Is Hinduism Polytheistic, Pantheistic, or what?

[Almustafa]

All that was meant is this
It can be said that
Hinduism is monotheistic
Hinduism is pantheistic
Hinduism is polytheistic
Hinduism is monistic
Hinduism is dualism
Etc etc etc

thsHinduism can be said to be all these qualities

 

[Vinayaka]

All that was meant is this
It can be said that
Hinduism is monotheistic
Hinduism is pantheistic
Hinduism is polytheistic
Hinduism is monistic
Hinduism is dualism
Etc etc etc

thsHinduism can be said to be all these qualities

True of various sects/schools but not all true for all of Hinduism. But I think that's what you meant.

 

[Almustafa]

Well yes, thank you for clarifying

Also in modern times sects are becoming less frequent, at this point younger Hindus just pick and choose from the vast array of beliefs
This particle thinks that its less about sect and more about individual disposition

 

[Kalidas]

I have read somewhere that there are even atheist Hindus. How can that be?

 

[Almustafa]

Perhaps they see Brahman as the empirical universe?

 

[Kalidas]

Atheism in Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ashoka]

I think, the best, most simple way to describe myself and my own personal beliefs, is Panentheism. At least, for now. All others fall short.

The WHOLE (Self) is in God, both within the Universe, and transcending it.

 

[Vinayaka]

I have read somewhere that there are even atheist Hindus. How can that be?

Depends on who's doing the defining. Some would put the atheistic philosophical schools outside the 'Hindu' fold. (Like me) whereas others put practically any and all Indian philosophies in the umbrella. Still others like to say all of mankind is Hindu.

Like everything else, there is no one answer.

 

[Vinayaka]

Anbe Sivamayam Satyame Parasivam ... God Siva is Immanent Love and Absolute reality

 

[Kalidas]

I think an easier question to ask would be what ISN,T Hindism

 

[Vinayaka]

I think an easier question to ask would be what ISN,T Hindism

Don't get me started!

 

[Kalidas]

Don't get me started!

Awwww why not? Lol

 

[Vinayaka]

Awwww why not? Lol

It would be a repeat of this: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/hinduism-dir/131243-what-makes-hindu-hindu.html I know I'm old with rotten memory, but it's such a chore to tell things over and over and over again.

 

[mohinishaktidevi]

Hey everyone. What type of theology does Hinduism have concerning deities/deity? If I understand correctly, Hinduism is Polytheistic but I might be wrong. I often am wrong about things like this. Also, please explain the terms you use as I'm not familiar with all such terms concerning deity/deities.

There is One "God" in Hindu's Vedic Scriptures.

There are millions of Lords in Hindu's Vedic Scriptures.

Those lords are demigods (devas). The demigods, ie Indra, Brahma, etc are superintendents within the material creation of time (kala) and space (akasha).

When all of the material creation desolves so do they. The devas are souls with high births and they are prone to fall down.

The one God is transcendent to the devas and the material creation.

Polytheistic pursuits are by-products of hindu lay-people (iow, common folks) with petty pursuits for material gain by way of asking for benedictions.

Hinduism's theology is all about a singular Godhead that is transcendental the the the material creation.

The Demigods (devas) are here in the the material creation along with us.

God in Hindu theology is manifest in three ways,
1 Brahman (empty space)
2 Param-atma (fragmantal portion of life-energy known as an individual soul)
3 Bhagavan (fully opulent Godhead whose is transcendent to the Material world)

God manifests as Param-atma simultaneously and unlimitedly here in the material world as the living souls in all creatures.

Inaddition to this manifestation there is Material Energy, earth water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and ego (ahankara) which includes the illusion of time.

We souls in the material World are spending time roaming in birth after birth seeking pleasure.

Hinduism's theology covers the histories of the devas since the day Brahma was born from Vishnu's Navel and he set about to create the Material elements so as to give facility to the ariving souls to preform contrition of their own accord in a place where the illusion of Time allows the soul to wallow in sense-pleasures without regard for salvation.

If Godhead came and delivered a message 5,000 years ago, it would be like 1 second ago for God. But five minutes can seem like an eternity.

Samasara (cycle of re-births according to the fruits of ones own works) awards merciful living conditions to all souls and each life time only seems long when it is occuring.

Hinduism's devas live very very long times yet they all die.

Hinduism's Godhead Krishna is eternal.

Hare Krishna

 

[Vinayaka]

Hinduism's Godhead Krishna is eternal.

Hare Krishna

Small correction ... One sect's Godhead Krishna is eternal. Not Hinduism's.

 

[mohinishaktidevi]

Small correction ... One sect's Godhead Krishna is eternal. Not Hinduism's.

This is very upsetting for me to read.

If a catholic visitor wants clarification, then I have made it clear.

I do not seek to upset anyone. It is a scholar's view point.

Because so few posters actually read the Vedic Literatures only snipits get rave attention.

I represented the whole gambit of the OP's question. It would be of service to me and to the OP'r to point out what else was left un-answered.

Millions of Devas are born and die in the material world with the passing of each Kalpa (Hindu scriptures says so).

Beyond the the temporal material Creation is The eternal Kingdom of God and His eternal Pastimes (Hindu scriptures says so).

Read Hindu children comic books and cartoons and they will tell the same story.

Here is an example for how I think it is a dis-service to denigrate Krishna's stature in Hinduism especially when there is a chance to introduce Krishna as the supreme Personality of Godhead, as the Hindu scriptures says so, There are 300 Million people in America and it is easy to say "Not all sects of Capitalists believe in the same thing", but the question was about clarifing what is capitalism.

It makes me think that the study of Finance does not mean it has to benefit society.

The OP is directed to (imo) the difference between Transcendence vs Materialism.

Remember the Gita Verse 911

 

[Chakra]

Hello Everybody:

Namaste

In Christianity, there are only two types of creatures: God and the things he created. The universe was created by God. God is not in the universe, God is not part of the universe, and God is definitely not the universe.

But if you say that, then God would not be omnipresent. Right?

In Christianity, human beings have immortal souls, but they were also created. They were created at conception. They did not exist prior to conception. The word "immortal" really doesn't describe the Christian understanding of soul, since it implies an existence that never had a beginning. Even the "material" (substance) of the soul did not exist prior to conception.

I see. Souls in Hinduism are energy (God's energies) and thus cannot be created nor destroyed.

Perhaps a better adjective for the Christian understanding of the soul is "indestructible". Once it is created, it cannot be destroyed. The human soul is just another thing God created, like the painting. It can never be equal to its creator. Nothing of it existed prior to its creation. The paper and the paint that make up the painting are also creations of the painter. They also are contingent. Similarly, the "stuff" that the soul is made of was itself created (had a beginning). The "stuff" which God is made of never had a beginning. It is immortal and eternal.

Don't worry. Hinduism doesn't say that soul is equal to God.

One other thing. I understand that there is one God in Hinduism: Brahman. Now, I have seen many people use words to describe his relationship to the universe and us. Some use the word "transcendental". Others say that all things are "manifestations" of Brahman. Others say that all things are Brahman. But these words are confusing, because they do not make clear what the relationship is.

You are right. This is something that I agree with.

Here's what I think Hinduism is saying. Long, long ago there was a big ball of energy, called Brahman, and nothing else.

Brahman is not this ball of energy. There's this weird idea circulating around that Brahman is energy and that Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva are all personification of this Brahman. Not the case, if you read the Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads.

There was no differentiation. This big ball of energy was conscious and could think. Brahman used his own body (which is pure energy) to make things that were different from him. This included other (smaller) Gods and the universe. Nevertheless, they are all made of the same substance as Brahman.

Nicely stated. Sounds very close to Vedanta.

Now, the key distinction, again, from Christianity, would be that God did not use his own body or substance to create the universe. He created an entirely new substance (matter) which was completely distinct from himself. He also created two new phenomenon: "time" and "space" which are completely different from him. In Hinduism, I am not sure if Brahman created time or lived within it (aka time always existed and never had a beginning).

In Hinduism (or Vaishnavism?), Prakriti is one of those things that are eternal. The material energy of God (matter) is eternal, and is not created, but originates from God.

Brahman is outside of time and space. Time is actually his servant.

 

[Chakra]

Someone can be "omnipresent" and still completely separate from his creation. God knows everything that is occurring in the universe at any given moment, including our thoughts. He is outside of time and space, so he is constantly observing (interacting with) the universe - his painting. Notice that in this analogy of the painting, God is both omnipresent (sees the entire painting and constantly interacts with it) but is also separate (he is not the painting and is not in the painting).

But Hinduism says the same. God is both within his creation and outside of it. By saying that he is not within his creation is simply limiting God. Either that, or you have a different definition of omnipresence.

But what is the soul made of? If it had no beginning and no end, then it must be eternal and immortal; just like God. The key characteristic (definition) of God is an entity that had no beginning and no end. Hence, if Hinduism says that the soul had no beginning and no end, then it possesses the key characteristics of God.

Yes, we do have characteristics of God. We have to, because God has all the characteristics. However, we are limited in our characteristics while God is infinite.
And yes, soul is made of the same substance of whatever God is "made" up of-spirit.

But are Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva made of the same substance as Brahman or are they made of something completely different? When Brahman created Vishnu, did he merely extend (form) a piece of himself or was Vishnu made of a substance that was entirely new and different?

You'll get different answers from this. I'll just state my POV.

Two of those people are made up of matter, the same thing that we are made up of. Only Lord Vishnu, the immutable and transcendental, is made up of spirit.

Brahman did not create Vishnu. If you read the Vedas, Narayana (Brahman) simply expands as Vishnu. However, Vishnu and Narayana are one and the same.

Well, again, I think it is a matter of definition (no pun intended). You disagreed that Brahman is a big ball of energy. But now you are using terms like "the energy of God" to describe matter. Is the energy of God different from God himself? If not, that means that matter (Brahman's creation) and Brahman are essentially the same; which leads us back to universalism. Brahman is the universe, which always existed.

By energy, I mean something that can be controlled. Matter can be controlled by God.
The energy of God is not different from God, although it is not the same as God.

Many pantheistic scientists say the same thing you said: that matter and energy were neither created or destroyed. But this is just another way of saying that the material which makes up the universe (matter/energy) always existed; and hence is God.
No, because those materials are limited unlike God. Just imagine an ocean. The ocean is God, and a drop from the ocean is like matter, energy, and souls. Is the drop really that different from the ocean? No, it is made up of the same stuff. However, there's no comparison between an ocean and a drop of water.

You should probably create a thread in the religious debates section.

 

[Aupmanyav]

First things, never generalize about Hinduism. There are thousands of views and Hindus consider all these to be valid. Different people, different views. One shoe does not fit all.

"I understand that there is one God in Hinduism: Brahman.": Not necessarily. Brahman may or may not be considered a God. For me, Brahman is what exists, just a ball of energy (I have not heard of a ball of energy which could think), which constitutes all things in the universe. For others Brahman is the Supreme Spirit. Brahman is always considered beyond time and space, and is unchanging, without atributes and eternal.

Brahman is not supposed to even create things. It has no need to do that. It is only our physical make up (eyes, mind, patterns that it creates) which gives the impression of creation, the limitations of our body. But we can understand beyond this, and that is known as enlightenment, nirvana, nibbana of Buddhists, deliverance from false views, emancipation, freedom, salvation, etc. What makes us perceive different things is 'maya', 'illusion'. I am sure you have heard of these words wrt Hinduism and Buddhism.

But then, there are people who believe in thousands of Gods and Goddesses who may have their families. Shiva and Parvati, with their sons, Ganesha and Kartikeya, and the daughters-in-law (two each) is one such example. Only yesterday, I came to know of another God, Golu Devta in our Himalayan state of Uttarkhand who decides all disputes in his area. And what a cute God he is!

Most Hindus believe in existence of God/Gods/Goddesses and souls, but again, no generalization. I am an atheist Hindu and do not believe in existence of God/Gods/Goddesses or souls. But since Brahman is enegy and I too, am energy, therefore, I am none other than Brahman. As the Upanishads say 'Sarve Khalu Idam Brahma' (All things here are Brahman), 'Tat Twam Asi' (You too are that) or 'Eko Sad, Dwiteeyo Nasti' (What exists is one, there is no second).

Yes, a separate thread in General Religious Debates, Same Faith Debates without limiting it to one religion, or Comparative Religions will give us more freedom to discuss things.