It is NOT Polytheistic

[Copernicus]

In my system of thought all the personal Gods are Illusions of maya. Beyond Maya there is only Impersonal Brahman.

But we are not talking about your personal take on Hinduism. We are discussing whether it is a valid generalization to call Hinduism polytheistic, even though a minority of Hindus may resist that claim, based on their interpretation of what people ought to believe.

When the Christians say they are monotheistic they should be taken at their word,and so should Hindus...

Even if some Christians admit to polytheism?

We just are tired of people who don't have a complete understanding of our views telling us what we are. Some sects have identified themselves Monotheist, others Monist, and some Atheistic. We just have no sects that thought of themselves as pantheists not one. It was only after the conquest of India by the Abrahamic faiths were they labeled as such. So historically it's projecting western beliefs and ideas on the Indians.
You can theorize to the cows come home. If there is no sect that believes they are polytheists why should they be called one.

You are mistaken to believe that the argument is about how Hindus wish to characterize themselves. The question here is whether the English word "polytheism" applies to Hinduism.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

But we are not talking about your personal take on Hinduism. We are discussing whether it is a valid generalization to call Hinduism polytheistic, even though a minority of Hindus may resist that claim, based on their interpretation of what people ought to believe.

It has no basis in any type of interpretation. There are no sects that believe they are polytheist. Just some folks who have never studied Hinduism. It has nothing to do with any type of resistance. Again I know of not one Hindu scholar who thinks it is polytheistic. Other then some indigenous tribes I have never heard of polytheist Hindu group or sect.

The question here is whether the English Word "polytheism" applies to Hinduism.

Advaita Vedanta, Shaktas, and most types Shivites are Monists. Vaishnavas are for the most part Monotheists. Samkhya is Atheist. What sect is polytheist by the english definition of the word? Primary souce please.

 

[Bismillah]

I'm interested about what Hindus think about the quoted article because I hold similar impressions of the religion and would like to know what you guys think

Supporting a view of Hinduism as a polytheistic religion is the great pantheon of Hindu gods. The oldest and most sacred texts, the Vedas, are chiefly concerned with mythologies and rituals related to a number of deities, most of which are identified with aspects of the natural world. The gods of modern Hinduism include the chief gods Shiva, Vishnu and the Mother Goddess Shakti as well as a myriad of local community gods.Devotion to these various deities is based primarily on one's region and needs, and even when devotion is given to only one, the existence of others is acknowledged. Hindu worship virtually always involves sculptures and images, to which offerings are made and rituals are performed.

Despite these polytheistic elements, however, many Hindus explain that the gods are various forms of a single Supreme Being (see quotes below). Similarly, the philosophical Hindu texts advocate a pantheistic view of ultimate reality. These texts, most notably the Upanishads, explain that there exists a single Supreme Reality, called Brahman. Brahman is often personified and presented as the One that must be sought, and can begin to sound like monotheism. Yet the ultimate revelation of the Upanishads is that the self (atman) is identical with Brahman. Life is therefore best spent not in rituals and offerings to the gods, but in deep meditation on the self until this truth is experienced firsthand.

So is Hinduism polytheistic, pantheistic, or monotheistic? Contributing to the difficulty of answering this question is the fact that Hindus are not nearly as concerned as are western thinkers with such labels and categories. After all, it is a favorite Hindu saying that "The Truth is One, but different sages call it by different names." {1} But when Hindus do define their religion in these terms, usually for the benefit of curious westerners, they tend to do so in terms of monotheism and pantheism:

Taking all of the above into consideration, our Fast Facts on Hinduism page classifies Hinduism as "pantheism with polytheistic elements." Why not monotheism? Although "monotheism" literally means belief in the existence of one God, the term has come to denote belief in a God who created and is distinct from the universe. Pantheism is the view that God is essentially identical with the universe and totally immanent in the world: God is the universe and the universe is God. Thus pantheism seems to be the most accurate label for Hinduism. The "with polytheistic elements" qualifier is added because the Supreme Being of Hinduism is most often worshipped in the form of multiple deities.

However, it must be noted that this is a generalization that does not describe the beliefs of all Hindus. Some regard the universe as created by and essentially distinct from God, and are therefore "monotheistic" in the traditional sense.

Is Hinduism Polytheistic? - ReligionFacts

 

[Onkara]

Hi Abibi
I think that is a fair explanation. Categorisation into -isms is academic.

There is only One Divine Source, Brahman. Sanatana Dharma is vast and this allows for explanation to aid the individual (jIva) acknowledge Brahman.

So in the process we find various names Krishna -"The primordial nature is Krishna whose etymology is krs,. which means being, and na, which translates as bliss. By joining these two roots we have Krishna, a name of Brahman."

Or Shiva = "auspicious, kind, gracious". etc.

 

[Erebus]

Hinduism is at least as polytheistic as Mormonism, if online sources are accurate. Technically, Mormonism is infnitely polytheistic.

I'm afraid I know next to nothing about Mormonism, so I can't really comment there. My understanding of Hinduism (however crude it might be) is that there is one source or God and all the other "gods" are simply aspects of that deity's personality/being.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

With all due respect Madhuri, I know it's true that Hinduism isn't Polytheistic, but it won't matter to people who say it is just to have an excuse to slam it and call it idolotry. The same thing happens with Kemetic belief system, the people who want to slam it and call it idolotry will call it Polytheism anyway, because Polytheism has become one of those terms some use to lump things together and demonize them.

 

[Onkara]

Totally correct, Senedjem!
I think it boils down to re-educating people. How, is the challenge.
I think this is why self-promoting religions get the masses of people because they are happy with the easy answer (which is often inaccurate as you say).

 

[David_2010]

You are correct that saints are like gods. Angels are also like gods. The difference is that saints and angels are normally thought of as "mediators" who do not have specific control over some aspect of physical reality. Gods normally have power over some aspect of reality, and that is why Agni, Indra, Varuna, etc., fall under the conventional definition of gods. In fact, many of the Hindu gods have characteristics of the Indo-European pantheon from which they evolved historically.

From what I've studied, Angels are said to have a measure of control over reality, like, I think, in Judaism,there are Angels for everything (any Jews, please correct me if I'm wrong?), I think the same holds true in Christianity and Islam. Also, Saints are prayed too, in Catholicism, for example, there are Saints for love, Saints, for money, protection, etc.

Back to the OP, I've always understood Hinduism to be Monotheistic (believing in One God), who has many differing manifestations (the Devas, other spiritual beings, and us, etc). Also, from what I've read, you can find many differing theologies in Hinduism, ranging from worshipping the gods/Devas, to focusing on Brahman, to Animism, Pantheism, etc, so, maybe, neither Monotheistic or Polytheistic are good terms to describe Hinduism?.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

But we are not talking about your personal take on Hinduism.

It is not my personal take. I am a very Orthodox kind of Guy. This is the beliefs of not only my sect but of many sects.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I'm interested about what Hindus think about the quoted article because I hold similar impressions of the religion and would like to know what you guys think

Is Hinduism Polytheistic? - ReligionFacts

I agree with my friend Omkarah It is a full definition, not just calling us polytheists.

 

[Copernicus]

This has been an interesting discussion, not just for the semantic gymnastics that people seem willing to perform to avoid the label "polytheism", but for fact that people strive to avoid the label. Why should that be? What is so bad about being called a polytheist?

Polytheism is widely believed to be a more primitive form of theism. People have always come to understand things by analogy--by relating new experiences to old experiences and abstractions of those experiences. Before we knew a lot about natural forces, it seemed reasonable to personify forces of nature. Once personified as "gods", these forces could be controlled through prayer, sacrifice, and other ritual behaviors. Those forms of behavior influence humans, so it is natural to use the same methods to try to influence forces of nature. Farmers, in particular, could understand better when to sow and when to harvest by studying the behavior of celestial gods, a practice that has led us to the science of astronomy.

Monotheism evolved out of polytheistic systems, and that is why we have "saints", "angels", "demons", and other spirits in our folklore and as part of mainstream religions. As people came to understand the real forces behind natural events better, it didn't make a lot of sense to influence those forces directly. However, a more general force behind nature--a "God"--still remains as a powerful tool in which people can invest their hope and efforts to secure more favorable circumstances for themselves and their loved ones. Just as those in the Abrahamic tradition gained "pagan" converts by co-opting foreign gods, Buddhism also found ways to co-opt Hindu gods. I find it fascinating that Hinduism continues to evolve. There can be no doubt for those looking in from the outside that Hinduism is fundamentally a polytheistic religion. But many of those who practice it have come to embrace the idea that monotheism offers theological advantages that polytheism does not, not the least of which is ditching the philosophical baggage of directly personifying forces of nature.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Copernicus yet Polytheism is often a misapplied term. The term Polytheism was applied to many ancient religions by Victorian archeologists, because they didn't really understand the way these religions viewed God. Hinduism was called Polytheistic because it views God as having eminations called the devas. Archeologists interpreted ancient Egyptian beliefs wrongly in much the same way. More and more Egyptologists are of the opinion the Egyptians had a Monist view of God.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

But many of those who practice it have come to embrace the idea that monotheism offers theological advantages that polytheism does not, not the least of which is ditching the philosophical baggage of directly personifying forces of nature.

I see my self as a monist. I also believe the popularity of monotheism came after the foreign domination of India. All the libraries and universities were destroyed so folks needed a simpler world view that made sense. Monotheism has always been a part of Hinduism it just became a bigger part due to its simplicity and its use in Islam and Christianity. Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta are more complex systems of thought. Monotheism helped Indian philosophy to stay alive in the masses of Indians.

 

[Riverwolf]

I have learned that religious doctrine almost always tends to be a skewed take on scripture. So my reading of the same sutras won't necessarily skew in the same direction that it does for you.

Even if, in the previous chapter (I meant to direct you to Chapter 10, not 11. ^_^), Krishna actually identifies Himself as Indra, Rama, OM, the Sama Veda, etc.?

In your last post, you asserted quite clearly that the majority of Hindus could be construed as polytheists. Make up your mind. Having a concept of a supreme deity does not rule out polytheism, since virtually all such religions have a supreme deity.

I actually realized something: isn't recognizing other gods while worshiping a God you feel is the Supreme one henotheism? Isn't that what early Judaism was?

'Cause that's really what Gaudiya Vaishnavism is.

Read Plato. The concept of a perfect God was debated before Christians came on the scene.

I tried reading the Republic once. It wasn't that difficult a read.

Would you mind directing me to the actual dialogues you're thinking of?

But you do have multiple personalities.

Indeed.

But am I one person, or many?

Actually, Madhuri states in the OP that some are "monotheistic dualists". And you are close to trapping yourself in a contradiction. If you believe that any god exists, and you believe that not more than one exists, then you must be a monotheist. How do you escape the logic of that argument?

Some, not all.

Like I said, nobody has claimed Hinduism to be generally monotheistic.

We can make a valid generalization that Christianity holds Christ to be divine, even though there are Christians who do not hold that belief. I think that you are getting to caught up in the semantic twists and turns. It is valid to make generalizations about the doctrinal beliefs that are common in religious groupings.

Only for the common person for whom religion is not a subject of interest and/or any form of real study. (And even then, I'd say that's not a good idea, as it promotes misunderstandings.)

For everybody else, it's best to be as accurate as possible.

Just above you said that "neither myself, nor anyone else, has claimed it's monotheistic". You seem to be somewhat inconsistent on the nature of monotheism and polytheism.

I corrected myself above: Gaudiya Vaishnavism is closer to early Judaism in its beliefs: it only worships Krishna, while acknowledging and respecting other gods. That would make it henotheistic, right?

And Gaudiya Vaishnavism is only one religion (with several sects of its own, including ISKCON), and like all the others, it's not a representation of Hinduism as a whole.

I have met my burden of proof. All of the dictionaries that you and I are aware of support the claim. All you need to do to falsify it is find one dictionary that contradicts my claim. And I am quite ready to replace the quantifier "all" with "vast majority", if you should find one.

No, you've provided burden of proof that all the ones that you are aware of do so. Therefore, it's most accurate to say that "all that we're aware of" at the very least basically define it as god. (Sometimes God... as in Mahadeva (Great God, one of the names of Shiva.))

Again, you seem inconsistent. The generalization is that Hinduism is polytheistic because the majority of Hindus are polytheists. At the end of your last post, you agreed with the assertion that the majority could be construed as polytheists.

But not necessarily the vast majority, OR the (very much) educated Sages(at least none that I'm aware of), who are the benchmark of Hinduism.

We can assert that not only are most Christians monotheistic, most Christian leaders are monotheistic. It is not so with Hinduism, unless you can point me to a Sage who calls Hinduism polytheistic.

But many do not, which is why there are different schools and doctrines of Hinduism.

And which is why it's inaccurate to define it under any form of -theism.

No, that is where YOUR misunderstanding comes from. Polytheism is defined in terms of "gods"--the uncapitalized word.

One of my glossaries actually translates deva to "God" with a capital, and some sages even refer to them as "Gods"; with a capital.

By your logic, then, there is only one person, yet you behave as if we were different people having a disagreement.

Welcome to the paradox of that is advaita. ^_^ Because, yes, according to that school of thought, you and I ARE the same Self that permeates the Universe. The thing is, I haven't really "realized" it, yet.

Here, again, I think that you have trapped yourself in a very convoluted position. Polytheism does not deny the existence of a supreme god. It merely asserts the existence of more than one entity that merits the label "god".

And I've seen nothing to indicate that the vast majority of Hindus (comprised of both devotees and Sages) fit that definition.

OK, but I'm still comfortable claiming that it is a type of theism known as "polytheism". That is a linguistic question, not a religious one. It is a matter of what the majority of English speakers mean by the word "polytheism".

I know. I say that it's not accurate.

Polytheism refers to multiple gods, each who are individuals like us. While that can certainly describe many Hindus, I've seen nothing to indicate that it describes the vast majority of them.

From my limited understanding of Janus, he is a single two-faced god. Isn't he the god of politicians?

I don't know about that(it would make sense lol), but if a God can have two faces, why not multiple bodies and personas? Heck, Krishna separated himself into a thousand Krishnas, one for each of his wives.

 

[Copernicus]

Copernicus yet Polytheism is often a misapplied term. The term Polytheism was applied to many ancient religions by Victorian archeologists, because they didn't really understand the way these religions viewed God. Hinduism was called Polytheistic because it views God as having eminations called the devas. Archeologists interpreted ancient Egyptian beliefs wrongly in much the same way. More and more Egyptologists are of the opinion the Egyptians had a Monist view of God.

I do not think that "polytheism" has been misapplied by those who describe Hinduism and all those other multi-deity religions as such. I think that it is being misapplied by people who have read too much into the definition.

I see my self as a monist. I also believe the popularity of monotheism came after the foreign domination of India. All the libraries and universities were destroyed so folks needed a simpler world view that made sense. Monotheism has always been a part of Hinduism it just became a bigger part due to its simplicity and its use in Islam and Christianity. Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta are more complex systems of thought. Monotheism helped Indian philosophy to stay alive in the masses of Indians.

It makes sense to me that "polytheism" would take on a stigma after centuries of domination by cultural monotheists with a prejudice against polytheism. But I have been to too many Hindu temples and discussed the religion with too many Hindus to buy some of the generalizations that you have been making. However much people accept the claim that all gods are manifestations of an underlying uber-deity, they still relate to individual gods as different entities with different characteristics.

It is not too different from the concept of Trinity among Christians, where Jesus is distinct from God the "father", but also a part of God. They do not really think of God and Jesus as the same entity for the purposes of the story. That is, we are still supposed to empathize with God "sacrificing his only begotten son". Typically, nobody says "God sacrificed himself", yet that is the strange logic of the concept of Trinity. To some extent, I think that Muslims have a point in characterizing Christianity as polytheistic, but followers of the Abrahamic deity do have a serious taboo against polytheism to work with. Hindus ought not to accept the stigma against polytheism as a valid criticism of their own belief system, yet there are apparently strong feelings about it.

 

[Onkara]

This has been an interesting discussion, not just for the semantic gymnastics that people seem willing to perform to avoid the label "polytheism", but for fact that people strive to avoid the label. Why should that be? What is so bad about being called a polytheist?

Hi
Simply because it is no longer correct to call it polytheist for the reasons explained above. There is nothing wrong with polytheism, and if one wanted to practice it explicitly within Hinduism, I would think it would fit in or not stand out but they would probably have to ignore Vedanta and Tantra.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

BTW, Christianity has its own spiritual hierarchy,....Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominions, Virtues, Powers, Principalities, Archangels, and Angels, as well as Demons, Devils, etc.. There are also 'personal' names attached to many of the hierarchy, both good and bad. Also it is common for Christians to pray to some of these for assistance, intercession, etc., so where does one draw the line to decide what is Monotheism and what is not?

 

[Breathe]

Simply because it is no longer correct to call it polytheist for the reasons explained above. There is nothing wrong with polytheism, and if one wanted to practice it explicitly within Hinduism, I would think it would fit in or not stand out but they would probably have to ignore Vedanta and Tantra.

Svaha.


Spot on, Onkarah.

I have no problem nor fear of polytheism, whether "hard" or "soft" polytheism, or henotheism, kathenotheism, or monolatry, I just don't think Hinduism is polytheistic either. The closest to polytheism one could get would probably be "soft polytheism" but I do think that oversimplifies it far too much to do Sanatana Dharma justice.

 

[Copernicus]

Hi
Simply because it is no longer correct to call it polytheist for the reasons explained above. There is nothing wrong with polytheism, and if one wanted to practice it explicitly within Hinduism, I would think it would fit in or not stand out but they would probably have to ignore Vedanta and Tantra.

The reaction against the label by Hindus has been too strong to be put down as merely inaccurate.

First of all, nobody has really tried to define what polytheism means. The reactions have mainly relied on an unspecified, implicit concept that is just somehow different from what everyone else seems to think. Most dictionaries define it as the belief in multiple gods, which I think represents a core belief of most practicing Hindus. Whether or not all of those gods are considered manifestations of a single underlying God is beside the point. That is not an uncommon position for some other polytheistic traditions.

Secondly, Madhuri, at least, has already admitted that she was troubled by the use of the term to stigmatize Hindus. Her approach was to deny the label rather than the stigma, and that is what I reacted to. I think that the label is accurate, even though it does not necessarily apply to every Hindu. After all, there are even some Christians who deny Christ's divinity and are even willing to concede that he never actually existed. (A few scholars try to make the claim that Paul was one such Christian.) One can take all sorts of nuanced positions about a religion and about what the majority of believers ought to believe. That doesn't necessarily make the religion fit the ideal, however.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

The reaction against the label by Hindus has been too strong to be put down as merely inaccurate.

First of all, nobody has really tried to define what polytheism means. The reactions have mainly relied on an unspecified, implicit concept that is just somehow different from what everyone else seems to think. Most dictionaries define it as the belief in multiple gods, which I think represents a core belief of most practicing Hindus. Whether or not all of those gods are considered manifestations of a single underlying God is beside the point. That is not an uncommon position for some other polytheistic traditions.

Secondly, Madhuri, at least, has already admitted that she was troubled by the use of the term to stigmatize Hindus. Her approach was to deny the label rather than the stigma, and that is what I reacted to. I think that the label is accurate, even though it does not necessarily apply to every Hindu. After all, there are even some Christians who deny Christ's divinity and are even willing to concede that he never actually existed. (A few scholars try to make the claim that Paul was one such Christian.) One can take all sorts of nuanced positions about a religion and about what the majority of believers ought to believe. That doesn't necessarily make the religion fit the ideal, however.

Some sects of Buddhism have many Devas also. Would you call them polytheist ?