Our Gods are not symbolic!

[Vinayaka]

I'm really not sure how it came to be, but may people think that Hindu Gods are some sort of symbols for something else. Even some Hindus think this. "Oh, they're just symbolic." Of what, I ask.

Hinduism, especially in the mystic and bhakti schools, is full of magic. Energy that whirs, uplifts, whirls, and scintillates. Gods whose presence can absolutely be felt, as when a charismatic person walks into a room, or a strong scent enters.

So any ideas where this idea that it's all 'merely symbolic' came from?

 

[Sees]

I have a pretty good idea It's partially a "keeping up with the Jones's"...an appeal to not be a primitive polytheist - since monotheism, atheism, and agnosticism of various flavors are the approved theological positions of modern times.

 

[George-ananda]

I believe the gods to be dwellers on the higher planes. But the names and forms we give them may be symbolic for our purposes?

 

[Poeticus]

So any ideas where this idea that it's all 'merely symbolic' came from?

When confronted with an irrationally idealistic notion of godhead (insert the "One True God" phenomenon), Hindus have attempted, often failing in the process, to catch-up to such a concept by discoloring all the deva-s as mere symbolic expressions of the "One True God". This is no different than Hindus quickly correcting a non-Hindu's characterization of Dharma as polytheistic. No, no! It's monotheistic! Hindus are monotheistic! ... they'll say.

Cop-outs, the whole lot of them.

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

I think it's because there are so many layers of meaning within the depiction of Hindu deities that it's easier for people to conceive of them as symbols. I think it's a person's way of connecting to the abstract form of a God they really only feel close to on a personal level. I don't see the problem with viewing images of Gods as visual displays of complex spiritual ideas. After all we're ultimately talking about some pretty complex stuff and people have to crawl before they can walk. We know intellectually that, for example, the Goddess Lakshmi is at once all aspects of her depictions, none, and far more than that. But understanding something on an intellectual level is not the same as knowing it by experiencing it. I view the "Gods as symbols of spiritual aspects" more as just a tool to connect with the divine. Much like murtis themselves are tools for connecting with the divine.

But the symbols are merely one layer of the cake, as it were. But most people who are interested in Hinduism are only interested in it from that perspective. They don't really care to go deeper because going deeper actually involves a certain level of spiritual devotion. And most people are in it for intellectual gain/curiosity etc. I just let people be content with whatever layer they feel comfortable existing in and I do my own thing. The visual symbolism is nice, and fun to play with on a superficial level. But it's important (as a devotee) to move beyond that and stay beyond that most of the time. I don't begrudge people their playtime with symbolism.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Sees sees it correctly.

 

[Poeticus]

But the names and forms we give them may be symbolic for our purposes?

No.

Since the Veda-s are shabda, and since many names and forms of the gods and goddesses are to be found in the shabda as shabda, itself, and since the shabda is eternal, then those names and forms are eternal as well.

Therefore, when Lord Indra is incanted as vrtrahan, that appellation isn't symbolic for our purposes. Through an adhyatmic lens, sure. But that wouldn't make Lord Indra, himself, into a mere symbol. He is a god! Same thing goes for the rest of the Vishvedeva-s---they are all gods. Likewise with the hundreds of thousands of Dharmic folk (and cultic) deities, regardless of the fact that 90% of them are not to be found as being articulated in the shabda.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. an appeal to not be a primitive polytheist ..

They are not symbolic. I bet if anyone can prove that.

 

[ShivaFan]

To the question, "why does this happen?" ...

As with anything, it's "complicated".

And it comes from both sides (well really three, "both" implies two), pro Hindu and anti Hindu and excuse Hindu (or "I wish I were a Hindu").

But I do not get upset over the idea of symbolism. For example, I was thinking of moving to Hawaii. I have been to Hawaii many times - so I know it exists.

But ....

What do I mean by "Hawaii"? I mean, "it" is pretty diverse. I don't consider Oahu the same spirit as Kauai. Two different "Hawaii"(s). I mean, when I say "I might move to Hawaii", that is sort of like saying "I might move to planet earth" to some ... and Hawaii could mean anyone of the "big five" or the entire Hawaiian Island Chain or just the REAL Hawaii known as "The Big Island ".

So to my point....

I picked up a brochure at my local AAA office, entitled "HAWAII!" ....

The person who made the brochure is probably an expert on Hawaiianism. Loves Hawaii, probably. Sells it even.

So it says right there, on the cover, "HAWAII!". But it is just a symbol of Hawaii. It isn't Hawaii. But useful to a Martian. But might confuse a Martian, too. Who might never have heard of Hawaii. When I opened the brochure, it said right there at the top, above a picture of a gal doing the Oahu Hula and wearing Las Vegas style attire not really traditional Oahuan at all, "This is Hawaii!".

But she isn't Hawaii. Just a symbol, I guess. Not very, completely, accurate. But also true. A Martian might think, "so.... Hawaii is a nice looking human babe!".

Welll, sort of.

But I swear, Hawaii exists. Even if it didn't in 1609 AD.- to "others".

 

[Poeticus]

And it comes from both sides (well really three, "both" implies two), pro Hindu and anti Hindu and excuse Hindu (or "I wish I were a Hindu").

Then, all three need to stop bein' so ignant!

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

Okay...I misunderstood. So the OP is referring to people who think that Hindu Gods are ONLY symbolic. Yes- that is incorrect, but only because it is incomplete. God's taking different forms do represent different things- otherwise, why make any distinctions at all. Never-mind the thousands of distinctions that already exist.

Yes in this sense people who claim the gods are just "symbolic" are probably saying so because they are afraid that saying otherwise sounds all "scary, weird, and pagan." ( which in itself is only a problem when the Christian majority is -sometimes literally - holding an ax over your head. It comes out of a need for survival but unfortunately isn't helpful in the long run.

However I think another problem is the word "symbolic" gets confused with " imaginary". When that's not the take I have on the word at all. When something symbolizes something else it's merely a visual metaphor for a complex or abstract concept. I see nothing wrong with symbols in and of themselves if they simplify things for people and help people make important connections.

But when people make the mistake of using the word "symbol" to downplay the importance of something in order to not ruffle feathers it dilutes that meaning into one that just means, "Not really God, you know- like that would be weird. It's really just a symbol."

Symbols can be very powerful when they are used and understood correctly.

 

[StarryNightshade]

I'm really not sure how it came to be, but may people think that Hindu Gods are some sort of symbols for something else. Even some Hindus think this. "Oh, they're just symbolic." Of what, I ask.

Hinduism, especially in the mystic and bhakti schools, is full of magic. Energy that whirs, uplifts, whirls, and scintillates. Gods whose presence can absolutely be felt, as when a charismatic person walks into a room, or a strong scent enters.

So any ideas where this idea that it's all 'merely symbolic' came from?

Let me play Devil's Advocate: why should you care if one thinks the Gods are "merely symbolic"?

One thing that we like to reiterate is that there is so much diversity within Hinduism, and some believing that the Gods are symbolic is a part of that diversity. Even if it seemingly is primarily concentrated within Western Hinduism.

Not everyone is a mystic. Therefore, seeing the Gods as smaller parts, or symbols, of a greater whole is what some are best suited for. For me personally, I lie somewhere in the middle. I don't believe the Devas are "mere symbols", but I don't believe they literally exist as the murthis depict them, either.

 

[Vinayaka]

I don't believe they exist as the murthies depict them either, Starry. But neither are they nothing.

Thanks to everyone who responded. Thought provoking, as usual.

 

[Poeticus]

Let me play Devil's Advocate: why should you care if one thinks the Gods are "merely symbolic"?

I'd only care if it was being stressed as representative of all of Hinduism. I remember an event from high school in one of my world religions courses really well:

I said I'm a Hindu polytheist when the teacher asked me what my beliefs were when we came upon Hinduism. And another Hindu present raised his hands and said that I was wrong---that Hindus are all monotheists and that various gods and goddesses as we know them are just facets of a one true god, the One True God.

Plus, I've always been fond of the Abrahamic Devil. Poor guy, he's always getting the short end of the stick. Dude hasn't killed more than ten peeps whereas the One True God went apesh*t into the millions, I tell ya!

Long story short: I told the other Hindu student that subject lessons were over---that they had been over since 1947. He still didn't believe me, unfortunately. Poor fellow. So much rethinking of the subconscious he had to do. Hope he's okay.

 

[Aupmanyav]

( which in itself is only a problem when the Christian majority is -sometimes literally - holding an ax over your head. It comes out of a need for survival but unfortunately isn't helpful in the long run.

I think asking a monotheist whether God or Allah exist would be rude, so I stop at this point.

 

[Chakra]

In my opinion, I think this problem happens when people start talking about how all our Devas are lesser "energies" and how Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu represent the 3 most important energies of God (Creator, Destroyer, Preserver). I think many Hindus do this in order to get away from polytheism (which they believe is barbaric or something like that, just like the Christians do) but to also appeal to the majority of people as a "scientific" religion, since if your gods are simply energies and do not exist, you are likely not to be criticized as much as the Christians are about their religion from atheists etc. This is just what I think.

 

[Vinayaka]

To set the record, there is no anger from here to those who do, but I'm always curious as to where ideas come from.

 

[Maya3]

I think they are symbolic. I don´t believe that Ganesha or Lakshmi are real beings existing on other planes.
I believe that the manifestations are the forms. We are, the grasses, the animals, the mountains everything. So in that sense sure there are many "real" forms. But I think the murtis symbolizes this, not that they are actual deities.

 

[Poeticus]

To set the record, there is no anger from here to those who do, but I'm always curious as to where ideas come from.

... and was your question definitively answered?

 

[Vinayaka]

No the question was not definitively answered, but my previously held ideas were mostly confirmed ... by yourself and others. It arose, as usual, from some sort of defense to false accusations. Trying to keep up to the 'others'. But the good thing is I think it's being reversed.