The Glory of Polytheism

[biswa]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Good post!

Even without saying there are thousands of gods, can we say that there are thousands of names (or avatars) of God?

Would that allow the monotheists (at least the Hindu ones) to understand polytheism?

 

[renuka]

Even without saying there are thousands of gods, can we say that there are thousands of names (or avatars) of God?

Would that allow the monotheists (at least the Hindu ones) to understand polytheism?

Dear Biswa,

I used to think that God is beyond perception and beyond comprehension so everything is Him and hence the thousands of names and forms.

But now I feel He has countless names and forms becos we humans had no idea about anything.

So we went on and on and on writing scripts for the drama called life.

Have we realized that we can go on writing about stuff we dont really have any idea about?

BTW coming to the Hindu monotheist you have in mind..they are NOT monotheist as they try too hard to claim.

You see it falls flat becos the Hindu Monotheist take pride in their Sahasranamam ... they have multiplied their only ONE God a thousand times! So no big deal finally.Its still Polytheism!LOL

At least if they were advatins they can escape on technical grounds by saying that Two is merely One occurring Twice!LOL


So Monotheist are always One Thousand Miles Away from Home.

Away from home, away from home, away from home, away from home
Lord I'm one thousand miles away from my home.

 

[a-TB]

Why should any type of ism be considered glorious?
All these are beliefs with no basis.

 

[biswa]

Please read the second para of the opening post in this thread to understand my point. Polytheism = Tolerance + Open-mindedness.

In this age of intolerance and one upmanship, that should certainly be lauded.

 

[biswa]

Renukaji completely agree with you. BTW I also recently realized the shasranama or the avatar argument.

 

[renuka]

Renukaji completely agree with you. BTW I also recently realized the shasranama or the avatar argument.

Yup....Poly-avatarism!

 

[a-TB]

Please read the second para of the opening post in this thread to understand my point. Polytheism = Tolerance + Open-mindedness.

In this age of intolerance and one upmanship, that should certainly be lauded.

Assume it is a reply to my post and so I will respond Mr Biswa.

I did read the second para of opening post and understood your point but do not agree with it.

Word tolerance implies putting up with another and does not go with Open Mindedness. Acceptance of others (with respect) on the other hand implies open mindedness.

In any case I have seen people from all religious faith show intolerance as well as acceptance of others. It seem to have nothing to do with any ism based on beliefs.


I have known Hindus who vehemently argue that Hindus are NOT polytheistic.


The issue I have is with the premise of the opening post and the implied conclusion.


Let me leave this as is

 

[biswa]

I have known Hindus who vehemently argue that Hindus are NOT polytheistic.

Yet they are still considered Hindus by other Hindus! As are Advaitins and Vaishnavas. Everybody is accepted as they are. That is the beauty of this religion and its polytheistic framework.

Try that with the Abrahamic religions.

 

[a-TB]

Yet they are still considered Hindus by other Hindus! As are Advaitins and Vaishnavas. Everybody is accepted as they are. That is the beauty of this religion and its polytheistic framework.

Try that with the Abrahamic religions.

Nope!
I know many Christians who do not practice any religion and are still accepted by most as Christians regardless of the denomination. Same is true with many Muslims I know in USA.

Acceptance is more about individual character.

When someone marries intercaste or across religions some Hindus cease to recognize them as even their own children.

Polytheism is one more belief and there is no glory in it

 

[biswa]

Acceptance is more about individual character.

This is the point of my disagreement with you. You can always bring up individual counter-examples. But in in Hinduism, acceptance is a fundamental part of the credo. It is not an individual special case.

For example: a Hindu from far-flung Assam will not mind considering Balaji as a Hindu God even though he may never visit Tirupati in his life. Similarly a Tamilian knowing no Hindi may still sing Hanuman Chalisa.

On the other hand the actual blood-shed between Shia & Sunni and Catholic & Protestant is legendary. It is not about the tolerance of individuals. it is a tolerance of the faith. You cannot be a Catholic if you dont believe in the Virgin Mary and her immaculate conception.

 

[sarang]

Simply, polytheism is not a hindu concept. To fit or explain our faith through western abrahamic filters will not lead to proper understanding. No faith is even half as tolerant as ours. Disagreement and conflict were at a different level, and acceptance and tolerance were basic and fundamental.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

This is the point of my disagreement with you. You can always bring up individual counter-examples. But in in Hinduism, acceptance is a fundamental part of the credo. It is not an individual special case.

For example: a Hindu from far-flung Assam will not mind considering Balaji as a Hindu God even though he may never visit Tirupati in his life. Similarly a Tamilian knowing no Hindi may still sing Hanuman Chalisa.

On the other hand the actual blood-shed between Shia & Sunni and Catholic & Protestant is legendary. It is not about the tolerance of individuals. it is a tolerance of the faith. You cannot be a Catholic if you dont believe in the Virgin Mary and her immaculate conception.

Biswaji, I think tolerance is overrated. Besides too much tolerance can be misconstrued as indifference. Sometimes, I feel it is the tolerant nature that invites attacks from outsiders and sometimes from within, as witnessed even in this forum often...

 

[கால பைரவன்]

For example: a Hindu from far-flung Assam will not mind considering Balaji as a Hindu God even though he may never visit Tirupati in his life. Similarly a Tamilian knowing no Hindi may still sing Hanuman Chalisa.

Your example covers the theists. A theist Hindu may be tolerant. Same cannot be said of an atheist/ agnostic hindu...

 

[SANDHYAV]

follow rituals vs believe religion?

 

[renuka]

follow rituals vs believe religion?

Life is a ritual...we get up daily...work...go to sleep..wake up again and the cycle repeats and finally we die.

Religion is meant to put an end to this ritual.

 

[sangom]

This is the point of my disagreement with you. You can always bring up individual counter-examples. But in in Hinduism, acceptance is a fundamental part of the credo. It is not an individual special case.

For example: a Hindu from far-flung Assam will not mind considering Balaji as a Hindu God even though he may never visit Tirupati in his life. Similarly a Tamilian knowing no Hindi may still sing Hanuman Chalisa.

On the other hand the actual blood-shed between Shia & Sunni and Catholic & Protestant is legendary. It is not about the tolerance of individuals. it is a tolerance of the faith. You cannot be a Catholic if you dont believe in the Virgin Mary and her immaculate conception.

Shri Biswa ji,

Re. the highlighted sentence, is it not a fact that there was much bloodshed between the vaishnavites and the rest? Similarly, if one reads the rigveda, one finds that life was a continuous fight against some enemy or the other (dasyus, asuras, rakshases, and so on); while we are not told the exact reason for such clashes, it is more or less clear that differences in belief systems was also one of them. Hence, the religions of the sub-continent were not drastically different from those in other parts of the world like Shia & Sunni and Catholic & Protestant, etc., it appears.

I believe that with the spread of the "bhakti" movement, which again caused a lot of casualties on the two sides - Saivites and Vaishnavites - the fighting spirit ebbed away from the populace and the spirit of offering oneself for the enjoyment of one's chosen godhead, caused a corresponding, subservient mentality of submission to any kind of authority including invaders, colonizers, etc. And, it is this bhakti-laced polytheism that we are, erroneously, discussing here as glorious.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

Shri Biswa ji,

Re. the highlighted sentence, is it not a fact that there was much bloodshed between the vaishnavites and the rest? Similarly, if one reads the rigveda, one finds that life was a continuous fight against some enemy or the other (dasyus, asuras, rakshases, and so on); while we are not told the exact reason for such clashes, it is more or less clear that differences in belief systems was also one of them. Hence, the religions of the sub-continent were not drastically different from those in other parts of the world like Shia & Sunni and Catholic & Protestant, etc., it appears.

I believe that with the spread of the "bhakti" movement, which again caused a lot of casualties on the two sides - Saivites and Vaishnavites - the fighting spirit ebbed away from the populace and the spirit of offering oneself for the enjoyment of one's chosen godhead, caused a corresponding, subservient mentality of submission to any kind of authority including invaders, colonizers, etc. And, it is this bhakti-laced polytheism that we are, erroneously, discussing here as glorious.

Sangom Sir,

I do not quite agree to your comparison but even if we grant that the enmity between saivites and vaishnavites or the vedists and dasyus of yore was as bad as the Sunni-shia dichotomy, isn't it a fact that polytheist Hindus of various hues are peacefully coexisting today and have been for few centuries as opposed to the constant ongoing bloodshed that is witnessed between different Islamic groups? Do you not remember the chopping off a Christian professor's hand in Kerala because he drafted an exam refering to the Islamic prophet? So Why this propensity to run down hindus?

 

[sarang]

I can confidently say that there never was any violent conflict between saivites and vaishnavites at any time. If any specific examples are given, worthwhile discussion can happen.

 

[sangom]

Sangom Sir,

I do not quite agree to your comparison but even if we grant that the enmity between saivites and vaishnavites or the vedists and dasyus of yore was as bad as the Sunni-shia dichotomy, isn't it a fact that polytheist Hindus of various hues are peacefully coexisting today and have been for few centuries as opposed to the constant ongoing bloodshed that is witnessed between different Islamic groups? Do you not remember the chopping off a Christian professor's hand in Kerala because he drafted an exam refering to the Islamic prophet? So Why this propensity to run down hindus?

Shri KB Sir,

I am only expressing my honest views. If it appears to you as "running down hindus" I am sorry, there is no other way I can put my doubts.

When you take credit for the "polytheist hindus of various hues ... peacefully co-existing today and have been for few centuries", etc., I feel we are conveniently forgetting the many caste wars, atrocities against dalits, the Bodo movement in Assam, the Naga uprising, the 'sons of the soil' groups in different parts of the country rising up against their respective perceived enemies, etc. While I agree that for a "feel good" effect, it may be ideal to sweep all these under the carpet, and highlight those committed by non-hindus only, where lies the truth? Are the polytheists as good as it is being made out?

 

[கால பைரவன்]

Shri KB Sir,

I am only expressing my honest views. If it appears to you as "running down hindus" I am sorry, there is no other way I can put my doubts.

When you take credit for the "polytheist hindus of various hues ... peacefully co-existing today and have been for few centuries", etc., I feel we are conveniently forgetting the many caste wars, atrocities against dalits, the Bodo movement in Assam, the Naga uprising, the 'sons of the soil' groups in different parts of the country rising up against their respective perceived enemies, etc. While I agree that for a "feel good" effect, it may be ideal to sweep all these under the carpet, and highlight those committed by non-hindus only, where lies the truth? Are the polytheists as good as it is being made out?

Sangom Sir, you are conflating many different issues of conflict here. Is the naga uprising or the BODO movement or the various insurgent movements in NE states related to polytheism? Recently before separation of telangana from andhra pradesh, there were a series of agitations which sometimes turned violent. I think it is wrong to conflate these "sons of soil" clashes with polytheistic aspect of our religion. Polytheism is not the source of conflict here.

 

[sarang]

The troubles have nothing to do with hinduism or hindus. Nagas have the right to practise as per the post independent constitution and traditional age old sanatana dharma. sangomji blaming hindus is an expression of his inner conflict.

1. Naga uprising: For ages hindus have respected traditions of all aadivasis and vanavasis. Conversion to christianity if the first stone.
2. Now foreign funded 'liberation fights'


Nagaland was created in 1963 as the 16th State of Indian Union, before which it was a district of Assam. Insurgent groups classified as active, mainly demand full independence. The Naga National Council led by Phizowas the first group to dissent in 1947 and in 1956 they went underground.
Till now they had been active in kidnappings, extortion and levying illegitimate tax on peoples from other states residing there and their own State's people. It is also known from many confirmed intelligence sources that insurgent groups are receiving funds from foreign countries to prevail disturbance in the region for disturbing the balance of Indian government.

Gaidinliu (1915–1993) was a Naga spiritual and political leader who led a revolt againstBritish rule in India.[SUP][1][/SUP] At the age of 13, she joined the Heraka religious movement of her cousin Haipou Jadonang. The movement later turned into a political movement seeking to drive out the British from Manipur and the surrounding Naga areas. Within the Heraka cult, she came to be considered an incarnation of the goddess Cherachamdinliu.[SUP][2][/SUP] Gaidinliu was arrested in 1932 at the age of 16, and was sentenced to life imprisonment by the British rulers. Jawaharlal Nehru met her at Shillong Jail in 1937, and promised to pursue her release. Nehru gave her the title of "Rani" ("Queen"), and she gained local popularity as Rani Gaidinliu.
She was released in 1947 after India's independence, and continued to work for the upliftment of her people. An advocate of the ancestral Naga religious practices, she staunchly resisted the conversion of Nagas to Christianity. She was honoured as a freedom fighter and was awarded a Padma Bhushan by the Government of India.

Shri KB Sir,

I am only expressing my honest views. If it appears to you as "running down hindus" I am sorry, there is no other way I can put my doubts.

When you take credit for the "polytheist hindus of various hues ... peacefully co-existing today and have been for few centuries", etc., I feel we are conveniently forgetting the many caste wars, atrocities against dalits, the Bodo movement in Assam, the Naga uprising, the 'sons of the soil' groups in different parts of the country rising up against their respective perceived enemies, etc. While I agree that for a "feel good" effect, it may be ideal to sweep all these under the carpet, and highlight those committed by non-hindus only, where lies the truth? Are the polytheists as good as it is being made out?

 

[sarang]

Bodo problem:
Lok Sabha member from Bodoland, Sansuma Khunggur Bwiswmuthiary blamed illegal immigration for the violence in the state.[SUP][18][/SUP] The Election Commissioner of India, H.S. Brahma, said that of the 27 districts in Assam, 11 of them will be shown to have a Muslim majority when the 2011 census figures are published.[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][19][/SUP] Singh was criticised for not dealing with the flood of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh,[SUP][20][/SUP] despite scholarly assertions that the flooding of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh is a myth.[SUP][21][/SUP]
The violence and exodus of thousands of people from Northeast India reportedly led to a series of incessant protests in Assam, at multiple locations, during the months of August–September. The protesters' main demand was expeditious detection and deportation of illegal infiltrators from Assam. On 15 September, at a convention of non-political tribal groups, organisations representing Bodo, Dimasa, Tiwa, Deuri, Karbi, Garo, Rabha, Sonowal Kacharis and other tribal communities decided to form a coordination committee for the cause. The tribal leaders said that illegal immigration has threatened the existence, right to land and resources to all indigenous people of the entire state, and it was not limited toBodoland alone.[SUP][22]

[/SUP]

Originally Posted by sangom
Shri KB Sir,

I am only expressing my honest views. If it appears to you as "running down hindus" I am sorry, there is no other way I can put my doubts.

When you take credit for the "polytheist hindus of various hues ... peacefully co-existing today and have been for few centuries", etc., I feel we are conveniently forgetting the many caste wars, atrocities against dalits, the Bodo movement in Assam, the Naga uprising, the 'sons of the soil' groups in different parts of the country rising up against their respective perceived enemies, etc. While I agree that for a "feel good" effect, it may be ideal to sweep all these under the carpet, and highlight those committed by non-hindus only, where lies the truth? Are the polytheists as good as it is being made out?

 

[sangom]

And this is not the first time that the Bodo heartland has seen riots. Post independence, the Bodos, who are aboriginals of the area and the biggest tribal groups of Assam have clashed with the Adivasi tea tribes, the Muslim settlers and even the Bengali Hindus. The Bodos with slightly more than 30% of total population are ‘Minority’ against the Non–Bodos who have little less the 70% population in the area.

Amongst the non-Bodos the Bengali speaking Muslim settlers, who are often branded as Bangladeshis, owing to the fact that lower Assam has experienced years of illegal migration form neighbouring Bangladesh.

Over three decades now, the Bodos have seen parallel insurgent movement and democratic agitations centered on Kokrajhar for a separate Bodo state–Bodoland, thus the non–Bodos have been pushed to the each even if they are more in numbers.

As the Bodoland movement grew momentum in the 90s the non-Bodos started feeling threatened. In 2003, the then NDA regime signed the historic Bodoland accord with the surrendered rebels of Bodo Liberation Tigers (BLT) paving way for the Bodo Territorial Council (BTC) giving the Bodos more autonomy. The surrendered BLT cadres led by Hagrama Mohilary formed the political outfit Bodo Peoples’ Front (BPF) which has been in power in BTC since inception.

(Assam violence: Why terror is the easiest way in Kokrajhar? | Latest News & Updates at Daily News & Analysis)

the Bodos, who are aboriginals of the area and the biggest tribal groups of Assam have clashed with the Adivasi tea tribes, the Muslim settlers and even the Bengali Hindus.

 

[sarang]

polytheistic sanatana dharmists settled all over bharata varsha blending well with the locals, respecting their culture and tradition, did not displace them, or usurp their wealth and property. true followers of yagnavalki smruti which enjoined the king to respect local customs. so problems are not created by hindus. even today this holds good. blaming hindus and deliberate hiding and obfuscation of the true causes of disruption, by communists and secular historians will not work any longer.

 

[sarang]

caste wars.

two groups clashing and stone throwing and rioting is not war. even discrimination in sharing of education, wealth and social facilities is not war. brahmins can then claim that non brahmin communities have waged wars on them.

any example from recent or say from pallava times of war waged on any community. killing of ten thousand iyengars in mandya by tippu sultan is war against iyengars, a subset of brahmins. since the issue is caste war, mopla riots, killing by razakkars, partition massacre come under different head. any reference on caste war which resulted in the death of a large number of a particular jati if given, then the statement on caste wars has any merit. otherwise it is sangomji's flight of fancy and vicious twist.