170
JULIAN F. PAS
to the hungry gods" (p. 235). This statement is contradicted by the custom of ending great festivals with a huge banquet offered to the ghosts: at the end of a chiao festival there always is this p’u-tu ritual. I have seen it performed as well at the conclusion of a temple consecration, of an installation of new deity statues, etc. I feel that the author over-states his case in order to strengthen his thesis.
In Chapter VI: "The Genesis of Gods” (pp. 238-269), the author formulates a new theory of how the gods, or cult-symbols, are created by the community. Since the gods, per definition, are symbols of community cohesion, they must appeal to the community as a whole. Ancestors are naturally excluded as candidates, and so the author decides that "gods evolved from hungry ghosts" (p. 239). Such a theory comes as a shock: it goes against the grain of most religious traditions, in which candidates for sainthood and deification are chosen from among the highest models of virtue, reflecting ideals of human perfection to be imitated by all men. Here, however, gods are born on the "garbage piles” of society; they are among the outcasts who have no known family, no known descendants. That this theory is at first alarming does not necessarily undermine its validity. However, before it can be accepted, we must carefully scrutinize it.
First of all, it is clear that the author only talks about the deities of the community religion. A great number of "supernatural” beings are therefore not included: for example: the higher gods of Taoism, the Buddhist Holy Ones; their genesis is quite different. Also excluded are the gods of the "state religion" of ancient times, still worshipped nowadays: Heaven, Earth, the nature gods like the spirits of thunder, of rain, of mountains and rivers, etc. These are rather personifications of natural phenomena. The author also excludes the Taoist immortals, although in legend and literature they are often close to the people. It seems therefore that only one group remains to develop into cult symbols, the hungry ghosts. The fact of their evil origins is later on camouflaged.
A priori I do not see any serious reason to reject this theory even if it appears to be shocking. However, I want to see solid arguments brought forward. And I find that the author does not provide them, except for one case (see later). When the author takes up the Matsu cult as an example he undermines his own thesis when he says that it is possible that her cult "began as the cult...
170
JULIAN F. PAS
to the hungry gods" (p. 235). This statement is contradicted by the custom of ending great festivals with a huge banquet offered to the ghosts: at the end of a chiao festival there always is this p’u-tu ritual. I have seen it performed as well at the conclusion of a temple consecration, of an installation of new deity statues, etc. I feel that the author over-states his case in order to strengthen his thesis.
In Chapter VI: "The Genesis of Gods” (pp. 238-269), the author formulates a new theory of how the gods, or cult-symbols, are created by the community. Since the gods, per definition, are sym- bols of community cohesion, they must appeal to the community as a whole. Ancestors are naturally excluded as candidates, and so the author decides that "gods evolved from hungry ghosts" (p. 239). Such a theory comes as a shock: it goes against the grain of most religious traditions, in which candidates for sainthood and deifica- tion are chosen from among the highest models of virtue, reflecting ideals of human perfection to be imitated by all men. Here, how. ever, gods are born on the "garbage piles” of society they are among the outcasts who have no known family, no known descen- dants. That this theory is at first alarming does not necessarily undermine its validity. However, before it can be accepted, we must carefully scrutinize it.
First of all, it is clear that the author only talks about the deities of the community religion. A great number of "supernatural” beings are therefore not included: for example: the higher gods of Taoism, the Buddhist Holy Ones: their genesis is quite different. Also ex- cluded are the gods of the "state religion" of ancient times, still worshipped nowadays: Heaven, Earth, the nature gods like the spirits of thunder, of rain, of mountains and rivers, etc. These are rather personifications of natural phenomena. The author also ex- cludes the Taoist immortals, although in legend and literature they are often close to the people. It seems therefore that only one group remains to develop into cult symbols, the hungry ghosts. The fact of their evil origins is later on camouflaged.
A priori I do not see any serious reason to reject this theory even if it appears to be shocking. However, I want to see solid arguments brought forward. And I find that the author does not provide them, except for one case (see later). When the author takes up the Matsu cult as an example he undermines his own thesis when he says that it is possible that her cult "began. as the cult
+
І
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.