Organizer: Thomas A. Wilson, Hamilton College
Chair and Discussant: Paul B. Courtright, Harvard University
Based on the premise that people define their gods
through ritual practice, these papers examine Vedic, Hindu, Daoist, and Confucian
rituals to consider how gods were constituted through rites that venerated
them. Panelists address such key questions as the active role played by gods
in sacrifice ostensibly intended for them; the ways that ritual narrative serves
to affirm a god’s
divinity through celebratory festival; the legitimation of certain gods over
others in the liturgies of competing religious traditions; and theories of
the post-mortem soul that authorize particular ritual forms necessary to nurture
gods properly. This comparative approach to gods and the rites that define
them seeks to examine common methodological concerns in the study of religious
traditions untouched (or untainted) by Christian theologies that posit a singular
God. This comparative approach also seeks to explore the broad range of theologies
found in historically situated ritual practices in India and China.
Kathryn McClymond, Georgia State University
In contrast to classical Hinduism’s characterization of the gods as the
final recipients of sacrifice, in the earlier Vedic period, the Vedic gods act
as facilitators among several groups of participants, serving as instruments
of ritual activity rather than as objects of sacrificial worship. This paper
maps out the intricate relationships between the Vedic gods and human ritual
participants, expressed through the manipulation of the sacrificial offerings,
as described in the Baudha-yana sra-uta Su-tra. I demonstrate that the instructions
given to the sacrificial actors (particularly the adhvaryu priest) reveal limited
but targeted roles for each Vedic deities. The fact that Vedic deities participate
in sacrifice as ritual players with human participants – rather than authoring
the guidelines for sacrifice and receiving the sacrificial offerings – draws
attention to the distinct nature of Vedic sacrifice. The dominant conceptions
of sacrifice tend to distinguish sharply between “lower level” sacrificial
human players (who present offerings) and “higher level” gods (who
receive offerings). In this view the sacrificial process brokers the relationship
between these two parties. By contrast, Vedic gods act in concert with human
ritual participants. They are all subject to the methods and purpose of sacrifice,
which are ultimately determined by relationships between natural and divine
elements inherent in the structure of the cosmos. Thus a close study of Vedic
sacrifice reveals complex interactions between the human and the divine,
ultimately re-defining the nature of sacrifice itself.
Richard H. Davis, Bard College
Since early medieval times, South Indian temple festivals or mahotsavas have
publicly reiterated the sovereignty of the Hindu gods over their surrounding
communities. In traditional Madurai this rule is shared between the goddess
Minaksi and Sundaresvara, the local manifestation of Siva. According to the
festival calendar, the annual Cittrai festival marks the time when Minaksi
receives the sceptre of rule, and the Avani Mula festival transfers the sceptre
to Sundaresvara. Of these two major festivals, the dramatic Cittrai festival
has received considerable scholarly attention, starting with the work of Dennis
Hudson, but the Avani Mula is relatively unstudied. This presentation focuses
on the Avani Mula festival enacted in August 2007. I discuss the underlying
narrative of this twelve-day ritual, and examine the ways the ceremonies seek
to re-construct Siva’s
divinity and his claim to rule Madurai on a yearly basis. I show that human
authorities (no longer the king, but rather the head of the Temple Board)
also play a key role in this drama of kingship.
Terry F. Kleeman, University of Colorado, Boulder
The Chinese common religion provided a pathway to divinity whereby chthonic
nature sprites, fallen warriors, or community leaders might come to be worshipped
as gods. The Daoist religion arose in the second century as a reformist reaction
against these burgeoning deity cults, proclaiming their gods to be blood-thirsty
demons. Daoist gods were pure emanations of the Dao who did not rely on human
beings for sustenance, and most were new deities with unknown names and a largely
bureaucratic identity. But some gods in our earliest sources were historical
individuals, or gods so ancient they had been euhemerized into historical figures.
This paper will examine the tension between the revolutionary theological dispensation
that was at the origins of Daoism and the working out of this vision over the
following four centuries that in practice incorporated many existing deities
into the Daoist sacred realm. Through an examination of received scriptures
and archaeological remains, this paper will address the following questions:
Did the incorporation of historical figures represent an accommodation with
powerful local cults, or were individuals chosen because they were claimed by
no active cult? Do the individuals assimilated into the Daoist pantheon reveal
an affinity on the part of the nascent Daoist church with any other intellectual
lineage or religious movement? How was this mixed pantheon made manifest in
ritual observances like the Retreat (zhai)? How did it function to attract support
and claim legitimacy for the nascent religion?
Thomas A. Wilson, Hamilton College
We need to finally put to rest the mistaken impression that Confucius was
agnostic. European missionaries first remade him in the sixteenth century
into a humanist philosopher to support their position that Chinese converts
need not renounce Confucian rites to ancestors and to Confucius on grounds that
such rites had no religious import. Chinese intellectuals produced an agnostic
Confucius in the early twentieth century that constructed a rational foundation
for modernization. Such images of Confucius as a rational humanist would have
surely confounded most of his followers before the twentieth century. Indeed,
Confucius’s
statements on gods as recorded in the canon disclose a figure who earnestly
advocated pious devotion to gods through sacrificial rites that belies his secularized
image. This paper examines Confucius’s statements on gods and the rites
that defined them as recorded in the Analects and the Book of Rites. In order
to release him from his modern interpreters, I focus on how Confucian scholars
in imperial times interpreted his words. I first examine key passages in the
Analects based on authoritative commentaries of the text to consider how classical
scholars understood Confucius’s views on gods. I then follow the tracks
of their hermeneutics as they propound a distinctively Confucian theory of gods
based on Confucius’s statements in other works of the canon. An examination
of these classical commentaries, spanning no less than 1500 years (ca. 200-1690),
divulges a remarkably consistent theistic conception of ghosts and spirits
and cult liturgies to venerate them.
|
