The Trimūrti (sez Wikipedia) “is a concept in Hinduism ‘in which the cosmic functions of creation, maintenance, and destruction are personified by the forms of Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver and Shiva the destroyer or transformer.'” I couldn’t have told you that, but my years of Sanskrit study, though mercifully four decades in the past, left me with enough passive knowledge to guess it meant something like ‘triad’ when I ran across it, in Russian guise, in Veltman’s Salomea (which I’m still reading — it’s very long). He’s been describing the unhappy marriage of Maria “Mary” Nilskaya, whose stupid and officious husband cuts her off from her family and treats her badly, and he says that she is unable to fulfill a wife’s duty to love her spouse: to love truly, they say, you have to love with mind, heart, and senses. “Но это тримурти любви, говорят, мечта” [But this trimurti of love, they say, is a dream]. The National Corpus of the Russian Language shows no other instance of a writer using the word metaphorically in this way; all other citations are about Indian religion. It’s quite striking to me that Veltman would presume an awareness of the word on the part of at least a substantial element of his readership, which is a reminder of the fact that the Bhagavad Gita was translated into Russian as early as 1788 (by Nikolay Novikov, working from Charles Wilkins‘ English version — it wasn’t translated from the original until 1956).
a more recent translation was prosecuted in Tomsk on charges of religious extremism
What a poetic visual image that word conjures! I can see this, and feel a bit of the frustration of the wife. 🙂
a more recent translation was prosecuted in Tomsk on charges of religious extremism
I’m not sure which is more astonishing, the trial itself or the incredibly long Wikipedia article (over a hundred footnotes!).
I can see this, and feel a bit of the frustration of the wife.
Veltman is amazingly sensitive to the difficult situation of women in a sexist society; all of his novels feature women dealing with it in one way or another, and he often uses the theme of women dressing up as men or acting in ways normally reserved for men. He doesn’t make angelic heroines of them, either; they’re just as complex and difficult as the male characters. He introduces Salomea thus: “A beauty, with a consciousness of her own worth, a true valorous man [муж] in a half-dozen skirts, a real young ministry official who has come from a European capital to an Asiatic one, with an entire stock of importance and pride in gait, in bearing, in methods, in movements, in speech, in glance, in feelings and even thoughts. In a word, this was a magnanimous creature, despising all who were small-souled, faint-hearted, feeble, and cordial [literally ‘a great-souled creature, despising all who were small-souled, weak-souled, in-vain-souled, and glad-souled’].” She frequently behaves so badly you want to clobber her, but Veltman never lets you forget that the alternative (as we see with other female characters) was to be a simpering “nice girl” who lets men do as they please and puts up with it. He was one of the most truly feminist writers of the nineteenth century (and married a fellow writer, Elena Kube, whose work he supported).
And Shiv’s attribute is the trishul, or tri-dent.
… from which (apparently) derives the Romani trušul “cross, crucifix”
It’s an interesting world.
The OED gives the etymology as “trí three + -mūrti consisting or formed of”, hence the One God in three forms. (Just a hair more syncretism, and India could have been the greatest of Christian nations.) A further definition is a statue with three faces representing Trimurti.
The word comes up frequently in Lord of Light. I thought that book had been discussed here a while back, but I can’t located the thread I’m thinking of, so I may be thinking of another site.
I have noticed that none of the practicing Hindus with whom I have discussed the nature of their three-fold supreme deity have ever used the word “trimurti” in those discussions. Sometimes they seem to refer to the whole triad as “Brahma”; I suppose the possibilities for confusion are mitigated by the fact that Hindu sects that primarily revered Brahma all but vanished long ago.
The Russian Wikipedia mentions Veltman’s «Первобытное верование и буддизм» in addition to translations (from German?) of parts of the Mahabharata.
From what I can make out of Клич Феникса, a species of crack-pottery I know very little about, it’s full of folk etymologies involving the Trimurti, such as Abraham from Ibn-Brahma.
This quaint work doesn’t seem to show up online, except in library catalogs and rare book sellers.
We’ve definitely never mentioned Lord of Light here. The references to Trimurti in the book read to me like references to the White House: you know there is more than one person hiding behind this singular noun. The first few references don’t make this clear: “the worthiest opponent Trimurti ever faced”, “an agent of Trimurti”, “the rod of Trimurti still falls on the backs of men”. But the next two usages clarify it:
and then
David Eddyshaw: [trishul] …from which (apparently) derives the Romani trušul “cross, crucifix”
I didn’t know that. Interesting indeed, and it is a wonderful world in which the cross that might be carried by Christians (Romani Christians) bears almost the same name as the object held by Hindus, as well as by Shiva somehow like a bishop would hold his crosier.
http://www.world-travel-photos.com/routard-photo-philippe-fr-478-619-8131.html
Do you know how the word trušul is pronounced?
John, as mentioned by Brett above, the trimurti isn’t something that forms part of the common set of religious beliefs and practices in contemporary Hinduism (unlike the central concept of trinity in Christianity). It is something that belongs more to a distant past and ancient philosophical texts. In fact, far from being a core belief, it may have been artificially brought into the limelight by British orientalists who were all too happy to make a parallel with what they had back home. All this to say that whatever syncretism there might have been to make Hindus embrace Christianity, or make Hinduism get closer to Christianity, it is quite unlikely that the trinity could have played any significant role in it.
Re: OED — I’m not sure whether there is a murti in the trimurti (there might, ultimately), but a murti is anything that embodies the divinity. In most cases it is a statue, which is revered and to whom offerings are given, but it can also be non-anthropomorphic objects, like a stones, the most current of them being the shivling, the erect stone symbolizing Shiva.
Granted, but how contemporary are we talking about? Christianity has been in India for sixteen centuries or more, blown across the sea on the Golden Wind. Since then, Hinduism has had plenty of influence from Islam and its emphatic insistence on monotheism.
I’m curious about the previous citation (1841) from V. F. Odoyevski’s Tales of Grandfather Irenaeus. There’s a very poorly translated page about him here http://www.persona.rin.ru/eng/view/f/0/24952/odoyevski-vladimir-feodorovich which makes him sound intriguing, if incomprehensible: “a big novel “Salamander” – semi-historical, semi-fantastic story which inspired the author of the study of the history of alchemy and research YA.K. Grotto of Finnish legends and beliefs – and a series of complete irony of stories about social life ( “New Year”, “Princess Mimi,” “Princess Zizi”). Satirical tale ( “The dead body, . know who owned “, . “The gentleman Kovakole” and others), . some of whom are different dark color and, . because of the then dominant in the ruling circles of views, . great courage, . the transition from science fiction stories, . which feels a strong influence of Hoffmann,” & more in the same vein.
Do you know how the word trušul is pronounced?
Stress on the second syllable: troo-SHOOL.
’m curious about the previous citation (1841) from V. F. Odoyevski’s Tales of Grandfather Irenaeus. There’s a very poorly translated page about him … which makes him sound intriguing, if incomprehensible
He’s a delightful writer; I’ve written about him a number of times (1, 2, 3, 4)
John,
” (Just a hair more syncretism, and India could have been the greatest of Christian nations.)”
There wasn’t any syncretism necessary. God incarnating through the womb of an untouchable? That story is tailor-made for India. And all the core doctrines of Christianity are Dharmic – original sin – avidya; the need for asalvation – moksha, nirvana’ the uselessness and even dangers of ethicalism and good works, the doctrine of incarnation itself – rather than Abrahamic.
it wasn’t more syncretism but less cultural parochialism on the part of the Syriac colony that was needed.
@John Cowan: I particularly remember that last quote about Vishnu being the least of trimurti. It makes the fakeness of the gods so very clear—even if that’s not really needed at that point in the story.
I’ll have to figure out which blog that was that was discussing Lord of Light, since I realized something that was specifically relevant to what was being talked about.
Do you know how the word trušul is pronounced?
Stress on the second syllable: troo-SHOOL.
I got that from Gordon Messing’s Glossary of Greek Romany, but I see from Wiktionary that in Sinte Romani it’s trúšul (stress on first syllable).
“… the uselessness and even dangers of ethicalism and good works,..”
I think that this is not a “core doctrine of Christianity” but one of the Protestant churches that came later and not of the ancient Syriac churches that established themselves in Kerala ( or of the Latin Catholics in Goa and elsewhere.)
Mainstream Christianity, Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox (and Nestorian too), has always maintained that you can’t earn salvation by good deeds (polemical Protestants, particularly the many theologically undereducated ones, sometimes claim that Catholicism teaches that you can, but this is simply untrue.)
Mainstream Christianity has also always maintained that it does not follow from this that it that it does not matter whether a Christian does good or not: that is Antinomianism, a serious heresy. It’s not a core doctrine of Protestantism (not even of us hardcore Calvinists. more Protestanter than Luther himself though we be.)
Currently, American “evangelical” Protestantism is in fact deep in the grip of the reverse heresy: that you can too earn your salvation (and earthly prosperity), by venerating God’s Chosen Leader, donating to your Megachurch, and persecuting God’s Enemies, whether they be Sexual Deviants, Foreigners or Godless Extreme Radical Socialists.
Yes David, I would agree with most of that. I was thinking of some of the contemporary Protestant groups in the U.S. who may have drifted away from the beliefs of older groups like the Mainline churches, such as the non-denominational churches that are pretty common in the U.S. nowadays. I was reacting against the idea of Christians seeing good works as being useless and even dangerous. “You will know them by their fruits” and all that. ( I’d also quibble with the idea that the other doctrines listed, including the Incarnation, are Dharmic rather than Abrahamic but I’m no theologian or church historian.)
I have found though, from participating in online conversations, that in the Anglo-sphere, Protestant beliefs ( or its offshoots, I’m speaking very generally here ) are often taken for granted as the Christian mainstream even when they may differ from Catholic / Orthodox beliefs that are the mainstream historically or today as in the veneration of saints or transubstatiation.
[To put this back on a more language related track, I’m reminded of a forum for language-learners where I used to lurk a lot. One member advised using the Bible as learning material since it’s been translated into so many languages, something I do myself, but he suggested reading Genesis and Exodus ( if I remember correctly ) because apparently he grew up in a fundamentalist church in the Southern U.S. and they were heavily into the Old Testament and I think he assumed other churches were like that too whereas I always go to the Gospels because that’s what’s read every day at mass and with which I’m more familiar.]
in the Anglo-sphere, Protestant beliefs ( or its offshoots, I’m speaking very generally here) are often taken for granted as the Christian mainstream even when they may differ from Catholic / Orthodox beliefs that are the mainstream historically or today as in the veneration of saints or transubstatiation.
A lot of Prods are genuinely ignorant about all other Christian traditions and about real Church history (and, alas, happy to remain so.) The retconning of Christian history as Protestant-all-along has quite a pedigree:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxe%27s_Book_of_Martyrs
The effects of this ghastly bit of sectarian propaganda are still with us …
Mind you, unfair to single out Protestants: a number of US very-high-profile self-proclaimed Catholics appear to have a somewhat idiosyncratic notion of Catholic doctrine.
he suggested reading Genesis and Exodus
Genesis, and the first bits of Exodus, are quite good for providing fairly long stretches of fairly simple narrative. Paul’s letters, on the other hand, are often much less straightforward syntactically and offer more challenges when it comes to translating them into non-SAE languages.
I’ve learnt a lot from reading the Kusaal Bible versions; though I moan sometimes about particular lexical choices, in general, the translators have done a pretty good job, I think. I learn new and unobvious idioms quite often that way: they’ve done a good job of avoiding overliteralness.
A lot of Prods are genuinely ignorant about all other Christian traditions and about real Church history
That was certainly true of me as an eager young Lutheran; it’s not that there was any overt sectarian triumphalism, it was just taken for granted that our interpretation was how things were and how God meant it.
I later realized that “our way is God’s way” is default mode for humans.
Genesis, and the first bits of Exodus, are quite good for providing fairly long stretches of fairly simple narrative
I’d say that Genesis, Exodus and the Gospels are good for language learning because not only is the language relatively simple and straightforward ( at least in translation, I haven’t studied biblical Greek or Hebrew yet ) but because many people are already familiar with the stories they contain* ( for similar reasons there are people who read Harry Potter books in the language they’re learning. I used to watch Rebecca with French dubbing because I’m a Hitchcock fan. ) The Acts of the Apostles and a few other narrative books like the Books of Samuel might be good too.
In my previous attempt at Esperanto I discovered that the Book of Proverbs was also useful. I could read through a few self-contained lines and not need or feel the need to finish a scene or a story. This was on a Bible site that’s no longer online.
The great thing about today is that there are a number of other Bible websites that also put different translations in parallel on screen so that you can easily check your understanding with the text in your native language.
*…many people are already familiar with the stories they contain..
Then again, many people are not. I remember that I had an English teacher in high school who complained that many of her students were no longer familiar with the Bible and this was in the early 90s.
One of the hallmarks of the alleged renaissance of Christianity in the US is that its excitable new devotees need have no familiarity with either the Bible or traditional Christian teachings; it’s purely a social club that justifies bashing those who do not belong.
(In before DE…)
Currently, American “evangelical” Protestantism is in fact deep in the grip of the reverse heresy: that you can too earn your salvation (and earthly prosperity), by venerating God’s Chosen Leader, donating to your Megachurch, and persecuting God’s Enemies, whether they be Sexual Deviants, Foreigners or Godless Extreme Radical Socialists.
And having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.
in the Anglo-sphere, Protestant beliefs ( or its offshoots, I’m speaking very generally here ) are often taken for granted as the Christian mainstream even when they may differ from Catholic / Orthodox beliefs that are the mainstream historically or today as in the veneration of saints or transubstatiation.
Heck, plenty of American Protestants will tell you that Roman Catholics aren’t Christians.
On offshoots—in my unqualified opinion, the U.S. at least needs a word for people who celebrate Western Easter but don’t acknowledge the authority of any pope. Some of those people deny being Protestants, so I’m open to suggestions. One possible suggestion is to ignore their denials.
I remember that I had an English teacher in high school who complained that many of her students were no longer familiar with the Bible and this was in the early 90s.
In the late ’70s, my high school English class read Milton’s “On His Blindness”. The teacher was disturbed that not one of us knew the parable of the talents—and quite annoyed that not one of us bothered to look it up.
My impression of my (Protestant) fellow-worshippers is that even Genesis and Exodus are often not well known nowadays.
I heard a sermon recently in which the preacher – I eventually realised – had mistakenly reversed the time sequence of Jacob’s dream of the ladder and Jacob’s wrestling with the angel. (For the benefit of Godless Extreme Radical Socialist Hatters: this would once have been pretty basic Scripture Knowledge in my circles. Even for the groundlings, let alone the preacher.)
It may be different in the US (though deep familiarity with the actual text of the Bible there does not appear to be quite as common as reverence for a certain general idea of the Bible.)
And having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior
I actually subscribe to the idea behind this – mostly – (although, of course, I spell “Saviour” correctly), but have always baulked at the formulation. “Personal Saviour”, like Personal Stereo …
But: it does betray an actual serious theological weakness of many strands of Protestantism (not all), and is an intrusion of a particular modern secular notion of human nature into Christian doctrine. The US is the world capital of this doctrine. Every man is an island …
One of the hallmarks of the alleged renaissance of Christianity in the US is that its excitable new devotees need have no familiarity with either the Bible or traditional Christian teachings; it’s purely a social club …
Well, I wouldn’t necessarily say alleged but I think it has a lot to do with the nature of many of the churches that have seen growth, the non-denominational “seeker-friendly” churches. It’s because they’re seeker-friendly that they don’t ask for that familiarity from its members, at least not right away.
To be fair, Catholics have been complaining about the poor religious education in this country among their members for at least a couple of decades now.
..I used to watch Rebecca with French dubbing because I’m a Hitchcock fan.
I’ve also watched some classic cartoons dubbed into other languages, either professionally or by fans. From this I’ve learned that:
1. When Wile E. Coyote speaks he sounds even snootier in French than he does in English.
2. Shockingly, I had a somewhat easier time understanding Donald Duck in French than I did in Italian.
Also, the Latin American Spanish dub of The Simpsons is supposed to be particularly good but I’ve never had a chance to really watch it.
Well, I wouldn’t necessarily say alleged but I think it has a lot to do with the nature of many of the churches that have seen growth, the non-denominational “seeker-friendly” churches. It’s because they’re seeker-friendly that that they don’t ask for that familiarity from its members, at least not right away.
What I’m objecting to is not the seeker-friendliness, which is a good thing, but the political-social causes such churches tend to support, which are so un-Christian they would make all the apostles spin in their graves.
I think was Etienne who once said that the Québécois version of The Simpsons is a lot better than the French-of-France one.
so un-Christian they would make all the apostles spin in their graves
Amen. Preach it, Brother!
What I’m objecting to is not the seeker-friendliness, which is a good thing, but the political-social causes such churches tend to support, which are so un-Christian they would make all the apostles spin in their graves.
Well that gives me something to think about. I have to observe that the churches that do hold to the political-social causes that many here support like the mainline liberal churches are the churches that have shrunk the most in recent decades and continue to lose members. What would make joining those churches more attractive? I don’t know. Apparently joining progressive causes is not enough. For the record as a Catholic I don’t think that my beliefs fall into the Left/Right political paradigm of today.
The prosperity gospel churches thrive for the same reason the populist Right does – they provide a community that tells people that selfishness and meanness are good and are actually virtues shared by many others.
I have to observe that the churches that do hold to the political-social causes that many here support like the mainline liberal churches are the churches that have shrunk the most in recent decades and continue to lose members
True-ish even in the UK, but less so, I think: the linkage of evangelical Christianity with far-right* politics was not a spontaneous development but the result of deliberate policy decisions made by Reagan’s Republicans, and there was nothing parallel here (though deeply sinister figures like Paul Marshall are currently busy trying to remedy that.)
The Church growth thing bulks large in UK evangelical Christian thinking (especially with our US cousins busily trashing the brand.) I think the mindset behind it all too often tends to equate worldy success with virtue. There is more than one metric for “success.” Our metric should not be the entertainment industry’s metric. Or a political party’s metric.
* What Americans call “right.”
“This can also apply to beliefs — expect to see many Christians mention Purgatory, original sin, the seven deadly sins and excommunication, even though many Protestant sects do not hold these doctrines. However, one belief that gets a lot of attention from the media, namely, the pre-tribulation Rapture, is not a Catholic belief. Instead, a vocal minority of Protestants holds it. It can fit well with the Rule of Funny and the Rule of Drama.”
Teh hardcorez do know a lot of the text, but not necessarily in the way that’s relevant here. The important concept is “a scripture”. You see, if every word of the Bible is true, then every sentence or half-sentence is true no matter if it’s in its original context, or in any context. The people in question treat individual verses – “scriptures” – as complete prophecies or life advice or whatever without caring, or likely knowing, what they’re originally about; and if they encounter an unexpected situation and feel a need to pray about it, they wonder if there is “a scripture” that fits it.
the churches that have shrunk the most in recent decades and continue to lose members
i think a lot of this has to do with the most material aspects of congregational affiliation. for suburban megachurches and others aimed at comparatively well-off populations, that’s about networking (and the strong possibility of getting preferential treatment from fellow-congregants in business contexts), which means that there’s a strong snowball effect, where past a certain tipping point the size is itself a draw. for churches aimed at workingclass populations, it has more to do with concrete mutual aid, both formally structured (using non-monetary church resources like physical space much more often than actual church or pastoral funds) and informal (which is again a snowballing process).
the former does have a particular political correlation, given that the business-owning (and professional-managerial) suburban white “middle class” has been the key demographic base of the u.s. far right since the 1980s at least* (and its less white segment is now a key recruitment target for them).
the latter, however, does not. traditionally liberal denominations have, i think, been less likely to actually do the kinds of mutual aid work that brings in new members (as opposed to conventional charity approaches)**, but where congregations (often at least initially unaffiliated ones) do that work from a left perspective, they’re just as successful. for instance, an old bandmate of mine was the founding pastor of St. Lydia’s, which has been very successful through applying that model to a comparatively well-off brooklyn congregation.
.
* arguably the ’40s if not before; i’ve been rereading The Crying of Lot 49, and how much it’s a novel about an already flourishing (as of 1964/5) suburban california far right – composed of corporate engineers, small businessmen, shrinks & profs, and Young Republican housewives like oedipa, as well as a few Quite Rich Men – is jumping out at me from every page.
** perhaps because of the imperatives that come with more extensive institutionalization; perhaps because of assumptions about who “their people” are or can be (i.e. not in need); perhaps because of discomfort with the “mutual” part of mutual aid, which implies that they might need things, too.
@DM:
Yes. Bible sortilege, effectively.
Used to be done with Virgil in the Good Old Days:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortes_Vergilianae
It’s not a respectful way to treat a text …
given that the business-owning (and professional-managerial) suburban white “middle class” has been the key demographic base of the u.s. far right
Small business owners are the mainstay of our very own Trump-lite Reform Party, too (not the “white working class”, whose role in this is largely the invention of “Blue Labour” rightist entryists pushing for the party to become properly xenophobic and bigoted to “win them back.”)
@David Marjanović: Both Luther and Calvin believed in original sin, although not precisely the Catholic formulation of it.
Yes, Original Sin is mainstream, though it is true that the more wishy-washy sort of Protestant won’t have it. It doesn’t mean quite what most people think, though, and there are indeed subtle differences of interpretation between traditions.
Purgatory is just unProtestant, though: “a fond thing, vainly invented.”
https://www.churchsociety.org/article-22-of-purgatory/
Purgatory also doesn’t mean what most people think. though. The souls in Purgatory are all already saved.
(I read a stupid article by an obviously clever person once about The Dream of Gerontius; the writer thought that Gerontius was sent to hell for his sins at the end, and that his last words are resigned despair. People have no business commenting on such things if they can’t be bothered to do basic research on what the author thought they were saying. Or read the bloody text properly.)