Beyond Buddhism and animism: A psychometric test of the structure of Burmese Theravada Buddhism

Abstract

Anthropologists and religious scholars have long debated the relationship between doctrinal Theravada Buddhism, so-called ‘animism’, and other folk practices in southeast Asian societies. A variety of models of this relationship have been proposed on the basis of ethnographic evidence. We provide the first psychometric and quantitative evaluation of these competing models, using a new scale developed for this purpose, the Burmese Buddhist Religiosity Scale. Having tested existing hypotheses in our first study (n = 2285) we formulated an alternative model, which was then tested in our second study (n = 3377). We argue that this model provides support for a two-dimensional distinction between great and little traditions, shedding light on decades-old theoretical debates. Far from being in conflict, the transnational religious tradition of the literati and the variegated religious practices of locals appear to be reflected in two complementary dimensions of religiosity. This distinction has been heretofore neglected in psychometric research, but arguably merits attention beyond Buddhism, in the psychology of religion more generally. Our findings suggest that, insofar as research on religiosity relies on doctrinal pronouncements denigrating little traditions as mere superstition, it may be blinded to a crucial dimension of religious life.

Cognitive Pathways to Belief in Karma and Belief in God

“…Buddhism is also diverse, and while many traditions do not require or even encourage belief in gods or other supernatural agents, many individual Buddhists do believe that the world is inhabited by a variety of supernatural agents worthy of respect and devotion, and some ascribe to Buddha many of the omniscient, punitive, moralistic traits that characterize gods (Berniūnas et al, 2020; Purzycki & Holland, 2018; Stanford & Jong, 2019). In contrast, karma is typically characterized as the consequences for one's actions that are unrelated to divine intervention (Bronkhorst, 2011; Gowans, 2014; Willard, Baimel, et al, 2020).…”

Why do great and little traditions coexist in the world’s doctrinal religions?

“…The BBRS was developed to detect the dimensional structure of Burmese Buddhism, including aspects of great tradition Theravada as well as little tradition nat worship, astrology, and devotion to weikza. In the event, it showed a two-dimensional, nearly orthogonal structure, with the little tradition loading on one factor, and the great tradition on the other (Stanford & Jong, 2019). Two moral psychology instruments were employed.…”

“…Both the MFQ and MAC-Q were modeled using multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) models with uncorrelated method factors, to account for their use of distinct "judgement" and "relevance" scales (Kenny & Kashy, 1992). Although in addition to the two traditions, the BBRS yields a weak third factor, corresponding to cognitive items (Stanford & Jong, 2019), this was excluded for simplicity. Moreover, while orthogonal measurement models are adequate for the BBRS, great and little tradition factors were here allowed to covary, to reflect their weakly positive relationship.…”

“…According to others, animist beliefs are best understood as part of a single Buddhist cosmology (Brac de la Perrière, 2016). Stanford and Jong (2019) have shown that Burmese Buddhist religiosity exhibits a clear two-dimensional structure using a novel psychometric religiosity instrument. These two dimensions correspond not to Buddhism vs animism, but seem closer to an etic contrast between great and little traditions-the former including practices and beliefs promoted by translocal Theravada institutions, and the latter comprising everything else, from heterodox views of the Buddha, to spirit and wizard devotion.…”

Cognitive pathways to belief in karma and belief in God

“…Buddhism is also diverse, and while many traditions do not require or even encourage belief in gods or other supernatural agents, many individual Buddhists do believe that the world is inhabited by a variety of supernatural agents worthy of respect and devotion, and some ascribe to Buddha many of the omniscient, punitive, moralistic traits that characterize gods (Berniūnas et al, 2020;Purzycki & Holland, 2018;Stanford & Jong, 2019). In contrast, karma is typically characterized as the consequences for one's actions that are unrelated to divine intervention (Bronkhorst, 2011;Gowans, 2014;Willard, Baimel, et al, 2020).…”