Animal God

[Rival]

It's been suggested by scholars of religion that there's a general trend where folks go from zoolatry and zoomorphism (animal gods) to worship of God or gods that look like humans in essentially every detail. In a book I have it relates that,

'In Classical Antiquity the seemingly abstruse deities of Egypt already aroused reactions of antipathy and scornful rejection. For some people the bewildering array of strange forms and unfamiliar mixtures of human body and animal head were the symbolic garb of deep mysteries, but others found them an offensive contradiction of their ideas of what a god or a pantheon should be. In the 2nd century C.E., Lucian placed the two attitudes in opposing sides in a dialogue; Momos, "Blame", is the spokesman for rejection:

MOMOS: But you, you dog-faced Egyptian, dressed up in linen, who do you think you are, my friend? How do you expect to pass for a god, when you howl as you do? [...]'

Momos goes on in like fashion.

But I disagree with the idea that folks went from animals to human deities. Both the Kemetic and Dharmic faiths seem to contradict this; certainly the Kemetic path has animals wholesale, men/women with animal heads and also complete humans. All three forms can be the same god at one time. I dislike this simple hierarchy that really seems to be a slightly snobbish Greco-Roman sneer against the God or Gods of other people because they don't look human enough. So I have several questions:

Why is the human form considered the best form for a deity? Isn't this a little hubristic?

Do you agree with the notion that humanity went from animal gods to human ones?

It just seems to me this disgust at animal gods comes from the Hellenic obsession with perfect human bodies and similar Greek ideas that were then passed onto the Romans.

I'd especially like a Dharmic take on this.

Discuss.

 

[Secret Chief]

I'm still good with the animal deity thing.

 

[Secret Chief]

In the original Buddhist canon there are 31 planes of existence. I reckon the cat is straight in at number 25 (a beautiful deva) although, rather worryingly, Donald Trump appears to be at number 22 (mindless beings).

 

[Brickjectivity]

But I disagree with the idea that folks went from animals to human deities.

It does sound like an over generalization to assume there is an underlying principle drawing people from zoolatry to human style deities. That's what they're claiming right? They're saying that people gravitate away from one thing and towards another. If they could predict all human behavior then this might be useful, or if they could show a reason to think humans were generally this way then it would be useful.

 

[Marcion]

But I disagree with the idea that folks went from animals to human deities. Both the Kemetic and Dharmic faiths seem to contradict this; certainly the Kemetic path has animals wholesale, men/women with animal heads and also complete humans. All three forms can be the same god at one time. I dislike this simple hierarchy that really seems to be a slightly snobbish Greco-Roman sneer against the God or Gods of other people because they don't look human enough. So I have several questions:

Why is the human form considered the best form for a deity? Isn't this a little hubristic?

Do you agree with the notion that humanity went from animal gods to human ones?

It just seems to me this disgust at animal gods comes from the Hellenic obsession with perfect human bodies and similar Greek ideas that were then passed onto the Romans.

I'd especially like a Dharmic take on this.

Discuss.

I have to stress that my take is the one coming from P.R. Sarkar who does not have a hindu dharmic viewpoint.

Sarkar says that the gods pictured with the heads of large powerful animals are derived from the stone age worship of the leader of the clan, who was a strong leader (whose power is symbolized by giving him such an animal head). Ganesha or Ganapati e.g. has a stout body and an elephants head for this reason.
He was only later changed into one of the sons of the God Shiva.
Shiva had two sons, but no son called Ganesha.

Shiva Himself is of course also a God, but His human form is derived from His role as a Guru who really lived in history (just like Buddha and Jesus).

Rama is a mythical ideal hero perhaps based on an Aryan warrior who fought wars against the indigenous Indian tribes even before the time of Shiva. So Rama may also have a real human origin.

I don't think there were any animal type gods, the animal heads are just symbolic of certain qualities of the deity being worshipped.
All this according to the viewpoint of P.R. Sarkar who supports Bhagavad dharma instead of Hindu dharma.

 

[Rival]

I have to stress that my take is the one coming from P.R. Sarkar who does not have a hindu dharmic viewpoint.

Sarkar says that the gods pictured with the heads of large powerful animals are derived from the stone age worship of the leader of the clan, who was a strong leader (whose power is symbolized by giving him such an animal head). This Ganesha or Ganapati e.g. has a stout body and an elephants head for this reason.
He was only later changed into one of the son of the God Shiva.
Shiva had two sons, but no son called Ganesha.

Shiva Himself is of course also a God, but His human form is derived from His role as a Guru who really lived in history (just like Buddha and Jesus).

Rama is a mythical ideal hero perhaps based on an Aryan warrior who fought wars against the indigenous India tribes even before the time of Shiva. So Rama may also have a real human origin.

I don't think there were any animal type gods, the animal heads are just symbolic of certain qualities of the god being worshipped.

I'm not fussed whether they're symbolic; I believe all the images of God are symbolic, but notice the lack of animals in European pantheons.

 

[Marcion]

I'm not fussed whether they're symbolic; I believe all the images of God are symbolic, but notice the lack of animals in European pantheons.

I'm not knowledgeable enough on the European pantheons. Were there no depictions or statues of gods with Lion heads or heads of Tauros bulls e.g. found in archaelogical digs?

The Mystery of the Lion Man sculpture

Lion Man of Hohlenstein Stadel

This could be something similar as the elephants head of Ganesha, also from prehistory.
There used to be lions in Europe.

 

[Rival]

I'm not knowledgeable enough on the European pantheons. Were there no depictions or statues of gods with Lion heads or heads of Tauros bulls e.g. found in archaelogical digs?

Not that I'm aware.

And the gods as usually depicted are human.

 

[SigurdReginson]

There's not enough evidence to suggest such a thing. Here is a drawing of one of the many pillars from Gobekli Tepe. Archaeologists suspect these were regarded as deities, though we can only guess.

 

[Sirona]

Why is the human form considered the best form for a deity? Isn't this a little hubristic?

Do you agree with the notion that humanity went from animal gods to human ones?

It just seems to me this disgust at animal gods comes from the Hellenic obsession with perfect human bodies and similar Greek ideas that were then passed onto the Romans.

I'd especially like a Dharmic take on this.

Discuss.

Especially Vaishnavas (followers of Vishnu) believe that Vishnu appears in the form of (at least) 10 incarnations, called avatars. They are considered to be

• Matsya - fish
• Kurma - tortoise
• Varaha - boar
• Narasimha – “man-lion”, a semi-lion and semi-human avatar
• Vamana – dwarf, human
• Parasurama - a hero, human
• Rama - another hero, human, often portrayed with blue or green skin
• Krishna – human, usually portrayed with black or blue skin
• Buddha - the Buddhism founder
• Kalki - a white horse or man on a white horse battling demons and “barbarians” in a kind of apokalyptic battle.

Wikipedia explains how the 10 avatars were considered by various personalities to reflect the theory of evolution. Dashavatara - Wikipedia

There is disagreement among the various Hindu schools as to whether all avatars are "equal". The followers of Madhva, for example, believe this, whereas the Gaudiya Vaishnavas and their "descendants", the Hare Krishnas, consider Krishna alone to be the "true" and most evolved form of God. The reason for this is that in the "animal" incarnations the divinity of Krishna is only "partially" incarnated, because one cannot have the same kind of love relationship with a fish or a turtle as with Krishna, the heartbreaker in human form.

Personally I think the "animal avatars" signify that animal life should be considered as sacred as human life. And I know that some people adore their goldfish and that some let their dogs sleep in their bed.

 

[Rival]

The Mystery of the Lion Man sculpture

Lion Man of Hohlenstein Stadel

This is interesting, but seem to be the exception rather than the rule. I'd be looking for something existent at the same time of the known pantheons.

 

[Gargovic Malkav]

Greeks and Romans saw pretty much anything that wasn't considered Greek or Roman as outdated and barbaric.

 

[Aupmanyav]

@Sirona, not just the Vaishnavas. All Hindus will acknowledge the animal-human avatara of Lord Vishnu (the first four). Then the elephant-faced Lord Ganesha. These are major deities. There are minor deities also like Sheshanag (the serpent on which Lord Vishnu rests, who appeared as Lakshaman, Lord Rama's younger brother, and Balarama, the elder brother of Lord Krishna), Hanuman (associate of Lord Rama), Garuda (the mount of Lord Vishnu), Nandi (the bull, General of Lord Shiva's legions) and Mushaka (the rat, mount of Lord Ganesha).

The lion of Mothers Durga and Parvati, the owl of Mother Lakshmi, the Swan of Mother Saraswati, the peacock of Murugan / Kartikeya, though not worshiped but are revered in Hinduism. Nandi and Mushaka are supposed to be the go-between the devotees and Lord Shiva and Lord Ganesha respectively.

Well, whatever the Hare-Krishnas say, for most Hindus, the composite avataras also are full avataras.

 

[Sirona]

Why is the human form considered the best form for a deity? Isn't this a little hubristic?

Because the Greeks considered "individuality" and "rationality" as the highest values, as well the form that "embodies" these forms, the human male.

A Greek philosopher, Xenophanes, said: "If cattle and horses, or lions, had hands, or were able to draw with their feet and produce the works which men do, horses would draw the forms of gods like horses, and cattle like cattle, and they would make the gods' bodies the same shape as their own."

 

[Rival]

Because the Greeks considered "individuality" and "rationality" as the highest values, as well the form that "embodies" these forms, the human male.

A Greek philosopher, Xenophanes, said: "If cattle and horses, or lions, had hands, or were able to draw with their feet and produce the works which men do, horses would draw the forms of gods like horses, and cattle like cattle, and they would make the gods' bodies the same shape as their own."

This is interesting and I don't necessarily disagree. I just wonder at the apparent disgust in which non-human deities are held. Clearly the animals are meant to be symbolic. Would the horses' gods be disgusted at human gods? We'll never know!

 

[Harel13]

This is interesting and I don't necessarily disagree. I just wonder at the apparent disgust in which non-human deities are held. Clearly the animals are meant to be symbolic. Would the horses' gods be disgusted at human gods? We'll never know!

Perhaps it stems from a recognition that animals are, well, animalistic. And humans are meant to carry themselves more properly, more civilized. Worshiping animals may seem to some as degrading yourself.

 

[Rival]

Perhaps it stems from a recognition that animals are, well, animalistic. And humans are meant to carry themselves more properly, more civilized. Worshiping animals may seem to some as degrading yourself.

That makes sense. I just wonder at the idea that folks who do so don't see it that way. Clearly the folks in India worshipping Hanuman the monkey dude don't see it as degrading, and clearly nor did the Egyptians think their worship of various creatures was either. I suppose I'm really asking about the differing cultural conditions between the two such groups. My objection to worshipping a man or woman looking God would be that if they look too much like you how do you know it's not you? So my response to the Greeks et al. would be that they're putting human experience and qualities on the top tier and basically worshipping those, which is why I called it hubris. Human rationality and intellect and morality and whatnot have been known to be devastatingly horrible at times and to me, worshipping that seems just as bad if not arguably worse. The image-less would naturally seem best here.

 

[VoidCat]

I worship Angraboda and Loki. They shapeshift into animals in myths. And Hel while not animalistic appears as half a rotting corpse...either that or half blue half white.

 

[Harel13]

Clearly the folks in India worshipping Hanuman the monkey dude don't see it as degrading, and clearly nor did the Egyptians think their worship of various creatures was either.

A parable I can offer is from when religious Jews attempt to explain why they're bothered by people dressed immodestly. Generally, along will come a guy and say: Hey, I go to the beach all the time and I don't even notice all of the women there.
To which the response is: Yeah, because you're used to it. Too much of a bad thing, and you get used to it.
How did the Hindus and the Egyptians begin worshiping animalistic deities? My guess is that it was a gradual process.

My objection to worshipping a man or woman looking God would be that if they look too much like you how do you know it's not you? So my response to the Greeks et al. would be that they're putting human experience and qualities on the top tier and basically worshipping those, which is why I called it hubris. Human rationality and intellect and morality and whatnot have been known to be devastatingly horrible at times and to me, worshipping that seems just as bad if not arguably worse. The image-less would naturally seem best here.

This particularly makes sense with the Greeks, who were especially great lovers of the self. However, in some sense, in my understanding, it is more respectful to yourself as a human to worship your equal rather than worshiping your lesser.

 

[VoidCat]

A parable I can offer is from when religious Jews attempt to explain why they're bothered by people dressed immodestly. Generally, along will come a guy and say: Hey, I go to the beach all the time and I don't even notice all of the women there.
To which the response is: Yeah, because you're used to it. Too much of a bad thing, and you get used to it.
How did the Hindus and the Egyptians begin worshiping animalistic deities? My guess is that it was a gradual process.

This particularly makes sense with the Greeks, who were especially great lovers of the self. However, in some sense, in my understanding, it is more respectful to yourself as a human to worship your equal rather than worshiping your lesser.

Yeah well as a pagan I don't see animals as lesser. In some ways they are more advance. While humans value reason animals seem more in tune to me at least with instinct. They are more intuitive it seems with some things.