RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS

1.0 Introduction

The study of symbols is one of the very important parts of the phenomenology or religion. Symbols are part and parcel of religions and they have a privileged place in most religions. Symbols are expressions that indicate realities that they represent. In the context of a religion, symbols are the visible signs of some of the deep realities that a religion concerns itself with. Religious symbols help us approach religion phenomenologically. They are the indicators of greater realities that a religion believes in. In this paper I intend to expound Louis Dupré’s understanding of symbols.  Dupré mainly concentrates on religious symbols such as deeds, language, art and myth. He very beautifully elucidates the richness of symbols and indicates how important the symbols are to a religion. He shows how vital the symbols are to religion even today. Symbols are somehow inevitable part of religion because they are the means that enable the religious to express himself/herself. Some of the realities that humans experience cannot be expressed in the ordinary day to day deeds, language or art because they are inadequate. Thus, the person who wants to express deep realities is left with no other option but symbols. In the context of religion symbols are basically a help to articulate the transcendental realities.

Chapter: One

Signs and Symbols

Signs and symbols form very important part of human life in fact, for the earliest philosophers the foundational principle consisted in the very emergences of the appearances. They conceived of the absolute as expressiveness.[1]  All symbols are signs and signs are forms which refer to something which is not directly given; signs may merely point to the signified but symbols represent it. The mediating function of the symbol grants it an independence which signs do not possess. Symbols are exclusive property of man. They carry meaning in themselves which allows them to articulate the signified. A symbol truly presents what it represents.[2] Symbols enable the mind to perceive the permanent in the transient, the universal in the particular. Each mode of symbolic perception creates its own unique meaning. By their very nature symbolic systems invite reflection.[3] All symbols reveal a reality beyond their sensuous appearance. A symbol never simply refers to a pre-existing reality; it opens up a new one. In the process of symbolization the real is negated by the mind and elevated onto a higher level. Symbol points forward not backward; it points beyond itself. The fundamental function of the symbol is to enable the mind to express itself. Plurality of symbolic structures is due to the mind’s protean nature which requires multiform expression.[4] The symbol presents a reality with which it never fully coincides; it represents beyond what it expresses.[5] In the context of religion the form/symbol does not attempt to copy its divine source but to manifest a God who remains hidden and precisely in its inability to do so lies its formal (aesthetic) perfection.[6]

All symbols surpass our ordinary perception of the objects they represent; but not in the same way. Aesthetic symbol maintain a tight unity between what appears and what is signified. In a religious symbol the signified remains forever beyond our reach. Religious symbols present their noumena in such a manner that they not only signify more than they represent but also fail to disclose the nature of what they signify; they conceal more than revealing. What we now call religious symbols grew out of our ancestor’s first attempt to articulate reality. The people of the past differentiated within the one sphere of the real that which is sacred and that which is profane.[7] Religious symbols remain elusive. As other symbols they are polyvalent and no single rational interpretation can ever exhaust their meaning. In fact, the less specific a symbol is the richer its symbolic meaning becomes.[8] Religious man has recourse to images because he cannot say directly what he wants to say. Images play only subordinate role in the representation; although necessary.[9]

1.1 Rites

The first among religious symbols are the ceremonial deeds of worship or the rite. Till today religions have maintained the priority of deed over word. Rites articulate real life, they mold it into their restrictive forms but they never fully merge with it.[10] The purpose of a ritual act is not to respect the ordinary action which it symbolizes, but to bestow meaning upon it by placing it in a higher perspective. Its purpose is to transform life and not to imitate it. Rites are also related to play acting.[11] In this regard, the earliest form of human play defines a sacred order, while even the most solemn ceremony retains the memory of its playful origins.[12] There is a close similarity between play time and religious celebration. To celebrate means to have a good time. Certain playfulness is inherent in all ceremonial worship. Play and ritual celebration have always belonged together. For instance the Olympic Games were part of ritual celebration. Dramatization is also common to both. However, the outcome of the two are different; in games there results disjunctive effect and in ritual, equilibrium.[13] Ritual celebrations are meant to make past present not to commemorate it. Rites are social activities; private rites could even be interpreted as neurotic behavior. Rite is not a mere reenactment of historical event it recreates beyond historical limits and gives it a permanent and universal significance.[14] Rites alone recall the sacred reality of the past into the present, rather than portraying an event of the past it recaptures the event itself. The ritual becomes effective by creating a new temporality in which the successive attains permanence. The ritual deed is no longer subject to the transitoriness of common time.[15] The sacred deed or the ritual recaptures the primeval time of a god, a hero, an ancestor. Ritual abolishes profane, chronological time and recovers the sacred time of myth.[16]

1.2 Sacraments

The sacrament is first and primarily a symbolic gesture of a transcendent reality.[17] Sacraments refer to particular rites. In a sacramental rite a common function of life obtains a salvific effect. Not every rite is sacramental. The Christian understanding of the sacrament too has a strong salvific dimension. Sacrament is distinct from magic rites. The salvific influence of the sacramental action does not originate in the nature of the rite considered in itself as is the case in magic. The rite partakes in a transcendent reality from which it derives an efficacy surpassing its ordinary power.[18] Sacraments symbolize a reality which can in no way be directly approached. Sacraments are symbolic in their very essence; they need to be recognized as intrinsically connected with the sacred.[19] The sacramental word is of vital importance in a sacrament. It is only in uttering the word that the transcendent and the physical act unite and gains meaning. The word is like “form” to the sacrament as opposed to the matter or element.[20]

1.3 Sacrifice

Sacrifices are almost as common as sacraments. In the past sacrifices always occupied a privileged place among ritual ceremonies. Usually sacrifices are considered either as gifts or as communion rites. Some say that rites were believed to feed the spirits or to connect itself to another non-human group.[21] Union is considered to be the original objective of sacrifice. Later the notion of property came into existence and consequently the notion of gift. The essence of sacrifice has itself shifted from archaic to more recent types. Offering is the only common characteristic which all sacrifices have in common. Another important element in sacrifice is the expiatory sacrifices or the substitution. Actually in some sense every sacrifice is substitutional.[22] Sacrifice continues to have a central place most religions even today.[23]

Chapter: Two

Language as Symbol

Language is the symbol par excellence. However, all symbols cannot be reduced to language. Language can do everything other symbols do; though less perfectly.[24] Language is the primeval symbol of the expressiveness of the absolute. According to Heidegger and Ricoeur without the ability to speak metaphorically there would be no way to refer visible appearance to invisible ground and hence no metaphysics. Since the transcendent cause is by nature ineffable, that reference had to be metaphorical.[25] It was only in the 12^th century that the philosophers realized symbolism as inherent in all languages and that words articulate the reality to which it refers.[26] Symbols can be religious in many ways but only words can name the sacred directly. Language alone is sufficiently flexible to refer explicitly to a reality other than the one to which its symbols normally refer. In fact any religious symbol needs language to be explicitly religious.[27] The purpose of religious language is to assert the transcendent as real. It facilitates the expression of the religious person’s most basic belief namely that he/she is speaking about ‘what is.’ For him religious statements are not only meaningful but truth.[28] Literary expression is considered indispensable to an advanced faith. All advanced religious symbols are either linguistic or based upon language. Symbol of the transcendental are by their very nature obscure therefore, language alone can be clearly metaphorical. All arts are symbolic yet language alone can do justice to the concern for religious purity in the expression. Thus, language plays a very vital role as a symbol.[29] Some philosophers question whether language is able to deal with reality that transcends the empirical world. Naturalists too, question the meaningfulness of religious language on this ground. However, symbol is the mind’s only way to surpass the purely empirical. Religious language is basically thetic i.e., positing a reality beyond the subjective experience of the speaker and objective reality of the world.[30]

2.1 The Paradoxicality of Religious Language

Religious language originates in an intimate relation between the speaker and the spoken. Religious language does not refer to an object but to a more fundamental reality in which the speaker is deeply involved with. It refers to this reality as transcendent therefore it differs from aesthetic language.[31] To the question how religious language could avoid being objective while still doing full justice to God’s transcendence? The oldest solution is analogy of predication; the univocal and equivocal terms. But to learn analogically about God one must first know something about him literally. Analogy is nothing but rule of logic which helps us define the limits of speech about God. It reminds us that all expressions about God have been derived from a human source.[32]

God-language/Religious language takes as its model a familiar situation but then qualifies it in such a way that the familiar suddenly turns highly unfamiliar.[33] Thus, Religious language is an odd language. Hamann speaks of religious language as contradictions of reason and Kierkegaard speaks of it as paradoxical. However, religious paradox does not go against reason; it uses contradictory expressions to draw attention to its attempt to go beyond rational expression not to destroy the laws of reason. Paradoxical/ religious language can be understood only through the nonparadoxical. However, the basic religious proposition cannot be reduced to ordinary language. The relation between them is unilateral i.e., religious language need the ordinary language to make sense but not the vice versa.[34]

2.2 The Symbolic Nature of Religious Language

Symbolic could also be understood as the typological interpretation of the text or even as allegorical. In typology an event comes to mean more than its actual occurrence directly implied as is also the case in allegory. Some objections to allegory came from renaissance humanists and the Protestants but later on it was realized that scripture itself was symbolic. Thus, the symbolicity of religious language was maintained. Only symbols can provide religious language with the two essential conditions- subjective involvement of the religious speaker and the transcendent nature of the referent.[35] The believer cannot despise religious language because of the ability of the symbols to express transcendental. Symbolic representations are also less misleading because in spite of the physical concreteness they are less determinate in their meanings. When it comes to speaking of God, it is said, no statement about God is entirely nonsymbolic not even the primary one (i.e., God is the Supreme Being) but that all discourses about God contains also a primary nonsymbolic affirmation without the nonsymbolic the mind would be unable affirm God at all.[36]

Chapter: Three

Religious Art

For the longest part of human history art symbolized religion; one could not be discussed without the other. Art was religious art and religion without art was incomprehensible. In fact, art and religion were synonymously used. Direct link between art and faith was dissolved only in our own secular culture. Today, the attitude with respect to art differs according to religions; according to the mode of envisioning the infinite in the finite.[37] Art expands the expressive power of religious symbolism.[38] Neither the effect of the art nor the intention of the artist makes the piece of art religious. Thus, there is no universal rule to determine a form of expression as exclusively religious. The religious experience itself is too polychromatic to be restricted to a single style of expression.[39] All great art urges us to penetrate ever more deeply into the mystery of existence.[40] In an art the visible form not only points to an invisible, unfathomable mystery but ‘it’ is the apparition of this mystery and reveals it while naturally at the same time protecting and veiling it. In a piece of art the content does not lie behind the form but within it.[41]

3.1 Art and Symbol of Transcendence

There are no symbols that are naturally religious. Religious art tends to display the inadequacy of the aesthetic form with respect to its transcendent content. This inadequacy may be conveyed in many ways Eg. Outsized proportions, fragmentary character of the work, unfinished work etc., Inadequacy is also conveyed by the distorted figures. Even indeterminateness and ambiguity may be religiously expressive.[42] Apart from the negative way there are also the positive symbols of the divine e.g. light. There are also other devices like frontal position of figures, immobility and lack of perspective, the absence of individual resemblance etc., actually the very idea of absolute transcendence creates a constant tension in the development of religious art. Some religions prefer abstract forms of music and architecture because they are apprehensive of expressing the invisible in visible forms.[43]

3.2 New Meaning of Religious Art

The secularization of our age makes it very difficult to affirm if art is religious even in the least sense. Modern art is characterized by absence of any reference beyond the artistic image.[44] Only by imposing his own religious attitude on the artist’s work can the viewer perceive contemporary expressionist art as religious. The contemporary artist leaves the initiative to the spectator whether to view the piece of art as religious or not. The ambiguity of modern art with respect to the sacred is significant for a situation in which many have lost the direct experience of the sacred. Language is indispensible but not sufficient for the creation of religious art.[45]

Chapter: Four

The Myth

            Myths are verbally developed symbols or an exegesis of the symbols. Symbols are exegesis of myths as well; they are dialectically related Religious symbol need the interpretation of myth. Myths bring order meaning and structure to the world of the religious symbol. Myth is the language of the symbol and originally it was the only language.[46] Symbols grow out of myths as much as myths grow out of symbols. Myths make reflective what before was only lived. But myth participate so much in the lived reality that its meaning must be felt rather than rationally understood.[47]

Psychologists and sociologists have their own opinions about the importance of myth. However, there is a certain truth in myth for which critical reflection can never substitute. Myths are more emotional than rational, they respond to existential problems. Myth sets up a model for existence in its entirety. It aims primarily at restoring the primeval wholeness that has been lost through reflection. Mythical stories convey a dramatic character to the ritual action. Temporality is an essential character of myth. It reunites person with the primeval events. The experience of sacred precedes myth.[48]

4.2 Survival of Myth

One of the common questions about myth today is, ‘Can myth survive rational reflection?’ This is not a new question because it was asked in the third century B.C already; when some groups of intellectuals tried to interpret myth as allegory. The turning point in myth came at the end of 18^th century when some philosophers and phenomenologists affirmed myth an essential mode of thinking in the infancy stage of a culture. However, till today we have lot of conflicting opinions about myths. Myth is meaningful but if it is not subjected to reason it could be dangerous; for instance, mythical interpretation of the history can be dangerous. In the modern culture myth is fully recognized and openly welcomed in the world of art and particularly literary arts.[49]

4.3 The Religious Survival of the Myth

            Myth establishes beliefs as well as rites and even moral practices. Of course, rationalized theological theories cannot be equated with primitive myth. However, mythical element persists throughout their development. Belief in myth cannot survive the awareness that it is a myth. Believer feels that myth contains important message yet he/she is seldom able to give it a precise sense. As the birth place of the gods myth initiates a movement toward transcendence that becomes completed in formal religion. However, myth itself initiates a dynamism that leads the mind beyond the mythical.[50] In the case of Israel, their sacred history is encased in a mythic framework of time. Christianity has lot of mythical elements too.[51] In the gospel narratives we see how History and myth are integrated. To separate these two elements have proved futile and such distinction has been found superfluous for the believer. The fact that myth survives within the religious attitude is an indication of the possibility that it might be indispensible. If anti-mythical drive were to be completely successful it would drain the lifeblood out of religion itself. Some aspects of the myths may not survive religious, philosophical or scientific reflection but myth possesses certain qualities that make it irreplaceable in religious symbolization.[52]

5. Conclusion

In this article I have tried to portray how Louis Dupré understands symbols. Dupré deals with deeds as symbols; deeds like rituals, sacraments and sacrifices. Speaking of language as symbols we see how language is a symbol par excellence and how it can substitute almost all other symbols. It also has a great role in making other symbols meaningful. For instance it is language that makes rituals, sacraments, sacrifices and art meaningful. Art is also one of the important symbols in a religion. Art and religion is closely intertwined. In fact, earlier, art and religion was used synonymously. However, today secularization has made it extremely difficult to see art as connected to religion. Today the viewer is left to himself/herself whether to view a piece of art as religious or not. Myths too form an important part of religious symbols. Though many question the validity of myth today, it continues to survive and this fact of the survival of myth itself indicates how important it is to a religion; myths cannot be neglected. However, myths require rational guidance otherwise it could lead to disastrous consequences as in the case of mythical interpretation of history.

Thus we see how important symbols are to a religion; they form an important part of religion. Religious symbols are unavoidable for any religion. A study on religious symbols is indeed a very rich area of study. It is rich because symbols are one of the primary means that is available to us for the study and analysis of a religion. Symbols convey profound meanings regarding the religion. They represent the transcendental elements of the religion. In fact, symbols are the medium that facilitate expression and understanding of transcendental concepts of a religion.

Bibliography:

Dupré, Louis. The Other Dimension. New York: The Seabury Press, 1979.

Dupré, Louis. Metaphysics and Culture. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1994.

Dupré, Louis. Religious Mystery and Rational Reflection. Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998.

Dupré, Louis. Symbols of the Sacred. Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000.

---

[1]  Louis Dupré, Metaphysics and Culture (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1994), 1.

[2] Louis Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred (Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 1-2. See also: Louis Dupré, The Other Dimension (New York: The Seabury Press, 1979), 105.

[3] Dupré, Metaphysics and Culture, 9.

[4] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 2-3. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 108.

[5] Dupré, Metaphysics and Culture, 11.

[6] Louis Dupré, Religious Mystery and Rational Reflection (Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), 71.

[7] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 6-7. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 121-122.

[8] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 8. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 123.

[9] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 10. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 125.

[10] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 12.

[11] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 13. See also: Dupré, Religious Mystery and Rational Reflection, 81; Dupré, The Other Dimension, 127-128.

[12] Dupré, Religious Mystery and Rational Reflection, 77.

[13] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 15-16. See also: Dupré, Religious Mystery and Rational Reflection, 77; Dupré, The Other Dimension, 130-131.

[14] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 18-19. See also Dupré, Religious Mystery and Rational Reflection, 81.

[15] Dupré, Religious Mystery and Rational Reflection, 79. Dupré, The Other Dimension, 133-134.

[16] Dupré, Religious Mystery and Rational Reflection, 80.

[17] Dupré, The Other Dimension, 141.

[18]Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 20- 23. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 136,139.

[19] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 24. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 141.

[20] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 27. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 143-144.

[21] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 28-29. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 144,146.

[22] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 30-34. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 147,149,151.

[23] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 38.

[24] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 43-44. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 114-115.

[25] Dupré, Metaphysics and Culture, 4-5.

[26] Dupré, Metaphysics and Culture, 6.

[27] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 46. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 154-155.

[28] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 48-49. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 155.

[29] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 83.

[30] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 51-52. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 120,162.

[31] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 52-53. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 162.

[32] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 54-56. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 164-166.

[33] In the Bible (Exodus: 3), we read how God reveals his name. The situation has lot of familiar elements like the desert, the bush, a voice and a name revealed. But the familiar is mixed with the unfamiliar so much so that no one could mistake it for an ordinary event. For instance, the bush is burning yet it is not consumed, the voice does not belong to a body and the name is no name at all but the speaker declaring himself to be above all names. Thus we see here how normal occurrence takes a strange turn. Cf Dupré, The Other Dimension, 167-168.

[34] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 57-61. See also: Dupré, Religious Mystery and Rational Reflection, 72; Dupré, The Other Dimension, 168-171.

[35] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 62-65. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 174.

[36] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 66-68. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 179-180.

[37] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 69-70. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 181-182.

[38] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 72.

[39] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 76.

[40] Dupré, Metaphysics and Culture, 9.

[41] Dupré, Religious Mystery and Rational Reflection, 76.

[42] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 77-79.

[43] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 80-81.

[44] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 84.

[45] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 88-89.

[46] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 91. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 195-196.

[47] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 93. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 197.

[48] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 97-100. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 198-204.

[49] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 103-107. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 209.

[50] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 110-112. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 217-219.

[51] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 114. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 220-221.

[52] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 115-117. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 222-225, 228-229.