Is Hinduism Really Polytheistic?

[AgogTheorist]

Having come from a monotheistic tradition, one of the condescending remarks I occasionally hear in regards to Hinduism is how it's "polytheistic" (said with a tone of voice that implies anyone who believes that must be cuh-razy!). However, from my admittedly limited research into Hinduism, this viewpoint seems to be misinterpreting what Hinduism is all about. I'd like to briefly outline my thought process and questions on this topic, and hopefully get some feedback from you way-more-experienced folk.

The biggest revelation of the Upanishads, as far as I can tell, is that we are all Atman, and Atman is Brahman. That is, our Self, once we get past all the egotistical trappings, is shared among us all, and is, in fact, identical with the Ground of Being. So then how do we make sense of the various Hindu deities? To me it seems like the only sensible corollary is that they aspects/metaphors for various divine attributes which we have, in a sense, invented. As personal beings, we find it easier to relate to personal ideas than abstract ineffable non-entities, and so we have created these aspect-metaphors to allow ourselves to more easily relate to the Ground of Being. Over time, these aspect-metaphors have acquired their own stories and myths (not a bad thing), and thus have solidified into what Hindu-outsiders would perceive as a pantheon of individual deities. But underneath it all, they remain aspect-metaphors -- representations of Brahman, and not really a pantheon at all.

(As an aside, I could draw numerous parallels of this process to how I perceive the monotheistic God of my home tradition has been anthropomorphized.)

So my question then is: does any of what I've said make sense to practicing Hindus? I'm guessing I've made a lot of assumptions which various Hindu denominations may or may not agree with, and I'd be curious to hear what some of those agreements and disagreements are. I'm also open to suggestions for further reading on this topic.

Thanks!

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Having come from a monotheistic tradition, one of the condescending remarks I occasionally hear in regards to Hinduism is how it's "polytheistic" (said with a tone of voice that implies anyone who believes that must be cuh-razy!). However, from my admittedly limited research into Hinduism, this viewpoint seems to be misinterpreting what Hinduism is all about.

Depending on how you look at it, Hindu religions(s) aren't necessarily about the same thing.

"Hinduism" designates:

• Vedic religion - the nearly dead religion of the Vedic dvijas (twice-born), virtually all modern Hinduisms claim to represent the continuity of this religion - whether they actually do is a matter of some debate
• Shramanika tradition - the trend of self-reliance and yoga in Vedic india that eventually birthed Buddhism, Jainism and yoga/samkhya.
• Vedanta - The culmination of the upanishad-movement amongst the Vedic shakhas to record the Vedas in philosophical exegesis and collectively understand their three or fourfold corpus, resulting in the birth of the six darshanas (six philosophical views), ending with the triumph of Vedanta subsuming the other 5.
• Puranic Hinduism - medieval attempt to make accessible vedantic & agamic Hinduisms.
• Agamic - Tantric Hinduism, which has also come to have tremendous influence on the popular religion in terms of how deities are conceptualized, and how temples are laid out - with corresponding symbolism, now mostly forgotten in the public [religious] mind.
• Pop-Hinduism - comparable to "pop science," the fast and loose Hinduism one sees practiced without too much self-scrutiny wherever there are observant Hindus, largely a simplified and half-understood amalgam of the above

The biggest revelation of the Upanishads, as far as I can tell, is that we are all Atman, and Atman is Brahman. That is, our Self, once we get past all the egotistical trappings, is shared among us all, and is, in fact, identical with the Ground of Being.

This is correct from an advaita vedanta perspective, and some tantric perspectives, or perhaps (depending on how it's dissected and qualified), a qualified form of nondualism - vishishtadvaita or shuddhadvaita, for example, but some prominent Hindu movements, old and new, would disagree with this.

So then how do we make sense of the various Hindu deities? To me it seems like the only sensible corollary is that they aspects/metaphors for various divine attributes which we have, in a sense, invented.

Close enough. Properly speaking, it is the 'job' of the rishis - seers/sages - to clothe raw divinity anthropomorphically for normal people to relate with. Though god is ultimately transcending (though including) name and form, god 'deigns' to be given such by man, or put differently, pure awareness /self-awareness allows modified awareness to image its own nature in the absolute through other limited structures.

As far as making sense, let's return to practicals: the original purpose of reimagining divinity in man's image is for nondual deity yoga: one imagines oneself to be the deities one worships, in this manner the atman comes to attain what cannot be acquired or obtained; it realizes what it already had (although even to say that the atman realizes, or engages in any process whatsoever, is ultimately incorrect.)

As personal beings, we find it easier to relate to personal ideas than abstract ineffable non-entities, and so we have created these aspect-metaphors to allow ourselves to more easily relate to the Ground of Being.

Over time, these aspect-metaphors have acquired their own stories and myths (not a bad thing), and thus have solidified into what Hindu-outsiders would perceive as a pantheon of individual deities.

Very well said, with the note that the stories and myths are better understood as allegory with an underlying metaphysical subtext, and also as emotionally vocative so that the aspirant can appreciate the humanizing qualities of the divine representation - can see their compassion, grace, power, etc., expressed narratively, however ludicrously.

But underneath it all, they remain aspect-metaphors -- representations of Brahman, and not really a pantheon at all.

Many of us see it this way, yes, or as components of saguna brahman [godhead in the singular], and 'secretly' all nirguna brahman [ground of being] absolutely and equally.


Getting back to the title question, the answer is "yes and no." Ideally, Hinduism is kathenotheistic, this is how it is represented in the Vedic and Agamic deity yoga representations, with many gods being rotationally praised as supreme - composing the mandala of self-transforming awareness, but all [ultimately partless] parts of an underlying supreme being/ground-of-being which iis immanent in man.

 

[Madhuri]

Being called polytheistic has always been pretty annoying.

IMO the Vedas and Upanishads teach panentheism. There are many perspectives in 'Hinduism', some actually are polytheistic, some pantheistic, some monotheistic etc. depending on interpretation.

But to me it seems obvious that it all points to panentheism.

And welcome to RF!

 

[Valjean]

As Suddhasatva pointed out, "Hinduism" isn't a homogenous religion. You'll find all sorts of beliefs among Hindus.
I'd say the majority of 'ordinary' Hindus would be considered polytheists, as the term's commonly used in the west. Few people are theologians. Most don't really concern themselves with the philosophical underpinnings of their religions, they just casually accept whatever traditions they're raised with.

 

[Sumit]

Having come from a monotheistic tradition, one of the condescending remarks I occasionally hear in regards to Hinduism is how it's "polytheistic" (said with a tone of voice that implies anyone who believes that must be cuh-razy!). However, from my admittedly limited research into Hinduism, this viewpoint seems to be misinterpreting what Hinduism is all about. I'd like to briefly outline my thought process and questions on this topic, and hopefully get some feedback from you way-more-experienced folk.

Hinduism is monotheistic religion. It was the fairy tales of Puranas and some other books that were responsible for this present "polytheistic" view. If you ask 100 hindus which deity they pray, they will have different view i.e. Shiva, Vishnu, Krishna, Rama, Ganesh, Hanuman etc. But if you will ask them how many god are their, 99% of hindus will say that their is only one god (even if they know nothing about god).

The biggest revelation of the Upanishads, as far as I can tell, is that we are all Atman, and Atman is Brahman.

If here by Brahman you mean God than I can surely tell you that they can never be one.

 

[En'me]

The biggest revelation of the Upanishads, as far as I can tell, is that we are all Atman, and Atman is Brahman.

If here by Brahman you mean God than I can surely tell you that they can never be one.

Just to clarify for AgogTheorist, Brahman doesn't necessarily mean God. Not understanding this people have trouble equating Brahman = Atman.

 

[Valjean]

Hinduism is monotheistic religion. It was the fairy tales of Puranas and some other books that were responsible for this present "polytheistic" view. If you ask 100 hindus which deity they pray, they will have different view i.e. Shiva, Vishnu, Krishna, Rama, Ganesh, Hanuman etc. But if you will ask them how many god are their, 99% of hindus will say that their is only one god (even if they know nothing about god).

This just illustrates the divide between popular religion and theology/philosophy. Most Hindus will acknowledge a Unity underlying the apparent diversity of the world if pressed into a philosophical discussion, but in the religion's popular manifestations; in everyday life, most Hindu's I've spoken with are practical polytheists.

You say Hinduism's a monotheistic religion. A case can be made for a monotheistic interpretation, but a case can be made for it being a polytheistic or atheistic religion, as well.
If you want to see how confusing things can get, even when speaking from a single level, recall Yajnavalkya's responses to responses to Vidaghdha's repeated question "how many Gods are there?" in the Brihadaryanyaka Upanishad. His answers go from "three hundred and three and three thousand and three" through "one and a half" (my favorite) to "one."

I think your calling Hinduism "a" religion is problematic, too. It's a crazy-quilt of all kinds of disparate beliefs. It's also -- if you want to delve into theology -- a 'religion' of levels of reality -- and reality is different at different levels. The answer to a theological question in Hinduism can have several, mutually exclusive, correct answers, depending on what level one's speaking of/from.

I think Agog's depiction of Hindu Gods as individually chosen/created tools to assist one's religious focus is actually pretty accurate theology.

 

[Sumit]

most Hindu's I've spoken with are practical polytheists.

I speak with many hindus and they definatly differ in their beliefs. Some says that Vishnu is superior and other says Shiva is superior but when I ask them are they different. Than their ans is "no they are one but divide them into many".

You say Hinduism's a monotheistic religion. A case can be made for a monotheistic interpretation, but a case can be made for it being a polytheistic or atheistic religion, as well.

I said what I read and what many hindus say.

If you want to see how confusing things can get, even when speaking from a single level, recall Yajnavalkya's responses to responses to Vidaghdha's repeated question "how many Gods are there?" in the Brihadaryanyaka Upanishad. His answers go from "three hundred and three and three thousand and three" through "one and a half" (my favorite) to "one."

Who translated that verse. And please quote that verse too. Because acc to my Knowledge I know that their was a verse in Upanishad that relates 33crore devtas that resides in one supreme god. Actually they are devtas or what we say demigod, so many gods make no sense. They are against teachings of Vedas.

I think your calling Hinduism "a" religion is problematic, too.

Yes it is.

 

[Me Myself]

I don´t have a problem with calling it polytheistic as I don´t feel it as pejorative. When I feel it is said in a pejorative tone I just remind in a kind tone (or the kindest I can muster, though honestly, it is hard to anger me with this ) "As polytheistic as christianity with it´s three Gods equal one "

If they say christianity is not polytheistic because their gods ar eone I tell them all hindu gods are one, and then s/he may probably wish to refer hinduism as non polytheistic either. If they don´t mind the polytheistic label( though I haven´t seen it yet ) then I would say "yeah, like that kind of polytheism".

It´s just a label for me. Not that important. That fact that all is one is the most important for me, but I love the varied depictions of wisdom in it´s various god forms, so I have no problem with looking at the "polytheistic" side of it

 

[Sumit]

but I love the varied depictions of wisdom in it´s various god forms

For Example.

so I have no problem with looking at the "polytheistic" side of it

The day when hinduism will be "polytheistic". It will be a new religion.

 

[Maya3]

Agog,

I think you have a very good understanding of Hinduism.
And I want to thank you for taking the time to look into it and form your own opinion instead of listening to those people who think that we are crazy.

As you can see there are many, many opinions within Hinduism, but that doesn't bother most Hindus.
Most of us are 100% comfortable with other viewpoints. We don't have an authority somewhere that insists that it should be like THIS, or like THAT.

I'm Advaita Hindu, or Advaitin (you can say it either way) so I very much agree with the thought that everything is one and the deities are used as a way to concentrate. The stories just like you said have grown over time and become a big part of Indian culture and is used as ways for us to look at what we cannot really explain with words.

Often Hindus speak of Ishta Devata. It means chosen form.
In other words which of all the forms do YOU prefer? If it helps you to think of God in a specific way you might pick a form and use that in your rituals or when you pray.

You may have an Ishta Devata, or you may not, it's really up to you.
God is really formless, God IS everything in the universe.
So it is not really polytheistic or even monotheistic either, because there isn't really ONE, it's ALL.
I think Shantoram explained this once in much better words then me.

Maya

 

[Sumit]

instead of listening to those people who think that we are crazy.

No, nobody here thinks so. . However I am little bit crazy .

As you can see there are many, many opinions within Hinduism, but that doesn't bother most Hindus.

But are they all true and now please don't quote Gita verse.

We don't have an authority somewhere that insists that it should be like THIS, or like THAT.

Every person has authority to promote truth.

The stories just like you said have grown over time and become a big part of Indian culture and is used as ways for us to look at what we cannot really explain with words.

And the same was responsible for 1000 years of slavery under Mugals and Britishers.

In other words which of all the forms do YOU prefer? If it helps you to think of God in a specific way you might pick a form and use that in your rituals or when you pray.

VS

God is really formless

These statements are against each other.

 

[Me Myself]

The day when hinduism will be "polytheistic". It will be a new religion.

polytheistic, monotheistic, diferent names one truth.

This is not the place to argue anyways

m: Namah Shivaya

 

[nameless]

The day when hinduism will be "polytheistic". It will be a new religion.

hinduism always was/is polytheistic for polytheists and atheistic for atheists just like monotheistic for mono-theists.

 

[Sumit]

This is not the place to argue anyways

Sorry :sorry1:
I though that the people of same faiths can debate at that particular religious dir
:bow:

 

[Maya3]

Sorry :sorry1:
I though that the people of same faiths can debate at that particular religious dir
:bow:

No, you have to go to Same Faith Debates.

Maya

 

[AgogTheorist]

Thanks for your informative and encouraging responses, everyone! I'll need more time to fully assimilate my thoughts, but I have a few quick questions and comments in the meantime.

Depending on how you look at it, Hindu religions(s) aren't necessarily about the same thing.

I guess this is sort of tangential to my original line of inquiry, but I always imagined Hinduism as being "a (singular) religion" housing a web of many different denominations and specific beliefs, much like in Christianity. Is this an acceptable understanding in your opinion, or would you prefer to separate Hinduism into various religion categories as you described above, and then further, perhaps, into specific denominations?

I don´t have a problem with calling it polytheistic as I don´t feel it as pejorative. When I feel it is said in a pejorative tone I just remind in a kind tone (or the kindest I can muster, though honestly, it is hard to anger me with this ) "As polytheistic as christianity with it´s three Gods equal one "

It amuses me how many non-reflective Christians can get riled up by that idea.

Just to clarify my opinion, I don't see "polytheism" as necessarily pejorative either. I'm not here to try and prove Hinduism as non-polytheistic because I don't like the idea of polytheism. It's just that from my observations and thinking, Hinduism didn't really seem that polytheistic, and those who claimed it was seemed to be misunderstanding it. "Pantheistic", or "Panentheistic" as Madhuri stated above, seemed to be more credible labels.

I want to thank you for taking the time to look into it and form your own opinion instead of listening to those people who think that we are crazy.

Whenever I hear someone say "X is crazy", I mentally substitute it with "I'm to lazy and arrogant to see things from the perspective of X". This substitution seems to be accurate over 99% of the time.

Which, in a way, is a shame, because I find something quite attractive about the "I don't give a flying ****" attitude of true craziness...

As you can see there are many, many opinions within Hinduism, but that doesn't bother most Hindus.
Most of us are 100% comfortable with other viewpoints. We don't have an authority somewhere that insists that it should be like THIS, or like THAT.

This is what attracted me to Hinduism in the first place. I've always found it easy to see things from multiple perspectives at once, along with a nagging awareness of the limitations of any understandings I generated. I've repeatedly felt stifled upon encountering people who have developed internally cohesive and consistent views, but who never bothered entertaining the notion that with a wider set of inputs their output might be completely different. Hinduism seems to embrace this inward awareness of human limitation even as it empowers us to move outward. It was like a breath of fresh air.

Thanks again, everyone.

 

[Me Myself]

I don´t feel pantheistic or panentheistic need to contradict polytheistic.

As I see it, I am a panentheist, but also a polytheist.

 

[Jainarayan]

I don´t feel pantheistic or panentheistic need to contradict polytheistic.

As I see it, I am a panentheist, but also a polytheist.

Agreed. I'm definitely monotheistic and panentheistic, but I have polytheistic leanings. Wait, wut!? That's henotheism.

I haven't quite decided if the deities are entities in and of themselves created by and of God, or they are just views of the different attributes of God performing specific roles in a way that our small human minds can comprehend. Of course this could be an ingrained subconscious holdover from my Christian upbringing which taught only one God, but a multiplicity of saints and angels that did God's bidding to help us. Sure, God is omnipotent but there are lessons to be learned from association with these saints, angels and other deities.

For example, because I am drawing more into Vajrayana, I can see the buddhas and bodhisattvas as either deities and entities in and of themselves, or aspects of Vishnu who to my mind is showing me more expansions. Especially in the forms of the bodhisattvas of compassion, wisdom, fearlessness, etc. Or they are the equivalent of those saints and angels from whom I am to learn things.

Or maybe I'm just as ****** up as a football bat.

 

[Valjean]

I speak with many hindus and they definatly differ in their beliefs. Some says that Vishnu is superior and other says Shiva is superior but when I ask them are they different. Than their ans is "no they are one but divide them into many".

Who translated that verse. And please quote that verse too. Because acc to my Knowledge I know that their was a verse in Upanishad that relates 33crore devtas that resides in one supreme god. Actually they are devtas or what we say demigod, so many gods make no sense. They are against teachings of Vedas.

It's Swami Nikhilananda's translation of Brihadaryanyakupanishad. III. ix. 1. The language is modern and it's not unnecessarily cluttered with abstruse Sanskrit terms, so a lot of Sanskrit subdivisions are combined into "Gods."
I think you'll find all kinds of numbers for a hundred different sorts of "Gods" in the Vedas. It all depends on how you choose to define God. There are enough hierarchies and species of celestial beings in Hinduism to stock every zoo in the world.

Why, I think I heard a flock of gandharvas fly by just a few minutes ago....