Philosophy 224 Human Nature in the Hebrew and Hindu Traditions Genesis, Psalms and the Upanishads

Religious Theories of Human Nature We are going to focus on the philosophical rather than religious significance of the sacred texts of the various world religions we are going to consider. This will be an easier distinction to make for most of us for Hinduism or Islam than for either Judaism or Christianity in that most of us have little pre-reflective understanding of these traditions and we can thus approach them much more openly and straightforwardly.

Interpretive Principles To the extent possible, this approach will require us to put aside questions concerning the ultimate implications of these belief systems in order to concentrate on what they have to tell us about the sort of creatures that we are. We must be careful however to not denature these systems of belief. We have little hope of understanding what they have to tell us about anything unless we keep in mind their context. One thing we have to acknowledge is that these belief systems, are not monolithic institutions. For example, the term "Hinduism" is really just a way to designate the religious practices emanating from a specific oral and written tradition. These practices have the same diversity that is seen amongst Christian sects. Another important point is that all of these belief systems are textual religions. That is, the substance, if not the practice, of the religion is grounded in the interpretation of a collection of sacred texts.

The Torah Traditionally, Jews, Christians and Muslims have believed that the Torah (the first five books of the Hebrew and Christian Bibles) was dictated by God to Moses on Mt. Sinai. Most biblical scholars today accept some version of the documentary hypothesis which insists that these early books (including Genesis) are composites of texts written over many hundreds of years by authors influenced by many older and culturally diverse written and oral narratives. These texts reflect the diverse political and social contexts in which they were written, contexts which modern historical, archeological and interpretive methods have made clear.

Genesis 1-3 According to the documentary hypothesis, the creation story in Genesis 1 was authored by the so-called Priestly Source, "P," written shortly after the Babaylonian captivity and influenced by the Babylonian creation story Enuma Elish. The second creation story in Genesis 2 comes from "J," the so-called Yahwist source, who wrote much earlier, sometime in in the tenth or ninth century B.C.E. Yet another author, from the northern kingdom, the "E" source, becomes apparent later in Genesis (in one of the two versions of Noah's ark story, for example). According to the documentary hypothesis, the "J" and "E" texts were combined into a single document, "J/E," in the late eight century B.C.E., to which the "P" text was added centuries later, along with other material by a final editor, "R," in the fifth century B.C.E.

Two Creation Stories Let’s consider the two creation stories presented to us in Genesis, Chapters 1 and 2. What features do they share? Where are they different? What conclusions should we draw about the metaphysical viewpoint of the author(s) of these stories?

The Nature of the Human A key feature of the first creation story is the creation of human beings, which, unlike other creatures, are distinctive by being made in the “likeness” of God. Jewish (and Christian) interpretation of this claim insists that “likeness” in this instance does not mean physical, material resemblance, but rather similarity in nature. The Hebrew work translated as likeness is “zelem,” which refers to the nature or essence of a thing; “to’ar” would be the term used if the sense was of resemblance of form. So what is the nature that we share with God. For Judaism and Christianity, that nature is essentially rational: the ability to discern and understand. We see this in Psalm 8 (3-4), and 90 (8-9, 12).

The Place of the Human We can also recognize this “likeness” in the account of what humans are ordained to that is offered in both creation stories: dominion over the rest of creation. It’s important to note that this idea is expressed differently in each story. In the older, second story it take the form of naming, which in primitive cultures has a magical significance. The ability to name something gives you power over it. In the first, more recent story, it is just named as such. On whatever account, humans are placed at the top of creation, distinctive in their rational capacities and in authority over the rest.

The Crisis All that might lead us to believe that humans are in pretty good shape, but we are quickly disabused of that notion in Genesis, Chapter 3. What might explain this shift? What is its theological/philosophical justification? How is the shift accomplished? The completion of human knowledge in the knowledge of good and evil. This completion is realized in the awareness of shame (body as evil?), introduction of physical evil, suffering and death, banishment from paradise.

The Upanishads The Upanishads belong to what is called the Brahmanic tradition. The earliest of them date from around 800 BCE. This is far from the earliest of the textual traditions of Hinduism. Vedic literature significantly predates it. They too are compilations of earlier, mostly oral traditions. As an aside, it is interesting to note that, though the oral tradition upon which these texts is based significantly predates their consolidation in written form, this consolidation occurred within a few hundred years of the first stirrings of philosophy in Greece and China. There must have been something in the air.

Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad Representing not a single authorial voice, but a disparate (in both outlook and time) one, this text is the largest (and is thought to be the oldest) of the Upanishadic texts. The text starts with a cosmogony: an account of the nature, origin, and development of the universe. The particular story we get shares quite a bit with other cosmogonies from this period. The name given to the original principle is "Atman" which here is given a material significance by the translation of the terms as "body." It is also gendered (male). But this is not mere matter. For, it is immediately self-conscious, the suggestion being that self-consciousness is primary (first and fundamental). This perhaps explains why the cosmogony we get here is focused on living things rather than non-living. Notice too the role played by etymology.

Emotions as the Engine Creation initially proceeds in a way unique to this cosmogony: fear. But fear quickly turns into the absence of pleasure, and it is this lack which leads to the first diversity: gender. This diversity in turn produces the first created life: humans. The close cousin of pleasure, shame, then explains the rest of living creation (the female principle fleeing from the “incestuous” manner of this procreation).

Atman and brahman At the end of this creation story we find this surprising statement: "I alone am the creation, for I created all this.” This phrase highlights the ambiguity of the notion of “Atman.” Atman is both a principle of individuation and a principle of universality. Much of the disagreement between the various sects of Hinduism revolves around how to understand this ambiguity. Immediately following this, we find the introduction of the term “Brahman.” It is often used synonymously with Atman. When they are distinguished, it is usually to connect Atman to the individuated moments of the whole and Brahman with the universal. In this sense, Brahman is reality at it’s most basic, the fundamental metaphysical category.

BrahmAnic Cosmogony From the perspective of the ultimate metaphysical standpoint, we are offered another account of creation on p. 12, §10. What unifies the two treatments is the insistence on the fundamental irreducibility of unity and diversity. This is the significance of the atman/brahman couple. The world is at the same time one eternal and unchanging whole and a constantly changing individuated plurality.

Where do Humans Fit? As you might expect, the ontology articulated in the Upanishad exhibits this same unity of unity and diversity structure. Human beings are not individuals first and part of a large whole second. The ultimate self (atman) is what it is only as part of Brahman. What we take to be our self (our ego) is just a mask that covers over (even from ourselves) our ultimate nature as atman/brahman.

The Katha Upanishad The Katha Upanishad was likely composed a some three hundred years after the Brihad Aranyaka (early 400s BCE. It is one of the most well-known of the Upanishadic texts in the non-Hindu world, perhaps because one of it’s principle themes is death and immortality. The excerpt from the Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad that we discussed was of primarily metaphysical and ontological significance. With the Katha Upanishad the diagnostic and prescriptive elements become our focus.

Setting the Stage Naciketas wants to know the significance of death. Going right to the source, he asks the personification of death, who, though initially reluctant, ultimately agrees to point the way to Naciketas. It’s worth noting that death’s agreement comes after a test: the temptation of worlds goods. This test anticipates a fundamental distinction which becomes the focus of Chapter 2.

Good vs. Gratifying Death makes an initial distinction that is key to the diagnosis: good vs. gratifying. This is a very common distinction, one that is central to the diagnosis of many of the THNs that we will consider. The distinction between the good and the gratifying is mapped onto a distinction between the wise person and the fool, which in turn is coordinated to a distinction between knowledge and ignorance. In a move whose commonness is worthy of some thought, this last distinction is in turn connected to a distinction between the real self and the ego/mask self and ultimately to the distinction between the world of mere appearance and the 'true' world (cf. 5-6).

A Religious Account One of the things that marks this account as a religious (rather than a strictly philosophical one) is the claim which follows: namely, that access to the truth is restricted. You must be taught it, you can't just recognize it yourself (16, verses 7-8). Death identifies the central teachings as those within the Brahmanic tradition (The Vedas). Note the similarities with the BA Upanishad.

The Prescription The end of chapter 2 and chapter 3 are concerned with the interpretation of Death's lessons for Naciketas. The lessons are ones that should be already familiar to us: Unity in diversity, diversity in unity. The problem is that few recognize this, and are thus led astray. The solution is to come to recognize it, not just intellectually, but with the whole of our being. Failure means a return to the cycle of life for another go around and another opportunity to learn the lesson. Success means freedom from the cycle.