Gods we worship and Us

So, since the last two days I was thinking about an analogy, which I believe holds true to some extent. I believe to a large extent that we become like the Gods we tend to incline towards.

For example; in parts of India; like Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Himachal, Uttarakhand and parts of Rajasthan and Maharashtra which fall near central india (where I come from); we generally worship Lord Shiva in various forms (Mahakal, Vishwanath, Tryambakeshwar, Mallikarjun, Baidyanath, Bheemashanakar, Kedarnath), Lord Hanuman, Kaal Bhairav (particularly in Ujjain), etc. - where people tend to be more aggressive, and believe in a life full of grandeur, and are more stiff when it comes to culture, and don't see material wealth as the primary motive of life.

As compared to the counterparts of Gujarat, and Mumbai (and that part of Maharasthra) where Lord Ganesh and Lord Krishna are worshipped by the masses. Which is pretty evident. Gujaratis and Native mumbaikars are a bit sweeter, with great hospitality and lesser violent - which is a character of Krishna and Ganesha. These people are also motivated by the idea of wealth and a life of luxuries.

You would rarely see a Gujju/Mumbaikar or a Baniya/Jain/Marathi as someone who will resort to aggressive life (of course there are exceptions like Balasaheb Thackrey - who again idolized Chatrapati Shivaji, instead of godly figure). Whereas; in general people from UP/Bihar/MP/Haryana can be seen where violence and self respect are taken as a matter of life and death.

(This picture is of Ujjain's Bhasmaarti - where Lord Mahakal is worshipped with Ashes of dead people to indicate that he's beyond life and death.)

I am sure, you might also have a lot of Shahs/Patels/xyz-kars/Jains/Gargs/Agarwals who are into top levels of education, business and are considerably rich - who are also sweeter in nature. 

Apart from family conditioning, a large part is played by the deity they worship. Afterall, culture is moulded according to the ideals masses adopt. 

Let's look into a global perspective - the Mayans. Who worshipped nature. They never resorted to depletion of natural resources; but cherish them. The Egyptians - who had god of death (Osiris), god of afterlife (Anubis) as a prominent dieties; with Amun Ra (god of sun). So, they built pyramid to cherish the afterlife (why? because Osiris and Anubis had an influence in the culture). You see the analogy?

Similarly, the monotheistic religions - Islam and Christianity were focused on expansionism. Because they worshipped one god - and wanted to spread his word round the globe. The polytheistic religions - Hinduism, Mayan religion, Egyptian culture - focused on nourishment of existing tribe instead of expansionism because they subconsiously believed in an idea of omnipresent gods - who never needed forced conversions or invasions of other kingdoms in their names. (I am not saying any religion is good or bad. It's just that the idea of god which the masses follow - moulds the cultures).

 (Egyptian Gods - Anubis and Osiris)

Coming to the indian scenario. You see, Shiva and Hanuman led a life full of adventures; but less materialism. Krishna and Ganesh on the other hand have been representing wealth and love (gopis/radha/rukmani). I personally, am a believer in a grand force which is beyond comprehension. But personification of the almighty certainly helps me to focus at an abstract idea - which I relate it as Shiva and Hanuman (maybe because my grandfather, father, and my extended family does). So, my inherent nature is fueled by aggression, and something beyond materialism. My friend's who are Agarwals/Modis/Gargs etc are materialistic but polite.

This is something that I have introspected about myself and my gods. Which helps me to focus on even more granular intricacies about Hanuman and Shiva - that they both are calm, but furious when needed. They both were selfless. They both never resorted to wealth acquisition, but a greater good - to serve the people around themselves. Which, I work towards implementing in my real life.

Here's an image of Krishna. He's generally depicted as someone who is very peaceful, playful, and is synonymous to love and sympathy. Whereas if you see Shiva or Hanuman - they're depicted as people with bulky physique and either doing tandav or with a Trishul/Gada (weapons of Shiva and Hanuman).

Also, I was listening to Bhasmaarti today morning, then Kaal Bhairav Aarti - and even the lyrics are strikingly different from the bhajans and aarti of Krishna / Ganesh. Bhasmaarti has some words in the beginning like 'Kaalo ke kaal mahakaal', Bhairav aarti has differentiating words like bhayankar; whereas Krishna's and Ganesha's chants focus on dhan, vaibhav, shaanti etc.

Now, I'm a student of statistics and machine learning. So, I am sure there are various factors that account for the final nature of cultures. But, also I am pretty sure that the Gods might contribute to a large variation in the first principal component (if there's a PCA in this domain). Correlation and causation, in this case isn't a black and white thing - but grey.

I'm sure it also implies to you to a certain extent; even though you call yourselves as an atheist. (As an atheist if you idolize Army Generals/World Leaders/Politicians - you'd be aggressive (whether you're a commie or a right winger) as compared to idolozing Rockstars/Artists/Poets - where your focus would be on art/music/peace etc.).

Apart from that, life's good. I'm waiting to write a good news soon. I'm grateful.

Yours Truly,

SM.