I.D. Greeks 000150

The question here, specifically, then, is what most thoroughly FIXES RITUAL? Is it traditional oral poetic culture or traditional written prose culture? The most ready answer in the past has been the more oral a culture it is, the more unscientific, superstitious, and irrational it is. It is always, whether observed in ancient history or by modern scientific ethnography, more "primitive" by definition, i. e., presupposition. Such a "primitive" culture has "beliefs" that must be respected and protected because they are not able to stand the free and open discussion of a rational methodology. Of course the `primitives' are not, and should not be, asked if they desire such a situation of `respect' and artificial protection. They are too stupid, by definition again, to understand what is being asked of them. It is especially so if such a situation is purely mythical, i. e., presupposed and unexamined, on the `scientist's' part in the first place. Of course, as we actually live, here and now, a modern `primitive's' culture is neither respected or protected in the slightest. It is only `protected' in scholarly, obscure books no one takes seriously outside an academic context. But it is meant as a real value system to help a real person contend with real circumstances. There it is not respect and preservation that it needs but an understanding of why there is conflict and failure of the old ways, the realization they have indeed failed, and what one is going to do in the new and contesting circumstances that are not going to go away. Adapt or die? At least it is a clear and honest choice.

Even if such `primitives' come to have immense wealth and political power (fundamentalist, right-wing Christianity, for the moment, Rupert Murdock and a number of aides in the White House), the `respect' and `protection' are only superficial and temporary, becoming mere formulaic and unquestioned behavior, such as "the revival of morality" (But no one asks what "morality" is itself in fact, what it is suppose to accomplish and does it in fact accomplish that goal? It does not seriously presents the question whether we should even have morality as if somehow there cannot be any alternative when we know that "the matter of the case" is otherwise. Whether it is actually desirable and/or beneficial? And, then of course, WHOSE morality?). But since most people are not wealthy or politically powerful – although many such still participate in the formulaic behavior on the possibility they will acquire such benefices magically, much as in participating in the most ancient Brahmanic sacrifices such as "the horse sacrifice" – yes, they were animal killers and meat eaters – Hinduism has evolved and vastly changed like every other religion under the force of events in the real world. It was not created on high idealistic premises but in contest with real political and social events that it was adapted to in order to "suceed." It is as fundamentally based on the same crass and materialistic world as a merchant's business. The banker changes money, the brahmin changes beliefs. Brahminism could not survive in a static state in competition with religions where anyone went into the forrest to find salvation. Therefore it adapted the most popular aspects of Jainism and Buddhism. Yet it still caters to those who want to earn merit, have a family, have wealth, etc. So it provides like a good merchant MORE for the customer's money than the other religions. Thereby the merchant class and the farmers are made happy because they have it both ways. And the Brahmins make an uneasy place for, and make peace with the Ksatriyas, the warrior and ruler class, who do not really think Brahmins should occupy the top rung on the social ladder. So they make a sliding scale of value to accomodate the Ksatriyas, giving up ruling the rulers directly and agreeing that Brahmins make poor rulers while they control those who give the Ksatriyas their power, the merchants and the farmers, so that if the Ksatriyas refuse to listen to the Brahmins, they will listen to their subjects who either quietly pay their taxes or rebel. Therefore the Brahmins still rule, though indirectly, just like the Fundamentalist Christians in the United States whose constitution supposedly supports freedom for any kind of 'belief,' and instead rules the government by demanding "a renewal of morality" when they mean specifically and only Christian values ("What other kind are there?"). And those that disagree become chandalas, untoucheables, automatic criminals, just like Poncho Villa in the US is a "bandit" and not a "rebel" or "freedom fighter." You just have to change the word, the mere sound, and speak another to your purposes.

Oral culture can be just as FIXED as written culture -- There is another point to be kept in mind to complicate things. Wrote memorization that, unlike the oral poet, concentrates only on memorizing the word-sound exactly in mechanical repitition. The opposition of oral and written culture extends into and continues to exist inside printed versus hand-written culture [which includes many oral elements such as memory and speaking aloud while one is writing and reading, even without an audience] and, now, electronically transmitted culture [which may revive some elements of orality, but obviously with a very different meaning and context -
- and some elements of printed culture, but again with a very different meaning and context] versus printed culture. We now talk and write to machines, with all that that must inevitably imply, and have machines talk and write to us. Setting aside all value considerations of diminution of so-called "humanity," which means a different thing to each person anyway, and even each situation, one must concentrate on how this experience in its reality defines the situation. The presence of an actual interaction with other human beings is obviously no longer considered necessary. Their mere symbolic `presence' is sufficient. This is in giving (as in Heidegger's "es gibt", "it is," "it gives"). But, then, one's own `presence,' one's own so-called self would also be symbolic in the same fashion.

That oral culture can be so mechanically fixed, though, is a purely priestly function! First, I must define "priest." It is one who is as the Greek "pro-" before, ahead and whose second constituent is akin to Greek "bous," head of cattle; basic meaning: leader of the herd * more at FOR, COW" – this is from Merriam-Webster again – I know I am taking advantage of the situation, but then, on the other hand, it is THERE! – "as an authorized or ordained religious functionary" "a member of the highest order of clergy" "a professional clergyman of a religious denomination" "a short club used by anglers to stun or kill a captured fish" [think about that one! They have to be related!] "a breed of fancy pigeons." It is a person who is in authority, defines the authority he says he possesses, and commits the act of authorization. As with the VEDAS, they may be memorized – there are some VEDAS still possibly unwritten! – but it is a memorization constantly controlled amongst Brahmins for accuracy of exact replication of the same, regardless of meaning. Only priests can compare and judge the accuracy. Sudras, peasants, farmers, shepherds (Hesiod!), the lowest `acceptable' caste above the chandalas, "an Indian of low caste: OUTCAST, UNTOUCHABLE; especially: the son of a Sudra by a Brahman woman" -- Sudras by law, an `old' law to be sure, must have their tongues cut out if they recite the VEDAS. Therefore even knowing, memorizing the VEDAS is a legally enforced privilege of the Brahmins. It is like the untranslatable Latin Vulgate of the BIBLE for which people who translated it into the vernacular were burnt at the stake (This even happened under King Henry VIII even after he broke with Rome!).

Actually, the point I am trying to make needs to stand back from these emotional issues while keeping them still in the recallable background. We are actually dealing here with the beginning of thought. The real issue, usually not even perceived as a conflict, is between metaphorization and literalization. This primevally is the difference between the all-inclusiveness of the oral poet's metaphorization and universalization of religion (not for ideological but very practical reasons) versus religious/ethical/legal codes being frozen in place as the exclusive property of the priest (again, for very practical reasons). As a conflict between different "castes" – classes – this is reflected dramatically in the MAHABHARATA between the Brahmans and the Ksatriyas, the warrior/ruler "caste." Starting with the RIG VEDA and the UPANISHADS, there is a clear evolution of thinking that divides into MANY different parties in conflict with each other. R. C. C. Fynes, in his introduction to THE LIVES OF THE JAIN ELDERS by Hemacandra, calls them the "strivers," those who totally disregarded caste to go seek `God' in the forest, practicing extreme asceticism as bodily mortification, fasting, and sexual continence. These people were in total rebellion against the Brahman sacrificial system that placed salvation in Brahmin hands only, and depended upon rituals had had to be constantly repeated perfectly. Such values were completely related to an earthly type of reward -- riches, power, sex -- and were simply transferred by ritual, after death, to another world and maintained there by ritual.

The "striver" rebels took salvation into their own hands as the result of their own efforts. This practice of asceticism was an act called "tapas" that produced magical, divine power all on one's own. Even Shiva goes into the forest and, naked, covered with ashes, drinking from a skull, practices "tapas." This all started happening around 600 BCE and also produced Buddhism as well as Jainism and a number of other offshoots from Brahmanism that, in turn, was trying to adapt itself by adopting a modified stage/form toward asceticism – religious student, householder with family, hermit with wife, then the last stage of solitary hermit as well as a moral value system of merit accumulation that merited heaven. In the process, something that started to happen in ancient Greece but never came to full fulfillment, the doctrine of rebirth was introduced, motivated by many different and sometimes conflicting reasons. On the one hand, it was an easily envisioned stairway of gaining merit and avoiding punishment (and which produced the description of the two highest classes, the Brahmins and the Ksatriyas, as "the twice born"). But the `immortality' of the "strivers" was going in a different direction from a literally and mechanically, ritually maintained immortality. Connecting the individual self with birth necessitated more rebirths to keep that specific individual `alive' even if it is in another world. This, on the other hand, produced an exact reflection of real life unendurably spread through life after life after life after life . . . that produced an utter horror of life itself in many and produced Buddhism which reform Hinduists like Shankara called "nihilistic" which the Buddhists protested and said the same of the Hindus. The ultimate point is, though, whether one wants "nirvana" or "moska," they both desired a release from all rebirth, from rebirth itself whiuch perpetuated the specific, individual self and, since rebirth itself was originally envisioned as the REWARD of everlasting life, necessarily comes to mean, in the reformed theology of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism, rejection of a temporally enduring specific, individual consciousness and therefore of rationally comprehensible life altogether as we understand it in the West.

The primary source of conflict in Indian (BHARATA) society is between Brahmins as established elite ruling the rulers, essentially responsible for all earthly benefits to everyone else, and therefore deserving the best for themselves. At first, just like with the Greeks, there is no afterlife in the earliest VEDAS except that perpetuated by sacrifice to ancestors and the gods – yes, even the gods were definitely mortal, dependent upon the rituals of human beings! Indeed, there is a generosity and liberalism of spirit and ability to question and even laugh at itself wholly different from later, static, legalistic Brahanism. But, unlike the Achaeans whose warriors and kings have no respect whatsoever for priests unless forced to by a god – the ILIAD! -- the priestly Brahmans seized the highest political position through their exclusive knowledge of the magical scriptures, something that never occurred in Hellene society. Remember, Socrates (as well as Alcibiades and Anaximander
(?)) was prosecuted for blasphemy in a secular court by very secular laymen! But, as the MAHABHARATA reflects, and is a theme throughout Indian history to today, the Brahman position as highest caste was continuously challenged by others. Hinduism is a compromise religion incorporating all of the aspects of other religions that are popularly viewed as attractive for whatever reason. The Islamic doctrine of Hell made such an impression upon Hindus that the philosopher Madhva incorporated it into his system even though the Hinduism of his day and age had become thoroughly pluralistic.

The MAHABHARATA is a true marvel! The longest epic ever written, everybody of every viewpoint had a chance to put anything they wanted to into it! And yet! Even as such a mound of archeological levels reflecting vastly different cultures and values, it still not only somehow comes out as a viable, living whole, but – at least edited of the more prosaic, preachy parts – has a story as strong and powerful as either the ILIAD or the ODYSSEY. But one should NOT cut out the so-called BHAGAVADGITA GITA which is an integral part of the story and therefore cannot be disregarded, that MUST be remembered and not taken out of the story as some sort of sacred text. It is a necessary part of the story of Arjuna the archer (His archery teacher pointing to the model of a vulture, the target being its eye, "What can you see?" Ajuna, as he aims his arrow, "I cannot tell you," Teacher: "Why?" Arjuna, "Because all I see is eye." He is the only one of the Pandavas that passes the teacher's test.) and all the rest of the Pandavas (Karna: "I will drink your blood and I will eat your guts!") where Krishna is only upon certain occasions, by our `Christian' cultural standards, a kind and benevolent god, and is really much more like Apollo or Athena of the ILIAD. Hinduism evolved from a rigid Brahmanism of extreme intolerance that still exists in part, into a multiplicity so rich it can be extremely confusing. But the relations of the Greek heroes to their gods was direct and personal – how much more personal can one get than the relationship between Odysseus and Athena? – just as is the relation between the Pandavas and Krishna (I call then all Pandavas for convenience since they are related, though I know they divide into two fundamentally inimical groups).

Stand back again, and neutralize that. I said this was the beginning of thought. This is also the beginning of the difference between metaphor and idea, between poetic formula (expression) and abstraction that must be precisely defined. How much of this is reflected in the difference between words and mathematics? How much of a difference is there?