Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 24

Vi~u, the Transcendent

Yoganand Sinha

Introduction Practitioners of contemporary Hinduism face something of a dilemma. As Hinduism moved from a so-called polytheistic religious tradition to an increasingly monistic religion, practitioners of the religion began to conceive of divinity in terms of a universal transcendental consciousness (Radhakrishnan and Moore 1957: 38). This transcendental divinity, referred to as Brahman, is equated with the consciousness of the universes. It is defined as, that which puts an end to differences. The Absolute Reality or all-pervasive supreme principle of the universe (Grimes 1996: 96). It is seen as a vast, limitless ocean of undifferentiated consciousness that includes within itself all of creation. This reality has become the paramount divinity of many contemporary Hindus. This is a non-differentiated reality, unbounded by the restraints of time and space, of subject and object, or any other structure that limits the mundane empirical world that we see around us. By definition, this reality transcends any and all limitationsit is the boundless consciousness that unites everything in the universe. This reality has come to be associated with the ultimate form of the divine, and understanding this reality has become the ultimate goal of many contemporary Hindus. The problem becomes how can we hope to represent such a reality in everyday religion? Everyday reality is, after all, structured by time and space, by objectivity and subjectivity, and so forthall the things that Brahman is supposed to be beyond. Nothing in everyday realitybe it speech, art, International Journal of Hindu Studies 14, 23 (2010): 22952 2011 Springer
DOI 10.1007/s11407-011-9095-6

230 / Yoganand Sinha or performancecan ever hope to capture the undifferentiated universe that is Brahman. What is more, Hinduism is a continuous religious tradition in the sense that it has built newer versions of theologies and symbolic structures upon the foundations laid by older versions of itself. Older and newer versions of theology, symbolism and meaning exist alongside one another in this tradition, leaving the door open to many different levels of interpretation. As Claude Lvi-Strauss puts it, in a quote taken from Franz Boas, It would seem that mythological worlds have been built up, only to be shattered again, and that new worlds were built from the fragments. But then Lvi-Strauss goes on to say: Penetrating as this comment is, it nevertheless fails to take into account that in the continual reconstruction from the same materials, it is always earlier ends which are called upon to play the part of means: the signified changes into the signifying and vice versa (1966: 21). And what is said of mythology is equally true of theory. The fragments of older theories serve as the building blocks for newer interpretive structures. However, and this is equally true of mythology, this does not mean that the older traditions have become irrelevant or inaccuratewhy would we bother to build new theories or mythologies upon the fragments of the old if these fragments no longer have anything pertinent to say? Rather, theorieslike mythologyattempt to give us insight into existence; they tell us why things are the way they are and why this should matter. But as cultures change, mythological motifs are fragmented and reconstituted in order to aid us in understanding the new historical and social circumstances that a culture finds itself in. The older myths continue to inform, but they have been co-opted by newer interpretations, which hope to illuminate circumstances and points of view that did not exist when the mythological motifs were first envisioned. Nowhere is this more clearly expressed than in the religious traditions of Hinduism. Older mythologies and theologies are reworked to understand newer points of view, views that nevertheless do not reject or illegitimate older versions of themselves. Thus when trying to understand Hinduism, it becomes absolutely necessary to approach the topic from multiple levels of meaning. Theories that work at one level seem deficient at another. In this paper I will argue that the Structural Anthropology of Lvi-Strauss helps us to understand many aspects of the practice of

Vi~u, the Transcendent / 231 Hinduism. Yet when we turn our attention to the nature and attributes of Brahman, the transcendental consciousness of the newer monistic version of Hinduism, we find that the structural models of Lvi-Strauss fail to illuminate the nature of this reality. So we must abandon Structuralism and turn instead to the Post-Structural theories of Jacques Derrida in order to understand how Hinduism envisions this new concept of the divine.1 It is important to keep in mind that this does not imply a rejection of Lvi-Strauss Structuralism. Structuralism still works very well at illuminating certain aspects of Hinduism, aspects that continue to have currency in the practice of Hinduism today. However, at the level of the transcendental reality, the deconstructive theories of Derrida offer a much more satisfying explanation of what Hinduism is about. It is all a matter of which Hinduism one wishes to understand. One certainly cannot use Derridas idea of deconstruction to understand notions of purity and pollution or the Pur~ic mythologies, which deal with the interplay between gods and demons. Yet it is equally true that one cannot use the structural models of Lvi-Strauss to understand the paramount divinity of contemporary Hinduism that Brahman represents. Which theory one employs is a matter of what level of Hinduism one wishes to illuminate. I will argue that in contemporary Hinduism, the nature of this paramount reality that is Brahman has a family resemblance to what Derrida calls deconstruction. Various Hindu deities reveal themselves as symbols of Brahman because of their ability to overcome oppositions. By looking at the symbols, mythology and rituals associated with Vi~u, one of the most important deities of contemporary Hinduism, we find that the ability to deconstruct oppositions is closely linked to the notion of a transcendental reality within Hinduism. Structuralism The structural model of society proposed by Claude Lvi-Strauss seems to explain many aspects of Hindu society and culture. Lvi-Strauss believes that human thought is structured by the logic of binary oppositions, and humans attempt to reconcile such oppositions by finding a synthesis between them. In his work on myth, folk tales, and religion, Lvi-Strauss expanded on the notion that binary oppositions structured

232 / Yoganand Sinha human cognition. He proposed that a fundamental characteristic of human thought was the desire to find a midpoint between such oppositions (McGee and Warms 2008: 325). This idea of understanding the world in terms of binary oppositions that can then be reconciled in a mediator is crucial to understanding much of Hindu society and theology. Even a casual survey of Hindu society and culture cannot help but note that Hinduism is riddled with structural oppositions. We started by noting that in contemporary Hinduism, divinity is associated with the ability to deconstruct or collapse oppositions, but Hindus did not always think of divinity in terms of an undifferentiated consciousness. In early Hinduism, divinity was very much seen in terms of binary oppositions, where each manifestation of the divine was given dominion over a specific and limited aspect of existence and each manifestation of the divine had an equally powerful structural opposite. For example, one of the earliest creation myths alluded to in the g Veda views creation in terms of the interplay between a primordial aquatic female goddess and a mercurial male sky god. The Indian conception of the origin of life have of old been dominated by the belief in dual forces of nature, opposite in every respect and maintaining this complete contrast throughout eternity: the one, the male element, appearing as creative breath, omnipresent, all-pervading and composed of pure light and intelligence; the other, the female element, being embodied in lightless, chaotic, inert mass of primeval water. Left to its own resources either of these elements is barren, lacks creative power.Not till they unite, till creative breath enters the water, does the great mystery become a fact. At that moment and at that point Life, Hira~yagarbha, the Golden Germ, that is to be the beginning and origin of all creation, is born (Bosch 1960: 51). In this version of the creation myth, the female goddess Vc is associated with the primordial waters of life. This water, called rasa, is the sap of life. Everything that lives has some of this rasa within it. Consequently, Vc is associated with healing, for the waters she inhabits has the ability to cool and restore ones health. All aquatic creatures, including the crocodile, the ng (or serpent) and the lotus blossom, are associated with the goddess. Vc is envisioned as being tranquil, dormant, at rest.

Vi~u, the Transcendent / 233 Although she is a great goddess, by herself she is unable to generate creation. Her structural opposite, at least initially, is identified as Prajpati, a male god associated with the sky. He is associated with fire, with gold, and above all, with warfare. He has the disposition of a warrior and so is constantly active and mercurial in nature. He is linked to all creatures that share his warlike disposition, specifically with the fierce creatures of the forest such as the lion. He is associated with all things that belong to the sky. Again, although he is a mighty god, Prajpati by himself is unable to generate creation. It is only when these two structural opposites unite, the aquatic female principle with the male sky god, that creation becomes possible. Their union produces the Hira~yagarbha, the golden germ or golden womb, from which creation unfolds. In this way the Hira~yagarbha mediates between structural opposites, and all of creation can thus be seen as the mediation or synthesis of binary opposites. The germ, therefore, has the same relation to both the elements from which it springs, it is the essence of both.It unites in itself both contrasting natures making them merge in a duality, one in essence, yet distinct, constituting the primordial source from which all creation springs and draws its vital energy (Bosch 1960: 51). So the golden germ and by extension all of creation is the mediation of the opposition that Vc and Prajpati represent. But despite this mediation, and this point needs to be highlighted, these opposite principles remain separate and distinct. Through time these binary opposites come to be associated with various other deities. Vc, for instance, is transformed into Soma. The creative breath that was initially associated with Prajpati is soon identified with Brahma, with Agni, and the sun god Srya. But though the names associated with these principles might change, the principles themselves remain fairly consistent. And in time the opposition that these principles represent is extended out into a totalizing system of classification. All reality is classified on the basis of this opposition. Again, and this is the most important point, we have conceived of the forms of thought with which we have been concerned as totalizing thoughts, which exhaust reality by means of a finite number of given classes, and have the fundamental property of being transformable into each other.The principle of all or nothing not only has the heuristic

234 / Yoganand Sinha value to thought founded on the operation of dichotomies, but is also an expression of a property of what exists: either everything, or nothing, makes sense (Lvi-Strauss 1966: 17273; emphasis in original). This central myth, as F.D.K. Bosch has pointed out, continues to be dominant motif in Indian art and symbolism. Even though this version of the creation myth has long since been replaced by more recent Pur~ic mythology, the myth nevertheless continues to exist alongside more recent versions of creation. This is one of the unique features of Hinduism where newer theologies and symbolic interpretations are simply grafted upon older theologies and symbols. No one has bothered to reject or discredit older versions of the religion, and so, through time, Hinduism has become a complex multi-layered religious tradition where old and new co-exists, even when they seem to present contradictory visions of existence. Thus it is with Prajpati and Vc, the creation myth in which they play a central role has long since forgotten by most Hindus, but this does not mean that the symbols and iconographies that this myth generated are dead. As Bosch points out, the symbols and motifs of this version of creation continue to exert a profound influence on South Asian art. One can read Indian art on the basis of this myth. And, as we shall see, contemporary mythology and symbolism in Hinduism continues to be informed by older mythological motifs. Such motifs become the canvas upon which Hinduism paints newer versions of its worldview. We can find hundreds of examples of structural oppositions in Hindu mythology. One of the central oppositions, for example, is the opposition between the devas (gods) and the asuras (demons). The battle between gods and demons, the central theme of Hindu mythology, sets the stage upon which all of the gods, from Indra to Dev , play their role (OFlaherty 1975: 270). The gods have dominion over heaven, while the demons rule the netherworld. Most Hindu myths revolve around the idea that the gods and the demons are constantly fighting for control of the three worlds sometimes the demons are ascendant, sometimes the gods win out. But neither side is able to totally destroy the other, for they represent structural opposites; it would be impossible to have gods without demons, or demons without gods. Nor are such binary oppositions confined to mythology. As Louis Dumont (1970) has argued, one of the central ordering principles of

Vi~u, the Transcendent / 235 Indian society, namely the caste system, is structured by the logic of binary oppositions. For Dumont, caste can be understood in term of the opposition between purity and pollution, and all the other principles usually associated with caste, such as hierarchy, separation and occupation, are reducible to the central opposition of purity and pollution. The three principles rest on one fundamental conception and are reducible to a single true principle, namely the opposition of the pure and the impure. This opposition underlies hierarchy, which is the superiority of the pure to the impure, underlies separation because the pure and the impure must be kept separate, and underlies the division of labour because pure and impure occupations must likewise be kept separate. The whole is founded on the necessary and hierarchical coexistence of the two opposites (Dumont 1970: 43, emphasis in original). This opposition should not be confused with or equated to the opposition between good and evil. Pollution is not evil; it is a necessary byproduct of existence. All things necessary to life, such as birth, death, sexuality, defecation and so forth, generate pollution. So without pollution there would be no creation. Thus it is neither possible nor desirable to have total purity. Purity and pollution, like the gods and the demons, are structural opposites, and both are necessary for existence. There are hundreds of such oppositions embedded within Hinduism. The opposition between fire and water (which corresponds to the opposition between Prajpati and Vc), between purity and pollution, between male and female, between subject and object, are just a few. On the surface Structural Anthropology appears to be a perfect lens through which we can better understand Hinduism. Yet, as I will show, in contemporary Hinduism such oppositions are manipulated to hint at the nature of Brahman. The oppositions do not disappear, but rather are used to give us a glimpse or an intuition of an existence that is beyond oppositions. Deconstruction Although structural oppositions seem to be a fruitful model by which to understand Hinduism, it is nevertheless true that contemporary Hinduism understands divinity as that which puts an end to difference (Grimes

236 / Yoganand Sinha 1996: 96). This vision of divinity, referred to as the Advaita, or nondualist school of philosophy, sees divinity in terms of an all-encompassing consciousness that incorporates within itself all oppositions. From this perspective, all dualities are an illusion; hence there can be no structural oppositions. The problem becomes how can we hope to capture this vision of a limitless ocean of consciousness in mythology, ritual, and symbolism? What I propose is that this vision of divinity is hinted at within Hinduism by a process that has a remarkable similarity to what Jacques Derrida refers to as deconstruction. Derrida feels that structural oppositions are hierarchal in nature, where one end of the opposition is seen as real while its opposite is relegated to the status of a supplement. Such oppositions tend to create chains of oppositions so that an entire metaphysical system is built upon a simple opposition, which remains unquestioned. The purpose of deconstruction is to reverse this hierarchy as a way to get us to question the metaphysical structures, which surround us like a prison house. In a classical philosophical opposition we are not dealing with peaceful coexistence of a vis--vis, but rather with a violent hierarchy.To deconstruct the opposition, first of all, is to overturn the hierarchy at a given moment (Derrida 1981: 41). But simply overturning an opposition is not the end goal of Derridas model. If, for instance, we were to prioritize speech over writing, the deconstructive moment Derrida proposes would overturn this hierarchy to prioritize writing over speech. But such a move will not help us to escape from the metaphysical prison house of hierarchical oppositions, for all we have succeeded in doing is to create a new hierarchical opposition, the mirror image of what came before. Consequently, one needs to deconstruct the deconstruction, to once again reverse the hierarchy in a back and forth movement until the opposition itself ceases to have meaning (see Atkins 1983: 21). At the point at which the concept of difference, and the chain attached to it, intervenes, all conceptual oppositions of metaphysicsbecome nonpertinent (Derrida 1981: 29; emphasis in original). And this trick of making metaphysical oppositions nonpertinent is precisely the goal of the Advaita school of Hindu philosophy. Philosophically, this ultimate vision of divinity is expressed by appealing to paradoxical logic. One of the first groups of texts to make mention of

Vi~u, the Transcendent / 237 this new vision of the divine are the Upaniads, and in these texts the nature of Brahman, the transcendental principle of the universe, is hinted at by resorting to paradoxes. The following passage, taken from the Upaniad, clearly illustrates what I mean: It moves yet it does not move. It is far away yet it is near at hand. It is within this whole world yet, its also outside this whole world (Olivelle 1996: 249). Passages such as this hint at the nature of Brahman by employing paradoxes because the transcendent cannot be limited to any one empirical category. It is both moving and unmoving, both in this world and yet out of this world, it is simultaneously at both ends of an opposition. Such passages are designed to get us to see past the metaphysical baggage of the Hindu tradition. Like Derridas deconstruction, It does not aim to produce a unified theory, but only to actively and repeatedly undercut the domination of inherited metaphysical concepts in our discourse. Like Adornos negative dialectics and Foucoults genealogy, it can aid us in questioning the status of our own discourse and in expanding our awareness of alternatives, but it can never take us completely beyond or outside the metaphysics of presence (Baynes, Bohman, and McCarthy 1987: 120). One cannot, in other words, transcend mundane consciousness and achieve moka, or the ultimate consciousness that sees the reality of Brahman, simply by reading texts such as the Upaniads. All that the text can do is to get us to question our metaphysical assumptions and expand our awareness of alternative perspectives by which to understand existence. But such esoteric philosophical works are not really accessible to the average Hindu. Most Hindus have not read the Upaniads, indeed most Hindus have read very little of the textual traditions of their religion. Such textual traditions while illuminating are not really relevant to the way most Hindus practice their religion. Instead, at the level of practice, Hinduism hints at the nature of the transcendent by the way it employs symbols, mythology, and rituals. The symbols, myths, and rituals associated with the great god Vi~u imply this transcendental reality. Thus when we consider the nature of Vi~u what we find is that the symbols, myths, and rituals associated with him deconstruct the oppositions that structure normal Hindu society.

238 / Yoganand Sinha Vi~u is a symbol of the paramount divinity that Brahman represents precisely because of his ability to deconstruct oppositions. What I mean by deconstruction is the idea that the symbols, myths, and rituals associated with Vi~u simultaneously places him at both ends of a binary opposition. By being both a thing and its opposite, the deity is understood to be beyond oppositions. As in the passage quoted above, deities such as Vi~u can simultaneously be near and far, moving yet unmoving; and because of this ability to be both a thing and its opposite, Vi~u is understood to be a symbol of Brahman, or the paramount divinity of contemporary Hinduism. In this way the ability to deconstruct oppositions has come to be the privileged symbol of divinity in contemporary Hinduism. Any god who is worshipped as a representation of Brahman must manifest him or herself as that which deconstructs, that which is beyond the binary oppositions of mundane consciousness. Vi~u Vi~u is the most ethereal of all Hindu deities. The most popular representation of Vi~u shows him to be asleep, in the middle of a limitless cosmic ocean. His bed is the body of a huge serpent called ea-ng or ea-kl, the serpent of time. This serpents hood protects Vi~u like an umbrella. His wife, Lakm , also called r , the goddess of wealth and prosperity, is shown massaging Vi~us feet, while holy men, such as Nrada Muni, surround Vi~u singing songs of praise to him. From Vi~us navel springs forth a lotus blossom, and in the center of this thousand pelted lotus, we see Brahm, the god of creation. Vi~us vehicle is the bird of pray Garu a. Vi~u is so ethereal that the time it takes for an entire cycle of creation to unfold and unravel, some 4,320,000 years, are but as the twinkling of an eye for the lord (Venkatesananda 1989: 49). In other words, his time cycle is so vast as to be unimaginable. Everything about this image tells us that Vi~u is unapproachable. He is so pure that nothing of this world may in anyway come close to him. His time cycle is so vast that our mortal lives, our hopes and aspirations seem trivial by comparison. The goddess of wealth and good fortune is but a chambermaid by comparison to Vi~u. But as a symbol of the transcendent, Vi~u cannot remain simply a remote ethereal god; otherwise he would be irrelevant to our lives.

Vi~u, the Transcendent / 239 In his symbolism we already see how he deconstructs the opposition of water and sky. There are several water symbols associated with him, the cosmic ocean, the snake, the lotus blossom and even his tranquil disposition, which harkens back to the image of the goddess Vc. He is also, like Vc, linked to the preservation of life. But his vehicle is the sky bird Garu a, best known in mythology for battling the ng, or snake. Garu a is an animal of the sky and so is in opposition to the snake, a water creature, but Vi~u encompasses both the water and the sky principles. Thus Vishnu is linked (like Nietzsches Zarathustra) with both of the eternal antagonists. Shesha, the serpent Endless, representative of the cosmic waters, who is the source of all water whatsoever, is his animal representative: but then so too is Garuda, the conquering principle, the snakes opponent. This is a paradox with reason, for Vi~u is the Absolute, the all containing Divine Essence. He comprises all dichotomies (Zimmer 1946: 76). This theme of being associated with both water and sky symbols is played out most clearly in Vi~us worldly manifestations, his avatras. Periodically, to restore the balance of creation, Vi~u manifests himself in mortal form. Such avatras are neither ethereal nor pure. They engage in the world of politics and warfare, a world characterized by the pollution of death and sexuality. The two most famous avatras of Vi~u are Rma and K~a, both of whom are closely associated with warfare. Rma is the warrior king whose most famous exploit is when he kills the demon king Rva~a. K~a is closely linked to the epic battle chronicled in the Mahbhrata. K~a in particular can be singled out as the god who most clearly expresses Vi~us deconstructive nature. In one of his most famous early exploits, the young boy K~a is playing ball with his friend. The ball falls into the Klind River, where the fierce and venomous snake Kliya is hiding to escape the wrath of Garu a. Kliyas presence in the river has turned its waters to poison. Without hesitation K~a jumps into the water to retrieve his ball. A fierce battle ensures, but finally the young K~a defeats the snake king. The snake kings wives implore K~a to be merciful, and K~a lets the snake go (OFlaherty 1975: 22128).2 In another myth, the sky god Indra gets angry at K~a and his village. Indra tries to destroy K~as village

240 / Yoganand Sinha by hurling thunderbolts at it. K~a picks up a mountain to protect the village from Indras wrath. At this point Indra recognizes K~a for whom he truly is, namely Vi~u, and bows down to the lad (Venkatesananda 1989: 26062). So we see that K~a, as an incarnation of Vi~u, does battle with both the aquatic and the sky elements. The snake is an aquatic creature that K~a vanquishes. Indra is a mighty warrior, the king of the gods, and is clearly a representation of the sky element. In both these myths, K~as goal is not to destroy his enemy, but rather to make sure that they stay in their proper place. As that which encompasses both the sky and the water principle, Vi~u holds no antagonism to either; he simply wishes to maintain the proper balance between the two. One of the most significant myths with regard to K~as deconstructive nature is an incident that happens to him as a young boy. K~a is depicted as a mischievous youth, and one day his adopted mother, Yaod, catches him eating some mud. She is about to discipline the boy, but K~a denies that he has done anything wrong. Yaod asks K~a to open his mouth so that she may examine it and when he does so what she sees within is the entire universe (OFlaherty 1975: 220). This amazing myth is exactly the deconstructive moment that I am trying to delineate. The movement of the myth is constantly reverberating between hierarchical oppositions. At first we see K~a as a helpless young boy about to be disciplined by his mother. But no sooner has this image been established then it is reversed. As soon as he opens his mouth, K~a reveals himself to be the master of the universe, the exact opposite of the helpless youth he is at the opening of the story. Far from being a transgressor who needs to be punished by his mother, he reveals himself to be the very foundation of orderhe is the one who punishes. But at the end of this story, everything reverts back to the way it was at the beginning. K~a once again becomes a helpless young boy in need of the love and discipline of his mother. And this is, as David R. Kinsley has pointed out, one of the most significant features of K~as mythology.3 As an incarnation of Vi~u, he is the remote and ethereal lord of the universe. Vi~us world is so vast and distant as to be incomprehensible to us mortals. But K~a, as a young boy and as a lover, is first and foremost approachable, intimate. His relationship to mortals is immediate and physical, without the restraints and distance that the supreme purity of Vi~u implies. It is significant then that one of the rituals associated

Vi~u, the Transcendent / 241 with K~a, janmam , consists of having a small statue of the infant K~a placed in a cradle. The ritual consists of devotees spending the night gently rocking the cradle. K~a is seen in this ritual as engaging in the intimate bond of love and affection that develops between a parent and a child. So Vi~u, in the form of K~a, is simultaneously distant and close. K~a is also closely linked to the epic battle of the Mahbhrata, and in this role, especially in the Bhagavad G t, K~a reveals himself as that which is beyond oppositions. One of the most famous scenes in the Bhagavad G t is when K~a assumes his vila, or awesome form. At this point he tells Arjuna, I am death, destroyer of all (Miller 1986: 94). Now this is a very odd thing for K~a to say. As an avatra of Vi~u, K~a is associated with the preservation of life, as Vi~u is the god of preservation. But here, in a paradox, he says, I am death. So K~a is both the god of preservation and the god of destruction. K~a, as an avatra of Vi~u, is a symbol of life, which is prioritized over death. But no sooner is this hierarchy established then he reveals himself as death, and so overturns the hierarchy. However after revealing himself as death personified, in a horrific image in which, you lick at the worlds around you, devouring them with flaming mouths (Miller 1986: 94), he then reverts back to his benevolent form as the preserver of life. This is a deconstructive moment; K~a is life, but no sooner have we said this then we must put the statement under erasure (Derrida 1974: 60)4: K~a is life, K~a is death, K~a is both life and death, K~a is neither life nor death; to K~a neither life nor death are pertinent. Elsewhere in the Bhagavad G t K~a says, I am immortality and death, both being and non-being am I (Miller 1986: 85). This language is certainly reminiscent of the Upaniads, where paradoxes are used to hint at the nature of the transcendent divinity of Brahman. In fact the Bhagavad G t is full of images of oppositions that are reconciled in the person of K~a. He equates himself with both aquatic and sky symbols throughout the work as a way of revealing himself to be none other than Brahman.5 Getting past the delusion of such oppositions is the central message of the Bhagavad G t: All creatures are bewildered at birth by the delusion of opposing dualities (Miller 1986: 85). K~a is attempting to get Arjuna to see past such oppositions, and he does so by deconstructing them.

242 / Yoganand Sinha The other significant aspect of Vi~u as K~a is the fact that K~a is seen as a highly erotic god. He has a personal, intimate love affair with all the women of his village. These women, called gop s, are the ideal of Hindu devotionalism called bhakti. Their unconditional and complete surrender to their love for K~a makes them symbols of the ideal devotee, who completely surrenders him or herself to the divine. It is significant that this love is seen in terms of eroticism. The gop s have an immediate and physical access to K~as love, and the fact that this love is sexual, and so implicitly polluting (see Babb 1975: 50), does not detract from its Holiness. In terms of ritual, one of the most popular rituals in North India that is closely associated with K~a is the ritual of Hol . Let me briefly point out some of the significant features of this ritual. The ritual takes place in the early spring, right after the winter harvest is completed and just before the summer crops are planted. The day starts out with people chanting phrases like, bur n mno, hol hai, or dont be offended, its Hol , already alerting us to the fact that the day will bend or distort the normal rules of society. On this day there is a ritual requirement to drink ha~ , an almond and milk mixture that is laced with large quantities of bhg, or pureed marijuana. Since this is a ritual obligation everyone in the community will partake of it, even people who do not normally indulge in marijuana. By mid-morning the entire community is under the effect of the drug. At this point people walk around with large syringe like squirt guns, called puckr s. Buckets of colored water have been placed all over the village and people spend the rest of the day squirting each other with colored water (see Marriott 1971). The net effect is the psychedelic mixing of color all over everyone. In theory this is open play, where different castes are allowed to play together. The other noteworthy feature of this ritual is the open flirtation that takes place between the sexes, and even, or particularly, between kinsmen who are normally in an avoidance relationship. This is significant because normally there is little contact permitted between the sexes in Indian society, but on Hol such restrictions are suspended. Women, who are normally supposed to be demure, are allowed to openly tease men, especially about their sexuality. Several features of this ritual point out the deconstructive nature of K~a. To begin with, the time when this ritual takes place cannot be an

Vi~u, the Transcendent / 243 accident. The harvesting of the winter crop implies the death of the plant, but the plant dies so that we humans may live. And no sooner is the winter harvest over then people begin to make preparations for the planting of the summer crop. The agricultural cycle points out the relationship between life and death. Life implies death, and death becomes necessary for life. K~a, as we have noted, is associated with both life and death. Life and death are just divine l l, the play of the gods. The use of drugs during this ritual suspends the normal consciousness of the devotee. In India the effect that marijuana produces is called mast or joy, and the idea is that momentarily the devotee can experience the joy of the transcendental universe. Hindus see the transcendental universe, or Brahman, as being in a perpetual state of bliss, called nanda (see Kinsley 1975: 6673). Marijuana allows us to see a glimpse of the perpetual joy that is the universe of Brahman. If an opposition is set up between the mundane consciousness of everyday reality and the transcendental consciousness of Brahman, who is in a state of perpetual nanda, then the ritual allows the devotee to pass from the mundane to the transcendent, only to come back to the mundane at the end of the ritual. The other significant feature of this ritual, the random mixing of color, has a deep resonance in Hindu symbolism. Color, in Hinduism, is closely linked to the idea of classification or structure. In the g Veda, the hierarchical order of society is referred to as var~a (OFlaherty 1981: 2931), which literally translates as color. In Indian music, scales are referred to as rgas, which is another word for color. Indeed all matter, in S khya philosophy, is composed of three different atoms, called gu~as,6 each of which is associated with a color. Color thus implies order, the order of the caste system, and even the structure that underlies all material existence. The random mixing of color then is symbolically pointing out the collapse of social hierarchies. What was meant to be sorted and kept separate has now been allowed to mingle. This goes along with the fact that on this day caste separation or avoidance relationships are temporarily suspended. Everyone, in theory, can play Hol together. The logic behind this is the idea that to the transcendental universe, the universe of non-differentiation, social distinctions are irrelevant. All of the principles and structures by which normal society is ordered are trivial to the transcendent, which is beyond the opposition of purity and pollution and of caste hierarchies. K~a, as an avatra of

244 / Yoganand Sinha Vi~u, is the very definition of purity. But the problem with purity, as Dumont has pointed out, is that it demands separation and avoidance. One has to work to maintain purity and carefully guard against pollution, which is, after all, a by-product of everyday existence. Hence a pure god must be a distant god, for in order to maintain his purity Vi~u must distance himself from the pollution of everyday life. But as K~a, Vi~u is also a polluted god, in the sense that he is not remote or distant. As a child, he does not separate himself from the everyday realities of this world, a world that is by definition polluting to the ethereal Vi~u; as a young man he makes love to the gop s, which again implies pollution, and throughout his life he engages in combat against demons and thus is exposed to the pollution of death. But as a symbol of the transcendent K~a/Vi~u is beyond the categories of purity or pollution. Momentarily we mortals are allowed to see this world, a world beyond the oppositions that structure everyday reality, the universe of non-differentiation. The final feature of this ritual, its overtly sexual nature, again points out the deconstructive nature of the divine and links this ritual to K~a. In popular art and symbolism, K~a is closely associated with Hol and he is often depicted as playing Hol with his lovers, the gop s. But as I have already pointed out, the gop s, and especially the mortal woman Rdh, are so totally consumed by their love for K~a that their sexual attraction to him becomes a symbol for the ideal devotee. In Bhakti Yoga,7 the devotee approaches god as a lover approaches their beloved. If their surrender to their beloved is complete and unconditional, then the distinction between them and the divine disappears. They become one with the divine because of their erotic love for god. This is why Rdh is worshipped as a goddess in her own right (see Wulff 1996). Her love for K~a was so uncompromising that she herself became divine. Sexuality, in Hindu symbolism, seems to be a symbol of the collapse of the distinction between the self and the other. This is especially true of Tantric Hinduism: Tantrism thus shows how the supreme experience encompasses all the levels of reality, how oneness suddenly arises in the very mist of duality (Silburn 1988: 138). If ones sexual partner happens to be god, then sexuality becomes the symbol of the collapse of the distinction between the sacred and the profane. Given this idea that oneness suddenly arises in the very mist of duality, it makes sense that Vi~u should be both a male and a female.

Vi~u, the Transcendent / 245 The duality of male versus female is deconstructed in the mythology of Vi~u. Normally Vi~u is seen as a male god, but in some myths he suddenly appears as Mohin , a female. Mohin is not Vi~us consort (the goddess r is), but rather Mohin is Vi~u as a woman. In the myth of the churning of the ocean, for example, the devas and the asuras churn the primordial waters to find the nectar of life, which bestows immortality upon the drinker. But the gods do not wish the demons to have a share of this immortality, so they appeal to Vi~u to help them devise a plan to cheat the demons of their share. When the nectar emerges from the primordial waters the demons run off with the pot of immortality. Vi~u then appears before them as Mohin , a seductive woman who so enamors the demons that they give her (or was it him) the pot of nectar and tell her that she may distribute it in any way that she wishes. She, of course, gives the nectar to the gods and denies the demons a share (Venkatesananda 1989: 19096). In fact Mohin s seductive power is so overwhelming that even iva, the god of asceticism, succumbs to her charms. iva begs Vi~u to let him see Vi~u in his female form. When Vi~u assumes the form of Mohin , iva is so overcome by desire that he ejaculates. His seed spills down to the earth and turns into mines of silver and gold (Venkatesananda 1989: 198). So once again we see that Vi~u is able to simultaneously be at two ends of a hierarchal opposition. Generally speaking, in Indian society men are regarded as being superior to women (Babb 1975: 81). Vi~u is a man, but he overturns this hierarchy by transforming himself into a woman, only to revert back to being a man. Vi~u is both a man and a woman, Vi~u is neither a man nor a woman, to Vi~u there is no distinction between male and female. As a symbol of Brahman Vi~u is beyond gender, The noun brahman is neuter: The Absolute is beyond the differentiating qualifications of sex, beyond all limiting, individualizing characteristics whatsoever (Zimmer 1946: 123) Conclusion As a symbol of the absolute undifferentiated reality of Brahman, Vi~u is beyond the limitations of any opposition. But such a vision of divinity is difficult to represent directly; how can we imagine non-differentiation when our consciousness is bound by categories and structures? Hinduism

246 / Yoganand Sinha attempts to get the devotee to understand this undifferentiated vision of divinity by making the symbols, myths, and rituals associated with Vi~u deconstruct the major oppositions that structure the Hindu worldview. By simultaneously being a thing and its opposite, Vi~u challenges us to see past the limitations of ordinary consciousness and in so doing he becomes our guide to understanding the ultimate reality that Brahman represents. I have argued that the mythologies, symbolism, and rituals associated with Vi~u deconstruct a number of oppositions that are central to the how Hindu society is structured, and I suspect there are a number of such oppositions that have yet to be considered. Playing on an early version of the Hindu creation myth, Vi~u aligns himself with the opposite principles of sky and water. He is both a symbol of the sky principle and the water principle. He is the ethereal god whose nature and qualities are so vast as to be unimaginable, yet, as K~a, he is also a familiar deity who is first and foremost approachable. Far from being distant and remote, he is close, even intimate. He is the apex of purity, one of the qualities that make him remote, yet as K~a he engages in battle, sexuality and all the everyday activities associated with pollution. He is simultaneously pure and polluted. Rituals such as Hol , which are linked to him, collapse the distinctions between life and death, between purity and pollution (which is at the heart of Indian social structure), and even the central philosophical distinction between the self and the other. All this is done to help us see past our normal consciousness. He is both the preserver of life and the incarnation of death, both the field and the knower of the field. He is simultaneously a man and a woman. In short, Vi~u collapses all of the oppositions that structure the Hindu worldview. To him the distinctions between male/female, purity/pollution, sky/water, object/subject, and so forth, have become, to use Derridas term, non-pertinent (1981: 21). Of course, it goes without saying that this vision of a universe without oppositions is meant to appeal to the person who wishes to achieve moka; it is by no means a prescription for society. In Hinduism, what is desirable for the individual is not, in anyway, desirable for society. For the individual to see past the limitations of purity and pollution is, at least in the Advaita school of philosophy,8 seen as the ultimate achievement that a person can attain. However, these same qualities, when applied to society are seen as the ultimate catastrophe. Hinduism equates the collapse of social oppositions with the disintegration of creation (see Eck

Vi~u, the Transcendent / 247 1982: 197). Erasing the distinctions between purity and pollution at the social level implies the end of caste hierarchies which in turn implies a universe so defiled that the only hope is for iva, the god of destruction, to cleanse the universe in a blaze of fire so that creation might be restarted in a pristine form (OFlaherty 1973: 83); a pristine state in which, once again, the oppositions of purity and pollution are reinstated. And what is true of purity and pollution is equally true for all the other oppositions that Vi~u deconstructs. If males and females reversed roles or ceased to exist altogether, for instance, then what would become of dharma, the moral order of the universe? Rituals such as Hol are not meant to be a prescription for society (a Hindu version of why cant we all get along), but rather an instance of what Victor Turner referred to as communitas, which only serves to highlight the necessity of structure. There is a dialectic here, for the immediacy of communitas gives way to the mediacy of structure (Turner 1969: 129). Distinction of purity and pollution, male and female, self and other, might momentarily be suspended, but such a suspension is meant to resonate within the consciousness of an individual who hopes to achieve enlightenment and is in no way a plea for social equality. As long as our consciousness lives in the mundane reality of everyday consciousness, we are, in the Hindu view of things, doomed to live in the prison house of hierarchical oppositions. One cannot, andfrom a Hindu perspectiveshould not, imagine a world without such hierarchies: Of course, it is not a question of rejecting these notions; they are necessary and, at least at present, nothing is conceivable for us without them (Derrida 1974: 13). So what is the point of presenting us with images that transcend oppositions, which are nevertheless seen as necessary? To shew the fly the way out of the fly-bottle (Wittgenstein 1958: 103). Hindu mythology, symbolism, and ritual attempt to get us, at a personal level, to consider alternatives to the reality we take for granted. This is not a matter of structural synthesis or resolutionwho could hope to find a synthesis between subject and object? Rather, By refusing to modify its component elements in order to force them into a synthesis, Indian mythology celebrates the idea that the universe is boundlessly various, that everything occurs simultaneously, that all possibilities may exist without excluding each other (OFlaherty 1973: 318). We have made the case that Vi~u reveals himself as the transcendental

248 / Yoganand Sinha deity, a symbol of Brahman, because of his ability to overcome oppositions. But Vi~u is not the only symbol of this non-differentiated transcendental reality in contemporary Hinduism. One could make a similar case for the two other significant pan-Indian deities, namely iva and the goddess akti. Both iva and akti, like Vi~u, are symbols of the transcendental reality of Brahman precisely because of their ability to deconstruct oppositions. But Hinduism is full of regional variations, and although Vi~u, iva and akti may be the major pan-Indian gods, at the local level a plethora of regional deities are often called upon to play the role of symbolizing the undifferentiated reality of Brahman. I would argue that any deity in Hinduism, whether they be great pan-Indian gods like Vi~u or more regional deities, must be seen as deconstructing oppositions if they are to be a symbol of the transcendent. Notes 1. As Heesterman has pointed out, Incidentally the ancient Indian Vedic thinkers were past masters at such deconstruction (1993: 1). It was this ancient habit of thinking in deconstructive terms which allowed such scholars to make statements such as, the animal, is neither taken hold of [that is, immolated] nor not taken hold of (33). 2. Although I have given the textual references to such myths, it is important to keep in mind that in everyday religion such myths are not read but performed. Most Hindus are exposed to such myths by listening to their elders at story time, or by watching the myth performed by theater troops during a festival, or by seeing the myth depicted in temple or village art. It is also significant that in the textual tradition of this myth no reference is made to K~a playing ball with his friends, yet whenever I have heard this myth, the storyteller always embellished the story with references to K~a playing ball. This is not an accident, or a misreading of the myth. As Kinsley (1975: 1923) has pointed out, K~as battles with demons is always understood in terms of playthe young K~a does not interrupt his play behavior to vanquish demons, the vanquishing of demons is play to K~a. In this myth not only is K~a playing ball with his friends; he destroys the demon snake by dancing on its head, again implying play behavior. 3. As an infant and a child, K~a is approachable. Particularly as an

Vi~u, the Transcendent / 249 infant (but also as an adolescent and lover) K~a is to be doted upon and coddled. He is to be approached with the intimacy with which a parent approaches a child. God, revealing himself as an infant, invites man to dispense with formality and undue respect and come to him openly, delighting in him intimately. The adorable, beautiful babedoes not demand servitude, pomp and praise when he is approached (Kinsley 1975: 18). 4. Derridas term sous rature is translated as under erasure. What Derrida means by this action of putting a word under erasure is the idea that the word is inaccurate and therefore cannot be used, but at the same time the word is necessary and therefore unavoidable. To get around this quandary, Derrida uses the word but then crosses it out, so that the word is used but at the same time negated. Why is the word inaccurate? Because the word is defined only in terms of its difference from its opposite, that is, in terms of a relationship to other words. Difference thus becomes necessary in the definition of any word. But in order to know how the word differs from its opposite, it becomes necessary to define the opposite, but the opposite itself can only be defined by showing how it differs from the word we are trying to define in the first place. Thus words become caught in a helpless deferral of meaning; we cannot define life without showing how it differs from death, but we cannot show how it differs from death without defining death, which in turn requires us to define life. Meaning thus becomes a house of mirrors where each word reflects its opposite in a back and forth movement that can never come to a completion. The meaning of a word implies both difference and deferment, what Derrida refers to as diffrence. When making the statement, Vi~u is life, we cannot use the word life, as it already carries with it the trace of the word death. In this statement, therefore, the word life is inaccurate, illegitimate. Yet it is necessary to use the word in order to explain Vi~us nature. So we use the word, but then go on to erase it. The same process would be true of the statement, Vi~u is death personified, or Vi~u is pure, Vi~u is a man, Vi~u represents the sky principle, and so forth. 5. For instance, in the Tenth Teaching, K~a says, I am the endless cosmic serpent, the lord of all sea creatures. Later he says, I am the purifying wind, the warrior Rama bearing arms, the sea monster crocodile,

250 / Yoganand Sinha the flowing river Ganges (Miller 1986: 93). So he is both the wind, the vital breath initially associated with Prajpati, but at the same time, he is the Ga g, the primordial water of life, and therefore he is associated with water creatures, such as the serpent, crocodile, and so forth. Later, in the Fifteenth Teaching, he equates himself with the sun and the moon, fire, and water symbols (129), but at the same time he tells Arjuna, neither sun nor moon nor fire illumines my highest abode, once there, they do not return. So he is both the sun (fire) and moon (water), but at the same time, he is neither the sun nor the moon. 6. S khya is one of the oldest schools of Hindu philosophy. It has been a highly influential school of philosophy, and is directly linked to the Yoga school of philosophy, which adopted the basic tenants of S khya wholesale (Eliade 1958: 7). S khya is essentially a theory of evolution. In this school, creation unfolds due to the interplay of the two fundamental categories of purua (subject) and prakti (object). Prakti is nature and is composed of three qualities called gu~as. These qualities are: sattva or light, rajas or passion, and tamas or darkness, inertia. Everything is composed of these three qualities. When these qualities are balanced within prakti, there is no activity (that is, the universe remains a potentiality, but not an actuality). However, when praktis equilibrium is disturbed, due to her excitement at being in close proximity to purua, the process of creation begins to unfold (see Radhakrishnan and Moore 1957: 42485). 7. Bhakti is one of the paths to liberation mentioned in the Bhagvad G t, but has a much older history, especially in South India where it originated (Flood 1996: 12847). Bhakti emphasizes an immediate all consuming love for the divine. Because of the centrality of passionate love within Bhakti philosophy, Bhakti theologians and poets tended to downplay, or even ridicule, the more conventional rituals and moral codes that are central to orthodox Hinduism (Kinsley 1975: 5678). Bhakti had an enormous influence on Hinduism and was quickly incorporated into mainstream Hinduism. 8. Advaita (non-dualist) philosophers, such as a kara, posit a monistic view of the universe. There is only one real subject (purua), which is in this school equated with the consciousness of the universe (called Brahman). We are all extensions of this consciousness, however, our entrapment by my (illusion) deludes into thinking we are ontologi-

Vi~u, the Transcendent / 251 cally different from Brahman. This entrapment results from the seeming differentiation created by prakti (objectivity). But once we realize our true nature, understand our inner most self (called tma, which can roughly be translated as soul) we realize that in actuality there is no difference between ourselves and Brahman (that is, tma is the same as Brahman). This understanding, called moka, frees us from the entrapment of my and becomes the ultimate goal of Advaita philosophy. References Cited Atkins, G. Douglas. 1983. Reading Deconstruction Deconstructive Reading. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. Babb, Lawrence A. 1975. The Divine Hierarchy: Popular Hinduism in Central India. New York: Columbia University Press. Baynes, Kenneth, James Bohman, and Thomas McCarthy. 1987. After Philosophy: End or Transformation. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Bosch, F.D.K. 1960. The Golden Germ: An Introduction to Indian Symbolism. S-Gravenhage: Mouton and Co. Derrida, Jacques. 1974 [1967]. Of Grammatology (trans. Garatri Chakravorty Spivak). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Derrida, Jacques. 1981 [1972]. Positions (trans. Alan Bass). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Dumont, Louis. 1970 [1966]. Homo Hierarchicus: The Caste System and Its Implications (trans. Mark Sainsburg, Louis Dumont, and Basia Gulati). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Eck, Diana L. 1982. Banaras: City of Light. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Eliade, Mircea. 1958 [1954]. Yoga: Immortality and Freedom (trans. Willard R. Trask). Princeton: Princeton University Press. Flood, Gavin. 1996. An Introduction to Hinduism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grimes, John. 1996. A Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press. Heesterman, J.C. 1993. The Broken World of Sacrifice: An Essay in Ancient Indian Ritual. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kinsley, David R. 1975. The Sword and the Flute: Kl and K~a, Dark

252 / Yoganand Sinha Visions of the Terrible and the Sublime in Hindu Mythology. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lvi-Strauss, Claude. 1966 [1962]. The Savage Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Marriott, McKim. 1971 [1966]. The Feast of Love. In Milton Singer, ed., Krishna: Myths, Rites and Attitudes, 20112. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. McGree, R. Jon and Richard L. Warms. 2008. Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History. New York: McGraw-Hill. Miller, Barbara Stoler. 1986. The Bhagavad-Gita: Krishnas Counsel in a Time of War. New York: Columbia University Press. OFlaherty, Wendy Doniger. 1973. iva: The Erotic Ascetic. New York: Oxford University Press. OFlaherty, Wendy Doniger. 1975. Hindu Myths: A Sourcebook Translated from the Sanskrit. New York: Penguin. OFlaherty, Wendy Doniger. 1981. The Rig Veda. New York: Penguin. Olivelle, Patrick, trans. 1996. Upaniads. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli and Charles A. Moore. 1957. A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Silburn, Lilian. 1988 [1983]. Kundalini: Energy of the Depths (trans. Jacques Gontier). Albany: State University of New York Press. Turner, Victor. 1969. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Venkatesananda, Swami. 1989. The Concise Srimad Bhagavatam. Albany: State University of New York Press. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1958 [1953]. Philosophical Investigations (trans. G.E.M. Anscombe). New York: Macmillan Publishing. Wulff, Donna Marie. 1996. Rdh: Consort and Conqueror of Krishna. In John Stratton Hawley and Donna Marie Wulff, eds., Dev : Goddesses of India, 10934. Berkeley: University of California Press. Zimmer, Heinrich. 1946. Myths and Symbols in Indian Art and Civilization. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

YOGANAND SINHA is Assistant Professor of Anthropology at Michigan State University. <sinhayog@msu.edu>

Вам также может понравиться