Removing The Sheen From Buddhism

[Husky]

2. "Agnivayu":

In addition, many local areas have their own village deities for example not worshiped elsewhere, but over time they were equated to a primary Hindu God.

Only those village Hindu Gods who *are* local manifestations of pan-Indian Hindu Gods are correctly identified with the pan-Indian Hindu Gods. E.g. Meenakshi and Sundareshwara, etc.



Other local village Gods remain exactly that: purely local Gods. Little townships in Tamizh Nadu have local chieftain Gods who are specifically NOT the same as any God known elsewhere in the country or any other village. (There are carnatic songs on these truly local Gods.) They are certainly connected in other ways to the pantheon of familiar Hindu Gods - in a manner akin to how Gandharvas are connected to the Devas. They are part of an extended Hindu pantheon (and they are *very* much Hindu, based on their narratives), but they specifically guard the local regions. To pick on a more familiar example, not so much village-based, but still "regional": the God of the Hindu Mahasagar is unlikely to be equally intimately familiar to the Hindus indigenous to, say, Nepal. Local tree Gods remain local tree Gods - moreso when it concerns plants that don't occur in all Hindu places of the subcontinent. Some local Gods are major - and have become well-known - some are minor. For instance, Ayappa is very much a *regionally-based* Hindu God (major though he is); in his case, his association with the other major Hindu Gods also happens to be more visibly direct (familial relations).



Anyway, the situation is exactly the same as in, say, Taiwanese and Chinese villages/townships: there are major Taoist Gods who are known throughout Taoist territory, as well as local village Gods (still very much Taoist) protecting a particular locality - which is their region to look after, which is the region they choose to reside in: their home. They look after the families and wildlife of their region. And close kinship with such local Gods is ancestrally-passed down in people who have ancestral ties to the region.



And it is much the same in the rest of India, too. There are (a) exclusively-local Gods for various indigenous Hindu endogamous communities in greater India, even though (b.) the same Hindu communities are frequently also familiar with those Hindu Gods known throughout (i.e. pan-Indian) and are especially familiar with the local expressions/manifestations of these pan-Indian Hindu Gods.

"Clean-shaven or whiskered - both suit Hindu men. Unlikely any could be mistaken for a woman or child for not sporting a moustache and/or beard. "

http://www.india-for...n/page__st__320



So we can have variations in depiction then huh?

My statement which you have reposted is obviously speaking of Hindu *men* not Gods. It has no bearing on anything you said.



Also, from memory, the context of the post was: BV was wondering why he hadn't seen any God but Parashurama depicted with moustache/beard/male facial hair, despite Hindu men at various times having traditionally worn beards/moustaches. To which I noted that there were several instances of moorties and traditional paintings of Hindu Gods in my region that I could think of which did depict certain Gods with facial hair. And that the Gods always look perfectly male and attractive in the traditional Hindu depictions.



I then *also* stated that Hindu men looked male with or without beard/moustache - that they weren't dependent on either state.



Yes, check. This was my entire post which includes BV's opener (added blue colouring to keep BV's statements distinct):

QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Aug 11 2009, 03:48 AM)

Why the hell are all the male deities with the exception of Parashuraama portrayed without beards & moustaches like they are some kind of pre pubescent boys?



Shri Parthasarathy looks to have a moustache. Some drawings in the South have Shiva with moustache (one of Bhairava particularly comes to mind). Am doubting my recollection of whether I saw him depicted with beard :not sure:



The representations of an older-looking Brahma often have a beard + moustache.

I think I've seen some representations of an older-looking Agni also have a beard + moustache.



But whether shown with or without moustache/beard, the Hindu Gods always look mature and male and beautiful in traditional Hindu artworks, IMO.



QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Aug 11 2009, 03:48 AM)

It's weird considering that in Indian culture moustache is considered a sign of masculinity.



Clean-shaven or whiskered - both suit Hindu men. Unlikely any could be mistaken for a woman or child for not sporting a moustache and/or beard.

So my earlier post remains consistent with my more recent statements (complete with mention of "traditional Hindu artworks"), even as that post continues to have nothing to do with your irrelevant claims concerning it.





Anyway, to the more general claim: No, we haven't been saying the same things, because we don't have the same reasoning. The similarity is in your imagination: it only *seems* that way to you, because you can't distinguish.

Motivation always matters.

Various Hindus have many and various reasons to criticise the famous monotheisms (christoislamism). It is clear from your earlier line of "argumentation" that your reasons are different from mine. My arguments against monotheisms and for retaining people's ancestral tradition also remain profoundly different from yours (i.e. they continue to do so - well, from what I can make out of glancing over your more recent whining).



Missed this in one of your recent posts:

Quit making nonsense up.

And why would I encroach on what is exclusively *your* field of expertise?

Example:

You are probably a wimpy little man, a spineless coward who sits behind his computer screen and talks big.

:roll: The wrongness of your insane outburst makes it all the funnier: even though you are entirely without Wit, you have nevertheless unintentionally added to the hysteria. Your sad little mental image - more "telepathy" on your part? - clearly makes you feel safe.

Correcting you is superfluous: you have publicly revealed a lot more about yourself - qua character definitely - than your hyper-desperate assertions try to insinuate about me.

In real life you probably wear a diaper and piss your pants.

Oh, so you're not yet potty-trained, I see? And that's why, in your frustration, you're transferring your inability to manage yourself onto elsewhere.

But don't flip, FoulMouth, you may one day grow out of it: other kids do it all the time. "You can too!"





Seeing as how I've covered your assertions on "art", what I said/did not say about it, and "local Gods", am skipping the rest of your spastic verbal episodes - I doubt you said anything in the remainder that actually requires a sensible response. (It's probably just more of your retching.)



At last, can get down to the only useful bit in your entire posting session:

Feel free to talk to me in person if you have the guts.

Perfect, it's like you read my mind. (Some accidentally accurate "telepathy" at last: AKA Pure Guesswork).



Your address.



And you will be paying for my return-flight up front*. The appointment will have to be past the end of next year, as this year I have my annual leave pre-booked for Home and next year I'm travelling to the Land of the Rising Sun :woo:



But I am serious. You also *better* be. Else back off.



[* Plus I will need sufficient moolah for my tourist expenses in your neck of the woods, of course: the sight of your snooty mug before it bites the floor is not sufficient compensation for my flying about the world at random - I will want to do some travelling after leaving you behind - and it will all be going from my annual leave: time is money. (BTW, I charge double for the USA, for obvious reasons.) Besides, you're the one hiring me to beat you up, remember: You invited, you pay.]

These are the terms. (And no. You *can't* come here. My address etc. is private.)



Let's see you put your money where your Foul Mouth is.