Maori Religion and Mythology Part 1
A—Io, the Supreme Being
A—Io, the Supreme Being
The Maori concept of a Supreme Being is one of much interest, and illustrates not only the mentality and psychology of the race, but also the fact that such conceptions, as observed among various races, are evolved in much the same manner the world over. The remarks made by Max Muller as to the connection between a Supreme Being and departmental gods are upheld by a study of Maori religion.
An early missionary, the Rev. James Buller, wrote as follows: "The Maoris had no idea of a Supreme Being, no conception whatever of a god of Goodness. Yet they had 'lords many and gods many.' To their mind those were powerful and malignant spirits 'altogether such as themselves.' Their ancient deities were so mixed up with the spirits of their ancestors that they can hardly be thought of as distinct from each other." Our reverend friend made three mis-statements in this brief passage. The Maori had clear ideas of a Supreme Being. The majority of his gods were malignant against him only when offended. Any person who studies the subject can assuredly separate deified ancestors from ancient gods and personifications.
The cult of Io, the Supreme Being of the Maori, was confined to the higher class of tohunga, or priestly adepts; those of lower orders were not allowed to acquire knowledge of its formulae or ritual. It is said that the practice of this cult and that of makutu, or black magic, by the same person was not permissible in some districts. Those of lower orders, and many of the people, must have known that such a cult existed, but they were not allowed to utilize it in any way or to learn its secrets. It is by no means sure that the ordinary people were allowed to know the name of Io. The higher-class people would know something of the ceremonial and ritual simply because they attended ceremonial performances conducted by the priests of Io, the tohunga ahurewa. The common folk were apparently not allowed to attend such functions, and probably never heard any of its ritual chants, though evidence is not quite clear upon this point. Such karakia or formulae were only employed in regard to what were deemed to be important matters, such as the birth, sickness, death, or exhumation of a person of importance, the opening of the tapu school of learning, &c. Thus, no other person than a graduate of the whare wananga could recite the invocations to Io; ordinary folk had no direct interest in the cultus; it was essentially of an aristocratic nature, confined to the few.
No form of temple or sacred edifice of any kind was erected by the Maori in connection with their gods, and the only building in which the excessively tapu ritual pertaining to Io could be recited was the sacred school of learning alluded to. The open was ever preferred when any such function was to be performed.
It is impossible to trace the Maori concept of a Supreme Being back to a dead man; he was no deified ancestor; nor is there anything to show that he is a personified nature force; Io looks like an abstract conception. This concept was evolved by the higher minds among the natives, evidently by the comparatively leisured men possessing remarkable powers of abstraction and introspective thought who have left their mark on Maori myth and religion. It was not open to all, and, if it had been, would probably not have been appreciated by the ordinary minds, it being of too exalted a nature for them; they would prefer the lower and more approachable gods, especially those that might be utilized to empower the spells of black magic.
The following account of the various names of Io is one of various versions in which the names differ somewhat. One of his most interesting names, Io-te-waiora (Io the life-giving, or source of life), is not included in this list.
An old native speaks:—
"I will now tell you something about this matter, but I am not in the habit of relating what I have heard to people. The mentioning of Io and the denizens of the heavens and their realms is a tapu matter. It is also a tapu matter to recite the names and deeds of the offspring of the Sky Parent and Earth Mother—exceedingly so. It is the office of the priests of the sacred places tuahu and ahurewa to recite such matters, for they are tapu persons. It was only after the introduction of Christianity that common persons, such as Rihari Tohi and I, were allowed to speak of such matters. On account of it being tapu, such matter could only be discussed within the whare wananga (school of learning). When people lost their condition of tapu they entered the food-houses of white men, hence were lost the powers of the whare wananga of our elders consigned to the spirit-world.
"Now, here are the names of Io which I heard of; but do not imagine that I reject or pervert the teachings of your elder, Te Matorohanga, for he was the most famous youth that passed through those houses of occult lore. He was an extremely tapu person and was always fed with a stick used as a fork by his sister Hine-te-aparangi, she who perished at Kaupeka-hinga at the hands of the hostile party of Kaiwaru of the Toroiwaho and Parakiore clans. But enough of that subject:—
The Names of Io and their Signification
- Io. He is the core of all gods; none excel him.
- Io-nui. He is greater than all other gods.
- Io-roa. His life is everlasting; he knows not death.
- Io-matua. He is the matua (parent) of the heavens and of their different realms, of the worlds, of clouds, of insects, of birds, of rats, of fish, of moons, of stars, of lightning, of winds, of waters, of trees, of all plant-life of land, sea, and streams, as also of all other things. There is no single thing that does not come under the control of Io-matua; he is the parent of all things—of man, and of the lesser gods under him; he is truly the parent of all.
- Io-matua-te-kore (Io the Parentless). This name of his denotes that he has no parents, no mother, no elder or younger brothers, or sisters; he is nothing but himself.
- Io-taketake. This name of his denotes the permanence of himself and all his acts, his thoughts, and his governments; all are enduring, all are firm, all are complete, all are immovable.
- Io-te-pukenga. He is the source of all thought, reflection, memories, of all things planned by him to possess form, growth, life, thought, strength; there is nothing outside his jurisdiction; all things are his, and with him alone rests the matter of possession or non-possession.
- Io-te-wananga. That is to say, he is assuredly the source of all knowledge, whether pertaining to life, or to death, or to evil, or to good, or to dissensions or lack of such, or to peace-making, or to failure to make peace; nought is there outside his influence.
- Io-te-toi-o-nga-rangi (Io the Crown of the Heavens). This name shows that he is the god of the uppermost of all the heavens; there is no heaven beyond that one which is known as the Toi-o-nga-rangi. That is the first of the heavens, from which descent is made to the eleven heavens below the Toi-o-nga-rangi (or uppermost of the heavens).
- Io-matanui (Large or Many-eyed Io). This name denotes that no place is hidden from his eyes and his thoughts, whether in the heavens or the various realms, the worlds, the waters, or the depths of the beds of the rivers, or the clouds; all things are gathered together in his eyes.
- Io-matangaro (Hidden-faced Io, or Io of the Unseen Face). This name denotes that he is unseen by all things in the heavens, in the world, and various divisions of the heavens, or worlds. No matter what it be, he is not seen, but only when he intends to be seen can he be seen by any being. He is unseen by all beings of the heavens, of the divisions of the worlds, of the waters, of the clouds, of vegetation, insects, supernatural beings, the denizens of the heavens; only when he wills that they shall see him can they do so.
- Io-mataaho. His appearance as he moves abroad is as that of radiant light only; he is not clearly seen by any being of the heavens, of the worlds, or divisions thereof.
- Io-te-whiwhia. This name denotes that nothing can possess anything of its own volition; by his intention only can it possess aught, or not so possess, no matter who or what it be—persons or supernatural beings, or realm, or heavens, or divisions of such, or moons, or suns, or stars, or waters, or winds, or rains.
- Io-urutapu. He is more tapu than all other gods, than all other things of the heavens, of the realms or divisions of space, of the sun, of the moon, of the stars, of the waters and depths.
"Such is the aspect of his names according to the teachings of men of the school of learning." (See Addenda VII.)
Another list of the names of Io may be consulted in The Lore of the Whare Wananga, at p. 110, and yet another in Man for July, 1913, p. 100.
It is of much interest to note that Io is said to have existed for all time. We have seen how he brought the universe into existence from chaos. He was never born, hence his name of Io-matua-te-kore (Io the Parentless), even as he shall know not death. He took no wife and had no offspring, yet through him all things came into being. As old Tutakangahau, of Tuhoe, once said to the writer, "He caused all gods to appear; he was the beginning of the gods" ( "Nana i whakaputa i nga atua katoa; koia te timatanga o nga atua").
This reminds us of the old Egyptian concept of the Supreme Being: "He is the god who has existed of old; there is no god without him. A mother hath not borne him, nor a father begotten him. God-goddess created from himself, all the gods have existed as soon as he began." Concerning which Mahaffy remarks: "He created himself before all things, and the arrival of the gods was only a diffusion, a manifestation of his different faculties and of his all-powerful will."
No images of this important being were ever made, nor had he any aria (form of incarnation), as many of the lesser gods have. No sacrifices or offerings of any nature were made to Io. No punishment seems to have been inflicted by him. This peculiarly advanced concept of a Supreme Being, this lack of gross practices, can only have been possible in a barbaric community by confining the cult to the higher minds of the community, and allowing the people to continue dealing with the lower grades of gods. It seems certain that, had the cult of Io been made known to the people, it would have become degraded, and permeated with lower ideals and practices. It could not have retained the high level at which it was held as an aristocratic cultus.
This peculiar condition, illustrated by the co-existence of polytheism and a singularly refined and abstract concept of a Supreme Being, among a communal folk is a very remarkable thing. It reminds us of a condition that existed in far off Babylonia at one time, when the priests were monotheistic and the people polytheistic.
Some very interesting remarks on Io as the Great Originator may be found in vol. 14 of the Journal of the Polynesian Society, p. 108. In these remarks Colonel Gudgeon dwells on the abstract conception of Io, and the lack of insight shown by Shortland and Thomson in their statements regarding the Maori and his religion. At p. 109 of the same Journal vol. 16, appears a list of six names of Io that were collected in the northern part of the Island. These are Io-mua, Io-moa, lo-hunga, Io-uru. Io-hawai, and Io-hana. Two other names collected on the east coast are Io-matakaka and Io-tikitiki-o-rangi. Another and an interesting title is that of Io-matawai, defining him as a loving or compassionate god.
Maori belief shows us that Io dwells in the uppermost of the twelve heavens, known as Tikitiki-o-rangi and the Toi-o-gna-rangi, both of which names signify "summit of the heavens." His place of abode is called Matangireia. The two parties of denizens of that realm, the twelve male whatukura and twelve females known as the mareikura, act as attendants, apparently, the male beings being employed as messengers, as we have seen in the case of Ruatau and Rehua. The female denizens are said to welcome the spirits of the dead when they enter the twelfth heaven. These beings of the uppermost heaven are free to visit any other realm they choose—the eleven lower heavens, the earth, the underworld, or the heavenly bodies. The denizens of the eleven lower heavens, however, can visit the uppermost region only by permission of Io.
The male and female denizens of the uppermost heaven, known as whatukura and mareikura, dwell at a place called Te Rauroha, while at Rangiatea was preserved all occult knowledge pertaining to all subjects, all the different heavens, realms, and worlds. There is an old half-forgotten myth concerning the existence at this place of a peculiar stone tablet or some such form, by gazing at which Io could see what was going on in all other realms.
It may be thought that this concept of a Supreme Being is but a result of Christian teachings, but on close examination this idea must be abandoned. In the first place, a considerable amount of the ritual pertaining to this cult has been preserved, ritual formulae and invocations to Io, much more than appears in vol. 3 of the Memoirs of the Polynesian Society. Some of these have been obtained by the writer, while others are preserved in manuscript books in the possession of natives, which will probably never all be permanently recorded. All this matter is couched in exceedingly archaic language, and it is impossible to believe that it has all been composed during late years. Also, all the matter pertaining to Io published in the volume mentioned can scarcely have been recently "invented." Had this concept been based on Christian teachings, then it would undoubtedly show the influence of such teachings, which it assuredly does not. There would have been some analogies or some rendering of the old Scriptural myths. Nor is there any resemblance between the Io of Maori myth and the somewhat truculent Jehovah of the Old Testament. Unless all members of a community are of a high mental status, monotheism must tend to degrade the concept of a Supreme Being, for inferior minds will assuredly introduce into such a cult the lower ideals. conceptions, and practices demanded by their mentality. The Maori avoided this in the manner already explained.
In his Life and Times of Patuone, published in 1876, C. O. Davis writes: "I have been informed by natives well acquainted with the ancient mode of worship among their people that the oldest Maori prayers were those addressed to the sacred Io. The following lines from a primitive recitation refer to this great deity:—
Nekea, e Whakatau, ki runga o Hawaiki
Whakaturia to whare, me ko te maru a Io
Nga Tokorua a Taingahue i maka ki runga
Hei tohu mo te rangi era.
This is rendered by Davis—"Move on, O Whakatau, move to Hawaiki. Establish there thy house, as though it were the protecting care of Io. The two of Taingahue were placed above as signals in the heavens." The "two of Taingahue" are the sun and moon.
Later on Mr. Nelson collected a little further information from Ngati-Whatua, Auckland district. Mr. J. White gathered a few further notes, given in vol. 2 of his Ancient History of the Maori. About 1900 I got a few brief remarks concerning Io from Tuta-kangahau, of Tuhoe, but the old man refused to return to the subject. He evidently regretted having spoken, though we were excellent friends. Thus the conservative Maori clung to his Supreme Being, and declined to discuss him. Moreover, Io was known at Tahiti and Rarotonga, which disposes of the idea of a modern local invention. Collusion is out of the question.
A considerable amount of this Io ritual was known to several old men at Whanganui as late as 1913, though some have since died. Te Riaki, of Karioi, was a repository of much of the old whare-wananga lore. In the above year the sacred whatu, or stones, belonging to the old-time whare wananga of Maunga-wharau were still carefully preserved at Whanganui, as I myself saw. They appeared to me to be waterworn pebbles of carnelian, or some similar stone, flattened and oval or rounded in form, about an inch or somewhat more in length.
In vol. 19 of the Journal of the Polynesian Society appears a translation of the Rarotongan version of the tradition of Rata. It contains the following statement made by a native: "I may say the god Io was an atua mekameka (beneficent deity), and the ancient priests, my ancestors, always ended up the special karakia (ritual) with this chant: Io, Io, te atua nui ki te rangi tuatinitini (Io, the great god of the vast heavens)." Apparently tuatinitini denotes size in the Rarotongan dialect, but in New Zealand Maori it conveys a sense of numbers, so that the above expression would be rendered as "many heavens," though, as in this case it is preceded by the definite article singular, we may put it as "the many-divisioned heaven," a phrase practically equivalent to the local one of nga rangi tu haha.
But io also seems to be employed at Rarotonga as a kind of generic term for gods, as shown in the Rev. W. Gill's Myths and Songs from the South Pacific: "Motoro was proudly called te io ora, or the living god, because he alone of the gods of day would not permit his worshippers to be offered in sacrifice. The other divinities were called io mate, or dead gods, as their worshippers were ever eligible for the altar of dread Rongo, who lived in the shades. The word io, commonly used for 'god', properly means 'pith or core of a tree.'" It is not quite clear that io mate should be rendered as "dead gods"; presumably it would mean "gods pertaining to death," or something of that nature. Again, the author states that natives applied the term io ora to Jehovah because his worshippers never die. This is scarcely probable; more likely that it was because the god himself was supposed to be immortal, or connected with life and welfare. This word io is the Maori iho (the Rarotonga dialect drops h), which stands for core, pith, kernel, the centre of a tree, &c. In the Paumotu Group of eastern Polynesia we find iho=a spirit, and ihoiho= ancestral spirits.
Some few years ago a native of Tahiti informed the writer that Io was known in the Society Group, and that his full name was Io-i-te vahinaro (Io at the hidden place), while one of his titles in New Zealand was Io-matangaro, or Io of the hidden face, meaning that he could not be looked upon by human eyes (see Journal of the Polynesian Society, vol. 26, p. 114).
The welfare of all things in all realms emanates from and depends upon Io. The life-principle and welfare of everything emanates from him. The whole system of practices, as well as the archaic ritual, seems to bear the impress of antiquity, and it seems highly improbable that such a cultus was ever evolved in any of the small isles of Polynesia. If such is the case, then it must have been brought from the homeland of the race, wherever that may be. In vol. 27 of the Journal of the Polynesian Society, p. 95, appears an extract from Renan's History of the people of Israel, as follows: "It is very possible that the long history of religion which, starting from the nomad's tent, has resulted in Christianity or Islamism, derives from primitive Assyria, or Accadian Assyria, as it is called, another element of capital importance—that is, the name of Iahoue or Iahveh." After discussing the origin and its variations, he goes on to say: "The holy name became contracted into Iahou or Io."
The Io of Grecian mythology was the personified form of the moon, but was changed into a cow. She is the same as Isis of Egyptian myth. The Manual of Mythology tells us that Ioh was an early Egyptian moon-god; but this Io is equivalent to Hina and Sina, the personified form of the moon in Polynesia and New Zealand, and not to Io the supreme god.
The Maori concept of Io bears a strong resemblance to that of Jahweh among the Semites with regard to the lack of any definite ideas of the Supreme Being. No images of that being were made, and the great being is surrounded by mystery, vagueness, and intense tapu. There was great reluctance to the mentioning of his name among both peoples, hence the use of descriptive names by the Semites, or substitutes for the real name. The easy familiarity with which we employ and pronounce the name of God would have been shocking—indeed, impossible—to Maori and Semite alike. When, moreover, the Maori heard us English folk employing the name of our Supreme Being in cursing our fellow creatures, including himself, his feelings were those of amazement and contempt. The conception of intense sacredness held by such barbaric folk is unknown among civilized peoples.
Grant Allen draws attention to the fact that the Israelites offered up or dedicated every male child to the national god, and adds: "Such universal dedication of the whole males of the race to the national god must have done much to ensure his ultimate triumph." He also says that, in earlier times, probably only the first-born male was so dedicated, and this resembles the Maori custom. Here the male children of superior families only, and possibly only the firstborn males thereof, were dedicated to Io, the same being a most interesting rite, as we shall see anon.
In one light only is Io viewed as resembling human beings, and that pertains to the days of the gods, as when Tane ascended to the realm of Io in order to obtain from him the three baskets or repositories of tapu esoteric knowledge. In the account of the interview between Io and Tane we note that the god of gods is endowed with power of speech. But such manifestations ceased in the days of the gods. Tane himself was a supernatural being. Since that period all communication has been cut off, apparently, between this world and Io. No mortal being has ever looked upon him, hence he is more aloof from man than Jehovah, who came to earth and conversed with Moses, or at least, so we are told. So that we see these mythical conversations confined to the gods by the Maori, whereas we have borrowed the Semitic version, which includes man's interviews with the Almighty. This is anthropomorphism with a vengeance! Some of these matters as conserved in the Old Testament verge perilously close to puerility.
Mr. J. White has stated that the underworld of Maori belief was the abode of the spirits which, "for rebellion against Io or A, were hurled from the region of Rangi, never to return." (See Report of the Third Meeting of the Australasian Association for the Advancement of Science, 1891, p. 361.) This statement is assuredly an error; Maori teachings say nothing about this hurling process, or about any rebellion against Io; moreover, the common belief is that all spirits of the dead go to the underworld.
Missionary Taylor, Dr. Thomson, and W. Colenso, three famed writers on the subject of the Maori, tell us that he had no conception of a Supreme Being. The Rev. T.G. Hammond remarks as follows: "My experience … inclines me strongly to the opinion that the Maori in his remotest past started in the race of existence with some knowledge of one Supreme God, and has allowed successive environments to make that knowledge tyranny rather than freedom, death rather than life." This writer apparently does not consider the fact that the bulk of the people were quite ignorant of the cult of Io; that it was retained by the few, and that the Maori, as a people, were not sufficiently advanced to dispense with polytheism. The expression "remotest past", again, in connection with the Maori's belief in a Supreme Being, is likewise questionable.
We may rest assured that early visitors to New Zealand formed some peculiar views of Maori religion, both on account of their ignorance of the native tongue and because of the reticence of the few who might have given information concerning the higher aspects of such matters. Thus, Nicholas remarks "The New-Zealanders, as far as we could discover from Duaterra, have some confused ideas of a Supreme Being; but their superstitions are in general most absurd and extravagant. Besides a Supreme Power, of which, as I have said, they have some notion, they likewise believe in a great number of inferior gods, to each of whom they have given distinct powers and peculiar functions. One of them they have placed over the elements, another over the fowls of the air and the fishes of the sea; and there are an infinite number of others…. The first of these is called Mowhe-rangaranga (Maui-rangaranga), the Supreme Deity, with whose dignity and attributes they are totally unacquainted, although, from some internal suggestion, they have placed him at the head of the list."
Here Nicholas has mistaken for a Supreme Being one who was not even an inferior god; he mistook Maui, the hero of many native myths, for the most important of Maori deities. He accepted fireside myths and folk-lore tales as evidence of the native religion. He did, however, grasp the idea of the departmental gods.
Cruise remarks that "They believe in a Supreme Being designated the Atua, or something incomprehensible; the author of good and evil; the divinity who protects them in health or destroys them by disease."
In discussing Maori religion Polack remarks of the natives that "they worship no representation of the Great Spirit, who is believed to be implacable, and the origin of every evil." This is a most misleading statement. In the first place, no European of Polack's time had any knowledge of the Maori concept of a Supreme Being. It will also be seen that "implacable" and "origin of every evil" are expressions that cannot be applied to that being.
Colenso wrote of the Maori, "They knew not of any Being who could properly be called God." The Rev. R. Taylor stated that "Properly speaking, the natives had no knowledge of a Supreme Being." The Rev. W. W. Gill tells us that the sublime conception of a Supreme Being is unattainable by a heathen sage. We cannot now allow any of these statements to pass unchallenged.
In his account of the religion and myths of the Hawaiians, or Sandwich-Islanders, Fornander remarks: "I learn that the ancient Hawaiians at one time believed in and worshipped one God, comprising three beings, and respectively called Kane, Ku, and Lono (Tane, Tu, and Rongo in Maori), equal in nature, but distinct in attributes; the first, however, being considered as the superior of the other two, a primus inter pares; that they formed a triad commonly referred to as Ku-kauahi (lit. 'Ku stands alone,' or 'The one established'), and were worshipped jointly under the grand and mysterious name of Hika-po-loa." We will learn more concerning this trio when we come to consider the departmental gods of the Maori, and we shall see that this tendency to combine gods, or attribute many names to one being, is also observable in New Zealand.
"We know," says J. E. Carpenter, "that both India and Greece reached the conception of a unity of energy in diversity of operation; "the One with many names" was the theme of Hindu seers long before Aeschylus in almost identical words proclaimed "One form with many names."
In his account of the Samoan story of creation Dr. Fraser remarks: "The Polynesian cosmogony has also the idea of the unity of god, for the gods are all Tangaloa."
F. A. Campbell, in his A Year in the New Hebrides, writes: "The principal deity of Aneityum was Nugerain. He had a name above every name. Like God's great name Jehovah, which the Jews refuse to utter, no one dare use his name, unless he belonged to the highest cast."
In a paper on the natives of southern Nigeria written by Mr. Talbot some years ago is described the "discovery" of a belief in a Supreme Being in that region. Knowledge of this cult had been successfully concealed from Europeans for many years, and was only detected by chance. This is just what occurred in New Zealand.
We have lately had an interesting interview with a missionary from Central Africa, who has certainly studied the religious beliefs of the natives of his district with great care, bringing to bear on the matter a mind remarkable for its liberality and the faculty of critical examination. He stated that the natives believed in a Supreme Being from whom no evil emanated, but who existed outside the hanging sky and did not interfere with ordinary mundane affairs, and also in the existence of many ancestral spirits. These latter are placated by the natives; these are the beings with whom the people are in contact, not the mighty and distant Supreme Being.
All this closely resembles Maori belief and practice, and is of much interest. We are glad to say that we are indebted to a missionary for it, and were astonished to hear him say that he thought that the native name for the Supreme Being should have been adopted by the missionary party.
We are told in many works that, among peoples of inferior culture moral deities, or gods from whom no evil emanates, who are in no way malignant, are not generally worshipped, but are somewhat neglected. Now, in Maoriland the mild-natured Io was not generally known to the people, but the ritual pertaining to him was the only evidence of anything like true worship to be met with in these isles. All ceremonial performances in connection with the lower gods were placatory, and nearly all the ritual formulae can but be described as incantations or charms. Fear has entered into all religious systems, but the fear of his lower gods experienced by the Maori was a very different feeling from the awe with which he viewed Io. The fact that he possessed gods of several grades enabled the Maori to preserve the refined aspect of the cult of Io. The grosser minds of the community confined themselves to lower gods. In monotheism the danger is ever present that the lone god may be endowed with malignant qualities, with accretions of human passions or weaknesses, as is so very evident in the Old Testament. In Christian teachings children are told that they must fear and love God, though how a hapless child can cultivate both these feelings towards the Almighty is by no means clear. For a child to fear the Jehovah of the Old Testament is by no means difficult, but as to love—the less said the better.
Had the Maori not possessed inferior gods to whom ordinary folk might appeal—that is to say, gods suited to the mentality of the majority of the people—and had Io been the one and only god of the people, then assuredly his status would have been much lowered, and gross superstitions would have crept into his cultus. The aloofness from man of Io is much more marked than that of Jehovah. It would have been impossible for the Maori to conceive any situation in which Io would communicate directly with man. Only supernormal or supernatural beings might communicate with him. Even in the case of Tane, supernatural offspring of the primal parents, he had to undergo two different ceremonial functions ere he could enter the presence of Io. The pure rite was performed over him at the Wai-o-Rongomai in the eleventh heaven, and again in the twelfth or uppermost heaven, at Te Rauroha, the realm of Io.
In the case of Jehovah we note a less refined aspect, inasmuch as he sometimes condescended to communicate directly with man, and also to take part in his affairs, such as assisting in wars, not to speak of his issuing cruel commands, apparently prompted by human passions. Unquestionably the people whose customs are depicted in the Old Testament were unfit to practise a monotheistic religion.
The Maori tells us that Io cannot be seen, hence his name of Iomatangaro (Hidden-faced Io). His name of Io-mataaho denotes that his radiance alone can be seen. None can see the form that emits such radiance; no eye can see Io. Observe the words of Philo: "God is invisible, for how can eyes that are too weak to gaze upon the sun be strong enough to gaze upon its maker."
As we have seen, the Maori held that man has inherited a spark of the divine, or supernatural—that man is partially a god. We also read that a certain Semitic folk discovered the divine in man, and that the result was Christianity and a great turning-point in the history of the world. Probably the ancestors of the Maori evolved this concept fully as early as did the Semites, but they never advanced to monotheism.
To some extent the Maori folk of past centuries must have been given to philosophical speculation, to produce the men who thought out the wondrous system of personifications, the concept of a Supreme Being, the racial mythology, anthropogeny, and religion. The singular animistic belief that credited inanimate objects with the possession of a life-principle appears marvellous to us, but was probably a natural sequence of their tracing the origin of all things to the primal parents, Sky and Earth. And yet we know the Maori to have been a confirmed cannibal and ruthless enemy, who consumed human flesh as jauntily as we eat a cabbage, who even indulged in the dreadful kai pirau, the eating of decomposed human bodies. All of which teaches us that a barbarous people may indulge in acts of low savagery and yet be by no means primitive; that bestial actions may co-exist with high mental powers. The folk who thought out the concept of Io and composed the ritual chants pertaining to him, who developed the ideas of the awe of a wairua, or refined essence of a spirit, and of a universal soul in all nature, were assuredly not primitive; they must have possessed many intellectual minds highly capable of thinking in the abstract.
Such, then, was the old Maori concept of a Supreme being—an uncreated, undying deity who brought the universe into being; a god who was never born, who had no parents, no offspring, who was evidently not the ghost of a dead man, or a development of such a spirit. He was a creator and creative, though aloof from all other beings. A cosmogonic chant quoted recognizes and indeed describes Io as the origin of the universe. It was no case of land simply appearing above the waters, a belief noted among certain low races. The conception of such a being could scarcely have been due to fear, a cause that would have produced a deity of different attributes.
Although we must recognize the aloofness of Io in comparison with Jehovah, yet the priests of old who intoned their many ritual chants to him in connection with what were deemed matters of grave import must have believed that he would heed their supplications, otherwise they would not have adopted or continued such a practice. The offering or dedication of children to Io was done in the belief that he would protect the life-principle of the child, its tapu and mana, for such life-principle means much more to the Maori than it does to us. It has a spiritual and intellectual aspect as well as the physical. The various ritual chants to Io were employed because it was believed that he both heard and heeded them, although he never descended to earth, or had any direct intercourse with men. The lack of offerings to him seems to show that at least ordinary means of placation were unnecessary; indeed, he is not shown to be vindictive or revengeful, nor is it said that he punished men in any way. Punishment, as for disregard of tapu for example, always seems to come from the lower gods. The lack of images or anything representing Io was probably the result of his very high status and intense tapu.
These data show us the very interesting stage of development occupied by Maori religion, especially their singular concept of a Supreme Being. Max Muller's viewpoint was that the first stage of development from polytheism is that represented by departmental gods, and that these afterwards become subordinate to a Supreme Being. The Maori religion had advanced to the latter stage, but this advanced form was still in the hands of the few; the people as a whole were not admitted to the higher cultus, and we may safely say that they were not ready for it. In his Lectures on Anthropological Religion Muller shows us that the higher concept of monotheism was reached by some of the Vedic poets in India. He also shows how different classes of the same society may represent different levels of religious thought, and that these stages in the development of religion are historical realities.
This mingling of different planes of religious thought is referred to as follows by E. O. James in his Primitive Ritual and Belief: "Among nearly all races, even where the worship of ancestors and deified human beings exists, there is also a belief in high gods who have never been men and have never died. In process of time mythology has tended to overgrow and choke the original conception of a Creator who dwells in the sky, remote and in need of nothing that man can give." This latter remark might lead one to suppose that the cult of Io would in time have become obscure, or possibly have died out; but speculation on this subject is idle. Professor Jevons has made the apt remark that "the belief in these high gods, where it occurs, does not in the least indicate that the savages who hold it are monotheists, and this we have ample proof of.
Carpenter, in his Comparative Religion, remarks: "The 'High Gods of Low Races' often seem to fade away and become inactive, or at least are out of relations to man. Olorun, lord of the sky among the African Egbas … was too remote and exalted to be the object of human worship…. Altjira … is no object of worship … he never punishes man, therefore the blacks do not fear him, and render him neither prayer nor sacrifice." It seems quite probable that it is no case of waning power of the high God, but, as in the case of the Maori, that of a restricted cult, an aristocratic cultus, one confined to the few.
Grant Allen has made a remark pregnant with meaning: "The fact is, so abstract a conception as the highest theological conception of God cannot be realized except symbolically, and then for a few moments only, in complete isolation. The moment God is definitely thought of in connection with any cosmic activity, still more in connection with any human need, he is inevitably thought of on human analogies, and more or less completely anthropomorphized in the brain of the believer." Herein we see the cause of the degradation of the concept of a Supreme Being, and the only way in which such degradation can be avoided is by retaining the superior cult among the few superior minds. If Io had been known to the mass of the Maori people they would probably have neglected him because the concept was too highly pitched for them. In that case the expression "waning power" might have been applicable.
In Clodd's work on Animism we read: "The Hindu supreme god Parameshwar is responsible for the existence of everybody and everything, but is too exalted to be troubled about everyday affairs. On the other hand, the tutelary godlings should be appealed to for help in worldly concerns, and the demons must be propitiated to prevent things going wrong." This aspect would doubtless have been observed among the Maori folk had the bulk of the people been acquainted with the cult of Io.
Professor Tylor tells us in his Primitive Culture that where speculative philosophy, savage or cultured, has persistently sought a solution, it was attained by ascending from the many to the one, by striving to discern through and beyond the universe a First Cause: "Let the basis of such reasoning be laid in theological ground then the First Cause is realized as the Supreme Deity." He also shows that the concept of such a Supreme Being as Io, looming vast, shadowy, and calm over the material world, not closely concerned with man, but standing aloof "is a mystic form or formlessness in which savage and barbaric tribes have not seldom pictured the Supreme." This writer upholds the development theory as against that of degeneration, and maintains that it accounts for the belief in a Supreme Being as a product of natural religion, as a concept evolved by folk of inferior culture without the aid of a more advanced culture.
As to the retention of the cult of Io by a single class of the community, this may seem impossible to us. With us there would naturally be books containing particulars concerning such a cultus, its tenets and ritual, and these would sooner or later become accessible to the many, or at least their contents would become known. But in the case of a people possessing no form of script the matter would assume a very different aspect, and such knowledge might be withheld by a small class.
We may fairly assume that the concept of Io was never evolved in the isles of the Pacific, wherein the Maori race has ever been broken up into small communities dwelling in far-sundered isles. It must have been evolved in some far land wherein the ancestors of all these Polynesian folk dwelt together as a racial or national unit. As to where that land was situated no man may say, nor is it a part of our task to discuss the matter here, though this paper contains many items showing close resemblances to beliefs and practices of southern and south-eastern Asia. Winwood Reade has endeavoured to show that monotheism could scarcely have been evolved by a people dwelling amid varied natural surroundings, forests, mountains, valleys, and plains. He held that the denizen of the desert, the dweller in bare, featureless wastes, was responsible for such a concept—he who saw naught save the harsh, sterile earth below and the heavens above, where neither tree, hill, nor stream broke the drear monotony. Hence it was, he maintains, that the folk of the Arabian desert, in past times, grasped the idea of a single God. Prior to that time they had practised stone-worship and star-worship to a considerable extent, for there was little else save the bare earth to meet the eye. This writer dwells on the grosser aspect of the concept of Jehovah in Mosaic times, and shows how the cult gradually became more refined. He also illustrates the narrowness of the Jewish mind in a striking manner: "The Jews held the doctrine that none but Jews could be saved; and most of them looked forward to the eternal torture of Greek and Roman souls with equanimity, if not with satisfaction." This attitude is by no means a thing of the past, and can still be detected in Christianity.
The punishment of spirits of the dead in the spirit-world so vividly described in the Christian Bible, and which myth was exploited to such an abominable extent by Christian priests, was a new revelation to such a folk as the Maori. It had a perturbing effect, and its truth was often indignantly denied.
Professor Jevons, in his little work on Comparative Religion, tells us that the high gods of lower races are not worshipped; but this remark does not apply to the Supreme Being of Maori belief. The ritual pertaining to Io was the nearest approach to true worship that is met with in Maori religion, although that ritual was certainly not known to the many.
The above-mentioned writer remarks that the belief of a people in a single nameless spiritual being may go back as far as we can trace or surmise their religious evolution. But he also shows that, if a single deity is endowed with several names, it may come to pass that, as time rolls on, a belief may arise that each name represents a different being. The former remark brings us to the concept of "all gods are one." This aspect is noted in certain Old World religions, notably in that of Egypt, where secondary gods and such manifestations as trinities can be traced back to one being. This tendency is also observed in accounts of Babylonia, and Indian teachings explained that all gods of the Veda are but names of one Supreme Being. In connection with this phase of religious development, a remark made by an old Maori to a friend of the writer is of deep interest, as showing possibly a belief of the old-time Maori priests of the first rank. Certain remarks made by the native led my friend to say, "You seem to imply that all gods are one." Whereupon the old man replied, "Yes, all gods are one, but the people must not be told so."
However old the concept of a Supreme Being may be, it is quite clear that such a belief has not necessarily led to monotheism. It may be a step on the way, but a step on which a people may remain for a very long period. There are also many side paths and many excrescences that serve as a brake on progress. We know that Christianity conquered paganism in certain regions, but was itself corrupted by what it displaced. We know that the same cult borrowed the Egyptian concept of the Trinity, and other beliefs. Thus does one religion influence another, for good or evil.
Polytheism dies hard; even in our twentieth-century Christianity it still survives, more especially in the Roman Catholic Church, which has its minor deities, termed saints, apparently by the thousand. In this Church also flourish such superstitions as we find among savages, and the mind marvels at this retention of, and belief in, gross and puerile things. Mohammedanism is perhaps more truly monotheistic than Christianity, but local saints are a constant feature of that religion. True monotheism apparently does not exist.
It gradually becomes clear to the inquirer that, in cases where man is confined to the worship of one God, he brings about the degeneracy of highly pitched concepts pertaining to that deity. This is what happened in the case of Jehovah, who was practically reduced to the level of a tribal war-god, a being that assisted in massacres and other objectionable practices. Now, the Maori kept his Supreme Being free from all such influences by utilizing inferior gods for such purposes. The fact that the Christian invokes the aid of his God in war, that he requests his assistance in slaying men, as opposed to the fact that the Maori would never have thought of so appealing to Io, bears a curious significance, and is of much interest. The Maori idea was that war and man-slaying are evil things, and that nothing evil may be connected with Io, or that Io would have nothing to do with evil, hence it was of no use to appeal to him in such matters, which must be referred to lesser gods. In this aspect the Maori concept of the Supreme Being would appear to be higher and more refined than that of the Christian. It may be emphasized that the Maori would never so much as dream of utilizing Io, the Supreme Being, as a war-god—that is to say, of invoking his aid in battle—but he had no such compunction in regard to the Christian God, whose aid was often invoked (as it is by us) by the Maori in his fighting after the introduction of Christianity. In Hori Ngatai's account of the assault on the Gate Pa, on the 29th April, 1864, where the British troops were repulsed with considerable loss, he says that the Maori garrison had two priests, one Christian and the other heathen, to conduct matters. The one appealed to the Christian God to give them victory, the other turned to the old Maori gods for assistance. Everything, says Hori, was done in a correct manner, so that we might have all the gods on our side. But, during the shelling of the fort, just as the Christian priest was uttering the words "May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of…" a big-gun shell struck him, and that priest had to be collected in a basket.
The weakness of the Maori concept of a Supreme Being lies in the fact that Io was too far removed from the people in his aloofness, for man seems to crave somewhat close relations with such a Being, not only in this world, but also in the next. Io was certainly invoked in regard to important matters, but only by a single class of the priesthood, not by the people as a whole. A belief existed that, though man was not descended from Io, yet a portion of the ira atua abides in man, because the wairua or soul of the first woman was derived from Io; but this belief also was confined to the few—it was not taught to all the people. As to any communion with the Supreme Being after death—that is, in the spirit-world—here again the conservative practices of the priesthood were in evidence, as we shall see anon. Nothing was taught, or apparently believed, by the priesthood in the way of any sojourn with the lower gods in spiritland. Possibly the belief that some of the spirits of the dead ascended to the realm of Io and there abode was a first step towards bridging the gulf between the Supreme Being and man.
The concept of God with many of us Old World folk is assuredly a narrow one. Many believe that God was a special disclosure to the Jews—to them only—a people who were perhaps the most self-opinionated, narrow-minded, and objectionable of all Semitic barbarians. Who shall say that other peoples have not grasped equally as well the concept of a creative God, a being who brought the universe into existence, who was the origin of all things? And even the rude Maori never degraded his Supreme Being to the level of a tribal war-god of truculent activities, as did the Semites of old.
The Maori believed in a Supreme Being, a creator and primal origin called Io. We believe in one we call God. We say that Io is a false god. Why? There cannot be two Supreme Beings. Do we quarrel over a mere name?
Christian priesthoods have murdered, with fiendish tortures, many thousands of persons for worshipping our God in a slightly different manner to that of the ruling priesthood. Has the Maori savage ever descended to such a level?
There are several references in Maori lore to a being styled Ha; the name being sometimes coupled with that of Io, as "Io and Ha." The name has not been noted in the teachings of the whare wananga of the east coast tribes. John White gives the name in the form of A, and states that this was another name for Io, the great creator of all things. He also says, "The soul of man was generally believed to be a ray from the mana of A, or, as he is sometimes called, Io."
In Turner's Samoa we note the following remark in an account of the food-supplies of that group: "A scarcity of food … they were in the habit of tracing to the wrath of one of their gods, called O le-Sa (or the Sacred One)." This title, in the Maori dialect of New Zealand, would be Ko-te-Ha (The Ha), which seems to show the name to be an ancient one, for it is a long time since the two peoples separated.
In this case, as in that of Io, the meaning of the word ha may throw some light on the name. At Niue we find that ha means "to be, to exist." At Samoa sa (Maori ha) means "forbidden, sacred." In our local dialect ha means "breath" and "to breathe." We have in native lore no reference to Ha as an active entity, or any explanations such as are given concerning Io, save the remarks of White quoted above. In Phoenician myth Ha represents chaos, which is curiously suggestive. There is nothing to suggest that Ha represented the female element, and until further light is shed on the subject it is impossible to say what Ha really did represent.
White mentions a Ha-nui-o-rangi (Great Ha of the Heavens) in his Ancient History of the Maori (vol. 1, p. 21), but does not explain his status, though he associates him with Tawhiri-matea. A cosmogonic genealogy collected by Mr. A. L. D. Fraser is as follows:—
Io me Ha (Io and Ha)
Io-nuku
Io-rangi
Tawhito-te-raki
Rangi me Papa (
me = and).
A close examination of the cult of Io will show that he was assuredly a moral influence in what may perhaps be termed an indirect manner. He issued no Ten Commandments, or, so far as we know, any rules or behests pertaining to ethics, but the rules and practices of the cultus demanded moral purity of any person taking part in the ceremonial performances connected with the same. This will be made clear when we come to describe its ritual.
In the past anthropologists have believed that the concept of an eternal, creative, and moral (or at least not immoral) being has been reached only by peoples that have attained a high stage of culture. That belief was an error that has now been disproved in various parts of the world, though some conservative folk are chary of admitting it. Waitz was amazed at such evidence being authenticated as pertaining to a negro community of Africa. The task of acquiring knowledge of the inner beliefs and practices, the esoteric teachings, of the lower races of mankind is a long and difficult one; from the great majority of inquirers it is most effectually concealed. As Lang puts it: "Our knowledge is confused and scanty; often it is derived from men who do not know the native language… or have not been trusted with what the savage treasures as his secret."
We may describe Maori religion as being something apart from morality if we will, yet it surely acted as a deterrent; it supplied the place of civil law in the Maori commune, and so seems to have been of greater utility, more efficacious, of more real advantage to the community than is our own religion.
It seems possible that a further knowledge of the cult of Io, and the beliefs of the superior class of priestly adepts of old, would disclose something closely resembling pantheism, or cosmotheism. Some of the utterances of the tohunga of last century seem to support such an assumption.