CHINESE RELIGION REDISCUSSED
171
to a ghost, perhaps to bones or a corpse" (p. 251). Soon afterwards he makes this ghostly origin a positive fact, although the emphasis is slightly shifted. Matsu (and Ch'ing-shui tsu-shih as well) were originally "spirits without descendants” (p. 252). There is one weakness in the author's reasoning: do gods arise from "lonely ghosts", also called “hungry ghosts" or "orphan spirits”, or do they arise from Kui ("ghosts")? No clarification is ever given to the terms, although I find them crucial in this context. Evil spirits were believed in by the Chinese people from ancient times, but with the advent of Buddhism they were identified with the pretas, which means "hungry ghosts" in the context of popular Hinduism and Buddhism. An important distinction should be made, however, between the anonymous mass of hungry spirits, and the ghosts of individuals. It appears that all the gods arising from ghost-state to divinity have been individually known during their lifetime and after their death. Some of them died without offspring, but is that the determining factor here? The author says yes; but I am not convinced. The author sees here a likeness with the Buddhas (bodhisattvas as well?) and the immortals of Taoism; but again, they did not reach the high state of perfection because they broke off the family ties; but, having left their families, they had a better opportunity to reach that state. The same principle applies to the examples given by the author to prove his thesis: they were not worshipped by the community just because they had no family ties; but because they were extraordinary persons possessing a special power that elevated them above the ordinary man. Not being married and leaving no descendants is just one aspect of their higher status. In other words, they were admired by the people — perhaps also feared (sharing the ambiguity of the sacred: fascinans et tremendum) and after their death a cult started to emerge.
This is only one process of cult formation. I accept the possibility that some gods arose to divine status as the author claims, but this to me is rather exceptional. In any case, he owes us better proof than what he provides here. It is my claim that most of the major gods, if not all, worshipped in the area under scrutiny, rose to eminence as a variety of hero-worship. Some of them had families of their own but this fact may have been forgotten or considered unimportant. I cannot accept the author's a priori statement that
CHINESE RELIGION REDISCUSSED
171
to a ghost, perhaps to bones or a corpse" (p. 251). Soon after- wards he makes this ghostly origin a positive fact, although the emphasis is slightly shifted. Matsu (and Ch'ing-shui tsu-shih as well) were originally "spirits without descendants” (p. 252). There is one weakness in the author's reasoning: do gods arise from "lonely ghosts", also called “hungry ghosts" or "orphan spirits”, or do they arise from Kui ("ghosts")? No clarification is ever given to the terms, although I find them crucial in this context. Evil spirits were believed in by the Chinese people from ancient times, but with the advent of Buddhism they were identified with the pretas, which means "hungry ghosts" in the context of popular Hinduism and Buddhism. An important distinction should be made, however, between the anonymous mass of hungry spirits, and the ghosts of individuals. It appears that all the gods arising from ghost-state to divinity have been individually known during their life-time and after their death. Some of them died without off- spring, but is that the determining factor here? The author says yes; but I am not convinced. The author sees here a likeness with the Buddhas (bodhisattvas as well?) and the immortals of Taoism; but again, they did not reach the high state of perfection because they broke off the family ties; but, having left their families, they had a better opportunity to reach that state. The same principle applies to the examples given by the author to prove his thesis: they were not worshipped by the community just because they had no family ties; but because they were extraordinary persons pos- sessing a special power that elevated them above the ordinary man. Not being married and leaving no descendants is just one aspect of their higher status. In order words, they were admired by the people — perhaps also feared (sharing the ambiguity of the sacred: fascinans et tremendum) and after their death a cult started to emerge.
This is only one process of cult formation. I accept the possi- bility that some gods arose to divine status as the author claims, but this to me is rather exceptional. In any case he owes us better proof than what he provides here. It is my claim that most of the major gods, if not all, worshipped in the area under scrutiny, rose to eminence as a variety of hero-worship. Some of them had fami- lies of their own but this fact may have been forgotten or consider- ed unimportant. I cannot accept the author's a priori statement that
!
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.