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?
Renukaji completely agree with you. BTW I also recently realized the shasranama or the avatar argument.
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.
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.
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.
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.
follow rituals vs believe religion?
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;273464 said: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?
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?
[/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?