What an Òrìṣà Actually Is

òrìṣà na power wey people dey serve for Yorùbá religion: power wey get name, history, character, body of poetry, priesthood, shrine, and group of people wey dey serve am. Past dat basic description, scholars get big disagreement about wetin òrìṣà fundamentally be, and di disagreement no mean say research fail. E dey show di real variety wey dey inside di tradition itself, where people remember some òrìṣà as human beings wey live before, and dem describe others as powers wey dey exist before human beings, and where plenty of dem be di two together depending on which town you ask.

Di word no dey translate straight into English. Dis page bring out di different definitions, explain why di standard English translations dey twist di meaning, and describe how òrìṣà relate to Olódùmarè, di supreme being, and to di ancestors wey don die.

Di word itself

Dem dey write Òrìṣà as òrìṣà for standard Yorùbá orthography and pronounce am with low tone for di first syllable, low for di second, mid for di third. Di Anglicised spellings orisha and orixá (Brazil) and oricha (Cuba) all come from am.

People dey argue about di origin of di word (etymology). Bọlaji Idowu talk say na orí (head) plus ṣà (to select, to choose), wey give something like "selected head" or "chosen source" 1 Other suggestions talk say e come from orí plus ṣe or join am to ṣà with di meaning of to sift or strain something. None of dis ones sure, and di plain truth be say di etymology of òrìṣà never settle. If any source bring one origin with full confidence, take am as suggestion, no be confirmed fact.

Dem dey use di related term ìmọ̀lẹ̀ or imalè for some texts and areas as near-synonym or as word for one particular group of divinities, and dem dey use ebọra for one group of powerful, often dangerous spirits. Dem no dey separate dis terms di same way across all Yorùbá land, and different scholars arrange dem differently.

Di three-way division among scholars

Di standard three-part classification come from J. Ọmọṣade Awolalu, wey divide òrìṣà inside im book Yoruba Beliefs and Sacrificial Rites (1979) into primordial divinities, deified ancestors, and personified natural forces and phenomena 2.

Primordial divinities na di ones wey dem say don dey exist before di world take dis current shape, wey come straight from Olódùmarè without human involvement. Normally, dem dey put Ọbàtálá, Ọ̀rúnmìlà, and Èṣù for under dis group.

Deified ancestors na people wey dem believe say live as humans, do powerful things, and later turn to objects of devotion. Ṣàngó na di standard example: Yorùbá tradition itself identify am as former Aláàfin of Ọ̀yọ́, real king for history. Dem dey often put Ògún and Oduduwa for here too.

Personified natural forces cover rivers, hills, di sea, and natural phenomena. Ọ̀ṣun, Ọya, Yemọja, Ọba, and Erinlẹ̀ na all rivers and dem still be òrìṣà, and di connection no be just metaphor: Ọ̀ṣun be di river for Òṣogbo for one way wey no get direct English equivalent.

Di classification dey useful and e still get gaps, and Awolalu own explanation acknowledge say di categories dey mix enter each other. Ògún dey appear for inside sources as culture hero wey dey work iron, as hunter-king of Irè, and as di principle of iron and sharp edge itself. Ṣàngó dey appear as di fourth Aláàfin of Ọ̀yọ́ and as thunder. To decide say one of dis na di "real" identity and di other one na something wey add later na scholar move wey di tradition itself no demand.

Bọlaji Idowu and di argument about monotheism

Idowu book Olódùmarè: God in Yoruba Belief (1962) na di single most influential book on dis matter, and na im people still argue pass 1. Idowu, wey be Methodist theologian wey later become Patriarch of the Methodist Church Nigeria, argue say Yorùbá religion na fundamentally belief in one supreme God, Olódùmarè, and say di best way to understand òrìṣà na as ministers, servants, or manifestations of dat one God, instead of separate gods on their own. Na im bring out di term diffused monotheism for dis position.

Wetin move Idowu dey clear and e good make person state am plainly: e dey answer di missionary and colonial talk say African religion na crude polytheism or fetishism, and e answer am by showing say supreme God dey at di center of Yorùbá thought. Dis na real correction to real slander, and di book still remain indispensable because of di documentation wey dey inside.

Di criticism against Idowu, wey most scholars agree with today, be say "diffused monotheism" carry Christian theological framework come put and e flatten wetin di sources actually show. J.D.Y. Peel argue say Idowu and im contemporaries dey do project to make Yorùbá religion look respectable in Christian terms, and say dis project systematically blow di importance of Olódùmarè pass wetin e be compared to òrìṣà for actual practice 3. Inside documented ritual life, Olódùmarè almost no dey receive direct worship: no temple dey for Olódùmarè, no priesthood, no festival, no sacrifice dem dey direct give am. Na òrìṣà people dey worship. Theology wey build on top Olódùmarè as di center dey describe something wey different from wetin people dey actually do.

Di opposite position no be say Yorùbá religion no get supreme being. Olódùmarè dey clearly present for Ifá verse, for proverbs, and for everyday speech, and no be Idowu invent am. Di argument na about weight and whether "monotheism" na di correct term to use. Readers suppose hold di two: Olódùmarè be real thing for di tradition, and di tradition active religious life na òrìṣà-centred. 04-cosmology treat Olódùmarè well well.

Karin Barber and di reciprocal relationship

Di single most important argument about wetin òrìṣà be come from Karin Barber 1981 article "How Man Makes God in West Africa: Yoruba Attitudes towards the Orisa," wey dem publish for Africa 4.

Wetin Barber find out from di fieldwork wey she do for Òkukù na say na di attention of human beings dey maintain and keep di òrìṣà in existence. Di summary of wetin she write talk am clear: Yorùbá traditional religion get di idea say na human beings dey make gods, and instead make dis one show say people dey doubt or say belief dey drop, na dis one sef be di main thing wey dey ginger devotion; without di support of their devotees, di òrìṣà go dey betrayed, exposed, and dem go turn to nothing 4.

Person need to dey careful here, because e dey easy to misunderstand am say e dey try debunk things. Barber no dey talk say Yorùbá people dey secretly think say di òrìṣà na fiction. Wetin she dey describe na different kind of relationship structure entirely from di one wey person wey train for Christianity go expect. For di Christian model, God don dey before everything, e complete on im own, and whether anybody worship am or not, e no dey affect am. For di model wey Barber document, an òrìṣà and its devotees dey form each other. Di devotee dey give attention, praise, sacrifice, and public reputation. Di òrìṣà dey give protection, children, prosperity, and cure. If di devotees stop, di òrìṣà's ọlá, its greatness and visibility, dey reduce, and an òrìṣà wey nobody dey attend to fit effectively fade comot. For di other hand, small òrìṣà with active devotees fit grow.

Barber connect dis one to how Yorùbá social life operate generally, where "big man" big precisely because e get followers, and followers dey attracted when dem see say to follow am dey pay. Di relationship between devotee and an òrìṣà dey run on di same logic like relationship between client and patron: reputation dey built through visible support wey dey flow both ways, and if di exchange stop, both sides dey lose value.

Barber develop related argument for "Oriki, women and the proliferation and merging of orisa," on how òrìṣà dey multiply and merge over time through di praise-poetry wey women dey perform, wey be di way wey local river power fit take acquire di attributes of well-known òrìṣà, or make well-known òrìṣà absorb local one 5. Na why di counts of òrìṣà no dey stable and why di same name dey attach to noticeably different figures for different towns.

Why "god" is a poor translation

"God" carry three meanings wey no apply to òrìṣà.

Self-sufficiency. Di Christian God no need worshippers. For wetin Barber write, di òrìṣà need am 4.

Ontological separation. "God" for English mean say e totally different in kind from human beings. But according to di tradition itself, many òrìṣà na human beings dem be before. Di line between important ancestor, founding king, and an òrìṣà na gradient instead of strict boundary, and dem fit describe di same person in all three ways.

Universality. Di Christian God na God everywhere. But an òrìṣà dey characteristically tied to place, lineage, river, or town. Ọ̀ṣun na emphatically di Ọ̀ṣun river and Òṣogbo. To be devotee mostly mean say person belong to one particular local gathering of one particular local òrìṣà, no be say person just hold general belief.

"Deity" and "divinity" carry di first and third problem in slightly weaker form and na dem be di least bad common English options, wey make most careful scholars dey use "divinity" or leave òrìṣà without translating am. Dis work leave am untranslated.

Why "idol" is worse than poor

"Idol" no be translation. Na polemic.

Di word enter di description of Yorùbá religion through nineteenth-century missionary writing, where e do specific work: e claim say wetin dem dey worship na di physical carving, and say worshippers dey confused about di difference between wood and power. Both parts of dat claim na false concerning Yorùbá practice.

Di carved figure, di stone, di iron, di pot, and di beads for shrine no be di òrìṣà. Na places where dem dey address di òrìṣà and where its àṣẹ dey concentrated and made available. Rowland Abiodun work on Yorùbá art and aesthetics develop di vocabulary wey di tradition itself dey use for dis, where image get ìwà (essential character) and àṣẹ (di power to make things happen) and dem dey understand am based on its capacity to mediate instead of its capacity to resemble 6. A Yorùbá devotee wey consecrate image understand well-well wetin wood be. Di relationship closer to wetin Catholic person understand about consecrated host or relic pass wetin "idol" dey describe, and di missionaries wey use di word for Yorùbá shrines mostly come from traditions wey also condemn Catholic practice in di same terms.

Di word also no translate anything. No Yorùbá term dey wey its meaning na "idol." Ère mean carved figure or image, and dem dey use am for any statue including non-religious ones. Òrìṣà mean òrìṣà. Di English word arrive with di missionaries and stay because dem write am into dictionaries and school books. 01-foundations and 04-cosmology treat dis demonization history directly.

Another note for readers wey grow up as Christians: di King James translation of di Hebrew Bible and Greek New Testament use "idol" and "graven image" for some ancient Near Eastern practices wey Yorùbá religion no dey historically or structurally continuous with. To apply di term to òrìṣà shrines na nineteenth-century polemical transfer, no be research finding.

The numbers: 201, 401, 601, 801

Yorùbá texts dey give di number of òrìṣà or of irúnmọlẹ̀ differently as 201, 401, 601, and 801, and sometimes as 1,440 or 1,700. Dis numbers no be competing headcount. Na rhetorical form dem be.

Di Yorùbá number system na vigesimal, e dey built on twenties, with distinct words at ogún (20), ọgọ́rùn-ún (100), igba (200), irínwó (400), and ọ̀kẹ́ (20,000) 7. Igba, two hundred, dey function for everyday speech as general word for large quantity, and irínwó, four hundred, dey do di same thing.

Di way di calculation dey work na by adding one join big round number. Igba plus one dey give 201. Irínwó plus one dey give 401. Di main point na di "plus one". E dey show say di group no close, say any number wey you call, another one still dey, and say di count na way to talk say "e no get number" instead of to give exact total. Di same move appear inside di Ifá corpus and inside oríkì, where big round number plus one na standard way to show say somtin complete pass wetin pesin fit count.

One common way wey Ifá texts dey put am dey place two hundred irúnmọlẹ̀ for Olódùmarè right hand and two hundred for left hand, wey make four hundred, wit di extra one making 401. Another pattern dey give 801 wit di same kind arrangement. Jacob Olupona give im study on Ilé-Ifẹ̀ title say City of 201 Gods, wey use di Ifẹ̀ calculation, and di book record di actual religious life wey dey happen for di city instead of to try count 201 separate gods one by one 8.

Wetin dey ground for real life dey different from all dis ones. Any Yorùbá town get active religious life wey involve maybe twelve or few dozens of òrìṣà wey get real shrine, priesthood, and festival dem, and di particular list dey differ from town to town. William Bascom fieldwork and general ethnographic record dey support say na few tens dey per locality, wit plenty oda òrìṣà wey people know by name for only one or two place 9. No canonical list dey, no central authority dey wey dey maintain one, and di way dem dey join and separate wey Barber describe mean say di boundary of any list no balance in principle 5.

Anybody wey present one final numbered list of di òrìṣà dey present somtin wey dem build up, usually from diaspora side where di ritual system need fixed working set.

Òrìṣà and Olódùmarè

Di way di tradition present di relationship: Olódùmarè na di source, and di òrìṣà na di powers wey dem dey take control di world and wey human beings dey use relate wit di divine. Dem no dey approach Olódùmarè directly for worship. Ifá verse dem and proverb dem describe Olódùmarè as di one wey eye no fit see and wey dey give di final word, and di standard formulation na say case wey Olódùmarè settle no get appeal.

Missionary and early scholar writing dem sometimes describe dis one as say Olódùmarè "withdraw" or as deus otiosus, meaning god wey don go rest. Dat description carry assumption say direct worship na di measure of how deity important reach. Idowu argue against am strongly 1, and wetin scholar dem agree on now na say "withdrawn" no describe di structure well, because di fact say pesin no fit reach Olódùmarè directly na theological statement about scale, no be evidence of neglect.

Di practical sharing be say Olódùmarè don set destiny and wetin life entail, and say everything wey pesin actually dey negotiate about dem life, health, children, and work, na wit òrìṣà dem dey negotiate am, wit pesin own orí, and through Ifá. 04-cosmology explain dis further, including orí and àyànmọ́.

Òrìṣà and ancestors

Dis na separate categories wey dey touch each oda for edge.

Ancestor, baba-nlá or inside ritual context egúngún, na specific dead pesin from specific lineage. Di right wey dem get on top di living dey pass through bloodline. You dey honour your own ancestor dem because dem belong to you, and pesin from another lineage no get relationship wit dem. 04-egungun for dis section treat dis matter well.

òrìṣà no tie down to lineage like dat. Ṣàngó dey open to anybody wey Ṣàngó call, for any town where Ṣàngó congregation dey. Pesin fit do initiation enter òrìṣà without any ancestral connection wit am.

Di categories touch because some òrìṣà, according to wetin di tradition talk, na ancestors wey people honour so tey dem pass dem lineage. Ṣàngó na Ọ̀yọ́ king, and Ògún for Irè, and Ọduduwa for Ifẹ̀. Di process wey make very great dead pesin turn to òrìṣà na exact process wey Barber describe, where devotion and reputation wey gather together over time dey produce di transformation 45. Particularly, dem dey honour Ọduduwa for Ilé-Ifẹ̀ as òrìṣà and at di same time claim am as di direct ancestor of di Yorùbá royal lineages, and dem no separate di two claims.

A third category dey wey no be any of di two: òrìṣà ilé, household or lineage òrìṣà, where particular descent group dey hold particular òrìṣà because one ancestor for dat lineage establish di relationship. Here di two structures overlap directly. 02-orisa-worship-organization handle dis one.

Wetin di tradition talk about imself, versus wetin historians document

Three levels suppose dey separate throughout dis section.

Wetin di tradition talk. Òrìṣà na real powers, dem dey act for di world, people dey meet dem for shrine dem, dem dey respond to sacrifice and praise, and di itan (stories) about dem dey recount things wey happen. Inside di tradition, dis ones no be symbols.

Wetin historians document. Di material wey get historical proof dey less and dey different for nature. How dem identify Ṣàngó's wit fourth Aláàfin of Ọ̀yọ́ appear inside Samuel Johnson The History of the Yorubas, wey dem compile for di 1890s from Ọ̀yọ́ palace tradition and publish after im death for 1921, and Johnson na Christian convert and Anglican clergyman wey write wit clear interest to present Yorùbá history for way wey Christian readership go respect 10. Archaeology for Ilé-Ifẹ̀ document big urban centre wit advanced metal and terracotta sculpture from roughly di eleventh to fifteenth centuries, wey limit but no confirm di Ọduduwa stories. 03-history handle dis evidence problem properly.

Wetin colonial and missionary sources claim. Say di òrìṣà na demons, say di practice na fetishism, say di shrines na idols, and say di whole system na degradation from one earlier monotheism wey pure pass. Dis claims na documented artifacts of di nineteenth century and dem no be evidence about di tradition. Dem na evidence about di people wey write dem.

To mix these three together na the number one mistake wey dey common pass for popular writing about the òrìṣà, for the two sides: writing from people wey no believe wey dey look devotees like people wey confuse, and writing from enthusiasts wey dey present itan as history wey dem document.