93
G O D - S E L F - W O R L D 
C O N T I N U U M  I N  T R I B A L 
R E L I G I O N
S a s h i n u n g l a
Introduction
In this paper, I draw on the Tribal religions in order to show that 
religion does not have to be a site of domination and exclusion (hu-
man or non-humans). Much of what is analysed in this paper is drawn 
primarily from my research in India’s Northeastern region:1 my lived-
experience, personal visits, discussions with tribal elders in the region. 
I do not offer an elaborate introduction on the indigenous tribes and 
cultures of Northeast India, as the literature is already replete. Nor is 
this a systematic account of the minutiae of tribal religions. My analy-
sis focusses primarily on the god-self-world continuum within a tribal 
paradigm and looks at the ethical implications of various metaphysical 
commitments that it instructs.
The partial and exclusionary model of spirituality conveyed by many 
dominant religious traditions2 divides the universe into radical realms 
that exclude the in-between and border spaces that connect multiple, 
often overlapping and contradictory realms. Such models obliterate 
1  It is not to suggest that Northeast tribal groups are homogeneous, but it is reasonable to say 
that there are broad similarities between all tribal systems of thought. The terms “Northeast” & 
“Tribal” are colonial and political concepts. The region is linked to the rest of the country by 
a narrow land corridor and shares only two percent of its boundary with India while the other 
ninety-eight percent is shared with the international borders of Bhutan, China, Myanmar and 
Bangladesh.
2  The dualistic tradition leads to the problem of “us and them.” Monistic thought is hard to 
reconcile with the fact that there are distinct things that are “separate” from each other.
https://doi.org/10.35469/poligrafi.2021.294 Poligrafi, no. 103/104, vol. 26, 2021, pp. 93–105
p O L I G R A F I
94
possibilities for respect and communication between two different cat-
egories by either treating all things as one and the same or by treating 
one category as higher or more sacred, while the other is treated as in-
commensurable with the different “others.” Tribal spirituality supports 
the belief that all things stem from the same source and are related as 
parts of a greater whole. However, it also celebrates and respects indi-
viduality and, furthermore, chooses to learn from individuality rather 
than stress a belief that one should try to blend in and lose one’s “ego” 
to be fulfilled. Further, unlike Aristotelian radical binarism (“true,” or 
“false”), tribal conceptual frameworks express ontological nebulosity: 
it does not exclude the in-between (“neither” or “sort of”); and recog-
nises that more than two values can be accounted for, without lead-
ing to radical exclusion or contradiction. Similarly, it is not limited by 
the dualistic structure of otherness and negation. To quote Mamang 
Dai, renowned Adi3 poet and novelist, whose home state is Arunachal 
pradesh: 
In our language, the language of the Adis, the word ‘pensam’ means 
‘in- between.’ It suggests the middle, or middle ground … where any-
thing can happen and everything can be lived …4 
In Adi language and culture, the word “pensam” also refers to the 
“hidden spaces of the heart where a secret garden grows.”5 But it may 
also be interpreted as a course of action or perspective that is between 
two extremes or categories – instructing an earth oriented vision of 
the world / life that embraces complexity. Tribal philosophy consid-
ers most things to exist on a continuum rather than being made up of 
absolute wholes. It also takes into account the apparent “irrationality” 
that everything can be separate and distinct and yet be One at the same 
time. By not excluding the in-between proposition and by accepting 
the probability that there can be a variety of different standards and 
reasoning for determining truth, it opens up the possibility that one 
can have knowledge and truths that are not familiar to or possessed by 
others. Thus, knowing the limits of one’s own knowledge and being 
3  The Adi (also known as Abor) are a major collective tribe in the State of Arunachal pradesh.
4  Mamang Dai, The Legends of Pensam (New Delhi: penguin, 2006), vii. 
5  Dai, The Legends of Pensam.
G O D - S E L F - W O R L D  C O N T I N U U M  I N  T R I B A L  R E L I G I O N
95
willing to share and listen to what’s shared are integral to supporting 
such a principle.
The idea that society and nature are interrelated but are separate 
domains of reality is a central precept of modernity. Australian envi-
ronmental philosopher Val plumwood uses the expression “hypersepa-
ration” to describe the extreme differentiation between human beings 
and other living things, where humans and “nature” are separated by a 
radical discontinuity.6 For many people, nature is irrelevant to human 
flourishing, or even an impediment. For instance, in plato’s dialogue 
Phaedrus, Socrates tells his interlocutor that nature is not his teacher 
and that he values only the knowledge of people in cities.7 This ap-
proach is vastly different from that of the tribespeople, who look at 
nature as a whole, as a great “book” to be read intelligently by humans. 
Similarly, in the tribal system of thought,8 subjectivity in the form of 
sentience and agency is not solely a human prerogative but is located 
throughout all species and across every elemental category. 
The Meta-Ethics of Tribal Spirituality
In tribal religion, everything is spiritually alive and interconnected 
through their genealogical myths and its associated events and prac-
tices. For instance, origin myths, recorded in the Tarnunger otsu (Tale 
of the ancestors),9 provides important details about the character of 
cosmogenesis as the Aos, one of the tribal communities in the state 
of Nagaland, understood it. The Ao spiritual framework is Lung trok, 
the Ao metaphysical explanation of origin – the fundamental principle 
6  Val plumwood, Environmental Culture: The Ecological Crisis of Reason (London: Routledge, 
2002), 123‒142.
7  plato, »phaedrus,« trans. Alexander Nehamas and paul Woodruff, in Plato: Complete 
Works, ed. John M. Cooper (Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett publishing Co, Inc., 1997), 
510. 
8  Tribal conceptions of nature vary greatly as each ethnic group has its particular way to 
conceive nature and understand the relations established with it. However, what is common 
among all of them is that the “natural world” is, above all, a wide network of inter-relations 
between and among agents.
9  Translation is my own.
p O L I G R A F I
96
of order. Its extended phrase Lung trok ko voker10 is literally translated 
as: “emerged from the six stones,” but the more accurate translation is 
“originating from eternity.” It refers to the mythical age of origin, the 
primordial time of beginning, the time of ancestors which gives mean-
ing and significance to all that follows. I briefly characterise the nature 
of the Lung trok, to contextualise the moral obligations which are con-
tingent upon it. The Aos have an interesting myth connected with their 
ancestral origin in an ancient place called Chungliyimti. According to 
the myth, the Aos “originated” out of stones at Chungliyimti, tracing 
all the six major clans as having “emerged” from six stones, called Long 
trok – symbolising six chiefs or ancestors. 
In the creation myths of many tribal communities of India’s North-
east, they consider themselves to be “children” of the earth. According 
to Nagaland’s Chang tribe’s legend, human existence on earth started 
when human emerged from a big hole in the earth.11 Tribal cosmogo-
nies, by “relating” them to nature – natural elements, thereby establish 
a connection to the land in the very nature of their being. I think that 
the most important point about the origin myths for philosophical pur-
poses is that it makes very clear that what happens to exist now is an ex-
pression of a specific configuration of the divine – each piece/element is 
a special configuration in a cosmic order. For the purpose of this study, 
I am interested in the spiritual narrative of the origin stories (not the 
literal truth of their content) – the spiritual connectedness and bonds 
between the people and the land that it instructs. 
Creation narratives also relate humans directly to other creatures 
and elements of nature, affirming the belief that they are the progeny 
of the same ancestors and therefore, are the same being: they are their 
kin, and some are their totems. The tribal totemic system demarcates 
a world of “difference,” and at the same time weaves patterns that con-
nect particular human groups with particular non-human species and 
elements, such as an animal, plant or spirit-being – generating inter-
species/cross-elemental consubstantial kindreds. For instance, there is a 
10  It should be noted that there are problems in translating this phrase into English. This is 
not the only interpretation; it is, however, the most central.
11  Folk Tales from Nagaland: Part 1 & 2, (Kohima: Directorate of Art and Culture, Nagaland, 
1989), 151. 
G O D - S E L F - W O R L D  C O N T I N U U M  I N  T R I B A L  R E L I G I O N
97
myth among many tribal communities in India’s Northeast, including 
the Aos of Nagaland that in the beginning tiger, man and spirit-being 
were brothers who all lived together. Although these three brothers de-
veloped characteristics different from each other, they were potentially 
the same and formed one community in the interrelated web of crea-
tion. It is this “conversational” connection and the sense of adaptiv-
ity of relationships between humans and their non-human kin, and 
the natural elements, which grounds tribal morality. In this conceptual 
framework, reality is seen as a web of intimate ontological relationships 
that cross-cut difference – human, other species and all elements of 
nature. Thus, the Tribal metaphysics of nature and life, of the world 
and human, unites one with nature’s activities and species in a bond of 
a mutual cycle of life-giving continuity and do not allow the fragmenta-
tion of experience into mutually exclusive realms.  
These genealogical affiliations are not only crucial in understanding 
tribal spirituality and their understanding of the universe, but also of 
the nature-society relations in ontological and epistemological terms. 
There are moral imperatives between individuals (and communities) 
and the natural world because of their ontological connectedness—that 
is, a connection inherent in the nature of their being. The precise term 
to describe such a connection is ecological connectionality (different from 
the dyadic model of relation). These genealogical connections are ethi-
cal connections– expressed as sobaliba (wisdom)12 in the Ao language. 
Such a portrayal of nature in a broader canvass reaffirms the tribespeo-
ple’s perception of nature not merely as a passive recipient of human 
actions, but as active participants in the whole web of relationships.13 
12  The translation is my own. It should be noted that there are problems in translating this 
term into English. Sobaliba – the core of the Ao people’s sustaining principle is encoded and 
instituted in the Ao system of rules and regulations that holds the world/society together. It 
teaches how the world’s interdependence results in an inter-responsibility. For a slightly differ-
ent interpretation of the concept Sobaliba, see Sashinungla, “Exploring Ao Values and Ethics,” 
in Ethics and Culture: Some Indian Reflections, ed. I. Sanyal and Sashinungla (New Delhi: De-
cent Books, 2010), 231‒242.
13  One Ao origin story, for instance, tells of a time when rice grew without a husk but hu-
mans interfered with disastrous results. One day Yarila and her sister decided to pound the rice 
to make it even whiter than it was before. Nature resented this scorning of her gifts, and since 
then rice has always grown with a husk and must be laboriously pounded before it can be eaten. 
See J. p. Mills, The Ao-Nagas (London: Oxford University press, 1973), 223. 
p O L I G R A F I
98
Just as humans can alter the world, the world can act on and alter us. 
In this respect, the universe is personal – that is, having personality and 
particularity. In the tribal paradigm, the universe is “alive” – a hugely 
dynamic entity to be entered into a dialogue with, respected and estab-
lish a reciprocal relationship with.
God-Self-World Continuum
Most dominant religious traditions strongly focus on human beings 
and their relation with God as the most important element. However, 
in the tribal traditions “creation” is the central point of reference in 
understanding all reality. It is neither human-centric nor god-centric. 
Rather, together with god, humans and the world constitutes a “cosmic 
web” of relationships in which the truth is to be lived with all others. 
According to the Khasi religion: in the cosmic web of relationships, hu-
mans are placed in-between U Blei (Supreme Being) and Ka meiramew 
(mother earth). U Blei creates all things, Ka meiramew nourishes and 
sustains them and humans complete them. Their earth-centred appro-
ach to reality is based on the fundamental premise that human (culture) 
is a part of the physical world having an inalienable and mutual interac-
tion between them, thereby, relationships characterised by both mutual 
respect and mutual use. Tribal spirituality, thus expands the concept of 
“nature” including in it the entire ecosphere unlike other religious and 
scientific traditions where nature/the world has a limited sense, only for 
the social sphere. 
For instance, the Aos do not think of “being” as the fundamental 
principle of reality but rather that the fundamental principle of reality 
consists in creation. This kind of conception is different from Aristotle’s 
characterisation of what is real (eternally true). Aristotle understands 
science as a body of knowledge that seeks the eternally true, whereas, 
the tribespeople understand the character of reality as it is given is not 
eternal. This account of tribal reality needs to be distinguished from a 
naturalist’s position as the latter does not require any specific sort of 
religious commitment. Long trok may be taken as the basic character of 
reality in the Aos’ account, but it never loses its connection with divini-
ty. Hence, their position appears to be thoroughly theological.
G O D - S E L F - W O R L D  C O N T I N U U M  I N  T R I B A L  R E L I G I O N
99
This centrality of creation is supported variously, though one finds 
it most clearly in the tribal cosmological myths – which relates the 
character of the cosmos and the origin of human beings. For instance, 
one Tangkhul creation myth14 tells of a great convention called by the 
Kasa Akhava (the Supreme God), inviting the opinion of all creatures 
to determine the duration of day and night. This image of the assembly 
of all creatures: involving consultation, search for order and consensus, 
tracing the eldest, words of wisdom from Kasa Akhava suggests that all 
are constituents of respect and rights. The story basically describes the 
character of the Supreme Being, the place of humans and all creatures 
– a cosmic order, characterised by mutual respect and interdependence. 
Appearing in an Ao song of philosophical lyric, the Aos’ version 
reads in part as follows:15
Oh having emerged from the six stones,
The day all birds congregated
Owl proclaimed, if there is light, let it always be day; If there is darkness, 
let it always be night
Amidst the hullabaloo,
To the relief of all, the hummingbird said, let light and dark coexist; let 
night follow day and day follow night. […] 
Ancestors practiced the ancient religion of mighty rocks and (sacred) 
woods
In hope the generations follow that path of the great God 
All gathered at the village meeting place at Chungliyimti,16 
And decided to take the advice of Ongangla17
Ongangla directed us to worship new water and perform ceremonial rites 
at the new village site.
14  R. Luikham, Folklores and Tales of the Nagas (New Delhi: Immanuel publisher, 1983), 67.
15  The translation is my own. It should be noted that there are problems in translating these 
verses into English. 
16  Ancient place of the Ao people.
17  An Ao diviner who foretells the future. She is also perceived to be the wife of Meyutsüngba 
(chief/god of righteousness).
p O L I G R A F I
100
What this part of the philosophical lyric shows is the Aos seek to 
follow the path of the great god of earth-centred religion. The reference 
of the Long trok ko voker (the Ao metaphysical explanation of origin, 
the fundamental principle of order) describes that god-human-earth 
can only be meaningfully and fully conceived together as a whole; 
further suggesting that the Divine is not seen as totalitarian. The text 
indicates that “wisdom” and the upkeep of the cosmic order is not the 
exclusive domain of the humans alone (the indication is also clear in 
the Tangkhul’s creation story above). This understanding is in marked 
difference to the idea of biblical stewardship (about human’s exercising 
God-given dominion over His creation) or to the approach of “ecologi-
cal rationality,” where the emphasis is on the role of the human being’s 
rationality in preserving the environment.18 In contrast, tribal spiritua-
lity works with multiple, recursive connections. The text also specifies 
that there is one Supreme Being, one principle of reality, identified in 
the singular – though it has a fundamentally dualising, connectional 
aspect, and metaphorically “dwells” in water and through Ongangla – 
that it is all of reality.19 In this sense, the traditional Aos are “pantheists,” 
for they hold that the divine pervades all things and is expressed thro-
ugh all of existence. 
Ao philosophical lyrics and oral poetics of the pre-conquest period 
(and before Christianity), indicate that all the “gods” were taken to 
be a single being. The Aos did not believe in a pantheon of gods, but 
treated all as mere aspects of a single Supreme Being. The Aos refer to 
the Supreme Being as Lijaba: literally translated as, “earth” (Li) and 
“indwell” (jaba). It means “the one who indwells the earth.” The word 
18  Rational ecologist, John S. Dryzek contends that human beings are to find out a mecha-
nism to preserve the ecosystem, it is their rationality that would determine the nature and scope 
of this mechanism. See John S. Dryzek, Rational Ecology: Environment and Political Economy 
(New York: Basil Blackwell Inc., 1987), 38‒64. 
19  For the Adi tribe of Arunachal pradesh for instance, the Donyi (sun) and the Polo (moon) 
are the two “eyes” of the Sedi-Melo, the Supreme Being manifested in physical forms. Among 
the forces of nature, it is the duality of sun-moon, Donyi-Polo who is regarded as most power-
ful. An Adi invocation to Donyi-Polo illustrates the dualising, connectional character of the 
Supreme Being very well. It goes in part: “You are the greatest of all. You are above all. You see 
all. […] At night you watch the world of the dead. In the day, from the world below … You 
look in every side; you know everything.” See Verrier Elwin, Myths of the North East Frontier of 
India (Shillong: North East Frontier Agency, 1959), 211. 
G O D - S E L F - W O R L D  C O N T I N U U M  I N  T R I B A L  R E L I G I O N
101
jaba also means “real” or “existence,” therefore, Lijaba could also be 
translated as, “the real earth” or “embedded being.” Consistent with 
their pantheistic outlook, Lijaba is existence for the Aos. The name 
is unambiguous as it directly indicates that Lijaba is omnipresent, 
always near. This is true because Lijaba not only pervades all things, 
but self-expresses as everything.20
The same being is addressed as Longkitsüngba / Aningtsüngba (Sky 
Chief or the Sun-Moon God) in relation to elements/forces of nature 
and seasons. The name Tiaba (Chief of providence) is used in relation 
to man’s earthly fortune – the God of Life and Death, blessings and 
misfortunes, also called Meyutsüngba (Chief of Righteousness) in rela-
tion to moral and ethical judgment in life and after death. Meyutsün-
gba is considered the gateway between the world of the dead and the 
living – who judges everyone according to their deeds on earth. They 
are all addressed as Lijaba, the one Supreme Being, in relation to the 
creation of the earth and everything therein. O. Alem, an Ao theologian 
wrote:
Lijaba expresses the mundane nature of God, while Longkitsungba expres-
ses the transcendence of God, and Meyutsungba expresses the omnipresent 
nature of God. […] His presence is both simultaneously transcendent and 
immanent.21
The above descriptions largely highlight that the basic principle of 
reality is characterised by a kind of reciprocal duality: man and nature, 
day and night, life and death, male and female,22 material and spiritual, 
transcendence and immanence, creation and destruction, sky (heaven) 
and earth, and so on. To my mind, what is most significant about the 
dualising, reciprocal character of reality (Lijaba) is that it is a principle 
that exists as a connecting relation. Therefore, a relationship of recipro-
city is established across categories of meaning/experience, never losing 
sight of an ultimate wholeness. The pattern that thus emerges is that 
20  Ao legends describe that while the Aos were at Chungliyimti (an ancient Ao place), Lijaba, 
the Supreme Being dined and stayed (in disguise) at the home of the villagers.
21  O. Alem, Tsungremology (Mokokchung: Clark Theological College, 1994), 35. 
22  The Supreme Being is identified as male but has attributes described as “feminine.”  
p O L I G R A F I
102
Lijaba only exists qua creation as reality, and Lijaba qua the Long trok 
is the cosmos. 
Since only a transient account of reality such as Lijaba is possible 
(unlike the kind of eternal knowledge, much less “rational” knowledge 
described by Aristotle’s episteme), the Aos’ highest metaphysical con-
cepts are stated poetically, in metaphors and not in treatise form. This 
does not mean that abstraction is absent in tribal philosophy but that 
abstraction is insufficient for explaining a whole range of questions that 
affect one’s experience of the Good. In tribal thought, the kind of reaso-
ning employed takes into account all aspects of interactions of humans 
in and of “nature.” Therefore, pure abstraction has only a small role in 
tribal philosophy. By ascribing to a connectional metaphysics,23 their 
concepts of truth/good are different from how plato idealised abstracti-
on and a life free of material restraints and distractions. In tribal thou-
ght, good/truth is not only an abstract concept, but a way of living that 
comes out of meaningful, reciprocal relationships with the entire envi-
ronmental complex that makes life possible. Their commitment to the 
interdependence of different categories undermines the way in which 
western sciences formulated man/nature relationship within the sepa-
ration/domination model. The principle that everything is connected 
suggests that truth is an effect of action rather than of formal propositi-
ons. As such, truth is not something figured out abstractly in the mind 
alone; it emerges under a certain cosmological configuration that can 
only be fully understood in a connectional and ethical context. 
Lijaba is the basic name for the fundamental principle of reality. But 
reality is always perceived / revealed under a certain cosmological con-
figuration. This suggests that Lijaba is not a singular being who might 
be the focal point of perception. It simply means nothing in nature 
can exhaustively represent it. The main point here is that Lijaba is not 
directly perceptible, since he is everywhere, i.e., Lijaba is imperceptibly 
everywhere. Therefore, the Aos hold a metaphysically quasi-realist view, 
since they did not deny that in some sense we could know the cosmic 
order in which we live, but they did deny that this cosmic order was the 
23  As I have shown, tribal creation narratives are a manifestation of a broader metaphysics of 
ecological connectivity. 
G O D - S E L F - W O R L D  C O N T I N U U M  I N  T R I B A L  R E L I G I O N
103
basic character of reality itself. Wisdom (sobaliba),24 therefore, for the 
Aos consists in grasping the limits of our knowledge and understanding 
the way things are through their changes, while giving it the best possi-
ble (adequate) expression one can in connectional (reciprocal) existen-
ce. This entails that even if the Aos consider wisdom to be the best sort 
of knowledge, what makes it best is not because it is guaranteed by the 
seal of eternity. 
As the Supreme Being, in the singular, the word Lijaba simply 
means “real” and “true” being or “embedded being” and “grounded 
being.” But in its broader sense, it came to be used as the term for 
“truth” and “reality.” Lijaba, which is often translated as “God,” is har-
dly a personal god. Lijaba is rather more like a universal energy which 
is formed into our specific cosmos for a time. It means that the Aos 
did not think of a personal god as the fundamental source of reality 
but rather argued for a view that recognised a divinity to be present 
in all features of the world. If everything is inspirited by a single/
common reality, then self-realisation and the realisation of the other 
(which includes “nature”) are co-extensive. Therefore, to subservice 
one category is not only to compromise the creative possibilities of 
the other but also to impoverish one’s own.  
Conclusion
I want to reiterate that tribal spirituality instructs the kind of sensi-
bility or attentiveness which is prevalent among many tribes of India, 
as elsewhere in the world – a sense of “oneness” and connectedness with 
each other and every object of creation. This view of tribal sensibility 
must be distinguished from the modernist idea of “ecological humani-
sm,” a theoretical coinage to “humanise” ecology and to give humanist 
dimensions to ecology. Tribal eco-sensibility is also different from the 
kind of process where the emphasis is on gaining self-knowledge that 
subsumes the knowledge of the world. The kind of earth-centred spi-
24  To know both epistemically and by acquaintance. Wisdom is understood in connection to 
other sorts of knowledge in the tribal understanding. However, it is important to note that the 
Aos distinguish wisdom from other sorts of knowledge. 
p O L I G R A F I
104
rituality that tribal religion imparts does not insist on detachment or 
renunciation of self from the world – as in their vision, the spiritual is 
not opposed to the material. Neither does it quest its union with the 
absolute (mystic’s way of life) nor propose a kind of “fusion” with natu-
re, to eclipse all difference for a greater whole (Deep ecology). Rather it 
is a sensibility to live responsibly25 which follows from their cosmological 
vision that all “life” is sacred. This makes possible communication and 
love for the other without undermining the reality of the other. Tribal 
legends characterise animals and other natural elements and forces as 
beings capable of inspiring respect or disfavour, yet, recognise that each 
is a different species, though members of the same biotic community. 
Therefore, one must respect the members both separately (and indivi-
dually) and together (and collectively).
The question of how to co-exist together and to live sustainably is 
the most important of our time. Tribal cosmic-centred theology, by 
emphasising the web of vital relationships embedded in all things – its 
vision of the world, reminds one that all things and creations on earth 
share a common destiny. The dependency of humanity on the natural 
world and the exigency to adhere to an order that maintains its earth-
-oriented balance is lucid in tribal thought.26 If philosophers are com-
mitted to overcoming the problems of binary dualisms that privilege 
one form of life or reality over others, then they must become involved 
in the making and remaking of the world by adopting respectful (and 
non-exclusionary) methods of philosophical engagement in their work. 
Moreover, the unilineal concept of religion and history needs to be 
tempered by an earth-centred spirituality. This means we need to re-
conceptualise our long-standing comprehension of the god, human, 
25  The ideal of living responsibly involves doing the right thing by fellow human beings, com-
munity, God, Mother Earth, ancestors, as well as future generations.
26  A Tangkhul myth illustrates this point well. The story goes like this: A scene was created by 
a hungry fox disturbing the peaceful sleep of the fellow creatures at night. He was seated on a 
tree enjoying a walnut. By mistake a walnut fell out from his hands and hit the crab lying below. 
The crab filled with fury destroyed the nest of the giant ants, who in turn, stung a sleeping wild 
boar. The agonised boar went wild and destroyed the banana trees. This disturbed the tiny bat 
sleeping peacefully on the leaf of the banana. The angry bat sped about wildly and landed in the 
nostril of a sleeping elephant. The agitated elephant went wild resulting in the death of a man. 
(Luikham, Folklores and Tales of the Nagas, 91.)
G O D - S E L F - W O R L D  C O N T I N U U M  I N  T R I B A L  R E L I G I O N
105
and the “nature” relation in a different, fresh way. Humankind needs 
to reconnect with nature, not relating to it, but being in nature and 
being part of it. One should look for other sources of knowledge for 
bridging and nearing opposite phenomena, harmonisation of spiritual 
and material experiences, reconciliation of the transcendent and imma-
nent plans. In tribal spirituality I think we have a powerful conceptual 
alternative towards this.
B i b l i o g r a p h y 
Alem, O. Tsungremology. Mokokchung: Clark Theological College, 1994.
Elwin, Verrier. Myths of the North East Frontier of India. Shillong: North East 
Frontier Agency, 1959.
Dai, Mamang. The Legends of Pensam. New Delhi: penguin, 2006.
Dryzek, John S. Rational Ecology: Environment and Political Economy. New 
York: Basil Blackwell Inc., 1987.
Folk Tales from Nagaland: Part 1 & 2. Kohima: Directorate of Art and Cul-
ture, Nagaland, 1989.
Luikham, R. Folklores and Tales of the Nagas. New Delhi: Immanuel pub-
lisher, 1983.
Mills, J. p. The Ao-Nagas. London: Oxford University press, 1973.
plato. »phaedrus.« Translated by Alexander Nehamas and paul Woodruff. In 
Plato: Complete Works, edited by John M. Cooper, 506‒556. Indianapolis/Cam-
bridge: Hackett publishing Co., Inc., 1997.  
plumwood, Val. Environmental Culture: The Ecological Crisis of Reason. Lon-
don: Routledge, 2002.
Sashinungla. “Exploring Ao Values and Ethics.” In Ethics and Culture: Some 
Indian Reflections, edited by I. Sanyal and Sashinungla, 231‒242. New Delhi: 
Decent Books, 2010.