Hinduism and its deities

A deity is generally considered to be a supernatural power with anthropomorphic characteristics who/that actively takes interest in lives of humans on earth. All the major religions of today follow a deity who, as a rule, is vengeful and downright hypocritical and deserving of scorn and ridicule.

Since I have been brought up as a hindu, my focus has been on hinduism. People who used to follow christianity or islam and are now atheists, do a great job of pointing out flaws in those religions. Based on an unsupportable(through evidence or logic) concept renders religions open to criticism. Their support for hideous, malformed public policies only makes their position more vulnerable.

In hinduism, the various deities are manifestations of the ultimate reality or God. A hindu, by definition, believes in one of the various deities. The stories that address how these deities came about are interesting. There is always a narrative that ties the deity to the populace that invented it. Whether it is sivan, vishnu, murugan, ayyappan,parvati, lakshmi or favourite local deity, the mythology behind it reflects a fertile imagination of a populace that desires its deities to smite their enemies and embrace their friends. Because there has been no restriction on the number of deities, hinduism as a religion has been much more open to diversity among deities when compared to islam, christianity and judaism. So, you have bachelor deities(hanuman, vinayakan), philandering deities(krishnan, murugan), faithful husband/devoted son deity(raman), angry female deity(durgai and all the CGI ammans of tamil movies), rich female deity(lakshmi), geeky female deity(saraswathi), destructive deity with a mean streak(sivan), deity with scarcely believable powers(vishnu), multiple heads deity(brahma), dancing with the stars deity(nataraja). As long as they stay as myths, they can be addressed as such and their influence on daily lives of people mitigated. After all, there has been no evidence of all these deities being alive and having done all the things they are supposed to have done. However, a visit to any hindu household leads one to believe that hindus do believe these deities did all the things that were said about them and that their credibility is enough for them pray to these deities. There are enough examples of people visiting a temple before an exam or an interview or a cricket match or a particularly heinous crime to pray for success in their endeavour.

There are those who argue hinduism is merely a way of life, that it is just a reflection of beliefs and practices of people who lived below indus river and that it is open to intrepretation by those who follow it. Beliefs, however, do not make people build temples for their deities and anthropomorphise them in the hope of protection from unforeseen disasters(from people's perspective) make them religious in nature. A temple to khushboo is different in the sense it serves as an expression of appreciation for an actress from her fans. Did it have religious belief behind it in the sense that her fans thought khushboo could personally intervene in their lives and provide them protection from unforeseen disasters ? The farthest one can argue is that those fans believed khushboo brought joy in their dreams and hence, decided to convey their appreciation. A belief that vishnu will make jim carrey in dumb and dumber sing 'Paattum Naanae' with no introduction to tamil grammar can be classified as religious belief. The follower believes in a deity that owes its existence to the hindu concept of all things in this world. He/she also believes there exists a set of rules that specify how the deity can be placated when the follower receives notification the deity is angry. Take out the religious significance of the deity and the temple stands as piece of artistic expression.

In focussing on the intolerance of monotheistic religions, hindus gloss over the mistreatment and killing that they have indulged in, within hinduism and without. Some would argue that the killing of non hindus by hindus was done by kings who took advantage of gullible followers to achieve their foreign policy goals. So, any mention of chola dynasty's periodic ransacking of buddhist temples, willful killing of jainas in pandya dynasty and the periodic fights between saivites and vaishnavites are explained away by the well worn defense 'Hinduism per se is not bad. It is only the followers who are bad, especially when the followers are kings in need of justification for their conquests/rule'. But, what does one say about a religion whose deities are powerless to drive its message into its followers' heads ? If the deities are powerless, wouldnt the temples constructed in their honour be just pieces of artistic expression ? Would there be a whole set of people whose profession it is, to take care of those deities, to wash them properly, to dress them properly, make them presentable ? There are also people who point out islam killed as many, if not more people in india and ransacked enough temples as if islam's bad boy behaviour justifies hinduism's atrocities.

Hinduism survived in india because kings gave it patronage and financial succour. They levied taxes on people within their dominion so magnificient temples could be built and maintained. They encouraged poets in their courts to express devotion to their chosen deity. While kings can be accused of exploiting hindus based on their belief of a deity, what does it say of a religion/deity that allows itself to be exploited with no forms of redress ?