Cremation, Caste, and Cosmogony in Karmic Traditions.

What is important is to emphasise the cosmogonic
function the Great Bath most likely had in its time.
There are two factors which have to be considered:
Firstly, there are no such monumental baths other places
in the Indus Civilisation, and secondly, it was
secondarily made at the pre-existing Acropolis at
Mohenjo-daro. There are two interpretations one may
draw from these observations. Firstly, the absence of
other similar constructions may imply that this was the
only cosmogonic place of its character, and there was a
general agreement among the Indians about this fact.
Secondly, since The Great Bath was constructed into the
existing monuments, the awareness and cultural
incorporation of the cosmological origin and creation
must have developed within and among the priests at
Mohenjo-daro. These two interpretations together may
indicate that, for whatever reason which triggered off
this religious development, a water cosmology and
cosmogony were created in the Indus Civilisation, which
had the Great Bath as the ultimate reference point.
A cosmogonic interpretation is strengthened by the
structuring principles or the “planning” of the town,
which is in accordance with the cardinal points (Jansen
1989:177). Such a planning has to be seen in relation to
religion and astrological observations and calculations,
or in other words, cosmogony and the interrelatedness of
micro- and macro cosmos. The Indus Civilisation was
based upon water and different approaches to the ritual
use of this sacred medium. This water-world existed
prior to Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, and
Jainism, and if one is tracing the history of religious
development, then the different uses of water is the pool
of origin from which the various religious webs of
significance were spun. The Indian religions developed
and separated from each other from a pre-existing waterworld,
which it is natural to trace back to the Indus
civilisation and the traditions that stem from the Great
Bath. Different approaches and ritual practices to divine
manifestations and revelations represented in holy water
could therefore be one of the main catalysts in the
development of what later became both Zoroastrianism
and Brahmanism, and to a lesser extent Buddhism. The
role of fire in this process is, however, more uncertain.
Excavating the Gordian knot
I will therefore return to the previous discussion of the
development of religions and change in traditions. The
changes in religions from the Indus to Taxila cover a
time span of nearly two thousand years; so does the
development of these religions into what they have
become today. The material evidence is too scarce to
draw any conclusive statements from regarding the
theological developments, and, as seen, it is often highly
problematic to ascribe a religious label to specific
monuments and artefactual finds. The conglomerate and
the syncretism of religions, as evident in for instance the
Jandial temple, strengthen the notion of a continuous
273
religious bricolage. Therefore, “a religion is what it has
become. Historians too often describe what religion was
at a given period in past history, which they think
represent the “real” religion. Theologians commonly
depict an idealistic picture of the “true” faith and
describe all variations as heresies or the falling away
from “the valid” or “core” teaching as lesser
manifestations of the religion”, John Hinnells argues, but
“the truth is, of course, that all religions change as they
evolve and must do so if they are to continue to be
meaningful to the practitioner in a changing world.
Religious philosophies cannot remain uninfluenced by
the environment in which they are practiced” (Hinnells
2000:241). This is equally true for cultures, because
“culture is not a plant sprouting from its seed in
isolation; it is a continuous process of learning guided by
curiosity along with practical needs and interests. It
grows especially through a willingness to learn from
what is “other”, what is strange and foreign…The
“miracle of Greece” is not merely the result of a unique
talent. It also owes its existence to the simple
phenomenon that the Greeks are the most easterly of the
Westerners” (Burkert 1992:129).
Then one must ask: what are the common and
structuring variables that have been at work and have
been negotiated upon? As indicated, it seems plausible
that the three features in this respect are the life-giving
water, fire, and rebirth/karma. Since all religions are
different and some even departed from each other, it is
important to stress that lived religion functions and
works, it is not only abstract theological reflections.
Thus, there will most often be contested understandings
between what is labelled “high” and “low” religion.
Ritual practices and traditions are not about timeless
events that reveal fundamental truths about the meaning
of life and death. Rites are framed by concrete historical
processes and the meanings ascribed to such processes
are historical constructions (Padel 2000). There are
obviously very few similarities between Cyrus the Great,
Xerxes, and the Parsees in Bombay, although they all are
Zoroastrians and employ parts of the same elements and
defend and protect the ritual purity of the elements.
Moreover, the relation between Zoroastrianism and
Hinduism illuminates the difficulties of tracing religions
backwards in time since religions are developing
through the millennia in a process of bricolage and
mutually interdependencies or conflict. It exemplifies
the problem of origin and the search for the “start” of
social phenomena. There are two major obstacles with
research regarding origins. Firstly, one looks to the past
for the beginning of social or religious phenomena one
knows exist in the present. Secondly, we use the notion
of origin to make a number of originary moves in our
thinking and writing. Thus, the narratives are
“determined not by their beginnings but by their
endings. Our stories of the past must end with the
present” (Moore 1995:51).