<p>No Abstract Included.</p> / Master of Arts (MA)

Denna uppsats handlar om hur Indiens populära mytologiska tv-serier ger de gamla myterna en ny språkdräkt i nya medier. Samtidigt som de får en ny språkdräkt förändras vilka värden som betonas och hur gudarna framställs. Uppsatsen gör en jämförande analys av hur tv-serien Devon Ke Dev Mahadev, som började sändas 2011 på indisk tv, och urkunden Shiva Purana framställer berättelsen om när Shiva först gifter sig med Sati och sedan Parvati. Uppsatsen tar avstamp i postkoloniala teorier, kolonialismens historia och läskunnighet i Indien för att visa på vilka värden som ändrats och försöker även ge en förklaring till förändringen. Uppsatsen diskuterar även myternas förändringsbarhet och flexibilitet.

Over the past thirty years, academic dialogues on the relationships between the sciences and religions have flourished, albeit primarily within Judeo-Christian historical, theological and philosophical contexts. Can a Hindu tradition be brought into this dialogue? The Bhagavata Purana is one of the most well-known sacred texts of India, and biology, Darwinism in particular, has become one of the most spirited areas of the science and religion dialogue in academia, as well as in the popular media. This thesis examines the possibility, scope and foundational topics involved in a dialogue between Vaisnava-Hindu theology as found in the Bhāgavata, and the theoretical, philosophical and theological issues surrounding contemporary biology. To examine the possibility and scope of a Bhāgavata-science dialogue, I focus on the theological, ontological, epistemological and teleological presuppositions that each tradition bring to the study of nature, outlining the similarities and differences in their approaches. I establish the grounds for further discussion through a comparative analysis of terms such as "consciousness," "knowledge" and "goal of knowledge" as they appear in the Bhagavata and noteworthy Darwinian texts. My argument is that although prima facie the two traditions appear different in their philosophical, scientific and theological approaches, there are a number of areas of common interest and parallels, especially in their epistemologies and teleologies. In the case of genuine differences, such as their views on the ontology of consciousness, I demonstrate the possibility of reconciliation. Clarifying the conceptual differences, establishing parallels and demonstrating areas of common interests opens the possibility and widens the scope for further dialogue.