Mark Moran

The Move Toward Devotional Religions

The move from the traditional philosophical religions of the ancient world toward the more mystical and devotional faiths of the modern world represented a major change in the way that humans perceived the universe and their role within it. The figures of Krishna in the Hindu Bhagavad-Gita and of Jesus in the Christian Gospels, both of whom appeared about 2000 years ago, are the most striking examples of this shift in ideology. These changes represent a gradual, and possibly interrelated, evolution of philosophy. These changes also had profound repercussions on all aspects of society. After all, if society’s view of an individual’s cosmic worth changes substantially, it is only logical that its view of politics, rituals, and human relationships will change as well.

From the earliest known texts and oral traditions, humans have been searching for answers. On a fundamental level, almost all philosophies and religions seek to explain where we came from, why we are here, and most importantly, where we are going. The most immediately relevant question is what happens to people after they die. The sensible way to address all these issues at once is by explaining the origins and nature of the universe. Much can be learned about a particular culture by examining its creation myths.

The Zoroastrians of ancient Iran, for example, believed that the universe was created by Ohrmazd as a tool to help fight and defeat the evil gods. They believed that the universe was in a 12,000 year cycle and that the twin gods of pure light and pure darkness would eventually battle each other. Ohrmazd, or Ahura Mazda the good god, gains strength from the worship of the humans he created. Consequently, early Zorastrian text emphasized mankind’s role in praising Ohrmazd. The early Hindus of India believed in a very hierarchical and ritualistic view of the world. The Vedas describe an objective and strange creation myth that is not overly concerned with humans. The Vedas point out that only god can understand creation, because only he was there. Like the Zoroastrians, the Hindus were very concerned with ritual purity. Fire sacrifices were at the heart of both traditions because of fire’s ability to transform earthly objects and send them into the heavens. This provided man with some link to the heavens. Fire, like floods and other natural phenomena, was crucial to the life of these early societies, yet only explainable as a gift from the gods. (Boyce, O’Flaherty, Awn)

This concentration on ritual purity had implications for Hindu and Zoroastrian women, and it also provided some justification for the racial (or birth) hierarchy of the Hindu caste system. In the Hindu castes there were strict rules about what groups could marry and produce off-spring, and which groups had access to religious texts and services. Women were segregated as well. On one hand, they were considered extremely powerful and dangerous because of their endless capacity to absorb power (semen) and yet they were also considered very ritually impure because of menstruation. An example of one of the more misogynist cases, the early Greeks (according to Hesiod) believed that “the race of women, the feminine sex [was] a baneful race [and] a great curse” who were sent to men as a punishment for Prometheus stealing fire from the gods (Frazer 66). (Awn, Frazer)

Early Chinese texts also sought to explain the origins of the universe and to understand a world that was often very hostile to early civilizations (e.g. floods, draughts, etc.). Yin and yang represent the dual aspect of all things, and it is the mixing of these two related and interdependent opposites that brings about the creation of the elements (fire, earth, water, etc.) as well as the gods, particularly P’an Ku. (Sproul)

Throughout these early traditions there is a sense of the vast mystery of the cosmos as well as the insignificance of humankind within it. Gradually, however, various groups started to react against these bleak and sometimes illogical views of creation. Jain texts explain in very clear and concise prose that any doctrine which claims that “the world was created is ill-advised and should be rejected” because it “makes no sense at all” (Embree 82). The texts go on to raise philosophical questions about the nature of god and creation which still confound modern religions. “How can an immaterial god create that which is immaterial,” (80) ask the Jains, and more interestingly, why would such a god want to since he should have no purpose or desire? The Jains conclude that the world is “uncreated and indestructible”, has no beginning or end, and no purpose for existing. This runs completely counter to Zoroastrian views of the world. (Embree)

More important then their lack of a creation myth is the Jains’ emphasis on a person’s actions, or karma. The Jains, and then the Buddhists, focused on a person attaining perfection and harmony by simplifying his action. Unlike the polytheistic Zoroastrians and Hindus, the Jains and Buddhists did not believe in a soul but rather believed that existence was a constant cycle of death and re-birth. The Buddhists in particular stress that salvation, or nirvana, can only be achieved by purifying and simplifying one’s actions until he lives without any goals or desires. (Awn, Embree)

Similarly, Chinese philosophy underwent a movement away from the traditional Shaman gods and toward a more ascetic tradition. Lao Tzu describes the vague concept of Taoism, or following the simple path of least resistance. The “way” of all things, unfortunately, cannot be defined or completely described, because that would limit it. The highest goal of Taoism is total retreat from the physical world of desire and emotion; this goal can only be realized or experienced, but it cannot well communicated. At perhaps the same time, Confucius was urging people to return to righteousness. Confucius and his follower Mencius believed that humans are fundamentally good, but that they need to start performing rituals sincerely again. Confucius believed that ancestor worship would keep society stable and slow down its decline. In order to organize society, he defines six cardinal relationships between family members, friends, and royalty. Also in the trend toward a more secular view of the world, coupled with a more rigorous mandate for human behavior, Confucius refuses to discuss heaven or an afterlife. While Confucianists and Taoists may have still believed in one or more gods, their primary emphasis was on how humans should live their life. (Frankel, Lau, Waley, de Bary)

Meanwhile, the Greeks were also moving away from their earlier polytheistic tradition and exploring issues of human society and relationships. Early Greek works like the Theogony and the Hymn To Demeter had explained the origins of the universe and the nature of seasons in a manner similar to other early traditions. They had their own host of amoral, fickle gods who required sacrifices. However, by the time of Plato, the Greeks seemed to have moved into questions more relevant to everyday life. In The Republic, Plato attempts to find out the true nature of justice, such as whether it is inherent in people, and what it means to be just (e.g. is it just for a doctor to charge for his services, or for a person to do harm toward his enemies, or for a person to lie when the listener won’t understand the truth). Like Confucius, Plato places a very high value on stability; he stresses that one should only seek reforms through persuasion, rather than violence. Plato analyzes people’s natural talents or virtues and sets up a theoretical society, in which he maps the role of people into three classes: ordinary citizens or merchants, the morally and physically elite guardians, and the philosopher king. Plato also compares and contrasts different types of governments and social relations. While still being highly chauvinistic, he updates the Greek view of women to recognize that they too serve an important role (and can be guardians) in the ideal society. (Women in the ideal city arguably are elevated only to protect the gene pool from inferior mothers.) Plato goes on to investigate the nature of human conscious and intellect. He questions how we are able to classify objects and recognize their traits, and from that, where our notions of beauty and goodness come from. Plato even questions how much it is possible for humans to know, and how close to knowing something we can get. (Awn, Grube, Frazer, Athanassakis)

Hindu writing, at this point, was also moving toward a greater concern for civil issues such as examining social structures and goals from the perspective of the individual. An important distinction with these newer texts is that they are considered to be remembered and thus written by people, as opposed to the earlier Vedas which are considered to be divinely revealed. The Dharma, or Sacred Law, is more secular than the Vedas and it established the foundations of Hindu society. The Dharma began to solidify the various belief systems in India by commenting and interpreting the Vedas, which was a necessary step for the Vedas to become a corner stone of the Hindu religion. The main tenant of the Dharma is the supreme importance of performing one’s duty. The Dharma divides people into distinct groups based on their birth, and like Plato, there is a supreme importance placed on a person doing exactly what is appropriate for his social status. “Hinduism brought together various peoples, classes, and religious traditions into a single culture and polity presided over by the Sacred Law… A synthesis was achieved between the older Brahmanical ideal of action—of life viewed as a ritual—and the newer, quietistic ideal of withdrawal and renunciation developed in the Upanishadic period” (Embree 213-215). The Dharma was the philosophical glue that justified the hierarchical Hindu society. (Embree, Awn, Grube)

The Artha deals with the non-religious aspects of Hindu life, such as the pursuit of profit and politics. Order and success are the main concern of the Artha, and it thus deals with the role of both kings and merchants. The Moksha complements the Artha because it deals with how people attain individual enlightenment. The Moksha is less poetic and more tangible than the earlier texts, though it is not meant to replace the Vedas. The balance was gradually shifting from relying on scriptural (Vedic) authority to relying on individual logic and inference. The original purpose of the religion remained the same however: the philosophical quest to achieve liberation from the misery of going from birth to death to birth, and to attain everlasting bliss. “By virtue one progresses toward higher forms of embodied existence; by vice, one goes down toward lower forms; by knowledge liberation is gained and by its opposite bondage” (Ishvarakrishna 307). (Embree)

Finally, the Upanishads represent the ultimate in accessibility in the Hindu tradition (at least prior to the Bhagavad-Gita, which some consider the final Upanishad). Most of the Upanishads take the form of a Socratic dialogue, with one or more students asking questions of a mentor. “As Indian philosophy aims at experiencing Truth, all the schools [of Hindu philosophy]… emphasize the need and importance of a spiritual preceptor or teacher—a guru” (Embree 300). These conversations sometimes take place in the form of a story or fable, which makes them easier to understand. The Upanishads, the end of the Vedas, are “concerned with explicating the relation between the individual self (atman) and Absolute Reality (brahman)” (Embree 297). This emphasis on the worth of the individual, which is the main theme of the parable of Svetaketu in the Chandogya Upanishad, was an important milestone in the evolution of Hinduism. “The spiritualization of prayer (brahman) and its relation to the gods and the universe through ritual sacrifice constitute the central conception of early Indian religious thought. When the Upanishads coupled this notion with an investigation of the individual self (atman) … the brahman came to be viewed as a universal principle” (Embree 6). (Frankel, Embree, Mascaro)

This move toward Monism represents an evolution into a very rational explanation of the universe. In a monistic tradition, there is only one unique reality, the soul, and everything else is part of it. This is an important step toward devotional religions because the theology is simplified and better defined. A god in a monistic tradition is not fickle or dependent on human worship like those of earlier polytheistic traditions. The gods of the earlier Hindus were created during creation according to the Vedas, and were therefore not the ultimate and only power. A deity in a monistic religion seems to be all powerful and timeless. There was also still a large emphasis on finding the truth or knowledge, and realizing that there is more to the truth then a person’s senses indicate. (Awn, Embree, Mascaro)

As more and more focus was placed on people controlling their own destiny, their spiritual or cosmic self-esteem increased. They were no longer pawns in a vast and mysterious universe, but rather were the center of, or primary reason for, creation. The philosophical ascetic traditions had empowered people, but at the same time had set up near impossible goals for humans to achieve, primarily a life of detached action and discipline. The final ingredient was for an all powerful deity to reveal himself as benevolent and provide an easier path to salvation, which is what finally characterized the modern devotional religions. (Awn)

Around the first century AD, both Hinduism and Judaism underwent movements toward devotional traditions that were accompanied by the appearance and teachings of an anthropomorphic representation of god. In the Hindu religion, this change is primarily reflected in the revelation of Krishna in the Bhagavad-Gita, while in the Jewish religion this change is brought about by the appearance of Jesus in the New Testament Gospels. There are many similarities in the teachings and characteristics of Krishna and Jesus.

The most fundamental similarity that the Bhagavad-Gita and the Gospel of John share is their approach to salvation. While earlier religious thought had emphasized philosophical ideals such as ritual purity, performing one’s sacred duty, and cultivating a life without action, these newer texts offer a path to salvation through devotion to a single deity. Jesus, in particular, emphasizes the supreme importance of belief: “‘Those who believe in him are not condemned, but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God’” (John 3:18). “‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’” (John 14:6). Krishna says almost the same thing to Arjuna: “A man who dies remembering me at the time of death enters my being when he is freed from his body” (Gita 8.5). Krishna says, “One who serves me faithfully with discipline of devotion, transcends the qualities of nature and shares in the infinite spirit” (Gita 14.26).

Borrowing from the Zoroastrian concept of a resurrection of the body, the newer devotional religions of Christianity and Islam expanded the idea into a very optimistic vision of an afterlife. Jesus says that he is the only path to salvation: “‘I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live’” (John 11:25). This too appears in a similar fashion in the Gita: “Men who worship me … win the reward I secure” (Gita 9.22).

The new devotional religions are also very monistic (and monotheistic). They deny the existence of any other deities. The Bhagavad-Gita makes clear that Krishna is “the original creator … eternity, being, nonbeing, and beyond … [he is] the original god, the primordial spirit of man, the supreme abode” (Gita 11.37-11.38). Krishna tells Arjuna plainly: “Nothing is higher than I am” (Gita 7.7), for “I am the universal father, mother, granter of all … I am the way, sustainer, lord, witness, shelter, refuge, friend … I am immortality and death” (Gita 9.17-9.19). Jesus’s role is slightly more ambiguous than Krishna’s, though he as well suggests that there is one unique god. He alludes to his own divinity by saying, “‘The Father and I are one’” (John 10:30), and he also claims, “‘I am from above … I am not of this world’” (John 8:23). In fact, John begins his Gospel by arguing that Jesus has always existed and is equivalent to, or has equal status with, God (John 1:1).

There are differences between Hindu devotional piety and Christian devotional piety, but the similarities are more striking. In fact, they are so striking that some people have speculated that they are interrelated, that is, that Jesus may have traveled to India before he began teaching in Palestine. There is little or no evidence to prove this, but the similarities between the ideas in the Bhagavad-Gita and in the Gospels have led some to speculate that Jesus or the Gospel writers may have been influenced by the evolving ideas that inspired the Bhagavad-Gita. It may even be possible, though unlikely, that Jesus or the Gospel writers could have read the Bhagavad-Gita.

Whatever their origins, these new embracing philosophies helped to gradually bring about changes in various aspects of society. Since Krishna promised salvation for everyone who believed in him, even Hindus in the lowest classes could enjoy an afterlife. While this didn’t eliminate the caste system by any means, it certainly offered a more hopeful outlook to members of lower castes, and also on some level must have served as a spiritual equalizer. In Christianity and Islam as well, there is also hope of redemption for everyone in society, including women and slaves. By equalizing all people at the most spiritual level, it is possible that this belief eventually helped foster both the importance of forgiveness and tolerance within Christian teaching as well as the modern egalitarian ideals that all people are created equal.

There certainly are exceptions to this trend toward devotional religions in other cultures. Judaism, along with some forms of Taoism and Buddhism, continue to lack anthropomorphic deities, and in some cases they remain more ascetic than devotional. Furthermore, even after the Gospels and the Bhagavad-Gita were written, many cultures and religions continued to focus on attaining spiritual perfection only through discipline and meditation. Nevertheless, significantly more than half of the world practices a form of Christianity, Islam, or Hinduism. These major religions, as well as others, demonstrate that after 2,000 years, many people still find great comfort in a forgiving deity who loves them unconditionally and expects only their devotion.

Works Cited

Athanassakis, Apostolos N., tr. The Homeric Hymns.

Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976.

Awn, Peter. Notes from class lectures. Columbia University, Fall 1998.

de Bary, Wm. Theodore, Wing-tsit Chan and Burton Watson, eds. Sources of Chinese

Tradition, Volume I. New York: Columbia University Press, 1960.

Boyce, Mary, ed. And tr. Textual Sources For The Study of Zoroastrianism Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990.

Embree, Ainslie T., ed. Sources of Indian Tradition, Volume One: From the Beginning

to 1800. New York: Columbia University Press, 1988.

Frankel, James. Notes from class lectures. Columbia University, Fall 1998.

Frazer, R. M., tr. The Poems of Hesiod: Theogony and Works and Days.

Norman and London: University of Oklahoma Press, 1976.

Grube, G. M. A., tr. Plato: Republic. Revised by C.D.C. Reeve.

Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett, 1992

Lau, D. C., tr. Lao Tzu: Tao Te Ching. New York and London: Penguin, 1963.

Mascaro, Juan, tr. The Upanishads. New York and London: Penguin, 1965.

Miller, Barbara Stoler, tr. The Bhagavad-Gita. New York: Bantam, 1986.

O’Flaherty, Wendy Doniger, tr. The Rig Veda: An Anthology.

New York and London: Penguin, 1981.

Sproul, Barbara C., ed. Primal Myths: Creation Myths Around the World.

San Francisco: Harper, 1979.

Waley, Arthur, tr. The Analects of Confucius. New York: Vintage, 1989.

Note: Since I have written shorter, more specific papers about most of the topics in this essay, and since I am not using any textual material that I have not already cited in earlier papers, I have abstained from using direct quotes as much as possible. Summarizing rather than quoting also allows me to make a broader argument in a more compact space.