My first encounter with 'world religions' was in a grade eleven high school classroom. The course was entitled 'Politics, Sociology, and World Religions', which is enormous ground to cover in the period of one semester, but we attempted to do so nevertheless. Despite Masuzawa's observations that the concept of 'world religions' is rarely defined and often the term is taken for granted (11), my high school teacher had indeed found a working definition for her purposes. When we came to the 'world religions' section of the course, the teacher informed us that there were several 'major world religions' and that one could distinguish a 'world religion' because it had certain defining characteristics, such as having a sacred text, having a written history, having a certain number of adherents, etc, etc. Unfortunately, I eventually threw out my grade eleven religion notes. I'm sure they would be particularly illuminating considering the topic of discussion for this class.

It is through this high school class that I first came into contact with Baha'i. Our final assignment was to choose a religion not included in our 'major seven world religions' and to research it. I find it particularly interesting that this 'minor' religion (as it would have been classified in my high school class) now often finds its place in the table of contents in many 'world religions' textbooks that are produced today. It would be interesting to track the development of a religion as it makes its journey from being minor to major. What qualifying features did Baha'i have to acquire or promote in order to be included among the elite?

This scenario raises that question of how one ought to approach the teaching of religions. The point Masuzawa makes is extremely compelling. The term 'world religion' is somewhat undefined and has a imperialist connotation even as it exists today. I have not yet reached the end of Masuzawa's book but I am particularly interested in his observations near the end of the book, after he has provided us with adequate history behind the term 'world religions'. Although he alludes to the fact that he is not setting out to make suggestions as to how religious studies should be taught (10), it is hard to deny that the issues he raises makes one think about one's own educational experience and how it might have been different. Would the feeling of being unfulfilled that led me to study religion at a university level have been so prevalent if religious studies had been presented in a different way back in grade eleven? Have the set categories of 'world religions' influenced my own religious identity? Have I been conditioned to believe that I belong to a certain religious category and, by default, that I belong to a larger family of world religions which share many of the same attributes? Has my somewhat inexplicable optimism about how humanity shares something of a common religious orientation (albeit in a very broad sense of the word 'religion') been founded on the concept of what Masuzawa calls "the pluralist doctrine"? (13). Years later I wonder how the Baha'i girl who sat in front of me in grade eleven religion class was affected by the fact that her religion had not yet graduated to the accepted list of 'major world religions' even though it possessed several of the required qualifications.

I find these questions particularly pressing when I read Van Voorst's article on "Eastern Scripture among the World's Religions". Van Voorst attempts to guide the reader through the study of scripture as it relates to the study of religion. As Frances pointed out in her questions about this week's readings, Van Voorst seems to be suggesting that his method of studying scripture and religion has improved on earlier attempts by others and is indeed the best way to go about it. There is a definite feeling of progress implied in Van Voorst's writing, especially on pages 2 and 3 when he briefly describes the way other scholars have approached text and religion. His discussion culminates with an optimism that religious scholars have finally found the proper way to study scripture, suggesting that since we can now discover a text's "actual usage" (3), our understanding of religion will be so much more fruitful. This seems somewhat reminiscent of a nineteenth century view of the world, in that we are steadily progressing into a better society/world. Indeed Masuzawa points out on page 12 that some of the earliest treatments of world religions were attempts to show that religion progressed from 'primitive' states to higher forms in Christianity and in science. Although it does not appear that Van Voorst is attempting to show that one religion is higher on the evolutionary tract than another, it is interesting to note that the evolutionary tendencies are still apparent in modern writings about religion.
It is also interesting to note that Van Voorst tends to separate his religions into Eastern and Western, as though it is possible to study Eastern scripture as something fundamentally different from Western scripture. Indeed, Van Voorst finds it necessary to write an article so that one may differentiate between the two.

The idea that a new way of studying religion and scripture will allow us to study the texts as they are 'actually used', seems somewhat of an optimistic proposal. I am not sure if even people within religious traditions know exactly how their scripture is used. If we attempt to define and categorize how a text is used by a certain group of people, does it automatically become artificial and stagnant? By defining its use, are we encouraging the people who use the text to fit into our prescribed categories? How much does a religious community's identity rely on how other people categorize them? It seems that humans are often extremely interested in how other humans live - especially the ways in which we differ from each other. It was mentioned in one of my other classes that one of the things that makes a human human (as opposed to artificial intelligence) is the ability to categorize information as it is received. Indeed, it appears as though categorization is one of the fundamental ways in which humans attempt to understand the world and each other. It is, therefore, not a far stretch to imagine a burgeoning scholarship and the overwhelming feeling of needing to organize information into manageable pieces. It is perhaps still imaginable that such categories have permeated the scholarship so much that one often does not think twice when using them. Such appears to be the case in Var Voorst's article: the paradigms of East/West and progression have not yet been replaced with new categories, and perhaps it is not in Van Voorst's interest to do away with such categories. For him, the categorization allows him to feel like he has a handle on the material and he is able to guide others in their attempt at tackling the same material. Such may be the case in the presentation of religious studies. It suits most of us just fine to use the categories that have been passed on to us and it does not seem likely that the trend of categorization is approaching its end.