyway. So what "the message" is and who defines it is itself a question about power and conflict.
My argument is that anyone can change the message for themselves or others. Meaning is an individual, interior cognitive happening. There is a sort-of something we call culture, but it has no life of its own outside of the individuals involved. Because of this, it changes over time, and there is a constant conflict and negotiation of power, both in the nuts and bolts aspects of culture (who has the money, the weapons, etc.) and in the superstructural elements (concepts, religion, ritual, etc.).
You seem to think there is or should be some frozen meaning to stuff people make up (i.e., ritual). But there is never a frozen meaning. It is always a negotiation of individuals' plays for power, belonging, control and so forth-- sometimes this coalesces into movements and groups and sometimes it does not.
So, my answer, straight up: Everyone "gets" to change the message. Why? Because "the message" inevitably resides in individuals' heads.
Now, if you're asking who "gets" to change the message
legitimately... well, there is no single answer to that. Who ever can get a following, can gain power, can change the tides- their version of the message becomes the new legitimate version. This is the nature of religious change (you might try Wallace and the literature on revitalization movements and new religious movements).
Generally speaking, there is always an underlying diversity within every religion- not only on an individual level, but in groups that disagree about this or that, each trying to legitimize itself. This is partly why I am rather skeptical about religion and authenticity in my own spiritual journey, and am more concerned with personal experience.
Luminet and Curci ( 2009) add that rituals reinforce emotions ans strengthen social cohesion. This entails solidifying collective memories and shaping people's expectations for a collective destiny.
All of this entirely depends on the ritual and its temporal and cultural context. Again, there is a reason why new religious movements spring up constantly. If ritual (and religion more broadly) was so good at fulfilling this function, these conflicts and changes wouldn't happen. Yet they constantly do. Ideas about a collective meory and destiny are all well and good, but ignore how people actually work. Generally speaking, what you have is a relatively thin veneer of collectivism over what is a boiling cauldron of individual goals, desires, ideas, and experiences... and this often overcomes that collectivism, leading to the formation of new movements, sects, denominations, and so forth.
So to try to change rituals is like trying to change history.
History is not one frozen thing. History is unfolding right now. Rituals and their meanings
must accommodate the broader changes if they are to retain efficacy.
Please don't to leave it to outsiders who have a superficial understanding of the history. I meant to ask you, did the 3.5 hour lecture include a explanation of where the prayer you mentioned in your post #59 came from?
Outsiders were not changing the ritual within Buddhism. They were borrowing elements of Buddhism to put into practice in their own religion. What the ritual was, meant, and so forth
within Buddhism is unchanged. How individuals borrowing some element of Buddhism threatens Buddhism is beyond me.
And no, he did not explain where it came from, but rather what it meant.
Who would you include among your contemporaries that I can look up in Google Scholar?
What would you like specifically- stuff on conflict theory, cognition and meaning, etc.? Stuff on ritual itself will be a hodge-podge, as you're going to find people operating out of a wide range of theoretical foundations.
I am primarily interested in (and operate out of) conflict theory, postmodernism, Marxism and other theories that accommodate the conflict, diversity and so forth that I see in my own society (which is also my geographic study area).
I looked at James' "Varieties of Religious Experience" and found very little on the subject of ritual. One might get the impression that they are unrelated.
How is ritual unrelated to the experiences of those practicing it?
That reminds me, what ritual was Paul engaged in when he had an experience on his way to Damascus?
All religious/spiritual experience is not related to ritual. I fail to see the point. Help, please.
A "Do it Yourself" approach to religion is outside the parameters of organized religion (Beckford &Walliss, 2006) . That's why a "Do it yourself" approach has an arbitrary quality to it. It is fundamentally different from magico-religious institutions that are said to have "deep structures" which endure over time.
These deep structures, however, say nothing of the conflict, changes, and diversity that occurs in actual practitioners. Again, the ideal vs. the real.
And as I personally am not a pracitioner that is within a particular "organized" religion but rather a mystic that draws from several religions, I suppose you could say I'm a fan of the DIY approach if one is serious about it. It may be "arbitrary" but within it, I am free. I value my liberty and my capacity to reflect on my own experience and studies, and to decide for myself if a particular concept, practice, and so on is beneficial.
Liturgical practices last hundreds of years without any substantive changes. Having people plug in their own images and concepts into existing ritual is to collapse the distinction between private experience and formal/public enactment of commitment to conventions and beliefs and the interests of the community.
That's an interesting idea, but I still fail to see how borrowing elements from a tradition threatens the integrity of a ritual
within that tradition.
Presumably, the Buddhists were following the ritual exactly and understood its meaning (at least they would, according to your views on collective identity and unchanging meaning) so... what difference does it make what I thought as a Druid? Or my aunt as a New Thought person? Or her husband as a Jew? Is there some magical way that my changes within my own head to this ritual affect the Buddhists and Buddhism in general? How does my visualizing Christ rather than Amitabha Buddha affect Buddhists?
It just all seems rather illogical to me.
Well, of course, but differences in their reactions don't necessarily affect the rituals themselves.
And how does the differences in visualization and so forth
in my own head affect the Buddhists' ritual itself?
Religious ritual is not supposed to be creative and open-ended.
That depends on the religion. Ritual in many Pagan traditions and quite a few indigenous traditions is supposed to be creative and open-ended.
