Who verily knows and who can declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows it not !?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows it not !?
- Rig Veda Mandala 10/Hymn 129
An aspect of Hindu culture that surprises independent observers considerably is the immense menagerie of deities that appears to occupy pride of place in its devotional practices. In no other system of devotional belief does such a large number of gods and goddesses arise. The Vedas are generally cited as the scriptural authority for the existence of all these deities, and the usual explanation attached to their origin is animistic in nature. That is to say, scholars suggest that the early Aryans, like most other nomadic tribes of the time, worshiped natural objects and phenomena as a means to derive predictive power and control over them.
Unfortunately, while this interpretation may possibly be correct as an explanation for the historio-cultural origin of Indian deities, it fails to take into account the subsequent development of the pantheistic monism that underlies Vedanta. Modern day Hindus, therefore, are left facing a piquant predicament: they must reconcile the existence of millions of gods and demons in their religious culture with the triune Unity of Sat-Chit-Ananda that is proclaimed to be the ultimate origin of all that exists. Since the latter concept arises at a later date and appears to be more comprehensive in its understanding of reality, the question Hindus have to answer is, `In what context do we understand our vast array of deities without appearing to be fruitcakes?' Given the unspoken stigma attached to polytheism in Semitic traditions, it may be mildly socially beneficial also to understand the philosophical roots of the polytheism of our culture.
My exegesis here begins from and draws centrally upon an examination of the last two tristubhs of the Nasadiya Sukta (quoted above). The rishi who has composed this hymn suggests that it is not feasible to ask the question `What came before creation?', since the very possibility of fragmented sentience arose after it had come into being. Crucially, the phrase, `The gods are later than this world's production' is best understood by empathizing with the pantheistic solipsism of this rishi's mind - the entire universe is considered here to arise, and to have no existence other than, as a thought of the underlying Creator. I suggest that the `gods' referenced in this phrase can best be understood as occupying the same metaphysical universe as Platonic ideals.
What, you ask me, are Platonic ideals? Platonic Idealism is the school of philosophy that emerges from Plato's theory of Forms. Here, Plato suggests that there exists a realm of ideas that has absolute reality. The reality the human mind perceives is a consequence of the human consciousness' projection of ideal objects into the observer's perception. Thus, when an observer imagines/draws/sees a `circle', he is merely instantiating the Platonic ideal `circle' in his own consciousness. The observer's perception of a `rock' is simply an imperfect reflection of the ideal `rock'. Should you, gentle reader, choose to, at this point, yawn and exclaim, `Boring!', I urge you to consider that Platonic Idealism is the only philosophical theory that justifies the existence of pure mathematics. In the mathematical realm, this is isomorphic to the statement, `Mathematics is discovered, not created'. Similarly, empirical science relies largely on the belief in the existence of an objectively evaluable set of `truths', a philosophical view that draws largely from the thought of Pythagoras and Plato. Thus, if you are a 21st century scientist or mathematician, Platonic Idealism is what brings you your grant funding. Do not scoff at it!
It is tempting for me to take a detour into the subsequent evolution of Neoplatonism through Plotinus' understanding of Plato, but that is too delicious a subject for me to refer to in passing. Suffice it to say that Neoplatonism is the Greek advaita, leading to mystic movements such as Gnosticism and indirectly, Sufism. Having described Platonic idealism and established that it is not a metaphysical premise to be taken lightly, let us continue with our examination of Hindu gods as inhabitants of Plato's world of Ideas.
I will not dwell upon trying to prove this hypothesis, primarily because there is no empirical evidence that I can provide that would be deemed sufficient. Had the possibility of finding correspondences between the deities of Indian mythology and abstract concepts in Western philology enthused me, I might have taken up the challenge. However, our hypothesis does not claim such a correspondence, it claims that these entities belong to the same metaphysical `class' of entities. Thus, our hypothesis suggests that while there may not exist a deity of gravitation in the Indian ethos, the physicist's conception of a `law' of gravity is metaphysically equivalent to belief in the existence of a deity. Conversely, while there is no unanimity among Western philosophers over the existence of qualia, the Indian conception of a deity of sensual desire is essentially a universalized formulation of the corresponding quale. Since there is no objective way of analyzing whether people actually `feel equivalently' about an entity, there is no objective way for me to prove this hypothesis. Readers will have to use their own subjective understanding deployed upon subjective anecdotal evidence to verify this (ignoring, if they can, the empiricists' anguished screams of horror).
If we grant this hypothesis validity, the statement, `The gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it came into being?' makes perfect sense. All it is saying is that all representational structures (ideas) arose after the origin of the Cosmos. None of them, therefore, can be projected into individual consciousness to perceive the Cosmos as it was before these ideas came into existence. There is a much deeper story here and has to do with the manner in which the universe comes into existence, but that must await another day to be told. (Yes, I know about Planck time. As I said, I do not wish to bring it up here and treat it partially.)
`Are our esteemed deities simply triangles and trees then?', the perplexed Hindu might ask. The answer is an unqualified `Yes', much as it might upset some cultural and aesthetic sensibilities. What about all the gods and deities that appear in visions to devotees and instruct them in all kinds of activities? Auto-suggestion and self-hypnosis. Christian mystics have seen Jesus, Sufis never see anybody, Pastafarians claim to be touched by `His' noodly appendages (how dare you mock our faith!). Are there separate departments in the supernatural world for every religious group's mystics? Or is it simpler to understand that extreme devotional fervor causes the devotee's consciousness to instantiate objects of affection and devotion with increased realism?
This does not, of course, mean that gods are not real. In fact, this proves that they are. Is a circle real? Is loneliness real? Long after you and I are dead, children will still be drawing circles with compasses. So long as consciousness remains in the Universe, there will be loneliness also. In Plato's vision, the world of the gods was absolutely real; human reality was merely a persistent illusion. In the Vedantic tradition, neither the world of ideas, nor the world of projected images is absolutely real, but since they are all projections of the thought of Sat-Chit-Ananda, they are not unreal either.
Thus, we arrive at an understanding that Hindu gods and deities are simply representations of ideas - that is the entire span of their ontology, no more, no less. Does that mean that the `concept' Ganesha has no more social value than the concept `runny nose'? Not necessarily. There must also be addressed the question of the value of the associated mythology.
One may think of Indian deities and their associated mythologies as art composed over centuries of civilization. Like all good poetry, they draw upon the life experiences of many. Like all good music, it is those fragments of it which speaks of happy endings and tenets of moral behavior that are passed on down the ages over fire-lit evenings of communal revelry. In the process of transmission over generations, they thus attract and become repositories of cultural universals. With the invention of writing, fluid adaptive oral transmission was replaced by frozen written replicas that survived for generations. The poetry became ossified in the spirit of the Middle Ages and is now a relic of those days. Hence it is anachronistic now, and is justly held to be thus by all rational people.
We can see though that Ganesha has more social value than a runny nose, simply because more people find Ganesha to be relevant than runny noses (when they don't have a cold, that is). Ganesha is a cultural artifact that binds a people together in the knowledge of a shared heritage, an extremely valuable object for the stability and integrity of a community. Does the concept of Ganesha, which holds value for a small section of the world's population, have as much value as more universal entities like abstract mathematics and van Gogh's sadness? Probably not. In the case of the specific example below, almost certainly not! While we must be careful not to trivialize the importance of religious tokens, efforts to exaggerate them must also be avoided.
In conclusion, I hope that those who find this conclusion meaningful will be able to understand Hindu rituals and mythology in a more rational and integral context. When a bald-headed priest offers up incantations to an elephant-headed deity, it is possible to see ignorance and superstition. It is also possible, at that moment, to think of the Platonic ideal that deity seeks to project (in this case, `new beginnings') and the cultural detritus the deity's cultural identity tows in its wake and to find value in that reminder.
Unfortunately, while this interpretation may possibly be correct as an explanation for the historio-cultural origin of Indian deities, it fails to take into account the subsequent development of the pantheistic monism that underlies Vedanta. Modern day Hindus, therefore, are left facing a piquant predicament: they must reconcile the existence of millions of gods and demons in their religious culture with the triune Unity of Sat-Chit-Ananda that is proclaimed to be the ultimate origin of all that exists. Since the latter concept arises at a later date and appears to be more comprehensive in its understanding of reality, the question Hindus have to answer is, `In what context do we understand our vast array of deities without appearing to be fruitcakes?' Given the unspoken stigma attached to polytheism in Semitic traditions, it may be mildly socially beneficial also to understand the philosophical roots of the polytheism of our culture.
My exegesis here begins from and draws centrally upon an examination of the last two tristubhs of the Nasadiya Sukta (quoted above). The rishi who has composed this hymn suggests that it is not feasible to ask the question `What came before creation?', since the very possibility of fragmented sentience arose after it had come into being. Crucially, the phrase, `The gods are later than this world's production' is best understood by empathizing with the pantheistic solipsism of this rishi's mind - the entire universe is considered here to arise, and to have no existence other than, as a thought of the underlying Creator. I suggest that the `gods' referenced in this phrase can best be understood as occupying the same metaphysical universe as Platonic ideals.
What, you ask me, are Platonic ideals? Platonic Idealism is the school of philosophy that emerges from Plato's theory of Forms. Here, Plato suggests that there exists a realm of ideas that has absolute reality. The reality the human mind perceives is a consequence of the human consciousness' projection of ideal objects into the observer's perception. Thus, when an observer imagines/draws/sees a `circle', he is merely instantiating the Platonic ideal `circle' in his own consciousness. The observer's perception of a `rock' is simply an imperfect reflection of the ideal `rock'. Should you, gentle reader, choose to, at this point, yawn and exclaim, `Boring!', I urge you to consider that Platonic Idealism is the only philosophical theory that justifies the existence of pure mathematics. In the mathematical realm, this is isomorphic to the statement, `Mathematics is discovered, not created'. Similarly, empirical science relies largely on the belief in the existence of an objectively evaluable set of `truths', a philosophical view that draws largely from the thought of Pythagoras and Plato. Thus, if you are a 21st century scientist or mathematician, Platonic Idealism is what brings you your grant funding. Do not scoff at it!
It is tempting for me to take a detour into the subsequent evolution of Neoplatonism through Plotinus' understanding of Plato, but that is too delicious a subject for me to refer to in passing. Suffice it to say that Neoplatonism is the Greek advaita, leading to mystic movements such as Gnosticism and indirectly, Sufism. Having described Platonic idealism and established that it is not a metaphysical premise to be taken lightly, let us continue with our examination of Hindu gods as inhabitants of Plato's world of Ideas.
I will not dwell upon trying to prove this hypothesis, primarily because there is no empirical evidence that I can provide that would be deemed sufficient. Had the possibility of finding correspondences between the deities of Indian mythology and abstract concepts in Western philology enthused me, I might have taken up the challenge. However, our hypothesis does not claim such a correspondence, it claims that these entities belong to the same metaphysical `class' of entities. Thus, our hypothesis suggests that while there may not exist a deity of gravitation in the Indian ethos, the physicist's conception of a `law' of gravity is metaphysically equivalent to belief in the existence of a deity. Conversely, while there is no unanimity among Western philosophers over the existence of qualia, the Indian conception of a deity of sensual desire is essentially a universalized formulation of the corresponding quale. Since there is no objective way of analyzing whether people actually `feel equivalently' about an entity, there is no objective way for me to prove this hypothesis. Readers will have to use their own subjective understanding deployed upon subjective anecdotal evidence to verify this (ignoring, if they can, the empiricists' anguished screams of horror).
If we grant this hypothesis validity, the statement, `The gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it came into being?' makes perfect sense. All it is saying is that all representational structures (ideas) arose after the origin of the Cosmos. None of them, therefore, can be projected into individual consciousness to perceive the Cosmos as it was before these ideas came into existence. There is a much deeper story here and has to do with the manner in which the universe comes into existence, but that must await another day to be told. (Yes, I know about Planck time. As I said, I do not wish to bring it up here and treat it partially.)
`Are our esteemed deities simply triangles and trees then?', the perplexed Hindu might ask. The answer is an unqualified `Yes', much as it might upset some cultural and aesthetic sensibilities. What about all the gods and deities that appear in visions to devotees and instruct them in all kinds of activities? Auto-suggestion and self-hypnosis. Christian mystics have seen Jesus, Sufis never see anybody, Pastafarians claim to be touched by `His' noodly appendages (how dare you mock our faith!). Are there separate departments in the supernatural world for every religious group's mystics? Or is it simpler to understand that extreme devotional fervor causes the devotee's consciousness to instantiate objects of affection and devotion with increased realism?
This does not, of course, mean that gods are not real. In fact, this proves that they are. Is a circle real? Is loneliness real? Long after you and I are dead, children will still be drawing circles with compasses. So long as consciousness remains in the Universe, there will be loneliness also. In Plato's vision, the world of the gods was absolutely real; human reality was merely a persistent illusion. In the Vedantic tradition, neither the world of ideas, nor the world of projected images is absolutely real, but since they are all projections of the thought of Sat-Chit-Ananda, they are not unreal either.
`That which is awake in those that sleep is a God seeking to realize Itself in Itself'
Thus, we arrive at an understanding that Hindu gods and deities are simply representations of ideas - that is the entire span of their ontology, no more, no less. Does that mean that the `concept' Ganesha has no more social value than the concept `runny nose'? Not necessarily. There must also be addressed the question of the value of the associated mythology.
One may think of Indian deities and their associated mythologies as art composed over centuries of civilization. Like all good poetry, they draw upon the life experiences of many. Like all good music, it is those fragments of it which speaks of happy endings and tenets of moral behavior that are passed on down the ages over fire-lit evenings of communal revelry. In the process of transmission over generations, they thus attract and become repositories of cultural universals. With the invention of writing, fluid adaptive oral transmission was replaced by frozen written replicas that survived for generations. The poetry became ossified in the spirit of the Middle Ages and is now a relic of those days. Hence it is anachronistic now, and is justly held to be thus by all rational people.
We can see though that Ganesha has more social value than a runny nose, simply because more people find Ganesha to be relevant than runny noses (when they don't have a cold, that is). Ganesha is a cultural artifact that binds a people together in the knowledge of a shared heritage, an extremely valuable object for the stability and integrity of a community. Does the concept of Ganesha, which holds value for a small section of the world's population, have as much value as more universal entities like abstract mathematics and van Gogh's sadness? Probably not. In the case of the specific example below, almost certainly not! While we must be careful not to trivialize the importance of religious tokens, efforts to exaggerate them must also be avoided.
In conclusion, I hope that those who find this conclusion meaningful will be able to understand Hindu rituals and mythology in a more rational and integral context. When a bald-headed priest offers up incantations to an elephant-headed deity, it is possible to see ignorance and superstition. It is also possible, at that moment, to think of the Platonic ideal that deity seeks to project (in this case, `new beginnings') and the cultural detritus the deity's cultural identity tows in its wake and to find value in that reminder.
