He's still the same deity, regardless of these slightly different attributes.
Going with the Vedics as Indo-Europeans, the deity seems likely to be this culture's version of what became Mars, Ares and other gods of war.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Hard polytheism v. soft polytheism in Hinduism, textual sources?
- Thread starter Jainarayan
- Start date
He's still the same deity, regardless of these slightly different attributes.
Going with the Vedics as Indo-Europeans, the deity seems likely to be this culture's version of what became Mars, Ares and other gods of war.
I don't know about scriptures, but I'd say both soft and hard polytheism exists in Hinduism regardless. As well as pretty much every belief about God (or lack thereof) under the sun! Because, that's just how Hinduism rolls, I guess.
Many Dravidian historians believe Murugan was a Dravidian God, and was only later adopted in the North. Certainly his worship in the South far exceeds the north. In TN there are more temples for Murugan than any other, including the more 'Supreme' ones. Many of the most famous temples are dedicated to Him. He is ofter termed 'The God of the Tamil people'.
Because of the 'competition' factor that goes on, North Indians, if they know about him at all, will say, 'But we have him too' and the Tamil response would be, "Yes, But not in the same way we do." The Murugan bhaktar can get downright enthusiastic bordering on driven.
Well that's very interesting, and makes a lot of sense to me. I suppose the idea of a war god is a fairly straightforward one to come up in different societies.
I guess Indra to Zeus is a better comparison for the point I was trying to make. I'm just not very familiar with Indra. Shiva and his two sons are the gods with whom I feel closest.
The more and more I study with my dishka guru, as well as the scriptures with Ramanuja's commentaries, the more I believe that Sri Vaishnavism teaches Henotheism (primarily worship of Vishnu, his avatars, and Lakshmi; but acknowledging the existence of others) and Panentheism (related to Vishishtadvaita).
I no longer believe that all are mere representations of a greater source, but I still am not sure if every God and Deva is a complete separate entity in and of themselves. So, basically, I'm somewhere in between "hard" and "soft" polytheism (if that really is the correct word).
I no longer believe that all are mere representations of a greater source, but I still am not sure if every God and Deva is a complete separate entity in and of themselves. So, basically, I'm somewhere in between "hard" and "soft" polytheism (if that really is the correct word).
Yeah, absolutely. I'm by no means advocating 'you must worship Ares if you worship Murugan!' For one, I'd have to go and buy an Ares statue, and that would be expensive.
Just some cultural conjecture.
Yup
Includes kathenotheism - periodically switching which god you worship, while always acknowledging others exist.
Sort of.
It means that I have the God(s) I worship, but acknowledge that others worship different Gods than I; some of whom they may consider supreme. In the end, it doesn't really affect me or my practice. It's just something that is.
Isn't it a proviso that those gods being worshipped by others exist? Or have I misunderstood?
It does.
To give an example: some actively worship Surya as the supreme. I acknowledge his existence, and he has a role in my samparadaya, but I don't put much emphasis on his worship. It doesn't mean he doesn't exist; it just means I don't place him on that large of devotional pedestal.
Do you believe in the separate existence of Jehovah, for example? Or Thor?
If Sri Vaishnavism was monotheistic, would that mean that it wouldn't even acknowledge the existence of Surya? I was always inclined to think that Sri Vaishnavism was wholly monotheistic, but I am interested to hear your conclusions after listening to your Guru.
In my version of henotheism, it's God and gods, but the other gods aren't Supreme Gods. To have more than one Supreme God would be contradictory. So to me, Vishnu and Siva are the same God, although I only actively worship one of them. Whereas Ganesha, Murugan, etc are indeed separate.
Totally agree.
What's your take on those who think of Ganesha as the Supreme God?
Just wondering, but where does Durga/Parvati come into all of this? What is she to you?
The manifest, movement aspect of Shiva. Nataraja's earring.
Different sect of Hinduism. Not a problem. Many Tamilians also think that Murugan is Supreme.