Timeless traditions, expressions and symbols
Many cultural and religious practices belonging to ancient civilizations still continue either in their original form or with some modifications. It is extremely difficult to ascertain exactly as to how, why or where some of these practices, rituals and religious symbols had their beginnings? While some people now consider them as of great interest and value, others find them quite trivial. Information in the scriptures (Shastras) and epics is often unclear or incomplete thus adding to the ongoing debate about their true nature and value. Consider for example some of the ancient practices, symbols and incidents along with the likely explanations in the following.
(1) God is one, and humanity is one: Even though God is one, people tend to believe or think otherwise because of the different names and titles. Similarly, although He is considered omnipresent, people still act (worship, pray or seek favor) as if He dwells mainly in the heavens (sky).
All new ideas and movements are basically the offshoots (with slight modifications from time to time) of ancient ideologies, philosophies, theologies, practices and traditions. All different sects portray essentially,
(a) one monotheistic God or Brahman (even though polymorphically as Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Mahesh, Om, Omkar, Savitar, Agni, Supreme-teacher, Supreme-spirit, and so on); and
(b) one humanity (men and women still occupied with the same type of ancient castes or occupations: brahmin, praecher, teacher, administrator, guru, soldier, kshatriya, vaishya, farmer, shudra, worker, and so on).
Note that the great influences of the past on the present systems cannot be overlooked. Consider, in this regard, the contributions of Sri Ramanuja (b. 1027) in India:
"The influence of Ramanuja is visible throughout the later history of Hinduism. The movements of Madhva, Vallabha, Caitanya, Ramananda, Kabir and Nanak, and the reform organizations of Brahmoism are largely indebted to Ramanuja's theistic idealism." (S. Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy,Vol. 2, ISBN 01563820-4, p. 670).
(Incidentally, the followers of Madhva, Caitanya, Kabir and Nanak are also known as Madhvas, Gaudiyas, Kabir-panthis and Sikhs, respectively.)
The customs and traditions in any case are hard for others to understand or appreciate because only the devoted can relate to them according to their faith. A Hindu, for example, thinking that God's power is manifested in the Sun (and Sun is not just any other star, but the life-source to all beings on earth), chants the Gayatri hymn or offers some water every morning in the direction of the Sun as a sign of devotion and gratitude to God (Brahman as Savitar), who, he thinks, is also the abode of the departed souls including his own ancestors'. Similarly, a Sikh devotee or the priest in the Guru Dwara, thinking that the Granth Sahib (the holy Book) is a guru and not just another ordinary book, may wave a hand-fan in front of it to cool it during the day or put it into bed for rest in the night.
Thus the curious invariably think it their right to question such customs on the basis that water can't reach the faraway Sun or a book (albeit a holy one) does not need rest, but the people following such traditions or doing those rituals tend to disagree. Incidentally, this type of inquisitiveness regarding customs and rituals is nothing new, and had even arisen in the past among great personalities like Guru Nanak ji and Sant Kabir ji and perhaps others.
(3) Special terminology in the Ramayana: In some of the ancient texts (e.g. the Ramayana), a viman may just represent (according to old Sanskrit) a cart or a chariot and not necessarily an airplane or sky-craft. Similarly, a pushpak-viman (pushapak meaning flowered) is probably a chariot decorated with flowers. The Ramayana episode of Ravana, who had disguised himself as a holy man before kidnapping Sita from her hut during Rama's absence, suggests that dressing up in a particular way (even holy) is no indication and guaranty of a person's real intentions and noble character (virtue, sacredness and compassion). Furthermore, as Ravana tried to escape and forcibly carry Sita with him in his speedy viman (chariot), Jataayu (probably a big flightless bird -- e.g. emu or ostrich -- belonging to Sita and Rama) tried to save her. It hopped high up in the air and attacked Ravana and his vehicle. This reaction from Jataayu was quite normal because some of the domestic and pet animals and birds (even cows and chickens) are known to be very protective of their property and owners. In any case, Ravana killed the bird before escaping with Sita. Later when Rama returned to his hut, he found Jataayu fatally wounded lying on the ground and Sita missing. He quickly realized what had happened during his absence. Jataayu, even though a bird, thus had done everything (mentioned in the Ramayana) for Sita and Rama -- i.e. attacking Ravana's viman while trying to save Sita, and later Rama learning about the kidnapping through Jataayu's tragic condition. Moreover, the references in the Ramayana to Hanumat or Hanuman appear simply to imply a strong-jawed (or a very strong) person and not necessarily a monkey or a monkey-chief. (4) Ganesha: The deity Ganesha or Ganapati means Lord (Isha, Pati) of the people (Gana). Note that Ganesha depicted as elephant-headed is probably due to its initial arbitrary identification with the similar sounding word ganika (meaning a female elephant). (5) Omnipotent and omniscient god: The meanings of various symbols or titles used to represent divine attributes for the purpose of worship or meditation can be misleading. If a god or deva (meaning friendly and blissful or a superior being) is addressed as chatur-bhuj, it refers to him being skilled-armed (or protector and omnipotent, and not necessarily a human figure with four arms). Similarly, a god as the chatur-mukh indicates a quality as being the skilled orator (or excellent teacher and omniscient, and not necessarily a four-headed figure). (6) Shiv-Linga (Shiv-Lingam): Shiv-Linga (Shiv-Lingam) refers to Shiva, the remover of destruction or loss, which is similar to the preserver (Vishnu or God). Note that the word Li means loss or destruction (becoming Lim or Lin with nasal sound ending during second or object form) and ga (gam) implies removing or going away. Shiv-Linga (Lingam) thus symbolizes God's power (attribute) to extricate others from destruction (loss). (7) Agni, Shiva and Shakti: The symbol ling (used in Hindu and other rituals, and meaning symbol) was likely introduced long ago as a solid image to represent fire (Agni-jwala or flame) in a yajna (worship) seeking prosperity and progeny etc. Lighting a fire (including during worship) used to be a difficult and time-consuming process. Thus the solid image of Agni-jwala (also called Shiva) helped to make worshipping possible anywhere anytime. Practice of smearing the ling with ash also points to its roots in fire worship. Similarly, a number of other dark (ash-colored) deities (gods and goddesses) likely also have their origins in fire worship involving or representing Agni (which is Isvara or Brahman manifested). Shiva and Shakti are probably also the male and female aspects of Agni. Moreover, note that any misinterpretation of the ling being of phallic nature is purely accidental and due perhaps to its deity Shiva's association and importance to regeneration (life). (8) Condition of women: It is a myth that women have always been ignored or exploited. To the contrary, since a long time, women have been empowered to become a valuable part of the society. Consider the following Vedic text on marriage indicating a Hindu woman to rule the household. Here, as a part of prayers to God during a marriage, the following hymn is addressed to the bride (sitting next to the 'groom and in front of others) indicating her future rights as a wife:The above also indicates that during ancient times a number of other issues (problems) and concerns, such as dowry system and gender bias etc., probably were not there.
Note that there should not be any ambiguity regarding the above Rig Vedic text, because the Veda or sruti -- being more ancient and authentic -- supercedes any other reference, e.g. quoted from or including the Puranas, and the smrtis (including the Manu-smrti).
(9) Abraham and his sacrifice of sheep: Life was tough and uncertain long ago. People prayed to God for almost everything. Whenever they could not get a problem fixed, they accepted it as the gods' will. For avoiding potential troubles, they performed elaborate worships that included all types of sacrifices and offerings (flowers, fruit, juice, food, grains, meat, and even flesh). Ignorantly and overcome by utter despair or zeal (to please a deity) perhaps, they might sometimes even offer their children in sacrifice thinking that 'dearer the object of sacrifice (even if a son or a daughter), greater would be the benefits to the sacrificer'. Although this was quite an unfortunate situation regarding the welfare of humans and animals, yet it was difficult to change such dark practices that would require a completely new thinking in the society. Therefore the contribution of an ancient great man (prophet), named Abraham, in this regard -- i.e. successfully dissuading the practice of human sacrifice -- is quite noteworthy. He demonstrated practically through his vision that a human (or a child) in such offerings could be reasonably substituted with another object -- animal (e.g. sheep) etc. Even if not for bettering the animals' lot, this new thinking was a great leap forward for humans, their safety, and the civilization.
(10) Agni priksha (Testing by Fire):
(Added: June 20, 2005)
Was Sita chaste according to the ‘fire test’ or Agni priksha?
Yes. She was chaste and also very loyal to Rama throughout.
As is generally known, Sita was forcibly removed from her cottage by Ravana during Rama’s absence. It became clear to Rama later when he returned and noticed the turmoil in the cottage area and found that Sita's pet bird (Jataayu) had also been killed by Ravana during her kidnapping. Similarly, when Hanumaan first went to Lanka, he noticed (and later narrated the story to Rama) that Ravana held Sita against her will in his prison (harem). Rama probably also realized that Ravana could easily assault her sexually during the forcible confinement. Noting thus Sita’s complete innocence and helplessness in the kidnapping and confinement at the hands of Ravana, Rama decided to mount an attack on Lanka to free her and punish Ravana for his crimes. (Ref: http://www.geocities.com/lamberdar/ramayana.html)
Note that the Agni-priksha (test by or in the presence of fire) does not just mean jumping in the fire and coming out alive if someone is innocent, but taking an oath or setting the record straight about one's innocence in the presence of fire (or yajna). And that's what Rama probably did (asking Sita to give evidence in the presence of fire that she was the innocent victim of Ravana) when people started questioning her and talking about about her stay in Lanka. Sita willingly obliged and everyone was satisfied. It was not the real jumping in the fire or trying to prove whether or not she had sex with Ravana. It was just an oath in the presence of fire indicating complete innocence on her part.
It was a common Vedic practice (including in the Ramayana period) to prove your innocence or even seek forgiveness in the presence of fire (something akin to holding a religious book in your hand these days while giving evidence). Note, for example, the following hymn from the Yajurveda (Ref: http://www.geocities.com/lamberdar/_caste.html):
"O Agni...each fault done in a village or in forest, in society or mind, each sinful act that we have committed to Shudra or Vaishya or by preventing a religious act, even of that sin, you are the expiation..." (Kanda 1, Prapathaka 8, Hymn i.8.3.d)
Ref: http://www.hindunet.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=56866&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1
(11) Turning God into a lame-duck due to preferred messages and paths:
(Added: June 20, 2005)
There is a tendency on the part of religious authorities (gurus, swamis and prophets), supported by various scriptures, to claim that they are the recipients of the Truth (primarily in its final form) from God (or other deity) and that there is nothing more to be Revealed henceforth. This assertion seems to establish the significance and ‘greatness’ of that particular religionist as having received the ‘final’ Word or being as the only way to God.
Unfortunately, such a claim regarding the final message and the ultimate messenger leaves God in do-nothing (lame-duck) position after delivering His ‘final’ sermon or choosing His ultimate (or only) representative. For example, what happens when times change and the people in future need a fresh message or inspiration (the type not available previously) from God to overcome their grief and new problems? Isn’t He left with little choice (totally lame-duckish) according to the earlier claims of ‘final message’ and ‘ultimate messenger’? Thus, is it even appropriate to talk about the final message or the ultimate messenger in relation to God? Same thing applies to the issue involving the only way to God. Shouldn’t the choice (options) of way or ways to God be left with Him rather than a particular representative from the past?
Furthermore, can God have any types of constraints (self-imposed or otherwise) put on Him, even inadvertently, which make Him seem less effective or lose control in favor of others? The answer seems to be ‘No’. Because putting any restrictions or conditions (including the final message, particular messenger, or the only way or person), whether self-imposed by God or predicated by others (to operate under His name), seems to diminish and warp two of His basic attributes of omnipotence and omniscience, and that is unacceptable (theistically speaking). God’s attributes are never supposed to alter (or appear to alter) since He is forever complete. Thus, God, the Omnipotent and the Omniscient, remains capable of delivering His command and judgment with equal effectiveness at all times, and that precludes with respect to Him any restrictions or conditions which even appear to lessen Him.
When there are religious or scriptural limits (such as the “last” message and the “only” path), they take away or reduce God’s ability and independence in delivering the next (after the “last”) message and accepting those from other (not the “only”) paths. This undermines not only the omniscience and omnipotence but also affects the attribute of Constancy (consistency) in God, because He forever is. Note that due to such limits, God appears inconsistent and to change abruptly (half way through the human history) in His approach and capacity (ability) for communicating regularly or dealing independently with the ever-evolving world. This type of a sudden deviation from the original norm undermines God’s omniscience and is also unacceptable according to His constancy. Needless to say, the concepts of the “last” message and the “only” path are therefore not originally from God but appear to have been introduced by humans arbitrarily much later, perhaps even to further their own end, and nothing more.
Incidentally, there is a semantic possibility also of any "latest" (message, path, etc.) being treated later as the 'one' previous or “last”, which over time can be misunderstood or misinterpreted as the “last” raising eventually the possibility of its misrepresentation as the “only”.
Ref: http://www.hindunet.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=56890&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1
------------------------------------
By: Dr. Subhash C. Sharma
Email: [email protected]
Date: Mar. 4, 2004
link to: Related topics by the author