A Semantic Interpretation of Rudolf Otto's Religious Theory

Rudolf Otto's religious theory, centered on 'the holy' and 'the numinous', is examined through a semantic lens inspired by Toshihiko Izutsu's philosophical semantics. Otto, a Lutheran theologian and philosopher of religion, argued that the numinous—a non-rational, felt experience of the 'wholly other'—is the essence of religion, irreducible to society or culture. His concept of the holy comprises both rational and non-rational dimensions, expressed through 'ideograms' that point toward transcendent meaning beyond ordinary language. The article contends that Otto's approach offers a phenomenology of religion that prioritizes lived religious experience and the depth of meaning, though his Christian theological orientation shaped his comparative studies of Hindu and Christian thought.

Study at a glance

Abstract

This article is a semantic attempt to clarify the totality of Rudolf Otto (1869-1937) by describing his religious theory, characterised by such key terms as ‘the holy’ and ‘the numinous’. In his academic life, Otto had three ‘faces’, i.e., a Christian theologian, a philosopher of religion, and a scholar of comparative religion, all of which were organically interrelated in his Christian theological studies. At first, Otto was a Lutheran theologian. For him, Lutheran faith was the foundation of his understanding of religion. Moreover, Fries's neo-Kantian philosophy provided a sufficient philosophical basis for Otto's Protestant theological studies. Otto wrote Das Heilige largely in Fries's philosophical framework. While being conscious that he was a Protestant theologian, Otto worked on comparative religious studies. In his life, after his trip to the East from 1911 to 1912, he became especially interested in Hindu faith and thought. Then, he worked on the study of Indian religious thought while conducting Christian theological studies. Through his comparative study of other religions, he attempted to understand the truth of Christianity more deeply. He was a professor of Christian Systematic Theology at Marburg University from 1917 to 1929, and he published works including Das Heilige (1917), West-östliche Mystik (1926), and Die Gnadenreligion Indiens und das Christentum (1930). Before beginning my argument about Otto, I would like to describe briefly what I call ‘the semantic perspective’. By this, I especially mean the standpoint of ‘philosophical semantics’ of the Japanese philosopher Toshihiko Izutsu (1914-93). Izutsu's semantic method is characterised by ‘an analytical study of the key-terms of a language with a view to arriving eventually at a conceptual grasp of the Weltanschauung or world-view of the people who use that language as a tool not only of speaking and thinking, but, more important still, of conceptualizing and interpreting the world that surrounds them.’1 One of the fundamental questions in the contemporary study of religion is whether religion is characterised by its ‘uniqueness’ (sui generis), which cannot be reduced to society and culture, and whether the ‘history of religions’ is a discipline with its own method of research. Such scholars of religion as Rudolf Otto, Gerardus van der Leeuw, and Mircea Eliade, who are said to have promoted the so-called ‘phenomenological’ study of religion, claimed the uniqueness of religion. In Das Heilige, Otto argued that the experiences of ‘the numinous’ are essential in religion. This book emphasised the non-rational side of religion, based on his Christian theological interpretation. From our Göttingen years you know how highly I esteem you and with what pleasure I seek out intellectual contact with you. Now that you have brought us phenomenologists worthwhile gifts, we would be very happy if new ones were to follow these.2 Allow me to express my impressions in this way: It [Das Heilige] is a first beginning for a phenomenology of the religious, at least with regard to everything that does not go beyond a pure description and analysis of the phenomena themselves. To put it succinctly: I cannot share in the additional philosophical theorizing; and it is quite non-essential for the specific task and particular subject matter of this book, and it would be better left out. ……. It seems to me that the metaphysician (theologian) in Herr Otto has carried away on his wings Otto the phenomenologist; and in that regard I think of the image of the angels who cover their eyes with their wings. But be that as it may, this book will hold an abiding place in the history of genuine philosophy of religion or phenomenology of religion.3 Our line of inquiry in The Idea of the Holy was directed towards Christian theology and not towards religious history or the psychology of religion. We sought, by means of an investigation of the Holy, and its irrational as well as its rational content with their mutual interactions, to prepare ourselves for a better and more definite understanding of the experience of God revealed in the Bible and especially in the New Testament.4 From Otto's standpoint, Christian theology is a study of religion that includes Christianity. For him, the study of religion was based on the absoluteness of Christianity. Therefore, he considered Das Heilige as a contribution to Christian theology, aimed at a better and clearer understanding of ‘the experiences of God revealed in the Bible and especially in the New Testament.’ Like Husserl, Max Scheler, one of his disciples, also praised Das Heilige as a book of the phenomenology of religion. Scheler certainly evaluated Otto's description of the holy as ‘phenomenological’, but at the same time, he was still critical of Otto's argument presented in the conclusion of this book. In Das Heilige, Scheler found ‘a different kind of phenomenological approach’ (andersartiger phänomenologischer Ansätze) in his ‘determination of the essence of the holy’ (Wesensbestimmung des Heiligen).5 Otto's perspective on the ‘holy’ was evaluated by Scheler as a method which may lead to the ‘phenomenological intuition of the essence’. As Husserl and Scheler suggested of Otto's religious theory, Otto is regarded as one of the pioneers of the phenomenology of religion among the historians of religions today. But it is noteworthy that Otto never called himself a ‘phenomenologist of religion’. For he was clearly conscious that he worked on Christian theological studies as a Lutheran theologian; the orientation of Das Heilige is directed toward Christian theological studies. Otto invented the term, ‘the numinous’ (das Numinöse), in attempting to describe the non-rational elements of the holy in religion. The content of the numinous can only be felt in one's own religious experience since it cannot be described with words. Even though one can discuss and argue about it, one cannot make it understood with words. For everyday language or conceptualising, it simply remains hidden and is the non-rational ‘wholly other’ (das ganz Andere). According to Otto, the feeling of the numinous is at the heart of the religious phenomena; the numinous is the essence of religion. By paying attention to the experience of the numinous, which constituted the basis of doctrine, Otto became interested in ‘lived religion’ (gelebte Religion). The doctrine or religious thought in religion is the rationalisation or ethicalisation of the non-rational elements of religious experience, i.e., the feeling of the numinous (sensus numinis), by theological or philosophical speculation. Otto called this process of rationalisation the ‘schematisation’ (Schematisierung) of religion.6 From the depth of religious experience, Otto attempted to capture the essence of religion. His approach to the essence of religion may share the same perspective as a phenomenological antireductionism. In Otto's religious theory, the holy is an a priori category composed of rational and non-rational components. Otto says that the holy is experienced as ‘objective and outside the self’. In this regard, the American historian of religion Robert A. Orsi argues that it is known as ‘objectively real, not as delusion or fantasy’ for those experiencing it; the experience of the holy, which is ‘relational’ and ‘intersubjective’, is ‘really real’ to those who experience it. One may reinterpret that the holy, which is believed to be ‘real’ by the adherents, is a ‘reality’, a meaning for themselves.7 A semantic perspective from which reality is grasped as a ‘meaning’ may share methodological views similar to those of the phenomenological approach. From the semantic viewpoint of religion, the fact that the holy is ‘real’ for those who experience it implies that its ‘reality’, present for them, is as the meaning consisting of the relationship of the non-rational with the rational. In other words, the holy is characterised by a multi-layered structure of meaning; it is semantically categorised into the two: the dimension of meaning constructed in its derivative sense and that in its original sense. Accordingly, the holy can be understood as consisting of the deep dimension of the non-rational meaning and the superficial dimension of the rational meaning in ordinary language. In order to understand the depth of the holy, which escapes the structure of ordinary meaning and which is disclosed by the experience of the numinous, I would like to consider Otto's ‘ideogram’ (Ideogramm) from the semantic perspective of religion. In Otto's religious theory, the holy is first intuited in feeling. Ideograms are employed to express the intuitive divination and become the essential aspect of human ideas of transcendent reality. Otto recognises the linguistic level of meaning called ‘ideogram’ in a way that overlaps the two semantic dimensions. An ‘ideogram’ seems to be a concept of the holy, but it is by no means a ‘concept’. It does no more than appear ‘similar to a concept’. For example, it suggests what is conceptually difficult to express, and moves the human mind and causes ‘passion’. Otto says, however, ‘natural’ (natürlich) or ordinary human beings, who live in the world of everyday meaning and who have no idea of the holy, easily mistake the ideogram as a ‘natural concept’ at the level of everyday meaning. In Otto's religious theory, with regard to the ‘natural’ concept of ordinary human beings, it is structurally identical with Husserl's phenomenological view of ‘natural attitude’ (natürliche Einstellung). Through an ideogram, one can properly feel the genuine and non-rational nature of the numinous; in this way, religion is protected against a rationalistic interpretation (Rationalisierung). For Otto, an ideogram is a kind of illustrative substitute for a concept. As Robert F. Davidson points out, an ideogram is ‘a kind of conceptual symbol, that is, a concept drawn from ordinary sense-experience and rational thought to represent and suggest the transcendent meaning of numinous feeling of which no exact conceptual interpretation is possible’.8 Semantically speaking, by an ideogram, Otto suggests the fluid or unarticulated depth of meaning beyond ordinary language. As examples of ideograms in the Buddhist religious traditions, Otto mentions the Buddhist terms ‘nothingness’ (wu; mu) and ‘emptiness’ (śūnyatā), each of which is an ideogram of the ‘wholly other’ (das ganz Andere), that is, the ‘wonder’ (mirum) by itself. ‘Wonder’ as the ‘wholly other’ cannot be grasped or understood by ordinary language. Thus, Otto regards an ideogram as a non-conceptual pointer towards the holy. However, Otto did not elucidate the meaning of an ideogram more clearly in religious language and thus did not clarify the differences between the language of Scripture and that of ordinary life. Perhaps Otto's interpretation of any ideogram is so vague that it has not been well understood. From a comparative religious viewpoint of the holy, Otto investigated the characteristics of Christian thought, comparing it with Indian religious thought, especially Vedānta philosophy, through the feeling of the numinous. Otto considered that both Hindu and Christian thought do not merely consist of a metaphysics, but also a ‘soteriology’ (Heilslehre) or a ‘theology’ (Glaubenslehre), rooted in the experience of the holy. In short, they represent the ‘ways’ to salvation. Otto says, fundamental ‘mystical intuition’ (intuitus mysticus) exists at the root of the ideas of Śaṅkara and Eckhart. Pure ‘existence’ (Sein) is expressed by sat (the higher Brahman) in Śaṅkara's thought, while it is Esse in Eckhart's. Both sat and Esse represent the ideograms. It is important for historians of religions to understand that, from Otto's viewpoint, there is no meaning of ‘holiness’ or sacredness in an object or action, although they may be easily misunderstood as ‘sacred’ in religious traditions. Otto's primary interest is in ‘the object toward which religious feeling is directed’. When one reconceptualises Otto's view of the numinous experience from the semantic perspective of religion, one can regard it as consisting of both the deep or unarticulated and the superficial or articulated dimensions of meaning. For example, as one of the ideograms, Otto discusses the meaning of the word ‘salvation’. Salvation may be ‘something whose meaning is often very little apparent’ and ‘wholly obscure’ to ordinary or ‘natural’ (natürlich) human beings, who do not understand the word's depth of meaning. On the contrary, so far as they understand only its superficial meaning, they tend to find ‘salvation’ highly tedious and uninteresting. By using a language common to the ordinary world of meaning, the depth of meanings hidden in that language are suggested. Concrete examples given by Otto are the words ‘Yahweh's wrath’ (orgḗ) in the Old Testament and ‘God's wrath’ (orgḕ theoŷ) in the New Testament, which cause numinous awe. For those of Jewish or Christian faith, ‘God's wrath’ is by no means a ‘decrease’ (Minderung) of holiness, but rather a ‘natural expression and element of “holiness” itself’. This ‘wrath’ (ira) is nothing but ‘fear’ (tremendum) itself. ‘Fear’, which is wholly non-rational in itself, is ‘understood and expressed in the Old Testament by a simple analogy from the natural realm, that is, from the emotional life of man’. The word ‘God's wrath’ is not an ‘original rational concept’ but an ‘ideogram’ or the pure ‘interpretative sign’ (Deute-Zeichen) that, being similar to a concept, implies a unique emotional element in religious experience.9 ‘God's wrath’ in the Bible is essentially ‘unnatural, that is, numinous wrath’. Otto travelled many times, and as for modern scholars, direct exposure to religious traditions complemented his understanding of religious literature and the deeper meaning of religion. According to Otto, religion is ‘perfectly sui generis and irreducible’. This means that numinous experience cannot be reduced by any socio-historical condition. Otto suggests that numinous experience cannot be strictly defined by any concept. It is beyond the ordinary or rational dimension of reality. Otto can understand the numinous experience only by awakening this consciousness inside the human mind. From the semantic perspective of religion, one can interpret Otto's theory of religion, especially the numinous experience. According to the philosophical semantic theory of the Japanese philosopher Toshihiko Izutsu, the holiness of the numinous experience in a specific context, to which Otto refers, may not be an a priori attribute of religious experience, but a historical response in the religious commitment of the faithful. In Izutsu's words, the numinous experience by itself is ‘the primordial unity of the psychic and the metaphysical in their ultimate undifferentiation’; it is ‘the zero-point of consciousness’, from which all forms of consciousness emerge, and at the same time, ‘the zero-point of Being’ from which all forms of Being emerge. Otto's numinous experience or ‘the field of consciousness in its entirety’ is ‘focused upon itself with no focal point anywhere’.10 Thus, it is true that the numinous experience itself, ‘unarticulated’ by language, is a priori an essential attribute of religious experience, but the ‘holiness’ of the numinous experience, accompanied by its moral and rational aspect in a specific context, is not an a priori attribute of religious experience. It is ‘a particular articulated form’ of the numinous, which is absolutely unarticulated. A particular form of holiness may be different among religious traditions. For Otto, the holy certainly consists of the complex combination of the rational factor and the non-rational one. As he clearly mentions in the subtitle of his work Das Heilige, his study of the holy represents ‘an inquiry into the non-rational factor in the idea of the divine and its relation to the rational’. His concept of holiness implies that in religion, both the rational and the non-rational aspects are closely combined. This means that the holy constitutes a double structure of reality and experience: the holy in its essential sense and that in its secondary sense, accompanied by the rational or moral aspect of religion. In other words, from the semantic perspective of religion, when one interprets the existence of the holy as a ‘meaning’ for the adherents, it constitutes a double structure of meaning; while the non-rational aspect of the holy is recognised as the deep dimension of meaning, its rational one is the superficial dimension of meaning. The rational or moral dimension of meaning in the holy can be expressed with the concepts which one can rationally or logically understand in daily life, while the non-rational one cannot be grasped with any conceptualisation. With regard to the non-rational factor of the holy, one can experience it only with emotions that are before or beyond concept. Otto emphasises that the sense of the numinous is shared by humankind although its specific forms may be different in time and space. Especially with regard to the non-rational dimension of the holy, that is, the numinous experience, he emphasises that it cannot be expressed in ordinary language; it is called ‘the wholly other’ (das ganz Andere). In any case, Otto's concern is with ‘lived religion’ (gelebte Religion), returning to the sense of the numinous which underlies the doctrinal basis of religion. His concept of the ‘wholly other’ (das ganz Andere) certainly has the meaning of ‘God’ in his Christian theology. From his perspectives of comparative religion, however, this same term semantically implies the ‘ultimate reality’ of other religious traditions: ‘Brahman’ and ‘God’ (Īśvara) in Hindu tradition. This example shows us how the same religious concepts used by Otto may contain different implications in different religious traditions. From the semantic religious perspective, one can Otto's idea of the numinous suggests the depth of or the depth of religious experience which is still unarticulated by language, being before or beyond ordinary language. According to the language is a of whose structure consists of a and a With regard to the numinous experience, it is noteworthy that in words, an often between a and a to the ordinary dimension of meaning in linguistic consciousness is with words. In one's daily life, all which the of a of are by nature the meaning of a word is it into a linguistic The of the relation is by linguistic in ordinary Thus, the which is in a human articulated with the meanings of language, is one's The is semantically into an of reality. From the semantic view of religion, the dimension of numinous experience to which Otto to the depth of reality or the depth of meaning beyond ordinary language. In the philosophy of and for example, Izutsu argues that the depth of meaning in human reality can only be through the or numinous experience. In his reality of as by and is based on an in a kind of According to Izutsu, this view of reality does not only the and fundamental of it also represents the essence of the or numinous experience in religious tradition. In this the dimension of numinous experience may be ‘a and in an of Thus, the numinous experience at the depth of reality is in ordinary language that clearly and and Semantically speaking, numinous experience may represent the deep dimension of reality or the absolutely unarticulated level of meaning, while the ordinary experience represents the superficial or the articulated level of meaning. At the deep dimension of reality or at the unarticulated level of meaning beyond a superficial there the of a deep At the depth of linguistic there exists an of i.e., the numinous, which is not with a definite it has no definite meaning, there is no that it is in ordinary language. In short, from the semantic view of religion, the concept of the holy in Otto's religious theory consists of a double structure of the superficial or articulated dimension of meaning, characterised by the rational and moral aspect of and the deep or unarticulated dimension of meaning, suggested by the non-rational aspect of or ‘the which has no semantic by language. According to the semantic interpretation of Otto's religious theory, in order to understand religion as it is in one to grasp it at the deep or unarticulated dimension of meaning, not only at the superficial or articulated dimension of meaning; one has to attention to the of the in the holy, beyond rational or The depth of meaning in religion is not understood in the dimension of meaning conceptually or but in the dimension From the depth of meaning in religion, religious phenomena can be as the complex phenomena of or the world of through experiences of the numinous. In the of religious studies in the contemporary of religious there is no that the understanding of religious phenomena remains very this in scholars of religion also attempt to understand religious phenomena in the depth of human reality. From such religion can be understood in the double dimensions of meaning with regard to the the ordinary dimension of meaning and the deep one. as says, the phenomenology of religion is ‘a philosophical about what it is to be and ‘a way of an of religions the through Thus, ‘a of on this view is a kind of According to one can that Otto's religious theory us with a about what it is to be which can be regarded as ‘the phenomenology of religion’. Thus, Otto's religious theory may be ‘a kind of religious rather than ‘a kind of philosophical based on the of the numinous.