polytheism

[cbrahma]

Often Hinduism is accused of being polytheist because of its pantheon of deities. The big arguments that ensue even from Prabhupada's translation of deva into demigod illustrate this difficulty. Sanskrit dictionaries render the term 'a god', divinity or exalted personality as possible meanings. When it comes to so many devas, if the the word god is used the conclusion seems inescapably polytheistic. Also many Hindus I've spoken to, sound polytheistic in their democratic attitude towards the devatas, nevertheless recognizing a hierarchy of sorts. One day there is Narayana worship, the next Ganesh worship and so on. How does this practice escape the Western theological accusation of polytheism?

[matarisvan]

 

Often Hinduism is accused of being polytheist because of its pantheon of deities.

The usage of "accused" implies polytheism is bad. Why?

Because the people who make this "accusation" come from a monotheistic religion which has a strong known history of condemning and putting down older religions which were mostly polytheistic. Their way of thinking is “because I follow a monotheistic religion polytheism must be bad”.

Hindus are not concerned about outsider views and accusations. We can accuse Christianity and other monotheistic of a number of faults. Does that make a difference to them? Their accusations are useless similarly.

[Kulapavana]

I would rather be a polytheist who respects other religions than a murdering and thieving monotheist, puffed up with his sense of religious superiority.

[cbrahma]

 

The usage of "accused" implies polytheism is bad. Why?

Because the people who make this "accusation" come from a monotheistic religion which has a strong known history of condemning and putting down older religions which were mostly polytheistic. Their way of thinking is “because I follow a monotheistic religion polytheism must be bad”.

Hindus are not concerned about outsider views and accusations. We can accuse Christianity and other monotheistic of a number of faults. Does that make a difference to them? Their accusations are useless similarly.

Of course, the charge of polytheism in the West is considered bad, more primitive, culturally backwards.

[cbrahma]

 

I would rather be a polytheist who respects other religions than a murdering and thieving monotheist, puffed up with his sense of religious superiority.

Well polytheists have been just as bellicose. I don't think that's much of a recommendation. So you agree that Hinduism is polytheist.

[matarisvan]

 

Of course, the charge of polytheism in the West is considered bad, more primitive, culturally backwards.

 

Hinduism is Polytheist. Vivekananda and other Gurus who traveled to the west tried to show Hindu as monotheist to make it easier for westerners to gain an interest in the religion.

 

But that will not work. To the Christian it does not make a difference if Hinduism is mono or poly. It is false and should be avoide in both cases.

 

Some Hindus instead of asserting polytheism get defensive and try to deny it. I consider them ignorant because they are taking the bait of western conception that polytheism is bad. If anyone can present objective evidence that polytheism is lesser than monotheism I will hear it. If it is based on nothing other than semitic/christian sentiments then it has no value.

[Kulapavana]

 

So you agree that Hinduism is polytheist.

 

Hinduism is far more complex than the term "polytheism" suggests. And Hinduism is many things at the same time.

 

Besides, to deny that there are higher beings (devas) worthy of our worship is pure ignorance. It is like using every day the services of the King's local emissary without a mere "thank you" directed to that official. It is both ignorant and arrogant. Is giving such thanks polytheism? I don't think so.

[theist]

 

Often Hinduism is accused of being polytheist because of its pantheon of deities. The big arguments that ensue even from Prabhupada's translation of deva into demigod illustrate this difficulty. Sanskrit dictionaries render the term 'a god', divinity or exalted personality as possible meanings. When it comes to so many devas, if the the word god is used the conclusion seems inescapably polytheistic. Also many Hindus I've spoken to, sound polytheistic in their democratic attitude towards the devatas, nevertheless recognizing a hierarchy of sorts. One day there is Narayana worship, the next Ganesh worship and so on. How does this practice escape the Western theological accusation of polytheism?

 

Important topic. I don't think it can escape the definition of polytheistic if left at that stage. It becomes impersonialism when the Brahman is seen as the ultimate source and reality behind these demigods or universal gods if some people prefer. Or it becomes theism when the Supreme Pesonality of Godhead is recognized as being beyond both the demigods and Brahmajyoti as well.

 

The theist is in the proper position accepting all and at the same time realizing where the Supremacy lies.

 

Polytheism is not well developed when it tries to stand alone.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

 

 

I would rather be a polytheist who respects other religions than a murdering and thieving monotheist, puffed up with his sense of religious superiority.

 

My sentiment exactly, although polytheist in appearance and worship of various devas does give that appearance never the less Vedas do not admit of another.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[cbrahma]

 

Hinduism is far more complex than the term "polytheism" suggests. And Hinduism is many things at the same time.

 

Besides, to deny that there are higher beings (devas) worthy of our worship is pure ignorance. It is like using every day the services of the King's local emissary without a mere "thank you" directed to that official. It is both ignorant and arrogant. Is giving such thanks polytheism? I don't think so.

Well all natural phenomena in Hinduism is invested with personality. Fire, water, earth, air all have presiding devatas. All of Nature is worshipable by that definition. So it isn't just polytheism but pantheism. Yet the Gita explains that those who worship the devatas in nature are less intelligent. Go figure.

[matarisvan]

cbrahma

 

what were you trying to say in this thread?

It is not clear.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

 

 

. Yet the Gita explains that those who worship the devatas in nature are less intelligent. Go figure.

 

No where in Bhagvat Gita Deva worship is condemned, in bg 7.20-23 the material desire of Jiva and futility of its endeavor which is temporary is condemned not the Devas.

 

Just see what Lord Krishna says in Chapter Three and Seventeen in this regard.

 

 

 

 

 

Brahmaa, the creator, in the beginning created human beings together with Yajna and said: By Yajna you shall prosper and Yajna shall fulfill all your desires. (3.10)

 

 

 

 

Nourish the Devas with Yajna, and the Devas will nourish you. Thus nourishing one another you shall attain the Supreme goal. (3.11)

 

 

 

 

Men in the mode of goodness worship the devas; those in the mode of passion worshipthe demons; and those in the mode of ignorance worship ghosts and spirits. (17.4)

 

 

 

The worship of Devas, Braahmana, guru, and the wise; purity, honesty, celibacy, and nonviolence; these are said to be the austerity of deed. (17.14)

 

Makes me wonder if we are reading the same Bhagvat Gita.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[cbrahma]

 

cbrahma

 

what were you trying to say in this thread?

It is not clear.

It is quite clear. Hinduism has all the earmarks of polytheism. That constitutes a critical problem in Western theologies. Is that clear enough?

[indulekhadasi]

In my humble opinion Hinduism as itself is a polytheistic religion. When you go deeper and become a Vaishnava or a Shaivite, then it becomes monotheistic.

[kimfelix]

cbrahma, Hinduism is polytheistic, monotheistic and monist at the same time. This may be a problem for Western theologies but why should that matter? Western theology has so many problems of its own that it cannot be regarded as any sort of absolute standard.

 

Christianity is regarded as polytheistic by Muslims because of its three gods. Moreover, the rigid monotheism of Christianity etc raises problems about evil and suffering in the world--the problem of theodicy. How is it that the world is so full of evil and suffering if it is the creation of a benign, all-powerful Deity? Richard Rubenstein, a Jewish theologian who survived Auschwitz, claimed that the notion of an all-good, all-powerful Deity is no longer possible in light of the suffering he had witnessed.

 

But my main objection to Christian monotheism is its insistence that faith in Christ is the only way to salvation, because of the atonement for sin brought about by his death. This is just a matter of blind faith, but Christians use it to insist that theirs is the only religion and to condemn and abuse other faiths. I am entirely tolerant of faith-based religion, but I cannot tolerate their intolerance, particularly as the religion is so intimately tied in with the evils of colonialism, imperialism and the domination and enslavement of other races. The close alliance between Christianity and aggression against other peoples is not an aberration or a coincidence; it is a direct result of the supremacist theology.

 

So I have no problem with Christianity as a faith-based religion; different people believe all sorts of different things. But I do have a problem with the supremacism, as it is the root of so many evils; and there are hints of that mood in your original post.

 

There is the story of a Mexican chief who was being tortured by the Spanish who were trying to convert him to Christianity. Eventually, after roasting him on a spit, they said, "Why will you not convert?"

 

He replied, "Because if I convert I will go to heaven"

 

They said, "Why do you not want to go to heaven"

 

"It's full of Christians"

[Amlesh]

Hinduism contains all the various existing doctrines. It should be noted that all doctrines are inter-linked with one another making it a step by step approach of different consciousness till we reach the highest perfection, Sri Ram.

 

The accusations are made due to ignorance, since Hinduism hold everything, people from a particular faith tend to criticize the things that they do not see in their religion and see them in Hinduism.

 

And obviously, critics can never say that Hinduism does not possess something in particular.

[tackleberry]

 

Often Hinduism is accused of being polytheist because of its pantheon of deities. The big arguments that ensue even from Prabhupada's translation of deva into demigod illustrate this difficulty. Sanskrit dictionaries render the term 'a god', divinity or exalted personality as possible meanings. When it comes to so many devas, if the the word god is used the conclusion seems inescapably polytheistic. Also many Hindus I've spoken to, sound polytheistic in their democratic attitude towards the devatas, nevertheless recognizing a hierarchy of sorts. One day there is Narayana worship, the next Ganesh worship and so on. How does this practice escape the Western theological accusation of polytheism?

If you define polytheism as the belief in multiple gods, yes, most traditions within Hinduism are polytheistic. Classical traditions consider deva-s like Indra, Surya etc. to be real entities. Even advaita considers them real, at least on the vyavahArika (sp) level.

 

But this is totally different from believing that all gods are equal, and except neo-vedanta, no tradition within Hinduism does that, because they do believe in the Supremacy of One God, to which different traditions may give different names. Which makes most of Hinduism monontheistic, except advaita which is monistic as well.

 

As you can see, this is quite complicated, and the simplistic 'western' idea of defining Hinduism as 'this or that' just doesn't work. Words like polytheism, monotheism may be useful in understanding western religions, but to understand Vedic traditions, it's better to approach them with a mind uncluttered by such notions.

[cbrahma]

 

cbrahma, Hinduism is polytheistic, monotheistic and monist at the same time. This may be a problem for Western theologies but why should that matter? Western theology has so many problems of its own that it cannot be regarded as any sort of absolute standard.

 

Christianity is regarded as polytheistic by Muslims because of its three gods. Moreover, the rigid monotheism of Christianity etc raises problems about evil and suffering in the world--the problem of theodicy. How is it that the world is so full of evil and suffering if it is the creation of a benign, all-powerful Deity? Richard Rubenstein, a Jewish theologian who survived Auschwitz, claimed that the notion of an all-good, all-powerful Deity is no longer possible in light of the suffering he had witnessed.

 

But my main objection to Christian monotheism is its insistence that faith in Christ is the only way to salvation, because of the atonement for sin brought about by his death. This is just a matter of blind faith, but Christians use it to insist that theirs is the only religion and to condemn and abuse other faiths. I am entirely tolerant of faith-based religion, but I cannot tolerate their intolerance, particularly as the religion is so intimately tied in with the evils of colonialism, imperialism and the domination and enslavement of other races. The close alliance between Christianity and aggression against other peoples is not an aberration or a coincidence; it is a direct result of the supremacist theology.

 

So I have no problem with Christianity as a faith-based religion; different people believe all sorts of different things. But I do have a problem with the supremacism, as it is the root of so many evils; and there are hints of that mood in your original post.

 

There is the story of a Mexican chief who was being tortured by the Spanish who were trying to convert him to Christianity. Eventually, after roasting him on a spit, they said, "Why will you not convert?"

 

He replied, "Because if I convert I will go to heaven"

 

They said, "Why do you not want to go to heaven"

 

"It's full of Christians"

Christianity is not the only monotheistic religion in the world. The Abrahamic religions are monotheistic, Islam, Judaism, as well as Bahai'ism, Zoroastrianism and Antonism (non-Abrhamic).

Certainly we cannot speak of the Supreme anything in polytheism. Superlatives in the description of a god must fall away. That is why KC is technically monotheistic because it claims that Krsna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Don't try to turn this into a strictly anti-Christian crusade.

[cbrahma]

 

If you define polytheism as the belief in multiple gods, yes, most traditions within Hinduism are polytheistic. Classical traditions consider deva-s like Indra, Surya etc. to be real entities. Even advaita considers them real, at least on the vyavahArika (sp) level.

 

But this is totally different from believing that all gods are equal, and except neo-vedanta, no tradition within Hinduism does that, because they do believe in the Supremacy of One God, to which different traditions may give different names. Which makes most of Hinduism monontheistic, except advaita which is monistic as well.

 

As you can see, this is quite complicated, and the simplistic 'western' idea of defining Hinduism as 'this or that' just doesn't work. Words like polytheism, monotheism may be useful in understanding western religions, but to understand Vedic traditions, it's better to approach them with a mind uncluttered by such notions.

One may be monistic and still be polytheistic in the belief that all gods issue from the same non-differentiated substance or Spirit. that is monotheism does not pick out personalism.

The Gita is translated variously in monotheistic (Prabhupda) and polytheistic terms (impersonalists).

 

<CENTER>Chapter 7. Knowledge of the Absolute</CENTER>

 

TEXT 23

antavat tu phalam tesam

tad bhavaty alpa-medhasam

devan deva-yajo yanti

mad-bhakta yanti mam api

SYNONYMS

 

anta-vat tu--limited and temporary; phalam--fruits; tesam--their; tat--that; bhavati--becomes; alpa-medhasam--of those of small intelligence; devan--demigods' planets; deva-yajah--worshipers of demigods; yanti--achieve; mat--My; bhaktah--devotees; yanti--attain; mam--to Me; api--surely.

 

 

TRANSLATION

 

Men of small intelligence worship the demigods, and their fruits are limited and temporary. Those who worship the demigods go to the planets of the demigods, but My devotees ultimately reach My supreme planet.

This is ultimately monotheistic.

[cbrahma]

 

In my humble opinion Hinduism as itself is a polytheistic religion. When you go deeper and become a Vaishnava or a Shaivite, then it becomes monotheistic.

I should have said Vaisnavism instead of Hinduism. The problem is that there are a number of professed Vaisnavas who disagree on the topic. (dwaita/adwaita)

[raghu]

 

I should have said Vaisnavism instead of Hinduism. The problem is that there are a number of professed Vaisnavas who disagree on the topic. (dwaita/adwaita)

 

Yeah, we should all stop speculating and just listen to obvious experts like yourself.

 

An expert on Vaishnavism uvAcha:

 

"The point that you have to give up Christianity to practice Vaisnavism labors under the misconception that Vaisnavism is a religion - or that Christianity is a religion, for that matter.

That is the essential point."

 

(from http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/446546-universality-transcendance-10.html#post1093717)

[raghu]

Cbrahma's unwarranted digression aside, the basic point that one needs to consider is that "Hinduism" is not a single religion. It encompasses a number of diverse religious doctrines that all have in theory some basis in the Vedas. The use by iskcon revisionists of "Hinduism" as a pejorative term to refer to non-Vaishnava systems of belief is an historically incorrect useage and should be abandoned.

 

Webster's Dictionary defines "polytheism" as "The doctrine of, or belief in, a plurality of gods." Without quibbling about what "gods" means in this context, one could argue that many Hindu traditions are undoubtedly "polytheistic" since they acknowledge the existence and worship of many devas.

 

Then again, as many have pointed out, the use of a simplistic monotheistic/polytheistic classification fails when approaching Hindu traditions because of their monotheistic conception of Brahman despite the acknowledgement of multiple devas. The Vedanta texts are clear that Brahman alone is worthy of worship while anya-devatas are subordinate beings whose boons are dependent on the good graces of Brahman.

[matarisvan]

 

I should have said Vaisnavism instead of Hinduism. The problem is that there are a number of professed Vaisnavas who disagree on the topic. (dwaita/adwaita)

 

A single iskcon temple contain idols of radha, krishna, sita, rama and gaura-nitai. It contains paintings of laxmana, hanuman and chaitanya. Another temple with idols for chaitanya, nityananda, advaita prabhu and gadadara prabhu.

 

With this information, try convincing a Christian (not HK Christians, but a full Christian) that iskcon is monotheistic but when hindus do the same, it should be considered polytheism. No one has provided objective evidence that monotheism is better than polytheism.

[cbrahma]

 

A single iskcon temple contain idols of radha, krishna, sita, rama and gaura-nitai. It contains paintings of laxmana, hanuman and chaitanya. Another temple with idols for chaitanya, nityananda, advaita prabhu and gadadara prabhu.

 

With this information, try convincing a Christian (not HK Christians, but a full Christian) that iskcon is monotheistic but when hindus do the same, it should be considered polytheism. No one has provided objective evidence that monotheism is better than polytheism.

 

Iconism is a subtopic of monotheism. There were iconoclastic movements within the monotheistic faiths, but they co-exist with iconic faiths such as Catholicism and some Protestant sects that branched early from Catholicism, like the Lutherans and Episcopaleans.

The presence of icons does not in itself indicate polytheism to anybody with a certain theological sophistication.

[shvu]

Iconism - The formation of a figure, representation, or semblance; a delineation or description.

Polytheism - belief in or worship of more than one god

Monotheism - the doctrine or belief that there is only one God

Theism - belief in the existence of a god or gods

Impersonalism - the practice of maintaining impersonal relations with individuals or groups

Impersonal - having no personality; devoid of human character or traits.

Pantheism - any religious belief or philosophical doctrine that identifies God with the universe.

 

The above is from www.dictionary.com

 

Unfortunately there does not exist a single english word which will take into account the Hindu concept of many Gods woven into the fabric of a single God.

 

You are using words or concepts which were formed to distinguish Christianity from other religions prevalent during its rise in the Middle East area, which are simply not enough to capture the intricate nature of common Hindu beliefs.

 

In short, Polytheism as is commonly understood just does not apply to Hinduism.

 

Cheers