Polytheism and Hinduism

[StrangeQuark]

I'm very curious about this. I've checked the link on henotheism and found it informative. I must confess that these terms are new to me. I am familiar with monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, and panentheism form a limited study of philosophy and mythology, so I guess I need read more.

Since--other than a very abridged English translation of the *Mahabharata*--the only information I've received concerning Hinduism is hearsay, I can't say it's very reliable. Until reading this thread, howver, I was under the impression that Hinduism was pantheistic.

Again, I think I'll need to study more. The links above, posted by several members, should be helpful?

Thank you all for your enlightening posts!

Peace be with you always

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by StrangeQuark

Again, I think I'll need to study more. The links above, posted by several members, should be helpful?

Thank you all for your enlightening posts!

Peace be with you always

Namaste StrangeQuark,

thank you for the post.

hopefully, you'll find some of them to be of value in your exploration of the tradition.

by the by... isn't the definition of "quark" "strange"? LOL

[hinduwoman]

The Vedas speak of distinct gods or rather elements are personified as gods. The concept of all gods being part of one god starts later. The Tenth Mandala of Rig Veda speaks of Purusha being the source of creation, but not about all gods being one. The last verse of Rig Veda explicitly speaks of old gods and new gods sharing the feast together. It is in Upanishads that we have a greater discussion about the nature of God.

[I, Brian]

Thanks for the comments, hinduwoman.

[tatvamasi]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I'm curious - is it ever argued within Hinduism that all the gods and experssions of gods are but part of a larger "Oneness of God" - or are Hindu divinities strictly separate identities in their own right?

Hi Brian,

Yes.

The Upanishads deal mainly with this.

God is saguna(with infinite attributes) Brahman.

Brahman is Nirguna(no attributes).

Note: Brahman-absolute truth(REALITY).

Hinduism has not just 'argued' about "oneness of God". It is concerned about One-without-a-second.

In the saguna sense, i will go to heaven(or otherwise) to either merge with the Supersoul(God) or just stay close to God forever.

In the nirguna sense, i.e., in the absolute sense, I AM already that(Brahman).

[tatvamasi]

Originally Posted by Ocean_Drop

Many modern Hindu scholars who are returning to Vedic Scripture and translating the original Sanskrit are concluding that Hinduism teaches Monotheism!

What you are saying is partially true.

From the original texts, many ancient sanskrit scholars have concluded that the Vedas' and Upanishads' ultimate teaching is not-two.

Monotheism means belief in One God.

A very important school in Hinduism, advaita, which bases its authority on the Vedas and Upanishads, teaches 'Mono', where 'theism' is a means to the end.

Ultimately, there is no God and devotee, subject and object.

There is only ONE, and not two.

[tatvamasi]

Originally Posted by samabudhi

HA! Just the way that is worded...

The idea of monotheism started coming together around the time of the Upanishads. I have not seen anything to suggest monotheism in the vedas, although Indra does feature more prominently than the other Gods.
If monotheism is to be found in the vedas, it would probably be in the last one which originated around the time of the upanishads. The vedas don't really say much about philosophy and the nature of things though. It's the upanishads which talk of this.

This is what the Rig Veda(the oldest of the four Vedas) has to say:

Book 10, Hymn 129:

1. THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.
What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?
2 Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.
That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.
3 Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.
All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.
4 Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit.
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.
5 Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?
There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder
6 Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
7 He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.

We can interpret anything from this, science(void, chaos, warmth[heat]), monotheism(Only He knows), atheism(perhaps He knows not), agnosticism(Only He knows, or perhaps He knows not), Buddhism(not non-existent, nor existent, void), mythology(desire is the primal seed).

That is one of the reasons why Sanatana Dharma does not deny any interpretation, because after all, interpretations are just interpretations and are not going to affect ABSOLUTE TRUTH in any way.

[tatvamasi]

Originally Posted by Avinash

I read in Discoursed on Tantra Vol.1 by Shrii Shrii Anandamurti today that idol worship was started by the lowest of the lowest form of Tantra and was never a part of the more original Vedic religion (which by the way did have other stupid things such as animal sacrifice and fire worship etc.).

Andrew

I am sorry but Shri Shri Anandamurti is off the mark by many a mile.

If idol worship was started by the lowest of the lowest form of Tantra, then God worship should have started by a much lower form of Tantra.

When I am worshipping the idol, I am not worshipping the manifest, but the underlying unmanifest.

From a logical point of view, belief in One God is not much different as belief in His attributes.

Those who haven't understood the concept behind deity-worship will try their utmost to mislead people into believing that Hinduism is all about monotheism(One God and not two or more Gods).

Hinduism is about "One and not two or more". Adding God and Gods to the statement is optional.

[tatvamasi]

Originally Posted by Avinash

Namaskar,

I personally like the idea that the Vedic religion was less of a monotheistic religion and more into worshipping the powers or elements of nature and performing rituals. This would have been the religion brought into India by Caucasian peoples starting at around 5000BC.

The Tantric science was practised among the then indigenous people of India and was not into any kind of external worship but was a practical introspective science.
After the Caucasians entered into India, their religion became more and more influenced by the superior Tantra. Therefore the later Vedas are influenced by Tantra and the earlier Vedas are not.

Because the Hindu religions and spiritual paths are so varied, I think you cannot speak of one Hindu religion or "Hinduism".

Andrew

First of all, the Aryan(Causcasian) Invasion(Migration) theory was formulated by Max Mueller who had a tough time accepting the fact that the world was indeed not created in 4004 B.C.

This selfsame theory is starting to shake at its foundations.

And the Indus Valley Civilization is being considered as Saraswati Valley Civilization among historians.

Yajnashalas(sacrificial places) have been excavated in the so-called non-Vedic Indus sites.

Vedas are shruti, revealed scriptures. Different points of view have been existing in India(atleast the geographical region which is called India today) from a very long time.

And whichever point of view that denied the veracity of the Vedas was never persecuted but still they died a natural death.

[tatvamasi]

Originally Posted by oscar

How did you glue those fantastic images ?

The problem with Hindu scriptures is there's so much characters and myth that is almost imposible to check 1% real history from legend. So, I try not to think too much in their 330 millions gods, but in the main 3. Brahma was probably Abraham (inverted homophonous) and the story about Sara being his halfsister wife is echoed in Hindu myths. V-Ish Nu means "man of rest" exactly the same meaning of Hebrew Noah or Nu but with the adding of V. One of his encarnations was Krishna (his followers grab to the particular scripture and prefer not to give attention to the rest to fit better!). Other encarnation was A FISH surviving the Deluge. Krishna lived in the times of giants which is an echo of the giants all over the world before and after the Deluge. Krishna was not beautifully blue as painted by his followers with pale skin at the back of the hand, in India was depicted BLACK as one of his other names Syama suggests. He was the avatar of Vishnu. So, if Vishnu was Noah, that means REALLY Krishna was no re-encarnation but a descent form Noah. This fits with Cush (meaning "black") or perhaps his son Nimrod. He wanted to portray hmself as a heroe like Genesis indicate. Nimrod was a hunter using arrows and bows which reminds us Krishna as a warrior. The resemblance with Christ is because thousands of years before Christ the bad lineage wanted to confuse the whole thing, to deviate attention from one lineage which wasn't Ham's but Shem's. In other parts of the world , like in Egypt , the name changed. Abraham was the father of Hurrites. They were the ones who later on went to India.The very Hindu scriptures mention the white race and heroes were first.

There is more logic in believing that Jesus came to Kashmir during his 'missing years' and learned under the Upanishadic and Buddhist sages.

That is why he says Upanishadic words:

1.My Father is greater than I

2.I am in the Father and the Father is in me.

3.I and the Father are one.

And Hindus believe the world is millions of years old. What do the Old Testament believers believe. 6000 years old?

[I, Brian]

Thanks for the comments, tatvamasi.

[tatvamasi]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Thanks for the comments, tatvamasi.

You're welcome Brian.

[Enkidu]

As I understand it, Hinduism is Monistic but not Monotheistic.

This might seem like semantics, but common usage for Monotheistic today does very much suggest the Godhead as represented in Christianity, Judaism and Islam. That is, omnipotence is held by one entity who has the capacity to direct His will.

Hinduism is Monistic in that the underlying vedic teaching is that all things are manifestations of one essence. There is no concept however of localisation of omnipotence, or direction of will.

I would argue, in fact, that where Hinduism is polytheistic and monistic, religions like Christianity are monotheistic and dualistic.

Having said that, I'm not sure what theology says about the monistic/dualistic split - I know that some of the medieval christian mystics did have a monistic viewpoint which could well mean my statement above is a complete misunderstanding.


Edit: just saw the post above about Jesus being taught about the Vedas. It reminded me of something I read that compared the Bhagavad Gita and Krishna's teachings with those of Jesus.

In essence, the two sets of teachings show a high degree of similarity, particularly the concept of bhakti (personal devotion to God).

In fact, if I recall correctly, the article I read went so far as to suggest that the teachings of Jesus were essentially the same as those in the Gita, reclothed for a different audience (i.e. placed in the context of Judaic teachings as opposed to Vedic teachings).

I'm not sure if I buy it entirely, but it is interesting to note the similarities nonetheless.

[tatvamasi]

Originally Posted by Enkidu

As I understand it, Hinduism is Monistic but not Monotheistic.

This might seem like semantics, but common usage for Monotheistic today does very much suggest the Godhead as represented in Christianity, Judaism and Islam. That is, omnipotence is held by one entity who has the capacity to direct His will.

Hinduism is Monistic in that the underlying vedic teaching is that all things are manifestations of one essence. There is no concept however of localisation of omnipotence, or direction of will.

I would argue, in fact, that where Hinduism is polytheistic and monistic, religions like Christianity are monotheistic and dualistic.

Couldn't have said it better.

But there are schools of thought in Hinduism which have interpreted the scriptures in a monotheistic way. These schools of thought are monotheistic and dualistic(or qualified dualistic).

Dualism, qualified non-dualism and non-dualism have been explained by Jesus in a succinct way.

1. My Father is greater than I-->Dualism
2. I am in the Father and the Father is in me-->Qualified non-dualism
3. I and the Father are one-->Non-dualism.

I personally believe 1 to 3 is a step by step process. 1 and 2 are in the relativistic sense. 3 is in the absolute sense.

[Gwynplaine]

since I'm studying ayurveda, with a view to practicing the art, I've spent some time studying vedic thought. It seems to me, poor scholar I am, that certainly there is a disjoint in terminology between western and eastern vocab. the 'gods' of the hindhu faith seem a direct corollory of 'saints' in christian thought, as in intersessionaries with the primary (mono-theist) god, with heavily allegorical tales about their doings to explain why you go to Ganesh, for example, to remove obstacles, or Lakshmi for abundance. 'Saints' are similar to our 'Saints', but one can be a living 'Saint' - Mahatma Ghandi springs to mind on that front, as does Pramahansa Yoganada, where as in western thought 'Saints' can only be dead (fewer PR problems I assume ) So, I'd make hinduism monotheist, non-dualist, since God is in everyone (cf Bhagvagad Gita)

As something slightly off topic, but something I do feel needs mentioning, there was reference earlier to the 'caucasian' influence on indian culture. There is none, outside of the Imperalist thoguht of the 19th Century. Archaologiy, which is another area I am an enthusiastic amateur in, shows no evidence of there ever being an influx from the North and West, prior to the Murghals in the 13th Century C.E. There is evidence that there were sophistacted cities in the Indus valley, and around the current (higher sea level) coastline of India that are all but contemporary with Babylon, and there are oral traditions that indicate various exodii to the north, east and west, at differnet times. Muller's work is pretty good, but flawed in his insistance onthe world being created 4004BC, thus anything that, according to tradition, antedates that is 'false' and needs redating. There is ample evidence in the more scholarly journals of Indo-archaology that indicates quite high levels of sophistication between 10,000 and 12,000 years. thus the Vedas are more strictly correct than Muller, and we now can apply the critical tools to obtain the ur-version of the narratives.