As a Christian pastor, I am interested in the beliefs of people of other faiths. It does not seem appropriate to put oneself in a silo, in ignorance of what others believe. I mean, if I do not know what is actually distinctive about the Christian faith, why be a Christian? Now I have written elsewhere that the recent consecration of the Ram temple in Ayodhya is a non-event from the perspective of the Christian faith. That is, it holds no theological significance for Christians. Nevertheless, it provides a rare opportunity to understand at a deeper level what our Hindu sisters and brothers believe.
Pran Pratishtha
Hence, I read a lot about what was happening on the day the temple was consecrated. And I came across a part of the ceremony known as ‘pran pratishtha’. ‘Pran‘ is the Sanskrit word for ‘life’ and ‘pratishtha‘ means ‘establishment’. Hence, the ritual for pran pratishtha establishes life in the image being consecrated. The rituals involve first relocating the image from an outside space to the innermost space of the temple, where it will be installed. After this, the image is washed and cleansed, as though for a guest who has come home after a long journey. The image is then clothed and installed in its final resting place within the temple, with the image facing east toward the rising sun. Finally, the sensory organs – eyes, ears, nose, mouth – are ritually ‘opened’ so they can function properly and the active parts of the body – hands, feet – are ‘activated’ so that they too can perform their functions.
Through this process, the image is ritually ‘brought to life’. The rituals are intended to bring the divine presence to dwell within the image. And, as Sadhguru observes, the effects of the pran pratishtha are permanent. It is crucial to note that pran pratishtha is only performed on the image and not on the temple per se. Hence, while, after the pran pratishtha, the image is permanently imbued with the divine presence, the temple itself does not have a permanent sacredness. Rather, the rituals performed in the temple following the pran pratishtha of the image are to ensure that sacred space of the temple is maintained so that it remains a locus of life than become one of death.
Now, the craftsman who sculpted the Ram Lalla idol is Arun Yogiraj, who prepared for the task by separating himself from even his family for the period during which he performed the sculpting. This separation is understandable since the sculptor intends to be receptive to divine illumination during the period and hence distances himself from anything that could hinder that receptivity.
Interestingly, Yogiraj observed that the appearance of the idol seemed to have been altered during the course of the pran pratishtha. In his view, the idol’s current appearance is quite different from what it was prior to the pran pratishtha. Some people have poked fun at this claim and have asserted that the change is simply due to difference in lighting. While there is no denying that lighting can alter the appearance of a sculpture, Yogiraj himself is an experienced sculptor who knows well the effects that lighting can have on any of his creations. Of course, there are other factors that can change the appearance of the idol, like humidity, the application of oils and paints, the clothing, etc. However, while we may be able to offer many natural explanations, no one can deny that those who have faith view the pran pratishtha as ‘actually’ producing some change. But the most interesting thing is that Yogiraj finally declared that, after the change was produced, the idol did not look like anything he had made.
The Mis Pi Ritual
The Hindu faith is not the only one that has such rituals as the pran pratishtha. In ancient Babylon, the people had a ritual known as mis pi or ‘mouth washing’. During this ritual too the image is brought from the place where it was made to the center of the temple. The image is ceremonially washed and clothed before being placed at its final resting place. Then the mouth of the image is washed so that it is empowered to speak for the god. While the ceremony is called mis pi, it does not involve only the mouth. Rather, as in the pran pratishtha, rituals are performed to open the eyes, ears and nose of the image. The whole ritual of the mis pi then symbolizes infusing the image with the life of the deity so that the image can now represent the deity during the daily rituals. As with the pran pratishtha, the effects of the mis pi were considered enduring. Once an image had been consecrated with this ceremony, it was permanently imbued with the presence of the deity.
A crucial part of the mis pi is that the people involved in the making of the image would then symbolically sever their hands and bury their tools. They would then declare, as Yogiraj did, that this image was something that was not their creation. How could it be, when they had no hands and no tools with which to form the image? To them the image was wholly the creation of the deity who had descended to take his/her residence within the image. And since the deity had condescended to take up residence in the image, that divine presence was permanent.
Now, in both the pran pratishtha and the mis pi the image has his/her eyes opened allowing the deity to view what was happening on earth through the image. The mouth is opened, thereby allowing the deity to speak to the devotees through the image. The ears are opened, which allowed the deity to hear the petitions and praises of the devotees through the image. With the nostrils being opened, the deity could smell the sweet offerings that were presented before the image. Hence, the pran pratishtha and the mis pi rituals ceremonially enlivened the image so that through it the deity could have meaningful interactions with the devotees.
Now, while we do not have any people who perform the mis pi, since the religions of the ancient Babylonians is a relic of history, the pran pratishtha is a ceremony that dates back to times before the common era. Hence, we can see that such rituals in which the image is enlivened have existed through the centuries. Today, when a Hindu priest officiates over a pran pratishtha ceremony, he is serving as the latest example of this tradition that has been practiced for much of human history.
The Image of God
To many Christians these rituals may seem strange. However, we have a polemical parallel to this in the opening chapters of our scriptures. In Genesis 1, humans are explicitly called the image of God. That is, our first creation story insists that we are created to represent God much as an image in a temple is created to do the same. Also, as shown by John Walton in his book The Lost World of Genesis One, the first chapter of Genesis presents the whole of creation as a temple within which God places his image – humans. In other words, according to Genesis 1, humans are the images formed to represent God in this temple that is the whole of creation. And noticeably, unlike in the pran pratishtha or mis pi, it is God himself, rather than a human sculptor, who makes the image.
Indeed, when we turn the page to Genesis 2, we can see God forming the human. And in v. 7 we read that God breathed into the nostrils of the human, thereby bringing him to life. The divine breath that is breathed into the human enlivens him into his role of being the image. Later in Genesis 9, we see that, even though humans have defiled themselves endlessly, they are still the image of God. In other words, here too we can see that, once the image is enlivened by the divine breath, the image remains despite everything else. The image itself may be violated with violence and other kinds of desecrating acts. Yet, the consecration of the image cannot be removed since the presence of God is inviolate in humans.
Similarities and Differences
We can see that the Christian scriptures also have a narrative in which an image is enlivened with the enduring life of the deity. This is much like what we have seen in the pran pratishtha and the mis pi. What the similarities indicate is a common understanding that, while the world, including sacred space, can be violated and threatened with the forces of death, an image of the deity that is enlivened by the deity retains its sacredness, which cannot be removed.
However, where the differences surface we see the polemical nature of the Genesis narrative. First, the image is not considered to be constituted in anything made with human hands. While Yogiraj and those involved in the mis pi would distance themselves from the act of making the image, their disclaimer is only ceremonial. We know that they made the image and we give them credit for it. And they will be approached for similar tasks in the future if their present craftsmanship is appreciated. But in Genesis, the human images are truly made without human involvement. The formation of this image, therefore, is a completely divine action. In neither Genesis 1 nor Genesis 2 are we told exactly how God made humans. However, whatever the mechanism of this creative process, both accounts are clear that humans were created by a direct divine action. And as mentioned earlier, even if we are able to give a natural explanation for any event, that does not preclude a theological claim that God was involved in the process.
Second, while the images made by Yogiraj and those involved in the mis pi are ceremonially considered to have the ability to communicate, this is a ritualized fiction since a stone or wood or clay image does not actually see or hear or taste or smell. And since most devotees are not permitted to come in actual contact with the image, the sense of touch is excluded. Moreover, since the image does not actually speak, there is no real communication from the deity to the devotees. However, since the images in Genesis are the humans, a full sensory encounter with this divine image is possible. This image actually sees and hears and tastes and smells – and even touches – there is a fully embodied encounter with this image. And since this image actually can speak, there is the possibility of actual communication between the deity and the devotees. Every human then carries the potential of being the bearer of a divine message to another human!
Third, the images made by Yogiraj and those involved in the mis pi can only be found after consecration in a designated physical space like a temple. This is only to be expected. The deity cannot be expected to reside just anywhere! A place needs to be made and kept sacred for the divine presence to be able to reside there. That is, as I have mentioned, why the rituals in the temples are performed. They maintain the sacred space that is created within the temple precincts. To the contrary, the images of Genesis are mobile. One does not have to travel to a designated ‘sacred space’ like a temple to have an encounter with the deity. Rather, every encounter with another human is an encounter with the deity. This is not to say that humans are divine. Rather, humans have been created as God’s images and hence bring the divine presence with them. Now, through acts of desecration, the divine presence may be obscured. But, as I claimed earlier, the divine presence is permanent.
We can see that the Christian understanding of ‘image’ and ‘sacred space’ is quite different from that reflected by the pran pratishtha and the mis pi rituals. Whatever view one finally accepts, we should at least accept that there are different perspectives on what an image of a deity is and how sacred space is maintained. Quite naturally, as a Christian, I accept the perspective of the bible. I believe it to be richer and deeper. I believe it to be more egalitarian, even though Christians have often not reflected this. And I believe it has a loftier view on human nature and, therefore, from an ethical perspective can expect much more from humans.
You must be logged in to post a comment.