Is Hinduism really considered idolatry in the Abrahamic eyes?

[Gaura Priya]

I understand. I just gave an example to show something similar, but not exact.

If you mean what is called "wihdat Al Wujood" in Islam (everything in existence being God) this could be perceived as even worse. Idolaters didn't believe that idols were God, but what if they did? Would it make it better or worse? It would be against both #2 and #3, and also considering filth, human wastes, bathrooms etc, God.

Some tried to introduce the concept to Islam but were seriously condemned by scholars and were considered non Muslims committing blasphemy. This is why some of them even said "I am The Truth" (I am God).

Thats IF I understood your statement "All is Brahman" correctly

What about this 'Wahdat al Shuhud'?

 

[Onkara]

I understand. I just gave an example to show something similar, but not exact.

If you mean what is called "wihdat Al Wujood" in Islam (everything in existence being God) this could be perceived as even worse. Idolaters didn't believe that idols were God, but what if they did? Would it make it better or worse? It would be against both #2 and #3, and also considering filth, human wastes, bathrooms etc, God.

Some tried to introduce the concept to Islam but were seriously condemned by scholars and were considered non Muslims committing blasphemy. This is why some of them even said "I am The Truth" (I am God).

Thats IF I understood your statement "All is Brahman" correctly

Yes, you understood "All is Brahman" correctly. However I need to point out that "even worse" is relative to the position each one of us holds. So the question must be answered by considering both the Hindu and the Abrahmic points of view jointly, rather than conflictingly. We can consider both academically, it need not be emotional nor need it imply that either one is incorrect. The point is to come to understanding (in respect to the OP).

I appreciate there is a lot of reading, however I will quote my explanation in my post above to help explain:

There are two simple theological differences, based on scripture:

Muslims or Christians confirm Creator (God) and creation are separate. Thus to worship another human or a Golden Calf (idol) is wrong as they are not God, the Creator.

Hindus/Sanatani confirm that Creator and creation are not [completely*] separate. God creates and sustains His creation through Himself. Thus all of creation is divine. This means that Hindus can worship God in any form, as all form is God. Similar to panentheism. For the Hindu, they are only worshipping God, the name/form* are serving the purpose to focus the mind and spiritual practice (sadhana).

*The degree of apparent separation, and the importance of form, depends on the school of philosophy.

I will add a note on this applicability, although I hope I don't distract from the OP (we can start a new one if needed) but I think it will address the point of human waste, filth etc, which you raise above.

For me personally, I have no need to discriminate between any person or object, all for me are good and derive from God. This liberates me from fear and hate, it brings me closer to God and away from evil. I accept that there is God given intelligence, so I avoid decay, waste and unhealthy objects and I try to live with healthy foods, clean environment etc. Ultimately I recognise and surrender all as God's will, and my bodily life as His servant.

 

[muslim-]

What about this 'Wahdat al Shuhud'?

Same thing only different. Its just playing with words and beliefs that have absoloutly nothing to do with Islam.

 

[muslim-]

Yes, you understood "All is Brahman" correctly. However I need to point out that "even worse" is relative to the position each one of us holds. So the question must be answered by considering both the Hindu and the Abrahmic points of view jointly, rather than conflictingly. We can consider both academically, it need not be emotional nor need it imply that either one is incorrect. The point is to come to understanding (in respect to the OP).

I appreciate there is a lot of reading, however I will quote my explanation in my post above to help explain:



I will add a note on this applicability, although I hope I don't distract from the OP (we can start a new one if needed) but I think it will address the point of human waste, filth etc, which you raise above.

For me personally, I have no need to discriminate between any person or object, all for me are good and derive from God. This liberates me from fear and hate, it brings me closer to God and away from evil. I accept that there is God given intelligence, so I avoid decay, waste and unhealthy objects and I try to live with healthy foods, clean environment etc. Ultimately I recognise and surrender all as God's will, and my bodily life as His servant.

About the first part of your post. Yes you're right, I meant "even worse" relative to Islamic beliefs. I cant speak for Judaism and Christianity (although I do believe all prophets originally shared the same message of monotheism)

As for the quote, I understand this is how their view it on their side. Im just saying how we view it on our side in response to the main question.

 

[SageTree]

Without particularly delving into Christian and Judaic examples....

In my mind I would say the vast number of deities, representing ONE, in Hinduism would be akin to reciting or getting to know one of the 99 names of Allah in Islam

They are BOTH attributes/form for people understand more clearly, but aren't themselves worshiped, rather they become a path/way/venue to access deeper knowledge and awareness of the presence of the Supreme Being/Allah/Ground of Existence.

So ideally, with correct understanding of Hinduism/Sanatan Dharma the answer would be 'no' to the idolatry question.

There is dualism on the Relative plane, but Ultimately all things are In-born with a piece of God in them.

 

[Jason]

Akhi the word god used in that verse is "ilah" (one who is worshipped), not Allah.

"Say : who is it that sustains you (in life) from the sky and from earth? Or who is it that has power over hearing and sight? And what is it that brings the living from the dead and the dead from the living? And who is it that rules and regulates all affairs? They will soon say, Allah. Say : Will you not then show piety to Him'' Yunus 10 : 31.

If indeed, you ask them who is it that created the heavens and the earth, they would be sure to say, 'Allah'. Say : See you then the things that you invoke besides Allah? Can they, if Allah wills some penalty for me, remove His penalty ? Or if He will some grace for me, can they keep back His grace ?" Zumar (The Crowds) 39 : 38

“We only worship them so that they may bring us closer to Allah.” Soorah az-Zumar (39): 3.

“They worship besides Allah things that hurt them not, nor profit them, and they say: “These are only our intercessors with Allah.” Soorah Yunus (10): 18.

‘Do they listen to you when you call on them or they do you good or harm?’ They said, Nay, but we found our fathers doing." Hud 11: 87.

I'm aware the pagans mistakenly confused God with an angel in their wording there, but that's just pagans being pagans. Like how pagans often capatalize Gods plurally or don't capitalize God when referring to the monotheist God. That verse is a quote of pagans repeating a concept they heard from Mohammad which accurately reflects the commonly disrespectful or lazy, but still understandable wording of a pagan.

I'm not really sure why you felt the need to point out that wording, but hopefully you're not rejecting the oneness of God like a carbon copy of the pagans quoted there were. That would be weird, a pagan named Muslim, LOL.

 

[arthra]

There is a statement on the subject by a Baha'i Moojan Momen that may be of interest in this thread...

The Question of Idolatry

In Hinduism, many gods are revered and the images of these gods are used for their worship. Many Hindus realize, however, that these many gods are, in fact, only the various aspects of the One God, Brahman. Thus worship of these different gods is only a way of glorifying Brahman.



Bahá'í s believe that this is the day when mankind has reached its maturity. All of humanity should be educated. As a result of this education and this maturity mankind no longer needs to use idols as a way of helping to form ideas of God.
In Hinduism, the different gods are regarded as different aspects of the One God, Brahman. They are given different names such as Shiva, Indra, Kali, etc. Each god signifies an aspect of the functioning of Brahman. In the Bahá'í writings there are some passages that are very similar. These different aspects of the One God are called the Names and Attributes of God. But they work in exactly the same way as the Hindu gods: each of them is the unveiling of one aspect of the One God.




Bahá'u'lláh writes of the idea that each of these Names and Attributes of God is the agent through which particular actions of God are revealed on earth. He writes, for example, about the actions of two of these Names: `Fashioner' and `Omniscient':

Through the mere revelation of the word `Fashioner', issuing forth from His lips and proclaiming His attribute to mankind, such power is released as can generate, through successive ages, all the manifold arts which the hands of man can produce. This, verily, is a certain truth. No sooner is this resplendent word uttered, than its animating energies, stirring within all created things, give birth to the means and instruments whereby such arts can be produced and perfected. All the wondrous achievements ye now witness are the direct consequences of the Revelation of this Name...In like manner, the moment the word expressing My attribute `The Omniscient' issueth forth from My mouth, every created thing will, according to its capacity and limitations, be invested with the power to unfold the knowledge of the most marvellous sciences, and will be empowered to manifest them in the course of time... (35)​

He goes on to assert that the same is true of every other of the Names of God:

Know thou of a certainty that the Revelation of every other Name is accompanied by a similar manifestation of Divine power. (36)​

Hinduism and the Baha'i Faith

 

[Villager]

even though Hindus worship multiple gods, it all leads back to the One God

But not the God of Abraham. It is self-delusion to use the same word 'God' for a myriad different ideas of what God is, and does, and requires of humanity. A deity is defined by mankind by his attitude to and functions in respect of mankind.

The deity of Abraham justified Abraham, i.e. counted him righteous, because Abraham believed him, even when he was promised what was an impossibility in normal circumstances. So the Abrahamic deity requires faith, and not effort to become righteous. Hinduism requires effort, and is not acceptable to the deity of Abraham, so yes, Hindu deities must be considered idols in Abrahamic eyes. However, Hindu gods are not classifiable in the sense used by Moses and others who led Israel, because those local idols encouraged immorality- war-mongering, sexual licence, human sacrifice- whereas Hindu deities encourage morality (afaik).

 

[Onkara]

But not the God of Abraham. It is self-delusion to use the same word 'God' for a myriad different ideas of what God is, and does, and requires of humanity. A deity is defined by mankind by his attitude to and functions in respect of mankind.

The deity of Abraham justified Abraham, i.e. counted him righteous, because Abraham believed him, even when he was promised what was an impossibility in normal circumstances. So the Abrahamic deity requires faith, and not effort to become righteous. Hinduism requires effort, and is not acceptable to the deity of Abraham, so yes, Hindu deities must be considered idols in Abrahamic eyes. However, Hindu gods are not classifiable in the sense used by Moses and others who led Israel, because those local idols encouraged immorality- war-mongering, sexual licence, human sacrifice- whereas Hindu deities encourage morality (afaik).

This is an interesting alternative to those above.
I have one question, If Abrahma's God counted him righteous, did his God also extend his grace( or what ever God gave?) to others, for example those not born in Abraham's lineage? (I don't know).

Secondly, the point about different Gods i.e. Abrahman and that of the Hindu's Brahman may only be answered philosophical, with logic (or God's grace). Some schools of Hinduism assert that there can only be one God whatever the name. This has lead some Hindus to declare that the Abrahamic God cannot be different in essence (perhaps only different in name and actions). Not all Hindu's agree of course, but it makes answering this question more challenging.

 

[SageTree]

How is the Abrahamic God described? (including all the traditions)

VS

How Brahman is described in the Sanatan Dharma and it's various traditions? (including all avatars)


The descriptive passage that jumps to mind Abrahamically speaking is 'I am that I am' (Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh)

The other that jumps to mind is the Jnana Yoga/Advaita Vedanta practice of 'Neti Net', which is roughly, "not this, not this", or "neither this, nor that".

And in some regard that is a simple dichotomy between Apophatic and Catophatic means of the Mystic, to describe what God Isn't and Is.


Doesn't equal or mean anything conclusive, but it's a thought.

 

[Villager]

did his God also extend his grace( or what ever God gave?) to others, for example those not born in Abraham's lineage? (I don't know).

He certainly did. Anyone could trust in Abraham's deity, could become an Israelite, and very many did so.

On the second point, yes, 'monotheistic' Hinduism, that regards all deities as subject ultimately to the Supreme Being, is certainly resonant to some degree with Abrahamic faith, though of course the latter recognises only one deity. But if it is thought that that the Abrahamic God cannot be different in essence from the Supreme Being, it must be remembered that Hinduism requires effort, and Abraham's deity requires belief, which seems an essential and indeed crucial difference with respect to man's response to deity.

 

[Onkara]

He certainly did. Anyone could trust in Abraham's deity, could become an Israelite, and very many did so.

Is it just down to the decision of belief/faith or a matter of converting to Judaism, Islam or Christianity (baptism in the later case)?

On the second point, yes, 'monotheistic' Hinduism, that regards all deities as subject ultimately to the Supreme Being, is certainly resonant to some degree with Abrahamic faith, though of course the latter recognises only one deity. But if it is thought that that the Abrahamic God cannot be different in essence from the Supreme Being, it must be remembered that Hinduism requires effort, and Abraham's deity requires belief, which seems an essential and indeed crucial difference with respect to man's response to deity.

In general I think I agree. For it takes effort and investigation to arrive at truth in Hinduism, although that effort can be through love of God - bhakti i.e. love and praise. (Faith exists, but with much less emphasis).

So belief or faith seems to be the core requisite in semitic religions?

 

[Villager]

Is it just down to the decision of belief/faith or a matter of converting to Judaism, Islam or Christianity

That's a matter of opinion. Christianity says that the criterion for belief is belief in Jesus as the Christ. Judaism has mixed views, but most Jews today say that keeping the Law, i.e. effort, is necessary, and not faith, and Abraham is a largely forgotten figure. (Though there are as many views of Judaism as there are Jews, as Jews will readily tell you.) Islam does not believe in decision of faith, or justification by faith, as it is known, but then Islam does not accept Abraham as Genesis records him.

(baptism in the later case)?

Abraham was not baptised, and Christians do not need to be, either. What they do need to do is show in public that they believe. Water baptism used to be the means by which this was achieved. It is now practised by millions who are not justified by faith, so has become a meaningless ritual.

 

[arthra]

Of course all the religions had some sort of ritual of purification..

Zoroastrian Purification Ceremonies

Ritual purification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Upanayana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Zoroastrian rituals: Navjote/Sudre-Pooshi (initiation) ceremony

 

[Villager]

Of course all the religions had some sort of ritual of purification.

Nonsense, and politically suspect nonsense. Opportunistic nonsense, moreover.

 

[Onkara]

Abraham was not baptised, and Christians do not need to be, either. What they do need to do is show in public that they believe.

Why in public? I am not sure why.

 

[Villager]

How does this subject relate to Hindu deities?

 

[Onkara]

How does this subject relate to Hindu deities?

Hello Villager
I am not sure why you ask this or if you are asking to answer my question or Sagetree? I assume you are addressing Sagetree's point on Avatars?

To answer the question I would say that many people who are not acquainted with Sanatana Dharma would take Hindu deities to be individual gods, and hence see them in direct contrast to the Semitic scriptures.

I am just curious why Christians need to show their belief publicly, as I honestly don't know any reason why they should of the top of my head.

 

[Villager]

I assume you are addressing Sagetree's point on Avatars?

Incorrectly. How does the subject of baptism relate to Hindu deities?

 

[Badran]

***Mod post***

Please keep in mind that this thread is in a DIR. Debate is not allowed. Discussion only, and respectful questions from outsiders.​