+Hierarchy and Competition

Intro

  • Various hindu views exist about hierarchies of power among deities. Some place viShNu at the top, others shiva, others indra, others vAyu and so on.
  • My personal views are strongly platonic / polycentric.

“First among equals” vs “puppet-master”.

In the distant Indo Aryan vedic past, there were several polytheistic systems (oft centered around a “the first among equals” among the deva-s), with prominent examples:

  • dyaus/ zeus/ jupiter - the archetypical sky god, conflated with indra in some non-Indic branches. Illustration from Illiad, where the devatAs themselves take sides in desperate battles on behalf of their human kin! That this happens is telling. Jupiter clearly reigns as the first among equals, rather than as puppet-master.
  • Coronation of indra by prajApati and deva-s in aitereya-brAhmaNa [tw16].
  • rudra class deities
    • rudra/ odin
    • vAyu

There was some fan following of particular deities based on personal preferences - but there was no firmly established doctrine to that effect.

Origin stories and one puppet-master antaryAmin

  • The “many from one” view became well established. This is explained the connection web section. Some systems took the original substance to be impersonal, others took it to be personal.
  • A value judgement: “Many from one” is good - “many forms of one” or “one antaryAmi puppet-master in everything” is where things risk of Ananda addiction begins to set in. But norse like “many from some thing(s)” seems safest.

“puppet-master” concept gains prominence.

Historical development

  • The prAjApatya system developed where prajApati/ brahma was made to be the puppet-master (far beyond what indra was). He was considered to be the generator deity.
    • Evidence seems to indicate that this happened during the (re)compilation of veda-s in the kuru-pAnchAla-videha kingdom.
  • Later still, he was superseded (via various myths) by shiva/ rudra by the early pAshupata-s (whose panchamukha form corresponding to 5 directions was described in an upaniShad). Alternatively, prajApati was replaced by viShNu by the bhAgavata-s.
  • These then gradually returned to mainstream society, constructing popular temples.
    • gauDIya-s - १८.११६
      • One negative of this was the emphasis of mokSha pursuit (as explained elsewhere).

Consequences of sectarian “puppet-master” following.

  • Subscription to a puppet-master could, at an extreme, imply (partial and complete) abandonment and repudiation of other deities and duties at a personal level.
  • Examples:
    • pAshupata-s urge deva-pitR-karma–tyAga after accepting rudra as sole karta.
      • devavat pitṛvac ca // PS_2.10 //
      • ubhayaṃ tu rudre devāḥ pitaraś ca // PS_2.11 //
    • some fanatic lay shrIvaiShNava-s
  • But it did not imply shoving the rejection of dharma and other deities down others’ throats. See “Polycentrism” below.
  • Thus, conflict is avoided to a great extant among various cults. No cult is placed beyond the domain of a common notion of dharma.

Nature of the supreme beings

Various hindu views exist about the way the core nature of the ultimate being is best expressed.

  • Some say that the ultimate being may be considered as being endowed with all kinds of good qualities.
    • Among them, some say that viShNu describes it the best. Others say the form of shiva describes it the best. And so on.
  • Others say that the ultimate being is best characterized as having no definite qualities.
  • Others say that it is characterized as male and female principles.