Yes, you could argue the converse.
I take your point about preferability seeming too mild. Perhaps one could say that there is a felt need to assume the objective conditions through which all that they hold dear and gives their life meaning actually matters.
I was just trying for a reformulation that was more affirmative.
Actually, the level of belief that is worth discussing is the possibility of the Devi. If created immortals are possible, and they are, then there is room to have one represented as having the head of an elephant, whether literally or figuratively. In Vedanta, all such matters are basically interpreted as manifestation of Brahm, and are mainly ways of representing His attributes. In a similar vein, the Stoics in the late Empire allegorized the pagan gods. Thus, the image of Ganesha may be taken as a way of mediating between the ordinary believer and the Hidden Divinity.
If the belief is trivial, your distinction holds. If the belief is central to the person's make- up, then condescension for one is condescension for the other.
In your last points, I neither entirely agree, nor entirely disagree. I am not sure I can make a productive comment, at this point. Perhaps I will come back to it later..... |
