Extra Reading: Indian Pantheons

For this week's extra credit reading I've chosen pantheons! While looking over the list, I quickly was drawn to the one on the Indian pantheon. Before going into the CrashCourse video on Indian gods and goddesses, I didn't have a whole lot of knowledge about Indian mythology. However, this overview of it all was quite enlightening.

One of the main distinctions the authors are quick to convey is that Indian mythology is different from other types in that plays a role in a living belief system: Hinduism. Indian mythology is the foundation for the aforementioned religion for more than 900 million adherents. With this in mind, it's safe to say that it's a whole different monster of its own. 

A couple of other things that were very clarifying were the explanations for avatars and how different gods and goddesses were known for different things. Coming from a monotheistic belief system, it is already a massive hurdle to wrap my head around all these gods and goddesses. But to throw a wrench in the gears and say that they're each known for various things made it all so much more complicated. This is why understanding the role of avatars in Hinduism and Indian mythology was a big relief. I had never known that certain deities were reincarnated into what became other popular deities within Hinduism. Finally learning that a neat family tree of sorts could be made and referred to made the whole idea of diving into Indian deities and mythology a lot more doable. 

Overall, I am glad that this video was made, as it has greatly helped me wrap my head around Indian mythology. Now, time to watch it 100 more times to catch every tiny little thing about the Indian pantheon.

Bibliography:
CrashCourse, Indian Pantheons: Crash Course World Mythology #8, Source

This CrashCourse video talked about Durga, a badass warrior goddess, as seen above. Source 

Week 10: Story Lab: CrashCourse Mythology Part 2

This CrashCourse video on Mythology began with a definition for myths, calling them "primitive explanations of the natural world". This idea was put forth by Greek thinker, Euhemerus, who thought myths to be from primitive ancestors who had no science, advanced intelligence, etc. As an example of these beliefs, Euhemerus believed that Zeus was just an ordinary king from a long time ago; but as time progressed, Zeus's deeds and abilities were fantasized and exaggerated to the degree that they are at today. I think this to be a fair stance to have towards myths. My position on/view of myths is pretty similar to that of Euhemerus.

However, certain Roman thinkers took the idea even further to say that myths were the workings of Satan and that they served to lay the foundation for Jesus Christ's arrival. I would have to say I can see why the Roman thinkers of their time would have thought that. However, at what point do you call a myth just a story, and nothing more? I think it's unfair to give myths an unfair light such as this, as I doubt their intentions were to deceive or mislead people. It's not like myths and the people who thought them up are trying to shove their views down our throats as an attempt to convert us...at least I would think not.

Bibliography:
CrashCourse, Theories of Myth: Crash Course World Mythology #12, Source

Do you agree with Euhemerus's perspective on the likes of Zeus? Source

Reading Notes: The Burning of the World

This is a Cree story about how Earth was burned, but only three people along with a handful of terrestrial animals survived. No details about aquatic animals are mentioned. The people who had survived were a man, his mother, and sister. The man was the one who came to know of the world ending in fire. His father didn't survive because he didn't think the planet would be engulfed in flames, because he was at odds with his son.

The man created a bow and arrows. He shot an arrow in each cardinal direction, and the land where each arrow landed became a corner of a square of earth that would be untouched by the impending fire. The man told everyone that he wanted to save to find themselves in the square area of land when the fire came if they wanted to survive. Many chose not to come, as they didn't believe him.

The fire eventually came. The man and his father were still fighting, so this is how and why the father died.

The fire thrashed freely on Earth but was eventually put out by the water. Thus, a new cycle of life had to begin again with the surviving animals, 3 humans, and the recently burnt land.

Of the animals that survived on the patch of ground with the man, his mother, and his sister, there were a beaver, rabbit, squirrel, bear, caribou, and deer. These are all the terrestrial beings that survived.

The man took it upon himself to be the new ruler of these animals and named them according to their behavior during this time period.

The beaver was placed in water for obvious reasons. The rabbit was placed on land because its legs were too long and wouldn't function as well in water, despite its pleas to be an aquatic animal. The squirrel's wish to be a bear was denied because it was too loud. The squirrel ended up crying so much that its eyes became bright and swollen. The bear was named as such because he was nice, wise, and quiet. An animal amongst them wanted to be a caribou, but none of the animals could remember who. Lastly, the deer was made because it was so swift and could outrun all its pursuers. (I'm assuming cheetahs weren't around.)

After all this, the man put a mark on all the animals to be able to identify all of them. He then named his mother Robin because she was friendly, her sister Golden-winged Woodpecker because she was beautiful, and himself Blackbird because he would only come every spring.


Bibliography: Katharine Berry Judson, Myths and Legends of British North America, Source

I wonder how common stories of world-ending floods are in various cultures! Source