Is Hinduism Really Polytheistic?

[Shuddhasattva]

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.

We shall exact a toll: you will synthesize your findings, and, in order to make most use of this posting, put it up as an article thread here in the DIR! <Y/N?> :run:

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?

Does the term "Jordanism" make sense? Or even "Abrahamism" to describe the vast range of beliefs in Judaism, CHristianity & Islam?

Likewise Hinduism is an internalized name given by Persian invaders and later recycled by British invaders and internalized by "Hindus" themselves. It is given from proximity to a river; the 'Sindhu,' - from which our "indus river valley civilization" emerged. S - > H in Persian commonly, so it became Hindu. Persian, thru urdu & Hindi[Hindustani] became the order of the day for about 600 years, just as English has now emerged as the language of the elite.

In any case, "Hinduism" is analogous to "Jordanism" or "Abrahamism." It's a convenient umbrella. All but some of the most heterodox of us claim decent from the Vedas. The Vedas are most assuredly polytheistic in a profound sense, but also point to an underlying panentheism and 'ground of being;' brahman.

Nonetheless, prescribed worship of various deities in a polytheistic, or better, kathenotheistic manner, was prescribed. And so it continued in the agamic tradition where an adept may worship as many as 150 deities in a single sitting, but all as aspects of a single underlying Self.

It always comes back to; what is the purpose for which deities are chartered?

Perhaps another more modern term would help: what is a self-authenticating key? How does this relate to nondual worship?

As to the differences in Hinduisms - they are basically systematic. I think it would be best to map a religion as a compilation of memes which accrue in tradition through development in the laboratories of the selves in raw spontaneity (sahaja; ati-margaphala) and their transmission as systematized practices sadhanas, which as disciplic lineages (paramparas; shrota-s) fill the veins of the various sampradayas (traditions), acommodating householders, renunciants, and even oddballs.

What I mean by mapping by memes is this: we identify ideas and practices, components if you will, and we understand where they came from, many coming from prehistoric times. How do they evolve, how do they synthesize when they encounter other systems, how are they diminished and eliminated, how do they script for behavior? Howabout consciousness? All religions, including all tradition and denominations, are like.. footprints of viewpoints that paved the way for the vantage of others. They're compilations of various previous ideas pulled together and systemized, and often defined thru the fires of debate - forged, if you will, sharply outlining their identity to swing it about in the name of dialectic.

Just to clarify my opinion, I don't see "polytheism" as necessarily pejorative either.

I didn't get the sense that you were - and good! I feel that Hinduism 'proper' <and of course I'm biased> IS polytheistic, as well as monotheistic, transtheistic and monistic. Or we could dispense with this qualifier and that qualifier, and begin to see it in its own context, rather than thru the lens of Western appellations, though they may be provisionally useful.

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.

Panentheistic can include polytheism and animism. Frankly, we see tremendous animism in Vedic and Agamic cults, which form the bedrock of Vedantic and Puranic cults respectively. <Here I use the word cult non-pejoratively as a distracting grenade from 'animism' used likewise> :run:

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.

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.

Hinduism is in some respects a mythical beast created in response to unmet demand in the West for spiritual fulfillment and actualization that conventional Christianity couldn't offer. One should be careful, and discerning, when one seeks to understand Hinduism as a westerner that one does not project one's ideas, even beautiful ideas, onto Hinduism. I am not saying that to be Hindu, or to believe in HIndu philosophies and do Hindu practices (from the ritualistic to the contemplative, there's a fairly wide range) you have to discard your ideas about what a system or religion should be, but that religion might not exist outside of your head/mind and the mind of others who have conceived such ideas.

In one way this is a beautiful illusion. If only Hinduism did live up to this.
On the flip side, Western converts are equally lackadaisical in assimilating, and prefer to mine for raw materials in constructing a belief system rather than put them to the test in practice.

Note that I am speaking relatively, and it concerns the decline of Hinduism(s) in INdia, and the failures of its transmissions to the West,

I like this idea that you described, this ability to use multiple reality tunnels, a certain flexibility, or perhaps we can say, not identifying with any particular belief system.

But is it represented in "Hinduism"? It is, to some extent, by soem people, at some times, in some traditions, and to some extent in [a few] traditions themselves, but to a surprisingly limited extent. To describe that as a HIndu belief, one ocmmonly held by practicing Hindus.

I guess what I am trying to get across is this:

Religions develop internal manuals for their own propagation and _conservation_ of practices and appropriate zeal. These fail when hypocrisy erodes their ethical and spiritual authority and instead became more like marketing materials. Fancy brochures, or worse, revered tomes of paper tigers and spines of dust, placed on pedestals out of reach.

Hinduism is not exempt from this. It suffers terribly from maltreatment both on the subcontinent and abroad - sometimes at the hands of outsiders, but truly? the real danger is from within, not through any kind of 'deliberate treason to the faith' - there is no faith as such, and no deliberation. It's simply ignorance in motion; people so busy with life that they fail to treasure the dharma while it makes an appearance, briefly like a full moon; the moment for progress passes, and it as worthless as a fool's goal.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

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

We only chuck pebbles and grope those other people's women in crowded train stations - at worst. :sarcastic


Regarding intersectarian conflict..

'The worst' have been some bloodbaths at events like the Kumbhmela where, on a few occasions, Shaiva and Vaishnava Nagas (dharma sainiks; holy warriors) contested the right to bathe first, or carried old grudges from previous such contexts. Hundreds to thousands of people died in these battles. This doesn't have in modern times, partially because the Naga profession has become degraded, counterfeit (even moreso) and without [apparent] value.




Nagas were 'employed' in the service of various political [feudal] factions, rather in the manner of mercenaries; nominally for a higher cause - but let's face it, greed corrupted the process to a large extent before the end. This is the first downfall.

The second is the bum/beggar. There are no homeless people in India; only sadhus. The sanyassi retirement package often it is, or just an easy way to coast through life doing essentially nothing, often thieving. Or maybe just eating at the places that give out free food for sadhus - often temples, doing some basic duties perfunctorily, and doing nothing, casually begging a bit perhaps. Some are quite insistent, especially to those perceived as rich tourists, the most gullble the better. The genuine are mostly out in the wilderness practicing asparsa yoga (absorption in Brahman assisted by social isolation), with some reverential village person(s) bringing necessary foodstuffs - basics only. Some are at temples or other monastic seats. Most clog the cities and travel junctions milking those who come through. The name of sadhu, sanyassi, vairagi, have all become debased by counterfeits who are not spiritually practicing, or only very weakly so, with no real lineag and holding no real transmissions.

The third is the gun. After the Mughals gained the gun and restricted its use, and even after the British opened that up (for its own gain), and then re-restricted it after gaining power)it became difficult for Nagas to equip themselves for battle, and some of their more superstitious lot became bitterly surprised at the failure of their primitive magicks to - as you might expect from such encounters, stop bullets and the like.
Many of them were manipulated by the British or other suppliers, and many died fighting senselessly, even against eachother like mercenaries.

Nonetheless there are genuine nagas, both nagas who still do the martial training, and those who are more purely spiritually inclined. Nagas are part of the dashanami (Shankaracharya's ekadandi (advaita) monastic lineage and, by now, represent many tantric lineages & practices. A real naga is... a not inconsiderately holy being, imbued with divine awareness and energy.

Maybe 1%.


...These days if I were a naga I'd be fighting for the right to bathe SECOND considering how polluted Ma Ganga is, even in Hardwar. I'd want the other guys to bathe first. I'd probably wipe off my tilak and draw the one the other guys use and switch around some beeds behind some bushes or something so I wouldn't have to bathe first.


More mildly, at the times Romans were dragging bodies by the cartload out of public houses of enjoyment, people in India were gathering to watch scholars/logicians and proponents of new systems of new syntheses (such Shri Adi Shankara Ji himself) debate publicly, with the loser accepting the victor's religion in many cases - as you can imagine, that's quite cut throat.

 

[Maya3]

Something that I'd like to add is that in a sense you could look at Hinduism polytheistic if you think of us and everything in the universe as being part of God.
There are billions of us and we are only the humans, imagine all the other plant species, fish and animals.
I think that Hinduisms multiplicity is illustrating the diverseness of the universe (I can only assume that there is lots of life on other planets.)
But that said, we are all the same, everything is made of the same, so still it only illustrates that God is EVERYTHING, not that there are many Gods.

Maya

 

[AgogTheorist]

We shall exact a toll: you will synthesize your findings, and, in order to make most use of this posting, put it up as an article thread here in the DIR! <Y/N?> :run:

And I shall call it "Shuddhasattva according to AgogTheorist"!

"Hinduism" is analogous to "Jordanism" or "Abrahamism." It's a convenient umbrella.

Ok, I understand. Thanks.

Panentheistic can include polytheism and animism.

Agreed; I didn't mean to imply they were mutually exclusive, though it did come out that way. I think the point I was trying to make was that the polytheistic label was a simplistic understanding which didn't do justice to Hinduism. To call Hinduism "polytheistic" without recognizing the underlying panentheism seems like a mislabel to me.

I like this idea that you described, this ability to use multiple reality tunnels, a certain flexibility, or perhaps we can say, not identifying with any particular belief system.

I cringed a little bit when you said "not identifying with any particular belief system" as it implies a kind of apathetic "anything goes", "to each their own" attitude. On the contrary, I take my beliefs very seriously. If I could, I'd rephrase your sentence as "a non-attachment to any particular belief system", in which I humbly admit that I don't and will never have everything figured out and am open to being influenced.

One should be careful, and discerning, when one seeks to understand Hinduism as a westerner that one does not project one's ideas, even beautiful ideas, onto Hinduism. I am not saying that to be Hindu, or to believe in HIndu philosophies and do Hindu practices (from the ritualistic to the contemplative, there's a fairly wide range) you have to discard your ideas about what a system or religion should be, but that religion might not exist outside of your head/mind and the mind of others who have conceived such ideas.

In one way this is a beautiful illusion. If only Hinduism did live up to this.
...

But is it represented in "Hinduism"? It is, to some extent, by soem people, at some times, in some traditions, and to some extent in [a few] traditions themselves, but to a surprisingly limited extent.

I'm not 100% sure I'm following what you're saying from these paragraphs onwards -- a bit too much jumping around. I'll try to summarize, and you can tell me if I've got the gist of it or not.

To start with, Maya says "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."

Now you're adding two cautionary notes: the first that my leap to claiming this is systematized in Hinduism is perhaps influenced by my western interpretation more than reality, and the second that this isn't strictly true in practice either. To support the latter cautionary note, you cite numerous examples of intra-religion (sorry, intra-Hindu-umbrella? ) violence and intolerance, and manipulation for personal gain.

In response to the first point, I'm referring to the various paths to enlightenment, as well as Maya's description of Ishta Devata. To me this speaks of a recognition and acceptance of our individual differences. And once we recognize that we all are Atman, and Atman is Brahman, it connects us to everyone else in such a way that we can't (ideally) help but acknowledge and love the diversity found in others. So that's where I'm coming from, and I'd appreciate it if you could help identify any specific points in which my westernism is biasing me.

In response to the second point, yes, that seems to be true of almost any religion. Jesus teaches us to love our enemies. So what do Christians do? They go on crusades and witch hunts, call each other heretics, etc.! But like you say, this often comes down to ignorance, political gain, or other selfish intentions. I'm more interested in the good examples of Hinduism. Would you say that Maya's statement holds mostly true within serious/contemplative/practicing/selfless (not sure what word I'm looking for) Hinduism?

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

AgogTheorist;3183791]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.

I shall try, firstly I dont think Hinduism is Polytheistic.

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?

Yes Upanishads are great philosophical explanations on the Vedas, The various Hindu deities are just a symbolic representation of the one truth, In the Vadic age it was called as Agni, Indra, Mitra, Visnu, Rudra ect ect, in the Puranic Age Visnu, Rudra (Shiva) sort of took prominence, but the only thing all Hindus may agree on is the best name of all these are encompassed in the word OM.

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.

Yes, again this is similar to what is echoed in the Vedas, Upanishads and Gita.

So my question then is: does any of what I've said make sense to practicing Hindus?

To me it does.

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.

Its not all Hindus associate with a specific denomination, like me i dont follow one specific philosophy. Hence why many call it a Universal religion, it caters for all peoples of all walks of life.
But then that is what Hinduism is about.