Ritual participation and ritual reality

Ritual reality and coherence

In our dharma, everything imaginable, whether it be age, gender, various trees, animals, metals, other materials, colours, shapes, times, numbers, etc are all given sacral meaning, a ritual significance. This is a quintessential aspect of Hinduism as it is practiced. Anyone who seeks to stamp on our traditions, either out of ignorance or malice, we must fiercely resist with every effort at our disposal. It is hoped that this thread gives an idea into certain dimensions of Hindu ritual thought & the rationale behind restrictions.

Well, this is the significance. One example of this logic of ritual coherence: The shaiva Agama, kAmikAgama states that the fierce forms of both shiva & viShNu should be installed at village/town outskirts & not in the interior. Why so?? This choice of location (outskirts) matches with deity’s fierce nature, as that which is fierce & potentially dangerous must naturally be away from the dwellings of men. So, in the cases of temples & towns planned/designed in accordance with kAmikAgama, this will be the rule.

The idea of ritual coherence operates at sabarimala too. The mantra-s installed in that ayyappa mUrti in times of yore embody the naiSThika brahmacAryatvam (permanent celibacy) intrinsic to that deity. This is the essential nature of the deity; his “essential ritual reality”. The “ritual reality” of a temple is harmed or even destroyed when stipulated rules are violated. In this case, the relevant rule would be the prohibition on the entry of women having reproductive abilities. Such an entry alters & disrupts the “ritual reality” the temple seeks to manifest in this world. The concepts of “ritual reality” & “ritual coherence” lie behind our idea of “ritual space”. What may be appropriate in one sacred space may be completely inappropriate for another.

Example: In the shaivAgama-s, the presence of rudrakanyA-s. These young, pious virgin girls devoted to shiva perform dances in front of him & are even invited, along with the priests & king to be the very 1st recipients of the divine glance of a newly consecrated shiva!)

A higher level

Firstly, the mythos & rituals associated with a particular temple are not meant to be read as empirical realities & anthropomorphic qualities are not to be superimposed on the deity. Our deities have transcendental & most subtle bodies. They do not “eat offerings” or “observe brahmacaryam” in the same way mortals would be seen in our mundane level of reality.

Rituals & myths operate at a higher level of reality. So, what is the significance of this? Well, this is the significance. The core point at the centre of all this is that within any system, its followers truly participate only be adhering to both the positive obligations & negative injunctions (prohibitions) which define the very unique essence & identity of that system.

{GA18}

The deity’s nature (in Southern Agamika & tAntrika temples, this is based on the mantra-s installed in the deity’s icon/vigraha), location of deity’s shrine, nature of rituals done, type of priesthood, kind of food and flower offerings made to deity, nature of people who come to the temple, colors of garments worn by the deity, priests & devotees & many other factors all have to cohere with one another as far as possible. All these factors come together to create a coherent “ritual reality”, which is the ultimate fruit a sincere worshiper truly yearns for. The deity’s presence becomes fully manifest and becomes a source of blessings for the worshipers and their families. Different Agama-s and tantra-s have their own versions of the “ritual reality” or “ritual universe” they are asking the priests and others to enact on this earth.

Approximating the whole from parts

The 2nd point is, however, more interesting—That Egyptian priests philosophized about animals & their divine connections. This reminds us of the Brāhmaṇa texts of our own Veda, where the Brahmavādīs recorded their visions of correspondences between different devatas & animals. Both the Brahmavādīs/Ṛṣiputras of the Brāhmaṇas & the Egyptian priests thus seem to have had very similar goals. The ritual art of the Brāhmaṇa texts was a bold attempt to use the available resources of a seemingly profane world to establish deep & intimate connections with the Devas.

Since the translation by Keith is rather faithful, I will save time & put it up here. See how a particular embodiment of a deity (Indra who is together with Maruts) is seen in an ox with dappled thighs. Note how each relevant component of the animal represents the deity.

To my pleasant surprise, I realise that the great Proclus had stated as follows in the sublime work titled, “On the Hieratic Art”.

“For this reason, those who are skilled in the sacred art (tes hieratikes hegemones) have found a means of reaching the higher powers from those things which are within our sight, by mixing some of them together and by effacing others properly. The mixture is accomplished by means of looking, one after another, at each of the unmixed things that has a divine characteristic (idioteta tou theou), so that by mixing several things in this way these aforementioned images are unified, and the unity that results from all of them is made similar to the Whole Unity that exists prior to all things (to pro ton panton holon).

On the other hand, they frequently make figurines (agalmata) which are compounded (from several things) and then burned, by which means their divided divine Signs (sunthemata) are mingled together and create artificially that which the Divine includes within itself naturally (kat’ ousian) by its unification (kath’ henosin) of all these powers; for the division of these powers weakened each one of them, but their mixture is able to lead us back to the Idea of their Model” (tox paradeigmatos idean: Hier. Art. 150),14

  • Proclus

Participation as a negative act

And this is not uniquely applicable to Hindu sects but will apply to any belief-practice system defined as a religion. You cannot be said to participate in a religion if you are not participating in the dietary, sexual or other restrictions laid down in that religion. It’s often argued that restrictive rules, in terms of temple entry or offering worship at one, impinge upon the “right to participate in religion” of those who are thus restricted. This stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of participation as intrinsically a positive act.+++(5)+++

What do I mean by “positive act”? Most of us see would see participation as actually (and thus, positively) doing acts one generally does in a religious setting: such as entering a temple or performing a particular ritual. However, this is not a realistic understanding of our dharma or any religion for that matter. When you participate in a religion, you do so, not only by doing what you are obligated to do, or doing something optional but allowed for you, but also by not doing what is prohibited. You participate in the dharma when you abstain from meat on vrata/upavAsa days or enter a temple after removing footwear. That “negative acts” or abstentions were seen as participation is clear when one reads our texts. Let me elaborate.

Negative obligations are a core & critical component of participation. This is why “yama” (restraint) is one of the eight components of aSTANGga yoga. This is why various types of vrata-s are part of popular dharma as encapsulated in the purANa-s & other sources. This is why yAmuNAcArya, the great shrIvaiSNava AcArya, holds in his AgamaprAmANya that, in truth, nobody is fully forbidden from “shrautam”.+++(5)+++ Why, because the shruti has general, restrictive injunctions like “Don’t injure creatures”, etc which every human is qualified to follow. Similarly, when a woman, identified as having reproductive capabilities (for practical purposes, identified as a 10-50 age group), accepts the restriction pertaining to sabarimala with devotion, she is fully participating in the religion, in the worship of the deity.

This “negative” participation is, in no way, less profound and meaningful than the direct, “positive” participation of the men and women of the allowed age groups. This aspect lies at the core of all non-abrahamic, polytheist traditions. We view the universe as a large ritual chamber of meanings, forces & symbols, & particular deities & rituals will help us awaken or accentuate certain “ritual realities” & yield us blessings.

Persons as ritual objects

Source: TW

Prophyry on priests here.

Two new points that I had picked up when re-reading the same excerpt a few days ago:

  1. The Egyptian priest is likened to a sacred animal; he himself is like a ritual object.

  2. The priests philosophised at their temples, inter alia, about animals & their sacred connections. Regarding the first point, we had expressed a similar point about Brāhmaṇas.

Non appreciation of ritual reality

It’s often argued that restrictive rules, in terms of temple entry or offering worship at one, impinge upon the “right to participate in religion” of those who are thus restricted. This stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of participation as intrinsically a positive act.

This would not be the case for the ritual space of ayyappa. The women would have to wait till certain biologically innate characteristics are gone with age, before seeking to visit ayyappa. This is nothing to do with ayyappa’s “mind” as some idiots wrongly understand, Nothing can upset or agitate the mind of a transcendental being. But when the same transcendental being is installed in an icon with mantra-s, etc, certain formalities come into effect.

Source: TW

There are a couple of issues which usually present themselves here:

  1. If you are looking for a purely materialistic or “scientific” rationale, then, no śāstra can be of much help. You need to muster an intuitive faith in the śāstra-s.

  2. Also, you need to ask yourself. Are you making your conception of “fairness” or “egalitarianism” the overarching meta-values by which you judge traditions? Why not approach tradition on its own terms & try to develop an ability to appreciate its internal logic and structure?

  3. If you see rituals, you will see that specific woods, flowers, animals etc will be employed in specific contexts. In the same way, specific sections of humans will have a certain ritual value in different contexts. It is difficult for many people to think this way because of the human exceptionalism they adhere to: That humans are only subjects. However, in the ritual arena, humans & their lineages too can be ritual objects.

Source: TW

The ritualism of the Brāhmaṇa texts is indeed applied philosophy, which has unfortunately appeared dry & even “crude” to most scholars in modern academia, who find the Brāhmaṇa texts uninspired.

Determining authority

… This is how our ritual spaces work and something I hope can be drilled into the heads of the judges who have no erudition about our religion….

At this point, one may raise the argument that the restrictions in the case of sabarimala are not left to the conscience of the worshiper but enforced & thus, this would impinge upon the freedom of the individual worshiper to practice the religion as he or she sees fit. The only real & truly honest response to this argument is that the temple is essentially the residence of the deity who is also the owner of the temple & is entitled to an absolute enjoyment of this property, as amply indicated by terms such as devasvam, devagRha, etc.

But, wait? A deity is no “real person”. How can he/she enjoy this property? Well, if the law can recognize the personhood of a body corporate (a company), its right to own property & transact in its own name, nothing ought to prevent a similar recognition in the case of temples. There is a long, historical precedent (from both texts & inscriptions) allowing the recognition of a deity’s legal personhood, full ownership of its residence (& other properties) & freedom to decide how the residence ought to be accessed or enjoyed by other persons.

In accordance with what is the deity’s will executed & implemented by the priests and/or management who are both, verily, the deity’s trustees? The Agama-s or relevant tantra-s or paddhati-s known to govern the temple from very inception or simply known as last remembered usage. Some idiot Hindus stated that the argument that shrI dharmashAstA in his form as ayyappa is observing naiSThika brahmacharya is not a sensible one as it suggests that ayyappa is “unable to see his women devotees in the 10-50 age group as sisters or mothers”. Again & again, Hindus excel at showing mediocre quality of thought.

Ritual Input variety

Note all the constituent categories, structures & units which make up our experience of this world. Flora (flower X, tree Y), fauna (animal X), materials (wood from X tree, rock/soil/metal of X kind, etc), colors, numbers, shapes, specific spatiotemporal points (specific time, day, month or season, a cardinal or intermediate direction, etc), particular individuals, etc. There are many more such components of this world. We can zoom in on the last one - particular individuals - & that opens us up to even more sub-components. Age, gender, marital status, lineage, occupation, personal nexus (ritualist’s wife, etc), physical characteristics, etc..

Then, one can consider the state of the individual. Not just ritual purity but his physical state as well. Is he still or is he doing something? Is another individual involved? Is a certain act or situation being merely simulated/suggested or is it actually carried out?

Every possible substance, object, intangible (like time or direction), state or mundane act or movement , by itself or in combination with others, could have a ritual meaning & potency under the right circumstances. It was with that in mind the list below👇🏾was prepared in 2018.

Input Combination

The ritualist/priest knows how to combine the various components referred to above to manifest a single “ritual reality” at the site of ritual action (temple, yajñaśāla, etc).

Surprisingly, a few years later, we came across this beautiful piece of prose from Proclus, which (albeit in translation) captures this point even more eloquently.

“For this reason, those who are skilled in the sacred art (tes hieratikes hegemonet) have found a means of reaching the higher powers from those things which are within our sight, by mixing some of them together and by effacing others properly. The mixture is accomplished by means of looking, one after another, at each of the unmixed things that has a divine characteristic (idioteta tou theou), so that by mixing several things in this way these aforementioned images are unified, and the unity that results from all of them is made similar to the Whole Unity that exists prior to all things (to pro ton panton holon).

On the other hand, they frequently make figurines (agalmata) which are compounded (from several things) and then burned, by which means their divided divine Signs (synthemata) are mingled together and create artificially that which the Divine includes within itself naturally (kat’ ousian) by its unification (kath’ henosin) of all these powers; for the division of these powers weakened each one of them, but their mixture is able to lead us back to the Idea of their Model” (tou paradeigmatos idean: Hier. Art.150).14

Now, in a ritual, the participating human, alone or in combination with others or other things, can manifest a “ritual reality”, by being in a particular state (eg. dressed in certain colour) or by doing an act by himself or with others, or by simulating the state or act.

The possibilities are potentially endless & we have a fraction of the same in the Brāhmaṇa texts of Veda & in Tantra/Āgama. You will find many ritual prescriptions linking an act/state & a deity or another metaphysical entity & telling you the result of ritually combining these.

Moral ambivalence

In listing these states & acts & their correspondences with metaphysical entities & prescribing their use, the ritual texts of the Brāhmaṇas & Tantras (taking each scriptural genre as a whole) can be said to be quite quiet insofar as the “moral rightness” is concerned.

Not all texts but some of them would be “cold” & merely list a link/correspondence & tell you how to ritually manifest this link, which may raise eyebrows. These matters are not for anyone but a competent ritualist to read & understand.

And even such a ritualist may not be automatically justified in carrying out that knowledge into actual praxis. The correspondences & the ritual to realise the potency of these correspondences are out there. Doesn’t mean one can indiscriminately use that knowledge.