Posts
SUMMARY OF THE BOOK
SYMBOLS
OF THE SACRED
By Nobin Narzary
1.0 Introduction
The book Symbols
of the Sacred by Louis Dupré is a masterpiece that elucidates the
importance of symbols. In this book the author mainly deals with religious
symbols. In the four chapters of the book he explains four broad topics the
holy signs, language as signs, religious art and myths. The author beautiful
expounds the richness of symbols and indicates how important the symbols are in
religion. He also shows the vital role that symbols play in religion even
today. In this short summary I intend to present the major concerns of the
author regarding symbols, especially the religious symbols.
Chapter: 1 OF HOLY
SIGNS
1.1 Symbols and Process
of Representation
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. (1-2). 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 also 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. (2-3).
1.2 Religious Symbols
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.
(6-7). 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. (10).
1.3 Rites
The first among religious symbols are the ceremonial
deeds of worship; 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. (12). 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. (13) 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. (15). However, the outcome of the two are different; in
games there results disjunctive effect and in ritual, equilibrium. (16). 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.
(18). Rite is not a mere reenactment of historical event it recreates beyond
historical limits and gives it a permanent and universal significance. (19)
1.4 Sacraments
Sacraments are particular rites. (20). Not every
rite is sacramental. (22). In a sacramental rite a common function of life
obtains a salvific effect. This is also the Christian understanding of the
sacrament. 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 rather, the rite partakes in a transcendent
reality from which it derives an efficacy surpassing its ordinary power. (23).
Sacraments symbolize a reality which can in no way be directly approached.
Sacraments are symbolic in their very essence; it must be recognized as intrinsically
connected with the sacred. (24). The sacramental word is very important in a
sacrament. In uttering the word the transcendent and physical act unites and
gains meaning. The “word” is like “form” to sacrament. (27).
1.5 Sacrifice:
Communion, Gift and Expiation
Sacrifice is almost as common as sacraments. It has
always occupied privileged place among ritual ceremonies. (28). 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. (29). Union is considered to be the original objective of
sacrifice. Later the notion of property came into existence and consequently
the notion of gift. (30). The essence of sacrifice has itself shifted from
archaic to more recent types. (32). Offering is the only common characteristic
which all sacrifices have in common. (33). Another important element is
expiatory sacrifices/substitution. In a sense every sacrifice is
substitutional. (34). Sacrifice continues to have central place in the thinking
of most faiths. (38).
Chapter: 2 THE
SYMBOLISM OF WORDS
2.1 Religious Language
Language is the symbol par excellence. However, all
symbols cannot be reduced to language (43). Language can do everything other
symbols do; though less perfectly. (44). 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. (46). 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. (48-49). 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. (51). Religious language is basically thetic
i.e., positing a reality beyond the subjective experience of the speaker and
objective reality of the world. (52).
2.2 Oddity of Religious
Language
Religious language originates in an intimate
relation between the speaker and the spoken. (52-53). 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. (53). 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. (54). 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. (55-56).
God-language takes as its model a familiar situation
but then qualifies it in such a way that the familiar suddenly turns highly
unfamiliar. Thus, Religious language is an odd language. (57). Hamann speaks of
religious language as contradictions of reason and Kierkegaard speaks of it as
paradoxical. (58). 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. (59-60). Paradoxical/
religious language can only be understood through the nonparadoxical. (60). But
the basic religious proposition cannot be reduced to ordinary language. The
relation between them is unilateral i.e., religious language need the ordinary
but not the vice versa. (61).
2.3 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. (62-63). Some objections to allegory came from renaissance humanists and
the Protestants but later on it was realized that scripture itself was
symbolic. (64). Only symbols can provide religious language with the two
essential conditions- subjective involvement of the religious speaker and the
transcendent nature of the referent. (65). The believer cannot despise
religious language because of the ability of the symbols to express
transcendental. Symbolic representations are less misleading because in spite
of the physical concreteness they are less determinate in their meanings. (66).
No statement about God is entirely nonsymbolic not even the primary one (God is
the Supreme Being) but that all discourse about God contains also a primary
nonsymbolic affirmation without the nonsymbolic the mind would be unable affirm
God at all. (67-68).
Chapter: 3 THE
SYMBOLISM OF RELIGIOUS ART
3.1 Sacred Art: A
Meaningful Concept?
For the longest part of human history art symbolized
religion; one could not be discussed without the other. Art was religious art.
Direct link between art and faith was dissolved only in our own secular
culture. (69). Attitude with respect to
art differs according to religions; according to the mode of envisioning the
infinite in the finite. (70). Art expands the expressive power of religious
symbolism. (72). 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. (76).
3.2 Symbols of
Transcendence
There are no symbols that are naturally religious. (77).
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., (78). Inadequacy is also conveyed by the distorted figures. Even
indeterminateness and ambiguity may be religiously expressive. (79). 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.
(80-81). 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. (83).
3.4 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. (84). 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. 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. (88). Language is indispensible but not
sufficient for the creation of religious art. (89).
Chapter: 4 THE MYTH AND
ITS SURVIVAL
4.1 The Myth and Its
Truth
Myths
are verbally developed symbols or an exegesis of the symbol. 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. Also symbol is exegesis of myth; they are
dialectically related. (91). 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. (93).
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. (97). Myths are more
emotional than rational, they respond to existential problems. (98). Myth sets
up a model for existence in its entirety. It aims primarily at restoring the
primeval wholeness lost through reflection. (99). 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. (100).
4.2 Survival of Myth
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 tried to interpret myth as allegory. (103-104). The turning point in myth came at the end of
18th 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. (104). 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. (106). In only one area of modern culture is the myth
fully recognized and openly welcomed that is the art and particularly the
literary arts. (107).
4.3 The Religious
Survival of the Myth
Myth
establishes beliefs as well as rites and even moral practices. (110). 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. (111). Myth itself
initiates a dynamism that leads the mind beyond the mythical. (112). In the
case of Israel, their sacred history is encased in a mythic framework of time. Christianity
has lot of mythical elements too. (114). In the gospel narratives we see how History
and myth are integrated. To separate these two elements have proved futile and
such distinction is not essential for the believer. The question is ‘whether
the myth is still needed after the sacred has been rationally defined. (115).
The fact that myth survives within the religious attitude is an indication of
the possibility that it might be indispensible. (116). 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. (117).
5. Conclusion
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 are the
external manifestations of religion. They 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 on religion. Ordinary language and means of communication
help us understand religion; however, they have a very limited capacity to
express the transcendental experiences and realities. While we use symbols and
symbolic language the ordinary expressions are very vital in the understanding
of religious symbols. Religious symbols/language makes sense only in the
context of ordinary symbols/language.
Bibliography:
Dupré,
Louis. Symbols of the Sacred. Cambridge:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000.
