FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191  
192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   >>   >|  
eric name, such as _kalou_, or _wakan_, but the specific distinction is universally made by low savages. On one hand, original gods; on the other, non-original gods that were once ghosts. Now, this distinction is often calmly ignored; whereas, when any race has developed (like late Scandinavians) the Euhemeristic hypothesis ('all gods were once men'), that hypothesis is accepted as an historical statement of fact by some writers. It is part of my theory that the more popular ghost-worship of souls of people whom men have loved, invaded the possibly older religion of the Supreme Father. Mighty beings, whether originally conceived of as 'spirits' or not, came, later, under the Animistic theory, to be reckoned as spirits. They even (but not among the lowest savages) came to be propitiated by food and sacrifice. The alternative, for a Supreme Being, when once Animism prevailed, was sacrifice (as to more popular ghost deities) or neglect. We shall find examples of both alternatives. But sacrifice does not prove that a God was, in original conception, a ghost, or even a spirit. 'The common doctrine of the Old Testament is not that God is spirit, but that the spirit [_ruah_ = 'wind,' 'living breath'] of Jehovah, going forth from him, works in the world and among men.'[5] To resume. The high Gods of savagery--moral, all-seeing directors of things and of men--are not explicitly envisaged as spirits at all by their adorers. The notion of soul or spirit is here out of place. We can best describe Pirnmeheal, and Napi and Baiame as 'magnified non-natural men,' or undefined beings who were from the beginning and are undying. They are, like the easy Epicurean Gods, _nihil indiga nostri_. Not being ghosts, they crave no food from men, and receive no sacrifice, as do ghosts, or gods developed out of ghosts, or gods to whom the ghost-ritual has been transferred. For this very reason, apparently, they seem to be spoken of by Mr. Grant Allen as 'gods to talk about, not gods to adore; mythological conceptions rather than religious beings.'[6] All this is rather hard on the lowest savages. If they sacrifice to a god, then the god is a hungry ghost; if they don't, then the god is 'a god to talk about, not to adore,' Luckily, the facts of the Bora ritual and the instruction given there prove that Mungan-nganr and other names _are_ gods to adore, by ethical conformity to their will and by solemn ceremony, not merely gods to talk about. Thu
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191  
192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

sacrifice

 
ghosts
 

spirit

 
original
 
beings
 

spirits

 

savages

 

Supreme

 
ritual
 
popular

theory
 

lowest

 

hypothesis

 

distinction

 

developed

 

indiga

 

directors

 

nostri

 
things
 
Baiame

explicitly

 

adorers

 

notion

 

describe

 

Pirnmeheal

 

beginning

 
undying
 
undefined
 

natural

 
envisaged

magnified

 
Epicurean
 

spoken

 
instruction
 
Luckily
 

hungry

 
Mungan
 

solemn

 

ceremony

 
conformity

ethical

 

reason

 

apparently

 

transferred

 

receive

 

religious

 
conceptions
 

mythological

 

alternatives

 

writers