Flood Legends (6 page)
Authors: Charles Martin
Tags: #History, #Biblical Studies, #World, #Historiography, #Religion, #Chrisitian
Matthew Henry, noted biblical scholar and author of
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible
, writes that the patriarchs, despite being revered,
did
sin (quite often, in fact). He suggests that the author of Genesis left the incident there in order to show Noah's righteousness comes from his heart, instead of his actions. To put it a different way, it is Noah's intent that earns him the description: "Noah walked with God."
King David is often regarded as a "man after God's own heart,"
3
despite being an adulterer, a murderer, and a lousy father. Why? In his heart he pursued righteousness. His son, Solomon, actually describes his father as being "righteous
at heart
."
4
Noah appears to fit into this same category. Although Noah physically falls from the perfect image of "righteousness," God still considers him righteous enough to survive the Flood.
The Mahābhārata
Half a world away in India, the story of Manu resonates with this idea of being blameless in intent, if not always in action. In the beginning of the Sanskrit story, we find Manu possessing the Hindu version of righteousness. He is full of "vigor, splendor, fortune, and, above all, piety." Unlike the story of Noah, however, the story of Manu
demonstrates
these qualities for us. We are told in the text that Manu performs the
tapas
for an extremely
long
period of time: a thousand years.
Tapas
is translated, literally, as "fire." However, it actually has two meanings in Hinduism (neither of which refers to the Mediterranean appetizer platters found in trendy restaurants). First, it is the "creative energy" of the body — essential body heat, metabolism, and so forth. Secondly,
tapas
is a term that refers to the performance of meditation and severe austerities. Through this performance of
tapas
, one can learn to control the creative energy of
tapas
, using it for power and for connecting to the "divine intelligence that orchestrates the universe."
5
It has, in effect, then, a double meaning. By performing the
act of tapas
, one can control the
tapas force
within oneself.
An example of this is found in the
Atharva Veda
. In this V
eda
, we read
yad agne tapasā tapa upatapyāmahe tapa
: the fire-god Agni
creates
tapas
by means of
tapas.
6
In other words, Agni creates the
energy form
of
tapas
by means of the
tapas process
. In both cases,
tapas
is used to gain and control power. It is, simply, a power within itself, but it can also be used and harnessed to
create
more power. It reminds me of the law of conservation of energy, which states that energy cannot create itself, but must come from an
external
energy source.
Tapas
, as a power, is created by
tapas
, the act, which then enables the yogi to harness more of the
tapas
power to further continue performing the act of
tapas
.
The
tapas
ritual has long been considered a measure of sincerity, holiness, and spiritual power. The Hindu guru Shiva Bala Yogi is rumored to have performed
tapas
for 12 years, attaining the ability to move objects with his mind, project his spirit elsewhere, and to surround himself with a constant humming sound, identified as the
aum
of Hindu meditation.
7
We may or may not believe that to be true, and whether it is true or not is beside the point. The
point
is that we are told in the
Mahābhārata
that it is through a similar form of rigorous
tapas
refinement that Manu earns the right to survive the Flood.
We do not see Manu's fallibility until the end of the tale (just as in the story of Noah), when he becomes "bewildered" during the process of re-creating the world. In the Hindu ideology, to become "bewildered" is to lose one's way in the cosmic path of one's calling; it is a sign that one is weighed down by the fetters and chains of the self. You see, to the Hindu mind, humans are born divine. It is only after becoming attached to the things of this world that we lose our divinity — our connection to the god Brahma. The practice of
tapas
, to the Hindus, is one of the pathways back to this lost divinity — one of the
yogas
. It is what allows Manu to begin the selfless and holy act of recreating life. Thus, where giving and creating life is a self
less
act, to allow oneself to be interrupted is a self
ish
act, as it prevents a good deed by allowing the mind to become distracted. Manu, in other words, enters a brief period of mental darkness that breaks his selfless act, disconnecting him from the righteousness he had "attained." This is the Hindu version of lying drunk and naked in a tent (though I am not all that certain Noah's behavior would be condoned in Hinduism, either).
Flaws: Added Realism?
Why are these particular flaws pointed out in the text? If we are to believe the idea that these people survive this hardship because of their holiness, then why bother presenting flaws in the hero at all? Why not cast aside the imperfections and fully exalt the heroes of these myths, particularly if we're to
view
them as exalted heroes? Many mythologists argue that these details are often added as an afterthought, in order to make the stories believable to a gullible audience. While this is, indeed,
possible
, it is certainly not
probable
.
Other divine heroes exist in comparable mythology. The Jews who wrote the New Testament, for example, center the focus of their writings on the divinely perfect Savior found in the person of Christ — using that perfection as testimony to back up their claims that He is Messiah. The ancient Greeks consistently created human characters that were also, at least in part, of divine blood (e.g., Hercules and Phaëthon). In Sanskrit mythology, Krishna is said to be, not the first, but the
ninth
human incarnation — the
avatara
— of the god Vishnu. In essence, enough divine humans exist in mythology that there is no need to claim that character flaws make a fictional protagonist more believable, because there are enough protagonists
without
character flaws. Taking an Eastern approach, in fact, we see the idea of divinity in humans to be far more prevalent and commonplace than in a Western, Judaic view. In Western literature, most people are simply people, with the rare few that appear to supersede mere humanity. In the Eastern literature, it is the opposite; divine humans are almost the norm. So we must ask ourselves again: why bother with this humanity if the storytellers are knowingly composing fictional accounts? Why not claim the characters are gods and be done with it, as this is what so often happens anyway? Why stress their
flaws
if we are to believe that they are more
righteous
than we are?
What seems most likely is that the stories actually refer to a
real
human, someone who is virtuous — at least in intent — but still human. In both the Sanskrit and Hebrew versions, this fallible humanity is overlooked because of the
relationship
that each hero has with his Creator. Despite his falling away from divinity — remember, in Hinduism, humans are born divine but only lose that divinity after they become distracted by the things of this world — Manu maintains the
tapas
he needs to re-create the world. Despite his eventual drunken exhibitionism, Noah is still considered "blameless."
In the vein of Moses (a murderer),
8
and Arjuna (a deserter),
9
the heroes of the Flood have managed, despite their shortcomings, to earn the care and respect of their God. In the Hebrew text, Noah survives because of his
relationship
with God. In the Sanskrit text, Manu earns survival first through
piety
, then through his
relationship
with Brahma. In the Kariña legend, it is because of
fear
and
trust
that the people survive. The Montagnais literature recalls an angry god who commands an
obedient
man to build a vessel. For the Hareskin Indians,
wisdom
is the attribute that allows the hero to survive the Deluge. In each of these versions, the virtuous are saved from a terrible judgment, and the obedient, the pious, and the God-fearing people outlive corrupt humanity.
Walking with God
.
Piety
.
Fear
.
Trust
.
Obedience
.
Wisdom. What should spring immediately to mind is that all of these traits are interrelated. A man who is blameless and walking with God would, by necessity, respect and honor the Creator with whom he walked. With that respect, we would expect to find an attitude of obedience, as well as a desire to please through "moral" behavior. These different traits may not be describing different people at all. Rather, they may very well be describing the
same
person. In that case, you may ask, if each story refers to the same person, why are
different
aspects chosen to describe him? Why is one "pious" and another "obedient"? Why are they not all described as obedient, pious, blameless people? Manu performs the
tapas
, while Noah is simply called "blameless." The Kariña are not described at all, but simply do as they are told, indicating that their virtue lies in their
obedience
. If the heroes all refer to the same person, then
why do the descriptions differ?
The breakdown occurs as the story begins to spread throughout the re-developing cultures of the diaspora. Each culture develops its own idea of what is necessary for salvation in the story. For the Hebrews, a personal relationship with the Creator is of the utmost importance. For the Hindus, a clear mind formed by continual ascetic practices is of the utmost importance. Some cultures teach
unquestioning
devotion, and for others, fear brings pleasure to their god. As such, the developing cultures are going to select, in their re-telling of the event, the
characteristics that most fit within their ideological framework
. Yet while the traits are all different, they are still
interrelated
.
To condense and simplify this, we can make the following summary: the man who worships his Creator to the fullest intent possible would contain all of these elements that we find broken down in the various stories. Running these traits backward through the diaspora, we can easily surmise that one man served as the inspiration for the various heroes in the re-told stories.
Thus we see the first example of telephone mythology put into practice with our heroes. Each of these characters — Noah, Manu, and the unnamed Kariña people — possesses the characteristics relevant to their respective cultures. Likewise, these characteristics — piety, a desire to follow God, and obedience — may, in fact, all stem from one historical figure.
Now we will take a look at the other characters on board the ship. In most of the versions, one family — sometimes several families — boards the vessel with the hero, helping him to load and manage the cargo. Are there similarities between the crew in these versions? Are there differences? More importantly, can we
explain
those differences with telephone mythology?
Endnotes
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
5-5
The Seven Spiritual Laws of Yoga
(Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.), p. ix.
5-6
Tapa Mārga: Asceticism and Initiation in Vedic India
(New York: State University of New York Press, 1989), p. 2.
5-7
5-8
5-9
Bhagavad Gita
, (New York: Harmony Books, 2000), p. 43.
Chapter 6
The Flood: The Crew
"There, with the seven Ŗsis, sit, Great Manu."
—
Mahābhārata
Book III, chapter 185, verse 30
The crew of the ship is perhaps the strongest link we can find among the three primary versions. The link is so strong that we hardly even need to apply telephone mythology to this portion of the story. In fact, were it not for the secondary versions, we would
not
need to apply telephone mythology at all. The details — specifically the number of the crew members — are so comparable that we can surmise that the stories
must
have the same origin. However, outside of these primary sources there
is
some variance, and what we find is that — even when the details differ greatly — telephone mythology is still of some use. Telephone mythology is, in fact, an arguably
necessary
application when it comes to studying the crew.
