Polytheism and monotheism

[Nosuperstition]

http://forum09.faithfreedom.org//viewtopic.php?f=71&t=1803&p=211290&hilit=Ganesh#p211290

Ellalan got the title Manu Needhi Cholan because he has executed his own son to provide justice to a Cow. Legend has it that the king hung a giant bell in front of his courtroom for anyone needing justice to ring. One day, he came out on hearing the ringing of the bell by a Cow. On enquiry he found that the Calf of that Cow was killed under the wheels of his chariot. In order to provide justice to the cow, he killed his own son Veedhividangan under the chariot as a punishment to himself i.e. make himself suffer as much as the cow.[5] Impressed by the justice of the king, Lord Shiva blessed him and brought back the calf and his son alive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elara_%28monarch%29#Manu_Needhi_Cholan

Now Manu Needhi is nothing but Manu dharma shastra or Manu neeti in Tamil.In Telugu grammar which is derived from Sanskrit to a certain extent,'t' is parusha or tough sound whereas 'd' is sarala or easy sound.Somehow there seem to exist many easy sounds in Tamil.

Manu neeti or Manava dharma sastra or Human righteous laws/morals were said to coded differently in different areas as large empires never existed for hundreds of years throughout the sub-continent.The above stories of Ganesh and Ellalan proves the same even though Hindu law givers quote that what they express is the will of the Swayambhu or the Self-existent.Now both Vishnu and Shiva are said to be self-existent.Which self-existent one gave the law,noone knows.And how come there are so many discrepancies in laws of different areas is anyone's guess.

[Nosuperstition]

At one point British compiled Manusmriti says that one can marry a good wife of any caste or origin.At some other point the same British compiled Manusmriti says that a Brahmin who takes a Shudra woman for his wife will sink into the lowest of hells.

How can one make sense of /reconcile these contradictory positions?Simple by understanding that Manusmriti or Manu Neeti is not a divine law inspired by Swayambhu for all times to come and for all areas and that various versions of this texts existed simply as these are the works of a human minds responding to demands of different times and different locations of sub-continent.

Perhaps Namboodri Brahmins of Kerala begot offspring with Shudra Nair women without a formal marriage in order to circumvent going to lowest of hells.

But then in case of Andhra Pradesh no such thing existed and intellectual cum learned amongst the Brahmins are known to marry shudra Reddy and Kamma caste people sometimes for the sake of economic comforts/benefits as some of these caste people are economically well-off landlords of large estates.The offspring always belonged to the caste of the mother.Perhaps they do not know that they will sink into lowest of hells if they do so or may be it just doesn't exist in their version of Manusmriti or may be they think that whatever sin they accumulated by doing so can be washed away by visits to holy temples or bathing in holy waters or by both.

[Nosuperstition]

Or may be Brahmins in Andhra Pradesh possessed that version of Manusmriti which says that one can have woman of any caste as a wife and one that does not contain the reference to Brahmin going to lowest of hells for marrying a Shudra Woman.

[Nosuperstition]

There exist two versions about how Hindu Creator God Brahma came into existence.One says that he came from the navel of his father and preserver God Vishnu.Another says that he was created first out of white light that emanated from the Mother goddess and then by Shiva from his ashes after he was burnt down by the Mother goddess.

Now how can one reconcile these differences.Possibly by saying that these two situations arised in two of his different births.

So might be Hindu gurus would also be able to reconcile difference of opinion as to whether a Brahmin can or cannot marry a Shudra Woman.

[Nosuperstition]

One can observe Brahma being created from the navel of Vishnu in the chief idol of Ananta Padmanabha temple of Kerala.And the story that he came into existence from all powerful mother goddess can be found in the Devi Bhagavatam sacred text.

http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15581&p=206002&hilit=surala#p206002

One might also understand this difference as had been explained in the above link.

[Nosuperstition]

I think the difference is slightly more subtle:

An elected leader can effectively behave much like a king, but if hos actions do not please the people he will not get re-elected. So, the only thing stopping our prime minister to give himself a 1000% pay rise is the knowledge that this would end his career.

By contrast, a king can build a palace like Versailles without worry too much even when his people are starving.

This in effect came to an end with the French revolution.

Fact is democratically elected leaders in our country themselves do not care about people's lives and well-being.They are more interested in filling the coffers of the exchequer by encouraging the sale of harmful substances like liquor,gutka,jarda,pan,cigars etc.

And then just like God punishes people for being tempted by Satan whom he allowed to operate with a free hand in the first place, they say that people of lower classes are uncultured as if the money generated by the exchequer by ill gotten means is not given to these people is anyway for purchase of gold as a form of status symbol.

Its hard to fathom whether one should feel proud of belonging to such a democratic society.But then under dictatorship, other forms of awkward things such as severe discrimination and linguistic and ethnic genocide might take place.Between the devil and the deep sea.

[Nosuperstition]

http://forum09.faithfreedom.org//viewtopic.php?f=71&t=15970&p=210113&hilit=colonial#p210113

She pines Siva for several days. Meanwhile the Chenchus nourish her with honey and forest fruits every day.


At last Siva appers before her with and old and wrinkled face and said that in search of her, he become old. The princes married him.
On the occasion of marriage the Chenchus invited the couple for dinner and offiered meat and drink. Siva did not accept that meal though the princes tried to insist him.
At last Siva left the spot and went away.

http://www.srisailamonline.com/legends.php

He picked up his arrow and plucked out his left eye from its socket. Carefully, he placed it in the depression of the Lord’s eye . The bleeding stopped.

Thinnan danced in ecstasy. But the joy was short lived. Now the other eye started bleeding. Thinnan was not so sad now. After all he knew the treatment. But… the predicament was peculiar. If Thinnan took out his right eye also, how would he know where to place it?? Thinnan thought for a while and suddenly lifted his leg and placed it in the Lord’s eye and prepared to pull out his right eye. The sage almost fainted on seeing this and suddenly, the Lord’s soothing voice was heard, “Halt Kannappa, Halt!” called out the Lord, “You are Kannappa now since you have offerred your eye to me!”.

https://storibuzz.wordpress.com/2013/10/05/the-story-of-kannappa-nayanar/

So while Shiva doesn’t eat meat,if meat is offered out of stern devotion,he will accept such an offering.

Since muslim invasions aimed at defiling Shiva,many Hindus of Karnataka who worshipped Shiva and got killed/sacrificed in millions for doing so by muslim Bahmani rulers are all accepted.Their kurbani for staunch devotion would have been very well received by Shiva.SoShiva will accept self-dedication sacrifices be they are of dances or of wars

[Nosuperstition]

According to a childhood ghost story that I remember quite clearly, Akhantan,the Egyptian Pharoah who initiated monotheism of One God,the Sun-God Ra of Egypt saying that he alone is worthy of worship (just like Muhammed said that Allah alone is worthy of worship)seemed to be a wacko to me.He too erased symbols of previous worship just like Muhammad.

That was because according to the prevailing Egyptian beliefs,a raped woman stigmatised in religious terms in that she supposedly will be denied entry into heaven on account of being raped.Akhanton once had a heated exchange of words with one of his daughters on theological issue and he became so agitated that he ordered her to be raped and that her left hand be severed away from her and mummified seperately so that she would forfeit entry into Heaven.

Now if all of this really happened,what kind of a father does he make?Of course we hear about daughters getting killed for the sake of honor by their parents,but they are considered wackos.So by the same standard should not Akhnaton,the originator of monotheism ,the original script writer whose words were plagarised by David in the Psalms of the Bible be considered a wacko?

[manfred]

Akenaten was a rather interesting character. Surely perhaps a little mad too. He was less concerned with the intentional institution of monotheism, but something else entirely: As a kid he saw the power of the established priesthood all around, even to some extent controlling his father the Pharaoh. So, he decided he was NOT going to be a ruler with strings attached like his father, He replaced the established religion with a new one of a single deity, the sun, and himself and his wife as the ONLY intermediary between the divine and the secular world. He effectively removed all power from the priests.

One little known fact is that his "ode to the Aten" a poem or song to the sun god, is remarkably similar to one of the psalms, to it is highly likely that his text was later adapted for Hebrew worship. In ancient times, people had little scruples about copying from other sources, without even acknowledging them. However, it is not true that David himself wrote the psalms. He could not have, as some have a reference to the temple which was not built until after his death. Maybe one or two of are inspired by David, but they have may authors over quite a period of time.

Upon his death, his ideas where quickly consigned to the dustbin, he was denied a proper funeral for a Pharah, and his son was only allowed to succeed him if he re-established the old religion. He even had to change his name from Tut-ank-Aten to Tut-ank-Amun, the "new" god being replaced by an old one in his very name. He was a weak king and very young. He did not reign long and was murdered soon. However, the re-established priesthood showed its gratitude by providing him with a splendid funeral, made famous many years later as the only undisturbed tomb of a Pharaoh ever discovered to this day,

But Akenaten was, as your own posts shows, more of a politician and a power man, and much less a religious, inspiring leader. Religion to him was a means to an end. That is why, like Mohammed, he could not bear dissent. If he lived today, he would find a kindred spirit in people like Putin or Kim Il Young, and not in Jesus, Buddha or Moses.

[Nosuperstition]

and his son was only allowed to succeed him if he re-established the old religion. He even had to change his name from Tut-ank-Aten to Tut-ank-Amun, the "new" god being replaced by an old one in his very name. He was a weak king and very young. He did not reign long and was murdered soon. However, the re-established priesthood showed its gratitude by providing him with a splendid funeral, made famous many years later as the only undisturbed tomb of a Pharaoh ever discovered to this day,

I think he was succeeded not by a son by his son-in-law.Akhnaton did not have any sons.All he had were some six or seven daughters.

[manfred]

Tutankhamun was the son of Akhenaten (formerly Amenhotep IV) and one of Akhenaten's sisters,[9] or perhaps one of his cousins.[10] As a prince he was known as Tutankhaten.[11] He ascended to the throne in 1333 BC, at the age of nine or ten, taking the throne name Nebkheperure.[12] His wet-nurse was a woman called Maia, known from her tomb at Saqqara.[13] A teacher was most likely Sennedjem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutankhamun

However, the death of Akhenaten was followed by some degree of chaos, and there may well have been one or even two other contenders to be Pharaoh, one being a woman. But Tutankamun succeeded within months, mostly because he made the right noises to the priests ....

[Nosuperstition]

Now though Varna Sankaram(literally meaning mixing of colors) or mixing or breeding of people of occupational different classes is not favourably seen in Hindu scriptures,there exists the practice of Niyog,possibly only in higher orders of the society whereby a widow without offspring is allowed to have children with Brahmin rishis or sages.

Kings Dhritarashtra and Pandu of the Mahabharatha are born that way.Perhaps that was the natural way society existed before the Hindus were faced with the dilemma of their sexual immorality being pointed out by Muslim invaders(Hindus became sexually prudent due to Islamic rule according to crazy canuck or idesigner1.).Perhaps that resulted in the formulation of Manusmriti law in the name of the Swayambhu (Self-existent One) which states that a widow must upon the death of her husband maintain complete celibacy for the rest of her life or should commit Suttee.

The practice of Suttee though cannot be attributed solely to muslim invasions though it certainly would have exacerbated it.It is only a continuation of the practice of Anumarana of earlier periods , parallels for which could also be found in the burial of slaves and damsels alive with their dead Egyptian Pharoah masters before they decided to do away with the practice of human sacrifice.

[Nosuperstition]

When I wrote on the net that even men should wear veils just like medieval women of Christendom and medieval and present day Muslim women so as not tempt the opposite sex,I was jeered at and booed by my Hindu acquaintances who said that only men crave for multiple secret relationships and not women who are naturally inclined towards only one relationship.O.K. let us see what their Hindu texts themselves have to say about the feelings of women.

As soon as they see a man of handsome and charming features, unfailing signs of desire appear on their persons. They never show sufficient regard for even such husbands as accomplish all their wishes, as always do what is agreeable to them and as protect them from want and danger. Women never regard so highly even articles of enjoyments in abundance or ornaments or other possessions of an agreeable kind as they do the companionship of persons of the opposite sex

.

Through inability to obtain persons of the opposite sex, or fear of relatives, or fear of death and imprisonment, women remain, of themselves, within the restraints prescribed for them. They are exceedingly restless, for they always hanker after new companions.

http://www.hinduism.co.za/women.htm