Comments on: Why I find polytheism more reassuring http://www.swadharma.org/2009/07/10/why-i-find-polytheism-more-reassuring/ The voice of Dharma Thu, 16 Dec 2010 23:48:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: dhruvm http://www.swadharma.org/2009/07/10/why-i-find-polytheism-more-reassuring/comment-page-1/#comment-239 dhruvm Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:52:55 +0000 http://www.swadharma.org/?p=1757#comment-239 Whoops, the last sentence should end in "would be very helpful." Whoops, the last sentence should end in “would be very helpful.”

]]> By: dhruvm http://www.swadharma.org/2009/07/10/why-i-find-polytheism-more-reassuring/comment-page-1/#comment-238 dhruvm Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:51:57 +0000 http://www.swadharma.org/?p=1757#comment-238 Your polytheistic interpretation of Hinduism is, to me, rather intriguing. Most Hindus in America consciously (or subconsciously?) downplay the polytheistic side of Hinduism. Most would attribute this reaction to the pervasive nature of Judeo-Christian morals, etc. I'm impressed that you are willing to do quite the opposite, and go far beyond the typical way of ascribing deities to "aspects or facets" of Brahman. I would be interested, however, in hearing about your thoughts on divinity in particular. The Bible is largely comprised of accounts that detail all manners of errors committed by humanity, from which Christians derive morals and values. Above the purely mortal plane that encompasses most of these stories' agents, the Trinity (as treated in Catholicism and other Chalcedonian churches) allows for the duality of Jesus as both God and human. Is such a hypostatic union so different from your conception of Hindu deities? Though I also consider myself a Hindu (with views rather different from yours), I fear that your issues with strict monotheism conflate the idea of an erring divinity and multiplicity thereof. If you could clarify the following points, I (and other readers) might better understand your views: - What do you mean by "reassuring"? Reassurance is generally defined as a restoring of confidence or allaying of apprehension. What is the object, then, of this reassurance? Existence/veracity of a particular conception? - What do you mean by "on a logical level"? Can you explain why it is more logical to be more comfortable with an unerring single god? - Why do you find it necessary to "visualize" an unerring divine figure? - What do you mean by "connecting" to such entities? - Finally, if deities have the capability to err, whence comes the discrimination/vivek(a) that allows us to recognize such errors? Again, I am not trying to be critical of your beliefs, but more specificity in both your views and the context of Catholic monotheism you find disagreeable. Your polytheistic interpretation of Hinduism is, to me, rather intriguing. Most Hindus in America consciously (or subconsciously?) downplay the polytheistic side of Hinduism. Most would attribute this reaction to the pervasive nature of Judeo-Christian morals, etc. I’m impressed that you are willing to do quite the opposite, and go far beyond the typical way of ascribing deities to “aspects or facets” of Brahman.

I would be interested, however, in hearing about your thoughts on divinity in particular. The Bible is largely comprised of accounts that detail all manners of errors committed by humanity, from which Christians derive morals and values. Above the purely mortal plane that encompasses most of these stories’ agents, the Trinity (as treated in Catholicism and other Chalcedonian churches) allows for the duality of Jesus as both God and human. Is such a hypostatic union so different from your conception of Hindu deities?

Though I also consider myself a Hindu (with views rather different from yours), I fear that your issues with strict monotheism conflate the idea of an erring divinity and multiplicity thereof. If you could clarify the following points, I (and other readers) might better understand your views:
- What do you mean by “reassuring”? Reassurance is generally defined as a restoring of confidence or allaying of apprehension. What is the object, then, of this reassurance? Existence/veracity of a particular conception?
- What do you mean by “on a logical level”? Can you explain why it is more logical to be more comfortable with an unerring single god?
- Why do you find it necessary to “visualize” an unerring divine figure?
- What do you mean by “connecting” to such entities?
- Finally, if deities have the capability to err, whence comes the discrimination/vivek(a) that allows us to recognize such errors?

Again, I am not trying to be critical of your beliefs, but more specificity in both your views and the context of Catholic monotheism you find disagreeable.

]]>