God-ness Gracious Me!!

In “Marriage of Cadmus and Harmony” Roberto Calasso retells and reinterprets the tales of Greek Mythology? the deeds of the Gods and Heroes as apprehended by the imaginations and recorded in the literature of the Ancient (and classical) Greeks. The pantheon of the Olympians; which succeeded the pantheon of the Titans; which succeeded the pantheon of chaos. Zeus usurps the throne of Chronos, who in turn had usurped the throne of Uranus. Then in the closing years of the Roman Empire the anointed one usurped the throne of Zeus. The God of Mount Sinai replaced the Gods of Olympus.

What do these divinities have in common? What similarity is there between Kristos Pantocrator and the Mighty Thunderer? Is there any similarity at all? This question is deceptively simple to answer. One part of the deception is wrought by the faith one might or might not have in either of these illustrious personages. The other part of the deception is brought on by the bewitchment of words. The theogonic terms in use most often tend to be attributive instead of definitive. In part the second deception is a derivative of the first one. Descriptions of divinities are often in the forms of faith generated praises that enumerate and or extol the qualities of divinity. It is considered presumptuous and irreverent to try to examine descriptions in terms of the necessary and sufficient features of divinity. Rarely does one attempt to define the idea of God. Rarely does one attempt to build a propositional construct of the form:

Iff A has the features P, Q, R, S,…
then A ≡ God.

The way I see it, the general solution to the above God-equation would be the realm of the Philosophy of Religion. Each religious tradition would have one or more particular solutions to the equation. It is a peculiar feature of the God-equation that the particular solutions to the same equation are deemed mutually ‘heretical’ by many of the religious traditions that developed the particular solution(s). A peculiar feature of the term heretical – which means “a (usually religious) opinion or doctrine (which is) at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine” - is that the etymology of heresy derives from the Greek word hairesis - (the) act of choosing. Inherent in the idea of heresy then is the denial of choice; many particular solutions to the God-equation have navigated a path involving rejection of heresies (other divergent particular solutions) - i.e., suppression of choice.

So what features necessary and sufficient features could we enumerate? One approach would be to list the attributes of the various divinities encountered in a survey of human cultures and use this ‘master list’ to pick the definitive features. In theory, the least common denominator of features should be the super-set of the required necessary and sufficient conditions to define God. Unfortunately this approach is not workable – some of the attributes – especially one’s drawn from different particular solutions tend to be mutually exclusive. Eliminating such mutually exclusive attributes as unnecessary would leave us with too small a set of features. Only two to my mind: immortality and the possession of super-natural powers. But this extremely stripped down version would not suffice – it would lump a whole class of mythical beings as Gods. So the common features of Allah, Zeus, Christ and Anubis – for instance do not yield a working definition of a God.

The other approach, I would call the God/god approach. Since religious traditions can usually be grouped into monotheistic and polytheistic – we might postulate two definitions; one for the monotheistic God and another for the polytheistic gods. As any text on Philosophy of Religion would declaim, God has the following attributes:
1. Simplicity – One and indivisible without parts (though how a Trinitarian God can also be one and indivisible is a question which no Christian has been able to explain to me so I could understand)
2. Omnipotence – condition of all powerful
3. Omniscience – condition of being all knowing, possessing complete knowledge
4. Eternal, everlasting and timeless
5. Immutable – unchanging, absolute
6. Perfectly Good and incapable of Sin

This arrangement might seem satisfactory for it is plain that the Olympian divinities do not possess these attributes. But this cannot be generalized to all polytheistic religions. The extravagantly polytheistic Hindu family of religions has several deities who are said to possess these attributes. The mighty Triad – the Trimurti for instance, as well as the Devi the Mother Goddess. The classificatory approach also seems to be headed nowhere.

Peculiar problems are posed by the abstract ‘deities’ (if they can even be called deities) of the Indic tradition. How can the eternal Dharmakaya or the ineffable Brahman be characterized on the above scale. A definition by generating the necessary and sufficient features or conditions of God-ness is unworkable for conceptions of Deity that are by definition unconditioned and atrributeless.

The only feasible definition then is one based on human response, a God is a being possessed with supernatural powers or attributes, and is believed in and worshiped by a people. To rephrase as a propositional construct:

An entity is a God if and only if it
is a being
is possessed with supernatural powers or attributes
is believed in by a people and
is worshipped by the people who believe in it.

I am not too happy with this definition – I mean if David Copperfield were to be believed in and worshipped by a people he would be a God?

Cooking the World


"Cooking the World" by Charles Malamoud – is a collection of essays by the French scholar on Ritual and Thought in Ancient India. The book is part of a series titled French Studies in South Asian Culture published by the Oxford University Press, New Delhi. David White has translated from the original French.

At about 350 off pages (including extensive notes) it is not a big fat tome even though it has 15 essays. But each essay is packed with researches with startlingly original viewpoints, and explicated with detailed references to both original Vedic texts and interpretations of other scholars. Most importantly, Malamoud's researches are detailed and factual. He is not a starry eyed Indologist dazzled by the exotic mysticism of Indian religions nor is he a Victorian prude whose only aim in studying scripture of other religions is to belittle and disparage them. Nor is he an ideologue of science scoffing at all that is outside the purview of inducto-deductive investigation (a coinage I am resorting to because of the baggage associated with the term 'scientific method').

The title Malamoud has chosen for the work - "Cooking the World" itself indicates his desire to probe beyond the conventional 'meanings' of Sanskrit words. This is a specific problem for interpreting Sanskrit words because their etymological descendants in modern Indian languages have often coalesced around a one or few out of a range of meanings ascribed to the Sanskrit original. This can at times misguide the Indologist (Indian as well as foreigner) who does not take the pains to refer back to the numerous original Vedic scriptures where the word is used to deduce the closest meaning(s) through an appreciative interpretation of their contexts.

The term in question here is Lokapakti - which is stated in the Śatapatha Brāhmana as one of the duties enjoined on the Brahmin. Both the words in the above compound lend to different meanings. The first term Lok, which can mean ‘world’ as well as its denizens i.e. ‘people’, is the less problematic of the two. The second term pakti (a verbal noun) deriving from the root pak has cooking or ‘to cook’ as its primary (and literal meaning). But the term is also used to mean maturation, ripening or perfecting – and the modern Hindi pakka more often employed in the later senses. And most if not all translators seem to prefer the later. Malamoud however expounds on the role of Brahmins as officiators in sacrifice (yajña) which, he explains with numerous references, involves offering of cooked oblations, and is in itself a ‘cooking’ process since the oblations are offered into the sacrificial fire. Thus a literal interpretation of the term Lokapakti defines and describes the role and function of a Brahmin as a cooker of the world through sacrifice (yajña). And since the sacrifice was the sum, substance and structure of almost all Vedic thought and ritual, this becomes an apt and enlightening title for the book.

The book is a rich and learned work and, along with being a useful sourcebook, its detailed bibliography is an excellent pointer for further detailed readings.

Fear of God . . .

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." (Prov. 1:7). A fellow blogger on another blog I write on happened to mention this quote from the Holy Bible.

I have heard this phrase before. Perhaps, in the context in which it is quoted it means something different - but as a standalone statement (which it should be given that it is a 'proverb') I find its apparent meaning very distasteful.

Of course, I approach the statement with an inherent theistic assumption. Hang on, let me qualify that - given that 'theistic' most commonly tends to get interpreted in reference to the context of the Abrahmic deity. So I should perhaps say 'deitiestic' assumption - meaning a generic assumption of the existence of deities, (Zeus or Amaterasu as much as Yahweh or Shiva).

Depending upon the particular translation Prov. 1:7 is also sometimes quoted as "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge." Makes me wonder what the original Hebrew word was and what it meant. But it makes me think of the Sanskrit word Jnana. Which is also translated as both knowledge or wisdom. In either case, it is not the knowledge part but the 'Fear' part of statement that I find distasteful; unless that too has been mistranslated and the original Hebrew word means something different.

It is difficult to envisage 'fear' being a vehicle of knowledge acquisition. Perception, cognition, cogitation, intuition - the common modes of acquisition of knowledge are not principally triggered by fear. While one could argue that the adrenaline surge triggered by fear may enhance mental activity in these spheres leading to heightened acquisition of knowledge, that would still be only a 'side' effect of fear. We know more efficient ways of acquiring knowledge.

The only way this makes sense is to think of knowledge / wisdom as one of the result of the 'life morally lived'; 'fear' of God being the stick that makes people live the moral life. And yet, this may not always be the case. There would be many simpletons who live morally enough and fear God mortally enough and yet seem to possess little knowledge and / or wisdom.

Perhaps the whole problem is that I am the 'outsider' approaching a Biblical statement. may be it would be simpler to just ask a Christian and see if his/her response makes any sense.

On the Nature of Deity

Almost every human culture on the planet has developed ideas of the spiritual and coalesced these into some form of religion. In India, the family of religions called Hinduism has evolved by braiding together threads from many sources some stretching back to the hoary past. Certain current beliefs and practices can be traced back with fair certainty to as far back as 2500-2000 BCE.

Hinduism as we know it today seems to have evolved out of the synthesis of the ancient Vedic faith of the Aryans, intermingling with the beliefs of the Harappans, Dravidans and other cultures extant in India prior to the arrival of the Aryans. Owing to this syncretic beginning, Hinduism has developed an inherent capacity for diversification without schism; a capacity to withstand, accommodate and ultimately absorb alien modes of thought – just add another thread to the braid. It is said that no religious idea in India ever dies or is annulled — it is merely combined with the new ideas and concepts arising from internal change and external infusion. As a result Hinduism today includes a great variety of often contradictory beliefs, doctrines, cults, religious practices and rituals. A Hindu, however, is not bothered by the apparent tension between these various ‘sets’ of beliefs and can operate comfortably and sincerely in more than one of these seemingly irreconcilable frameworks without feelings of anxiety. This can be extremely confusing to non-Hindus.

Partly owing to its multiple roots, Hinduism has neither a beginning or founder, nor a central authority, hierarchy, or organization. It has no prophets, no set creeds or dogma. It’s evolution has been both synthetic and syncretic, and it is more commonly described as ‘the way of life’ of the people of India, the Hindus, than as a religion. A very significant consequence of this syncretic braiding is are multifarious concepts of Deity encountered.

Hinduism can be more accurately described as a ‘mutually tolerant confederation of religions’ each having its own Deit(y/ies), rather than a single faith. These Deities, Gods and Goddesses, together constitute a rather large pantheon. In every day routine Hinduism is frankly polytheistic and practices idol worship opulently. The belief that there are infinite deities is expressed in Hindu scriptures where the number is given sometimes as 33, sometimes as 33,333 and sometimes as 33 crores (330 million). Hinduism’s tradition of tolerance and assimilation is largely responsible for this rather over-populated Hindu heaven. Along with assimilating foreign ideas, Hinduism has also added foreign deities to its pantheon. Historians believe, that local indigenous and aboriginal deities of pre-Aryan India were Aryanised and admitted to the Hindu pantheon, as aspects or avatars of the Great pan-Hindu Gods, as the Aryans spread across the country.

This vast pantheon, verily Hinduism’s tolerance itself, is made possible by a seminal idea that the philosopher of religion, Ninian Smart, describes as ‘trans-polytheism’. Hinduism believes in the ‘Brahman’ the single eternal absolute impersonal supreme reality, the primal source and ultimate goal of all existence, which is attribute-less and beyond all literal expression and comprehension. This super-abstraction of Deity is encountered in other religions of Indic origin as well – notably Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism.

The Gods and Goddesses of the Hindu pantheon are seen as manifestations of the Brahman; a form of mythical and spiritual symbolism. The concept of the Brahman makes it possible for a Hindu to believe in one or more or all of atheism, non-theism, monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, henotheism, and any other -ism he can imagine. The core of religion does not depend on the existence or non-existence of God or on whether there is one god or many. Because religious truth is said to transcend all verbal definition, it is not conceived in dogmatic terms. Moreover, the tendency of Hindus to distinguish themselves from others on the basis of practice (orthopraxy) rather than doctrine (orthodoxy) further de-emphasizes doctrinal differences. It is a paradox to see such a high degree of freedom of religious thought in a religion that otherwise adheres to such rigid (at times even repressive) social and ritual traditions.

Popular Hinduism is polytheistic. We have many Gods and Goddesses. These are believed to be manifestations of the attributeless (Nir-guna, no-qualities) Brahman. Idols of these Gods and Goddesses are worshipped ritually in temples, big and small. Most Hindu homes have a separate ‘mini-temple’ if not a separate temple-room, where small stone or metal idols and pictures of the family’s Gods and Goddesses are placed and worshipped daily. The Sanskrit word for an idol is ‘murti’ - ‘that which shows the form’. A ‘murti’ of the Deity, thus depicts the form of the Deity, its various aspects depicted symbolically. Linking the abstract attributeless Nirguna Brahman to the ‘murti’ of the village Goddess is the step-wise process of de-abstraction (vigraha). This entire spectrum is what essentially constitutes the ‘concept of Deity’ in Hinduism.

At one end of the spectrum is the Nirguna Brahman is abstract, absolute, attributeless, impersonal. Personality is a limitation. The Nirguna Brahman is devoid of personality and hence of gender. Hindu scriptures often refer to the Nirguna Brahman using the neuter Sanskrit pronoun ‘tat’ – its rough English counterpart being ‘That’. The Nirguna Brahman transcends space, hence is Infinite. It transcends time, hence is Eternal, it is not muted by causation hence It is changeless and absolute. An attribute or a quality is a factor of separation, the Brahman is One and Indivisible, One without a Second, hence It is attributeless, free from all qualities. The Brahman cannot be described by our words and or comprehended by our thoughts. Vedic statements averring to the Brahman as ‘Sat-Chid-Anandam’ (Ultimate Reality, Pure Consciousness, Perfect Bliss), are seen as mere ‘hints’ about the nature of the Brahman.

When we think of the Brahman in human terms we attribute to It a human like personality, project on It human characteristics, human emotions. The veil of space, time and causation through which we look at the Nirguna Brahman causes us to experience It as the Brahman with qualities (Saguna Brahman), as Eeshwara (Lord). Eeshwara is the personal God. The creator of the Universe, Eeshwara is omnipotent, omniscient and all pervading. Frequently, Eeshwara is described in pantheistic terms. The Universe is part of Eeshwara, and Eeshwara is ‘immanent’ in the universe, in every atom there is. It is this concept of Eeshwara, the de-abstracted personalised Brahman, which is similar to the idea of the Deity of the monotheistic religions (Yahweh, God, Allah).

Hinduism interprets the cosmos in cyclical terms. The Universe is created, sustained and dissolved repeatedly in infinite cycles. The aspects of Eeshwara that are associated with the functions or roles of Creation, Preservation and Dissolution, are the Hindu Trinity – Trimurti. These three great Gods are Brahma or Brahmadev, the Creator (not to be confused with the impersonal Brahman), Vishnu, the sustainer, the preserver, and Shiva, the destroyer. Each of these great Gods, has a consort, His ‘shakti’ or power. The consort of Brahma the creator, is Saraswati, the Goddess of knowledge, learning, speech, music and art. The consort of Vishnu, the preserver, is Lakshmi, the Goddess of wealth, prosperity, abundance. The consort of Shiva, the destroyer is the Parvati, the Goddess who personifies cosmic energy, the ‘Mother Goddess’. Shiva has two sons Ganesha, the elephant headed Lord of Wisdom, arts and crafts, remover of obstacles; and Skanda, the Warlord. All of these deities are worshipped. The old Vedic deities representing the forces of nature, (Indra, Varuna, Agni, Vayu, etc) are the ‘lesser’ Gods of the Hindu pantheon. An important part of the Hindu pantheon is the avatars, incarnations of the Great Gods, particularly of Vishnu. As the preserver of the Universe, Lord Vishnu incarnates upon the earth to protect the good, to vanquish the wicked and to uphold the cosmic order. Two of the most popular incarnations of Vishnu are Lord Rama and Lord Krishna. Numerous local deities in various parts of India are identified with one of these great pan-Hindu Gods. This process of Sanskritisation – the transformation of local & regional Deities into avatars or aspects of the Great Gods was part of the syncretisation that evolved Hinduism from the confluence of the Aryan and pre-Aryan treads.

The chain of de-abstraction spans from Nirguna Brahman, to Eeshwara, to the Great Gods, to the lesser Gods, to the local deities. The central idea is that each individual needs to adopt a spiritual practice depending upon his or her intellectual, emotional and spiritual capacity, and gradually progress to increasingly abstract ideas. It is not uncommon for a Hindu's spiritual practice to include more than one of these ‘levels’. A Hindu may start the day by worshipping the Great Gods in the shrine in his house, pray to the local deity in the temple dedicated to it on his way to work, and in the evening spend his time meditating, contemplating upon the abstract Brahman.

A rough parallel of such syncretism in other cultures, by way example, could be the mixed practices of the Hebrews settled in Canaan in the eighth and ninth centuries BCE where most tended to ‘worship’ both the abstract Yahweh and the de-abstracted local Canaanite Baal – a practice that was strongly denounced and on occasions brutally repressed by the Old Testament prophets.

That such a range of concepts of deity can exist within a unified religious super-structure is one of the strengths of Hinduism.