In Song 9, I refer to nature as ‘Mother’. For us in India, the term ‘mother’ embodies reverence, respect, love, care, concern, compassion, discipline, sacrifice, and more. The traditional order of importance is commonly expressed as: matha, pitha, guru, and daivam (mother, father, guru, and God).
As a bhakta of the Lord, how should this perception of a mother figure be approached? I call God ‘mother’ in other songs, so how can I use ‘mother’ for nature too? Some of my thoughts are not endorsed by the Muktiveda, but they are not entirely un-Muktivedic (unbiblical) either, as I try to explain that it comments on them.
I cannot quote from the Muktiveda to endorse my view of nature as ‘mother’. However, I find no objection to calling nature ‘mother’ since she continues to give birth to countless creatures, plants, and resources. I take care of my mother and even moved out of the ashram for her needs, but her place in my life never replaces God’s place. One of the great sayings in Tamil is: ‘No temple is greater than mother and no mantra is greater than the word of father’ (தாயிற் சிறந்த கோயிலும் இல்லை; தந்தை சொல் மிக்க மந்திரமில்லை). But if we begin to read theology into such statements, we will miss the cultural and social worldview of India. (You can read my further thoughts on a Dogmatic Approach here.)
In India and Hinduism, life is not compartmentalized into strict categories. Many aspects overlap, and we cannot divide them with clear lines. If we approach it solely with a theological framework, we will miss the inclusive ‘value’ it tries to promote.
Here I would like to quote a ‘theological’ approach from McClaren:
…Chesterton wisely noted how a Franciscan view of creation avoids both the profaning of creation so common in the West and the divinization of creation so common in the East:
The essence of all pantheism, evolutionism, and modern cosmic religion is really in this proposition: that Nature is our mother…The main point of Christianity was this: that Nature is not our mother: Nature is our sister…Nature is not solemn to Francis of Assisi George Herbert. To St. Francis, Nature is a sister, and even a younger sister: a little, dancing sister, to be laughed at as well as loved. [G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (originally published in 1908 and now available from Shaw (1994). P. 120].— Brian McClaren. A Generous Or+thodoxy, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 2004. p. 236
“The ‘Pantheism of the East,’ particularly that of Hinduism viewed from a Christian theological point of view, will never convey its meaning for a common Hindu. First of all, I am not sure whether we Hindus ever call Hinduism ‘Pantheism’. It is a term coined by outsiders (like the word Hinduism). But ‘pan + theism’ for us is acknowledging the ‘sacredness’ of God’s presence in many places and many forms” (see [Dayanand Bharati’s thoughts on Primitive Pantheism](https://dayanandbharati.in/unknown-god-primitive-pantheism/)).
McClaren suggests:
For much of Western Christianity, the doctrine of creation (a biblical term) has been eaten alive by the doctrine of the fall (not a biblical term). In other words, creation’s downfall resulting from human sin has eclipsed its original glow as God’s handiwork, radiant with God’s glory. Make no mistake: Human sin is awful and reprehensible beyond words, and the whole earthly creation suffers because of it. But if, due to an exaggerated doctrine of the fall, God’s creation loses its sacredness as God’s beloved artwork, we have magnified human sin beyond sane bounds—and in fact added to its sad effects….—ibid. p. 234
When one so careful to not lose the enduring glory and continuity of creation, when one takes human sin seriously enough but no more seriously than one should, later elements in the biblical narrative (election, redemption, revelation, salvation, eschaton) are themselves understood and integrated as glorious new unfoldings of continuing creation. Creation may have been swallowed alive by a runaway, exaggerated understanding of “the fall” but, like Jonah, it’s crawling back up the beach.—ibid. p. 235
So, my mother shares the same destiny with me as a consequence of Manu’s (Adam’s) fall. Yet, because of her role in my life, I see the sacredness of God in her ‘motherhood’. Loving, serving, and enjoying her seva is a form of ‘thanksgiving,’ not theology, for me.
Similarly, nature as a sacred work of God can be addressed as ‘Mother Nature’. Polytheism can be dangerous, but not pantheism. The terms ‘polytheism,’ ‘pantheism,’ ‘monotheism,’ and ‘monism’ deserve a separate study comparing their meanings in the Muktiveda, but space and competence do not allow for it here. However, some scholarly views can help those interested, and I have provided notes for further reading.@
My understanding of God’s sacred work in nature comes from a bhakti point of view, not a theological one. Bhakti to a personal God does not divinize creation but does not hesitate to experience the presence of God in it.
‘Everything is God’ could lead to polytheism. ‘God is in everything’ comes closer to the Vaishnava doctrine of creation as the body of Vishnu, as it emanated from Him. In this doctrine, God is both an ‘efficient and material cause,’ which contradicts the Muktivedic theory of creation, where God created everything out of nothing — ex nihilo. However, nature revealing the Glory of God is how my bhakti tries to perceive His presence in nature.
Db
19-5-14
Endnotes
…pantheism—the deification of the universe as a single vast metadeity or “everything-god” (pantheos).— Thomas McEvilley, Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, (2002), First Indian Edition, 2008. p. 24
…pantheism—the deification of the universe as a single vast metadeity or “everything-god” (pantheos). This preoccupation was in part a by-product of political amalgamations. When power shifted, the priests of the newly dominant group would compose a theology which elevated their god over those of the dominated groups. At such a moment, a Mesopotamian priesthood would imitate the model of the state, declaring that its god was king of the other gods; by contrast, the more metaphysically inclined Egyptians were apt to declare that the newly dominant deity had absorbed the other gods into himself or become them….—ibid. p. 24
The concept of the simultaneously immanent and transcendent pantheos is a transitional concept between mythology, which it compacts beyond recognition, and philosophy, which will unfold from it….—ibid. p.28
…The growing trend towards the impersonalization of God in modern European philosophy had (p.299) posed a serious threat to Christianity which could be counteracted only through a reiteration of faith in the Biblical God, who was personal in nature, and was different from the God of the philosophers. As a consequence of this, religion and philosophy, which had gone hand in hand till then even in the Western world, were disentangled and rendered apart. This separation of religion and philosophy was accompanied by the growth of a new mode of theology which was the result of intensive Christian intellectual activity. The Christian theologians now made it explicit, as never before, that religion was a matter of faith and emotion, and not of knowledge and reason. Acceptance of the philosophical abstractions regarding God was not to be confused with the true belief in God. Theism, therefore, was technically defined as belief in God. The differentiation between monotheism and monism was an outcome of this definition of theism, and the principle of division between religion and philosophy. Monotheism was defined as belief in One Personal God; and the philosophical explanations of the oneness of God in impersonal terms, as either pantheism or monism.— Krishna Sharma, ‘Towards a New Perspective’ in David N. Lorenzen. Religious Movements in South Asia 600-1800. New Delhi, Oxford, 2004, pp. 299-300
…Hinduism in which religion and philosophy have always remained interconnected and wherein ‘theism’ does not necessarily imply belief in a personal God. Besides, the Hindu thinkers never thought of making any distinction between what is understood by monotheism and monism. In other words, the impersonal concept of God (as Brahman or Atman) has been as much a part of Hindu religious tradition as the worship of numerous personal deities. Disregarding these factors, when the Western scholars applied alien criteria in the analysis of Hinduism, it resulted in a number of misconceptions, including those connected with the bhakti theme.— Krishna Sharma, ‘Towards a New Perspective’ in ibid. p. 300
…Taking into account the Hindu pantheon and the seeming Hindu polytheism, in what way can the existence and nature of Hindu monotheism be correctly determined? Is it justifiable to connect Hindu monotheism with the worship of any one personal deity of the Hindu pantheon, like Vishnu, as suggested in the Bhakti theories? Should it not be sought in the realm of Hindu speculations about the oneness of God? My inquiry into the nature of Hindu theism and monotheism is an attempt to answer these questions. Such an inquiry is very necessary to rectify the long standing errors that the modern definition of bhakti entails.— Krishna Sharma, ‘Towards a New Perspective’ in ibid. p. 302
The Christian thinkers rejected all explanations of God offered by the philosophers and proclaimed that religion and philosophy were two separate realms. They evolved a new form of Christian theology, through modern modes of reasoning, to establish the validity of the personal concept of God. Sharpening the difference between religion and philosophy, they defined religion strictly in terms of faith in a personal God. The conceptual categories of theism, monotheism, pantheism, and monism, as they are understood today, were evolved in accordance with the pattern of Christian theology which took shape after the emergence of modern European philosophy, to serve the Christian purpose. Subsequently, they were commonly used by the Western scholars in studies of other religions as well. No doubt, these categories could be applied with equal justification in the study of revealed religions similar to Christianity. But not to Hinduism. To the extent the Bhakti theories were conceived with the aid of these categories based on alien norms and non-Hindu criteria, they were artificial and contrived.— Krishna Sharma, ‘Towards a New Perspective’ in ibid. p. 307
Appendix
Various Theisms
List provided by Open AI.
You are right. Thank you for pointing that out. *Ana-theos*, coined by Richard Kearney, is another form of theism. Here’s a brief description:
*Ana-theism*: It refers to a “return to God after God.” This concept explores the possibility of re-engaging with the divine after traditional notions of God have been deconstructed, often emphasizing a more personal, experiential, and transformative encounter with the divine.
Various Theisms
List provided by Open AI.
You are right. Thank you for pointing that out. *Ana-theos*, coined by Richard Kearney, is another form of theism. Here’s a brief description:
*Ana-theism*: It refers to a “return to God after God.” This concept explores the possibility of re-engaging with the divine after traditional notions of God have been deconstructed, often emphasizing a more personal, experiential, and transformative encounter with the divine.
Sure, here is the updated list including “Guru Theism” from the Indian/Hindu perspective:
—
### Various Kinds of Theism Around the World
1. *Monotheism*: Belief in a single, all-powerful God.
2. *Polytheism*: Belief in multiple gods.
3. *Pantheism*: Belief that the universe and God are identical.
4. *Panentheism*: Belief that God is greater than the universe and includes and interpenetrates it.
5. *Deism*: Belief in a creator who does not intervene in the universe.
6. *Henotheism*: Belief in and worship of one god without denying the existence of other gods.
7. *Monolatry*: Belief in the existence of many gods but with the consistent worship of only one deity.
8. *Kathenotheism*: Worship of one god at a time as supreme, even though other gods are acknowledged.
9. *Dualism*: Belief in two equally powerful gods representing good and evil.
10. *Trinitarianism*: Belief in one God in three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), particularly in Christianity.
11. *Autotheism*: Belief that one is divine or that divinity is within oneself.
12. *Atheism*: Disbelief in the existence of any gods.
13. *Agnosticism*: Belief that the existence of God is unknown or unknowable.
14. *Apatheism*: Indifference to the existence or non-existence of god(s).
15. *Secularism*: Indifference or rejection of religion and religious considerations.
16. *Animism*: Belief that objects, places, and creatures all possess a distinct spiritual essence.
17. *Totemism*: Belief in a divine connection between humans and other natural beings.
18. *Shamanism*: Belief in an unseen world of gods, demons, and ancestral spirits responsive only to the shamans.
19. *Pandeism*: Belief that God became the universe and ceased to exist as a separate and conscious entity.
20. *Scientology*: Belief in an understanding of self and life that expands through spiritual rehabilitation.
21. *Raelism*: Belief in an extraterrestrial species that created humanity.
22. *Zoroastrianism*: Belief in one God, Ahura Mazda, and the cosmic struggle between good and evil.
23. *Jainism*: Belief in an eternal universe governed by natural laws, without a creator god.
24. *Buddhism*: Often seen as a non-theistic tradition, focusing on the path to enlightenment.
25. *Sikhism*: Belief in one God, Waheguru, who is shapeless, timeless, and sightless.
26. *Guru Theism*: Belief in and devotion to a spiritual teacher or guru as a manifestation or representative of the divine. (Swami Dayanand Bharati) —accessed on 21-7-2024
Thanks again for the addition! If you have any other questions or need further information, feel free to ask.
Certainly! Here’s the revised list with the names of those who coined or popularized these terms:
1. *Monotheism* (coined by Henry More)
2. *Polytheism* (ancient concept, used by Herodotus)
3. *Pantheism* (coined by John Toland)
4. *Panentheism* (coined by Karl Krause)
5. *Deism* (popularized during the Enlightenment, term used by Edward Herbert)
6. *Henotheism* (coined by Friedrich Schelling)
7. *Kathenotheism* (coined by Max Müller)
8. *Monolatry* (term used by Julius Wellhausen)
9. *Dystheism* (popularized in the modern era, no single coiner)
10. *Misotheism* (used by Friedrich Nietzsche)
11. *Atheism* (ancient concept, term used by Diagoras of Melos)
12. *Agnosticism* (coined by Thomas Huxley)
13. *Autotheism* (ancient concept, no single coiner)
14. *Bitheism/Ditheism* (ancient concept, no single coiner)
15. *Transtheism* (coined by Paul Tillich)
16. *Hero Theism* (ancient concept, no single coiner)
17. *Ana-theism* (coined by Richard Kearney)
18. *Guru Theism*: (Swami Dayanand Bharati)—accessed on 21-7-2024
Leave a Reply