It is NOT Polytheistic

[atanu]

I will add my one cent worth.

It is true that Veda teaches that sages call one truth by various names. And that overrides all poly aspect. Every Veda or Upanishad reading begin and end with 'Om' -- the impartible one essence that is held as Brahman.

At the same time, Hinduism in addition to holding that Brahman is one without a Second also holds Brahman is all. To complement this is the teaching that the vak (word) is infinite in heaven but it becomes two and it becomes many.

So, Hinduism, uniquely, unlike possibly every other religion, holds all names as divine, as forms of That one truth -- each in fullness and not as in arms and legs. Thus the essence of every name and every form is the fullness of Brahman, although, the manifestation is more or less conditioned. We are bound but devas may be bound to much lesser extents. These names pervade the heaven (cosmic equivalent of dream) and earth (cosmic equivalent of waking).

Further, the core teaching in Hinduism, possibly unlike in any other religion, is to worship the manifest Brahman (saguna or Hiryanagarbha) and the unmanifest moola prakriti (consciousness as in deep sleep that holds all seeds that sprout in hiranyagarbha -- in dream and waking) together -- to attain the one without a second immortal Brahman.

So, at least theoretically, Hindus consider each man/woman as manifest That -- to the extent the waking dream is real. In this state exist the pancha bhutas (ether-mind, air, fire, water, and earth). In state of Hiranyagarbha (cosmic equivalent of dream) all beings are real to the extent the dream is real. Devas are beings of this realm. Next, is the state of prajna (deep sleep) which is the controller of all, called sarvesvara. Here the beings are said to be absorbed in their seed state. Sarvesvara -prajna is the gateway of creation of all beings and is the ruler of all beings that exist in the dream and waking states.

Hinduism does accord polytheistic deva status to all beings in theses states. That is by teaching. The method of sacrifice entails that. All devas and all beings, who are as true as the states (which are however called dream states) are all worshipped with sacrificial offerings. None is ignored.

It is true.

But, the core teaching that the Truth is one and that it is transcendental-unchanging is never forgotten.
.........................

This makes a huge difference. Those religions that worship God as a separate being not present in manifestation, create a potential condition where "I" and the universe are seen as separate and also create a potential for hatred of the perceived other.

...

 

[Tom Terrific]

So what? There are still multiple gods and goddesses.

Not if they're just different aspects of one being.

That's a semantics game. ... They all have different names, personalities, icons, powers, and sets of followers.

No, it isn't. I have 5 different names off the top of my head, but there's still only one me.

I think this narrows the focus of the discussion in the direction of the solution.

I don't think this topic would be nearly as important as it is were it not for Christianity's insistence that belief in the Trinity is not polytheistic. I'm kind of surprised to see the same position being taken by a Hindu about his religion; I've never heard that before.

Neopagan polytheists have the same kind of discussion amongst themselves. Are the different gods merely different aspects of a single God or are they fully distinct persons? I think the answer is really very simple; but it employs a concept that is probably new to most -- the idea of "meta-personhood."

Christians use the word "God" to refer both to one aspect of their Trinity (the Father) and to the Trinity as a whole, which is confusing, even to Christians themselves, I think. It is important to recognize the distinction, in any religion, between the Godhead and any particular expression thereof; because the nature of the Godhead is beyond rational conception.

Some people, speaking of this transcendent divinity, characterize it as "impersonal"; but I think this is a mistake. I think they make this mistake because they think that "impersonal" is the only alternative to "personal"; and this would be true if we were limited to merely rational categories. However, what if there were multiple dimensions of personhood, as there are multiple physical dimensions? Anyone who has read the book, Flatland, can recall the futility with which the 2-dimensional mathematician tried to convince his fellows of the existence of a 3rd dimension, and how he came to be called a heretic for insisting on the existence of "height" which was "upward, but not northward."

In the same way, it is my belief that the Godhead, the unitary divine, the Monad -- whatever you want to call it -- is "many, but one." It is not "impersonal," but "metapersonal"; it is more personal than personal, not less. When it expresses itself to our rational consciousness, it can only do so in cross-section, as it were, and take a merely personal form. Just as when a Sphere manifests within a plane it can only do so as a Circle, so when the Godhead manifests within rational consciousness it can only do so as a Person.

Christianity believes that there are only three such Persons, while -- I think -- Hinduism believes that the number of these Persons is unlimited. Myself, I take the latter view, but I'm not sure it's necessary for this approach to make sense. It may cause problems for Christians in another way, however, because "more personal than personal" may lead to identity; and this would conflict with Christian orthodoxy as I understand it.

I believe everything is One, but that this Unity exists on a more fundamental level than that on which we operate consciously; and I believe in a Unitary divine that expresses itself to rational consciousness in many merely personal forms. Does this make me a polytheist or a monotheist?

I have heard another Neopagan describe herself as a "polytheistic, panentheistic monist," and I think that pretty well describes me, too.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Hinduism is NOT Polytheistic.
Time and time again people will oppose Hinduism saying that it's polytheistic.

There are different types of Hindus. Some are monotheistic dualists, some are panentheists and many are monistic. I am not even sure than any Hindus are polytheistic.

So who told you this? Why do you think this?

Get it right, we are not Polytheists.

Wow! It has never really come up in my wanderings... but now I know.

 

[hexler]

I too believe that Krishna preached monotheism. Bahá’u’lláh also states the Unity of God. In "Gleanings XXVII" He states:
All praise to the unity of God, and all honor to Him, the sovereign Lord, the incomparable and all-glorious Ruler of the universe, Who, out of utter nothingness, hath created the reality of all things, Who, from naught, hath brought into being the most refined and subtle elements of His creation, and Who, rescuing His creatures from the abasement of remoteness and the perils of ultimate extinction, hath received them into His kingdom of incorruptible glory. Nothing short of His all-encompassing grace, His all-pervading mercy, could have possibly achieved it. How could it, otherwise, have been possible for sheer nothingness to have acquired by itself the worthiness and capacity to emerge from its state of non-existence into the realm of being?

 

[George-ananda]

I like the quote from the Hindu scriptures:

The thousand gods are just my thousand faces