Mythopoic thinking developed in the earliest ages of human existence. It
probably arose as soon as the human mind was able to consider the world with
some degree of abstraction. It may have begun more than a hundred thousand
years ago, when small clans of human beings roamed from one hunting place to
another in East Africa, Southern Europe or the sea coasts of Asia. Mythopoic
thinking was our ancestors’ first attempt at understanding reality.
Let us put ourselves back into humankind’s situation at the time. Relying on archaeological evidence and adding a little from our imagination, we may reconstruct people’s day-to-day life in quite accurate terms. Let us imagine enjoying the rare privilege of meeting a typical tribal group on the coast of the Mediterranean about 100,000 B.C.
We find the human family sunning itself and playing on the beach in an ideal spot. A little river flows near by-so necessary for supplying drinking water, for they have not yet invented pots and jars. There are some rocks with overhanging cliffs under which they can find shelter -they do not yet have the ability to construct artificial houses. And the edge of the evergreen forest remains within walking distance-that is where they have to hunt for their daily meat. (1)
When we approach the group we may find them in a relaxed mood. They have just finished eating a reindeer, cut to pieces with chips of stone and distributed raw. Zalu who is sitting in the centre is their undisputed leader. He is naked, brown and hairy. He makes the impression of being a wary and tough person. Baka, Talin and Teka are other adult men, Zalu’s brothers. The rest of the group are women and children of various ages. The whole clan is one big family, with Zalu as the patriarch.
At first sight this human family would look to us very much like a troop of chimpanzees or gorillas. Many of their habits and customs seem so much the same. But soon we notice important differences. These human beings walk erect. Their hands are better equipped for precise work. Their eyes look more intelligent. And, above all, they can speak, even though their words are simple and short. If we watch them during the hunt or when preparing food we observe other features which we would never find with animals. Before undertaking any work they plan their action together. And to achieve their purpose they use instruments: pieces of wood, stones, animal bones or whatever seems to fit the need. (2)
An interview with Zalu would prove an enlightening experience. Presuming that he was prepared to speak to us (after lengthy introductions, and with the help of an interpreter), he might describe his hunting expedition in words such as these:
“Zalu belly ache. Men belly ache. Children belly ache.” (He means: Yesterday everyone felt hungry). “Men dance. Men power-catch reindeer.” (Yesterday evening the men performed a religious dance during which they killed a symbolic reindeer that had been drawn in the sand.) “Moon power fill night. Moon power-fill men. “ (Because of the moonlight the men felt confident they would make a good catch.) “Men enter forest, walk, walk. Men see reindeer, power-circle reindeer, run, catch reindeer. Zalu kill reindeer.”
Analysing Zalu’s speech we would find a limited number of categories. His thinking is bound up with the immediate visible realities of his world: the forest, the men, the moon the reindeer. Most of his thoughts move in the realm of hunting, food, family, travel. His thinking has the main task of expressing and organizing his external behaviour: his walking, running, throwing, cutting. Zalu does not distinguish clearly between things, animals and persons. Of course, he knows that there is a difference, but this difference is not fully grasped. For him all things are alive The sand, the river, the tree, the moon, the reindeer are living realities he has to face.
A little reflection will show that we need not be surprised at this. We know that water flows because by gravitational laws it seeks the lowest place. Zalu thinks water walks as he walks. For him the sun, the moon and the stars are mysterious living beings influencing his life. When Zalu tries to understand this world, he will see in all things around him manifestations of “life” or “power”. Moonlight is “power". Rain is “power". Plants, trees, animals and children grow by “power". Accepting such a mysterious “power" is an intellectual necessity for Zalu, for it is the only thing that makes sense of his world. Believing there is such “power”, he need not be surprised at the inexplicable events of his daily life: the ebb and flood of the ocean storm and lightning, an earthquake, the birth of a baby in the womb of his wife. This is the origin of Zalu’s religion. (3)
Studies of anthropology and comparative religion prove that people slowly developed the idea of a divine reality, “power”, as distinct from the profane reality of everyday life. The concept of “tabu”, of the sacred prohibition, is one of the oldest religious notions of humankind, a notion derived from it. According to this notion one should avoid certain places, things, animals, practices or words because they would bring a person into conflict with the underlying divine “power”. The concept of the “sacred” also grew out of this mode of thinking. This means that certain places (hill tops), days (new moon), things (stones), animals (the bull) and so on were considered to be especially filled with the divine reality. People would naturally tend to seek “power” from living contact with these sacred realities. After some time the divine “power” experienced in such sacred objects and events was concretized in the form of “spirits” or “gods”. This was no doubt how the idea of “God” arose.
When our ancestors conceived of the notion of “power” as a way of understanding reality, they produced the first “myths”. Anthropology defines myth as the display of a structured, predominantly culture-specific, semantic system which enables the members of a culture area to understand each other and to cope with the unknown. In other words, myth is the way in which some important notions of a particular culture are related to one another. Myths are often expressed through stories in which the so-called “strong components” of semantic systems (systems of understanding the world) are symbolically represented. (4)
To explain this, let us return to Zalu. Zalu will always hunt in the same way. He will first draw a reindeer in the sand, dance around it, and then beat his stick on the figure. He will hunt at night, preferably during the full moon. He will never kill pigs, for they are tabu. In this way he may follow many particular customs which are important to him. Asked about a reason for observing them, he might tell the following myth (here freely translated into our twentieth-century way of speaking):
“Once upon a time Rabu-Rabu our ancestor walked through the forest and saw a heavy sow, pregnant and ready to give birth to many young piglets. Rabu-Rabu saw that she was full of power, but he laughed to himself. He knew he should have respected the motherhood of the sow, but in his pride he did not care. He cornered the sow and clubbed it to death. He gave it and its young to his wives and children as food. But Rabu-Rabu’s dearest wife and eldest son died. And when Rabu-Rabu went into the forest again, he could not catch any animal. For many days he roamed around, hunting in vain. His wives and children cried for hunger. Rabu-Rabu was desperate. And in the middle of the night, while there was a full moon he wept. And the moon took pity. She came down to Rabu-Rabu and showed him how to draw a reindeer on the sand, how to dance round it and how to power-catch it. Rabu-Rabu learned this art and caught a reindeer during that very night.”
This kind of myth, of which we have many examples in primitive cultures, superficially resembles a simple story. We might be inclined to ask: Has it happened or not? But this would be a sorry misunderstanding. To Zalu the story does not express something of the past. It explains relationships with which he is vitally concerned in the present. It unifies the “strong elements” of his world, such as hunting, reindeer, pig, moonlight, and fixes a norm by which he can judge them. For him the truth of the myth lies in the validity of the “structure” which he imposes on the various “strong elements” of his experience.(5)
As people’s thinking grew more conscious and myths more explicit, the notion of good and evil spirits, or gods and goddesses, became more pronounced. Often such “gods” as those related in the myth, were nothing more than personalized expressions of a power which had been experienced. Zalu would speak of the moon as a “goddess”, because that expressed to him the fact that he was successful in hunting on moonlit nights. But calling the moon a goddess necessarily entailed a mental picture or image of her. And having an image of her, he embellished it with a face, with weapons or with characteristic actions, until the moon goddess slowly became a real personality to him-never actually seen, but always thought to be present and encountered in her manifestations. So the idea of “God” and her existence was born from the myths of primitive society. (6)
Archaeology and comparative religion tell us that the most ancient representations of God which have been found are small statues of the mother goddess or the goddess of fertility. It shows that people felt the need of symbolically expressing to themselves the reality of the God shaped in their mythopoic thinking. The idol shaped in their hands was a copy of the notion that had earlier been shaped by their thoughts. (7)
Primitive people “made their gods” because they needed gods to understand the world. The historical origin of most religions can be traced to this beginning. And mythopoic thinking is not restricted to primitive humankind alone. We may safely say that many religious convictions rest on the same grounds as those found with our ancestors. Even today many people believe in divine powers, and pray to them, because they are overcome by the same basic fears and lack of understanding that characterized our early ancestors.
It does not take long to realize that such a mythological basis for religious convictions reveals many inherent weaknesses. First of all, it looks as if the existence of God itself derived not from actual fact but from the inner psychological necessity of primitive people. Many modern scientists, and especially psychologists, have maintained that belief in God is no more than an escape from a feeling of inadequacy in day-to-day living. As a young and weak child needs a father to support and protect him, so primitive man and woman needed the father figure of God to give him or her the psychological feeling of protection. Although the rejection of all belief in God on this ground is not justified, as I will explain presently, we have to agree that a purely mythological basis for accepting God will not do. Just as exaggerated reliance on one’s parents makes it impossible for a person to be mature and independent, so a believer may never tolerate that his or her so-called dependence on God be a psychological substitute, that makes up for his or her lack of maturity. (8)
Another obvious defect of the mythological approach lies in its inability to discover the real nature of God. Because mythopoic people see the divine in every sphere of nature, they are likely to experience God under the most diverse forms. The history of natural religions confirms this fact. Mythological thinking leads to thousands of different kinds of god, usually representing different powers of nature: the gods of the sun, the moon and the stars: the goddesses of beauty, prosperity, fertility and wealth; the gods of storm, rain, lightning, of health and many other things. In many religions, external objects and animals have been considered as direct manifestations of such gods. In this way even the most unlikely animals, such as cows, monkeys and snakes, have come to be worshipped as divine.
The reason for this development is clear. In mythopoic thinking logical argument has no place. It is not kept in check by a critical mind. it does not distinguish between God himself and what God brings about. It does not have the power of reasoning, by which contradictions between various statements can be pointed out and corrected. The confusion of polytheism is the immediate result of mythopoic thinking.
Mythopoic thinking necessarily considers God in human terms. This gives rise to another basic defect of its approach, namely its tendency to attribute anthropomorphisms to God. In primitive people’s thoughts, God eats, drinks, walks, sleeps, fights very much like a human person, even though he will do so in a very special way. All the Hindu gods, for example, marry or get married, as if they are sexual beings. They are imagined to have hands, arms, legs, a stomach, and all other parts of the human body, even if these differ from human organs in size and number.
Anthropomorphisms continue to exist in all major religions. Even though Muslims and Christians reject anthropomorphisms on principle, in actual fact many of them still think of God in anthropomorphic terms. They imagine God sitting on his throne high in heaven, listening to the prayers of human beings which come up to him from all over the world. A Christian may say: “God hears my prayer”, as if God possesses ears! Or he may say: “If you do this God will be angry with you”, as if God has moods like any human being! If we examine our own thinking about and speaking of God, we may discover that it is full of anthropomorphic expressions. To some extent this is unavoidable, as I will show later, but at least we should be aware of the imperfections inherent in this type of religious thinking. If God is God, he simply cannot be small like us. Our imagination plays tricks on us. (9)
Wherever real human reason began to flourish, it started to tackle the weaknesses of mythopoic thinking. We will discuss this more fully when dealing with metaphysical thought. For our purpose here let it suffice to note that mythopoic thinking, when left to itself, has all the inborn defects of emotional judgements. A teacher at school may like one of her pupils at first sight. But she should realize that such a spontaneous attraction is not the same as an objective, impartial judgement. The mythological approach to God springs from people’s emotional reaction to reality: it proves an ambivalent road to walk on.
Considering all the inadequacies of the mythological approach, we might be tempted to reject it altogether; but this would be a mistake. It is true that we cannot rely on a piece of poetry when we need evidence in a court case. Yet a poem does contain something valuable. It often expresses a gem of truth not found elsewhere. Shelley once said: “Poetry is the record of the best and happiest moments of the happiest and best minds.” Poetry expresses the intuition or insight a person has of reality at a particular moment.
What hast thou, Man, that thou dar’st call thine own?
What is there in thee, Man, that can be known?-
Dark fluxion, all unfixable by thought,
Vain sister of the norm-life, death, soul, clod-
Ignore thyself, and strive to know thy God! [Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834)]
Just as poetry catches an aspect of reality through intuition, an aspect which it expresses emotionally, so in mythological thinking an aspect of reality is grasped through intuition and expressed with feeling rather than with cold reason. It thrives on images rather than words.
Intuition is a valid way of grasping reality. S.Radhakrishnan describes it in this way:
When a region of blurred facts becomes suddenly lit up, illuminated as it were, to what do we owe this enlightenment? It is due not so much to a patient collection of facts as to a sudden discovery of new meaning in facts that are already well-known. (10)
He also calls it a “synthetic insight”, “which advances by leaps”; a ”deeper consciousness”; “an intuitive experience”. This is the kind of experience primitive people had when they “understood” that the world around them simply could not be explained without a “super-worldly power” that made it what it is. (11)
Mythopoic thinking led to polytheism, anthropomorphism and idol worship. Yet it gave people the first intuitive grasp of the religious aspect of all reality. With their slowly awakening intellectual powers, men and women could see what animals had never seen: the presence of the divine. They saw the glimmer of that light, and groping for it they blundered into many blind alleys. But it was a true light and should be recognized as such. Human knowledge made equally sure but limping progress in other areas of life. If properly corrected by rational thought, mythopoic intuition is a good starting point in our search for God.
In ancient Indian thought we find good examples of the way in which mythological thinking can give rise to valid religious meditation. Consider the notion of the divine as the “athma”, the “breath” of all existence. This immanence of the divine, this discovery of God’s presence in the very substance of created things, flows spontaneously from the mythological perception of “divine power”. If suitably corrected, as in the following text, it opens our eyes to a valid aspect of reality.
He who dwells in the fire,
yet is different from the fire,
whom
the fire does not know,
whose reality shows up through the fire,
who
controls the fire from within. . .
He is your Self (Athma),
the inner
controller, the immortal. (Bruhad Aranyaka Upanishad 111,7. )
Many modern authors, following the example of Rudolf Otto, make the fact of religious experience itself the starting point of their apology for God. All people and all nations give testimony of some spontaneous respect for the “holy”, for what is “numinous”, “divine”, “supernatural”. Even if in many cases this experience is linked to irrational fear of the powers of nature, the experience itself remains valid. Civilized and educated people also have this experience. (12) In fact, the deep religious insights of the Taoist Masters sprang from this experience.
Before we draw up the balance sheet, let us see what critical thinking said about God....
1. A readable and attractive account of the oldest human societies can be found in: F. Clark Howell, Early Man, Time-Life International 1970. Other good background books are: G. Childe, What Happened in History?, Penguin 1957; W.E. Le Gros Clark, History of the Primates, British Museum London (also in paperback); T.H. Huxley, Man’s Place in Nature, University of Michigan Press, Cresset 1950 (also in paperback); D. Morris, The Naked Ape, Corgi, London 1968.
2. Among anthropological works on primitive societies we can recommend: A. Goldenweiser, Anthropology: An Introduction to Primitive Culture, London 1937; E. Durkheim, Elementary Forms of Religious Life, London 1926; B. Malinowski, Magic, Science and Religion, Boston Press 1948.
3. On the specific topic of the earliest ideas of the “divine” the following books are considered classics: E. Cassirer, Language and Myth, Dover Publications 1946; J. Frazer, The Golden Bough, Macmillan, New York, 1924; A.R. Radcliffe- Brown, Tabu, Cambridge 1940; M. Eliade, Patterns in Comparative Religion, Sheed and Ward, London 1958.
4. See P. Maranda (Ed), Mythology: Selected Readings, Education Penguin 1972, for the best compact introduction to authors and opinions on myth. Two earlier collections are also very informative: T. A. Sebeok (Ed), Myth: A Symposium, Indiana University Press 1958 (also in paperback); J. Middleton (Ed), Myth and Cosmos: Readings in Mythology and Symbolism, American Museum of Natural History 1967.
5. C. Levi-Strauss has been one of the recognized authorities on primitive myth-making. I recommend: The Savage Mind, University of Chicago Press 1966; The Raw and the Cooked, Harper and Row 1969.
6. On the characteristics and origin of the oldest religious beliefs information can be had from: P. Radin, Primitive Religion, Hamish Hamilton, London 1938; J. Maringer, The Gods of Prehistoric Man, Weidenfeld and Nicholson, London 1960; E.O. James Prehistoric Religion, Barnes and Noble, 1961 (also in paperback).
7. Comparative religion is the science that collects and analyses data from religions that exist or that have existed. A.C. Bouquet, Comparative Religion, Penguin 1941, updated 1967, provides a good survey of the results obtained. A systematic observation of religions is given by G. Van der Leeuw, Religion in Essence and Manifestation, George Allen and Unwin, London 1938.
8. The most influential writer on the psychology of religious belief at the beginning of this century was W. James. His books are still widely read in paperback reprints: The Will to Believe, Dover Publications, New York 1956; The Varieties of Religious Experience, Fontana/Fount 1960. Other leading psychological authors who ascribe belief in God to the immaturity of primitive people: S. Freud, The Future of an Illusion, Hogarth, London 1949; E. Fromm, Psychoanalysis and Religion, Yale, New Haven 1950; M. Murray, The Genesis of Religion, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London 1963.
9. A thought-provoking discussion on mythological thinking in Christianity is offered in: J.A.T. Robinson, Honest to God, SCM, London 1963; D.L. Edwards (Ed), The Honest to God Debate, SCM, London 1963. Robinson presents his own, more matured ideas in The Human Face of God, SCM, London 1972.
10. S. Radhakrishnan, The Idealist View of Life, Penguin, London 1961, pp. 138-9.
11. S. Radhakrishnan develops the idea of the “integral experience” of God in many publications. Available with Allen and Unwin are: Indian Philosophy; An Idealist View of Life; East and West in Religion; The Hindu View of Life; Recovery of Faith; etc. Read also: J.G. Arapura, Radhakrishnan and Integral Experience, Asia Publishing House, Calcutta 1966.
12. The nineteenth century counted quite a few European exponents of the approach to God through the “numinous”. Principal works of that time have been reprinted: R. Otto, The Idea of the Holy, Oxford University Press, London 1923; A.E. Taylor, Does God Exist?, Macmillan and Co., London 1945: excerpt in J. Hick (Ed.), The Existence of God, Macmillan, New York 1964, pp. 153-64. Modern forms of the intuitive grasp of God are defended by J. Maritain, Approaches to God, Harper and Row, New York 1954;? J. Baillie, Our Knowledge of God, Oxford University Press, London 1937; The Sense of the Presence of God, Oxford University Press, London 1963; H.D. Lewis, Our Experience of God, Allen and Unwin, London 1959.