"God"

I see this from time to time in discussions with Hindu's, a reference to "God". It was my understanding that Hinduism was polytheistic, but often expressed in a henotheistic way?

When you refer to "God" to what/whom are you referring?

Me.

Actually, TED is right. We believe that everyone and everything really IS God so yes, TED is God too.

Gorm,

I see this from time to time in discussions with Hindu's, a reference
to "God". It was my understanding that Hinduism was polytheistic, but
often expressed in a henotheistic way?

A lot of people are confused by this, including me before I understood the concept.
When we say God, we mean one God, an omniscient, omnipresent and formless energy. We call him/she/it Brahman. It's just another name for God, Allah etc.
Where it gets confusing for you is probably when you think of all the other "gods" Shiva, Ganesh, Lakshmi, Saraswati, Rama, Parvati, etc, etc, etc?

All these "Gods" are really not God, but forms of God, or rather a representation of God. Their names and forms are taken from mythology.
The real name for them is Murti (form) but most people who are not familiar with Hinduism calls them God. (some Hindus do too).

Since we are human most of us cannot picture or comprehend a formless omnipotent energy so we pick a form that suits us personally. It can really be anything, it does not have to come from the Hindu mythology. Since God is everything anyway, we can choose to look at him/her/it in any form we want.

Let me know if you have more questions or if my answer didn't make sense.

Maya

When you refer to "God" to what/whom are you referring?

Gorm,
Sorry forgot the other question.

When you refer to "God" to what/whom are you referring?

I think of God as Brahman a conscious, omnipresent energy but I often use the form of Ganesh, Lakshmi or Saraswati in my rituals.
When Hindus do Pujas (worship rituals) we ask God to come and visit us in the form we have chosen, because it's easier to see and talk to God in a form.

Maya

I was under the impression that it was something along those lines, that the murti were avatars of Brahaman. My knowledge of the developmental history of Hinduism is rather lack, is this a more recent development or has it always been like this?

I'm a advaita Hindu (advaita means; not two). And I believe its always been this way more or less. At the same time hinduism is an umbrella term for a very diverse set of beliefs, there are many different sects so someone else might believe differently. I also imagine that before people were well educated they might have taken the myth literarily (?)

Maya

So you are really soft polytheists as opposed to the hard polytheists of Paganism? I think that is where some Hindus misunderstand and offend Pagans and visa versa.

I will be waiting for what Maya says. I am a bit confuzzled.

Are you speaking about the Divine? I see the Divine as being One. I am Divine, you are and so is everyone and everything. I mean every single speck.

For a hard polytheist, which I am, it can be confusing for others. I do think we are all One and all Divine but I also thing that the Gods are real and manifest as being Divine.

Not making much sense here am I?

Gilly, no we are not really pilytheists at all, we just believe that the one can appear in many forms, but it is really just one. Vibration like the sound of OM

Maya

That's a polytheist, Maya.

From Merriam-Webster:

Polytheism - belief in or worship of more than one gods.

Soft polytheists believe that there is one (some believe in two) gods and that all the other gods are aspects of that one god. Like you said - really just one god.

In a way, Christians are also polytheists since they too believe that their god manifests as three beings.

Yeah but the difference is that even when god manifests into another form, a leaf a human a dog he/she/it is not separate it just appears to us that way, because we are not enlightened yet. When we are we see that there were never any separate forms at all.

Maya

That is what Christian Scientists believe and strive to perceive. Only of course they believe that it is their god that enlightened folk will see and not your own.

As long as you have different names for different things and aspects of your god though (remain unenlightened) then you remain a polytheist, correct?

Gilly, I did not know that about Christian scientists, wow.

As for your question, yes but no. The cool thing with hinduism for me is that people know that they are using mythology as a prop to connect with the divine. So no people people are not really pilytheists because they know that their own view is limited. BUT that said I think that there are many Hindus who are like you said soft polytheists, like I mentioned it's a very diverse belief system and there are really no rules to what you can or cannot believe.
Maya

I like a religion that allows for a personal view of the Divine and Divinity.
We are all different, so naturally we will see things differently. I much prefer belief systems that respect and accept the difference.

After all the Divine reaches us in many ways.

Maya, Hindus are like Christians though, aren't they, in that they view other religions as fitting into their world view. I'm not putting that right. Some Christians view other people as worshipping devils because they believe that their is only one god, so.... Other Christians view other people (aka the Christian Scientists among others) as worshipping their god (there being only one) and not being aware of it. Some Hindus seem to fit other religions into their world view by saying everyone is worshipping the aspects of their god.

My religion doesn't try to fit other religion's beliefs into their world view. Do you see yourself as doing it? Why? Or do you think that their are two camps of religions, those that do and those that do not?

maya3 wrote:Yeah but the difference is that even when god manifests into another form, a leaf a human a dog he/she/it is not separate it just appears to us that way, because we are not enlightened yet. When we are we see that there were never any separate forms at all.

Maya

gillyflower wrote:That is what Christian Scientists believe and strive to perceive. Only of course they believe that it is their god that enlightened folk will see and not your own.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but my understanding of the Christian Science perception of God is more of a power from which humankind separates itself only by erroneous belief that we are separate. Thus, physical illness is regarded as a manifestation of erroneous thinking. We are always "of God" and "with" God as the sayings go. It is only when we focus upon mistaken thinking such as believing that we are ill and thus imperfect that we impose upon ourselves a separation that does not actually exist.

I never encountered in my study of Christian Science any of the exclusivity that your phrase "their god" suggests. Granted, a Christian Scientist would say it is inappropriate to perceive God as anything other than the somewhat abstract qualities of Health, Perfection, Mind, Love, etc. Thus, there is no place for aspects of God such as the Hindu deities or the Roman Catholic saints, both of which serve to bring people closer to the One God within their respective faiths. [Admittedly, only a little over a year's study does not by any means render me expert in speaking about what Christian Scientists believe, so the view of anyone having a more extensive knowledge would be welcome indeed.]

Hmmm...I hadn't thought of the Hindu "sub-deities" as akin to the Roman Catholic saints. There's a definite distinction, of course, since the saints are believed to be the exalted souls of deceased people who act as intermediaries having particular influence in conveying the petitioner's prayers to God. Thus, saints are regarded as very real beings in their own right and not as the multiple deities function within the context of Hinduism. However, the saints do have an important role of being more approachable if a person feels too much in awe of God to go directly to God in prayer, so perhaps in that sense there is some similarity to the role of multiple deities within Hinduism.

You know more than I because I only get my information from my friend who may be telling me an atypical belief, even though she has been a Christian Scientist from childhood. She has said that nothing of this world really exists.

The "your god" and "their god" - if no one else's god exists, then we are all worshipping her god. Likewise with the Hindus. Since I don't worship it or believe it exists or care if it does or not, it isn't "my god," which is not to be rude but they've all got their own particular gods that aren't shared by other religions.

When i say god I am referring to an idea rather than a direct entity.

I also like what Itty says that god is in everything.

I will add that I think that when different people describe "god" they are describing the same thing and the only thing that makes it different is the perspective of the observer.

Greetings

There is alot of confusion about Hinduism..... the most succinct (and best) way I've every heard Modern Hinduism summed up was by a guy from India named Ram, whose family has been Hindu since always. Ram, Usha, Nisha and I were about to head to the temple for Aarti, and we were talking about the concept of god(s) and he said to me:

"statues and myths are simply ways for us to try and understand what cannot be understood (god/the 'one source')"

..... I like that a lot as often, what we think we know, we really don't know. Our labels and definitions - especially regarding god/s - are mostly the product of our current place and time. Moving in any direction on the timeline of man, and things change a great deal. Looking at man-kind's timeline another way, we'll find that similar groups, with similar language, more often than not have similar ideas

Hinduism is not always viewed as being polytheistic these days, however it is certainly Indo-European and is extremely similar to other Indo-European cultures (a key influence for all Indo-Europeans is 'polytheism') Rewinding Indian history, the ancients (pre-Sanskrit and pre-Bhraman) worshiped the celestial god Dyaus, which in Sanskrit means the sky, day, heaven. In Greek this god is called Zeus, in Latin, Jupiter (Iov-pater/'Father Heaven') and in Old-Norse, Tyr. The names Dyaus, Zeus, Iov and Tyr are dialectical variants of the same word.

The Old Vikings believed in gods which they called Aser. In Sanskrit, the word used for gods is asura, and in Persian, Ahura. Another Sanskrit word for god is deva, daeva in Persian, deus in Latin and tivurr in Old Norse. Why would I rattle all this off? Because similar cultures with similar words also share similar ideas. Compare stories from the Veda, Greek philosophy and Snorri Sturluson's mythology and you'll find similarities in modes of thought across all Indo-European cultures.

In short, the root of Indian theology/philosophy is pantheistic. Whether or not a modern Hindi folk would consider his/herself to be polytheistic or not has to do with the particular school of thought (which spot on man-kind's timeline) they follow? IOW, followers of Samkhya view their religion very differently from those who are influenced by Vedanta

IOW IOW gorm, how much do you really want to read to answer your question

........

Ok, I can't help myself, I'm about to expand things because history and language are fun....

To really dig into your opening question, and to better understand the ideas of *polytheism* and *monotheism*, we need to look to the cultural roots; the Indo-European and Semitic cultures. Now lets tease out the idea of 'insight' ... in Indo-European literature the word used again again regarding insight is 'seeing.' Compare/contrast this to the Semitic culture (Muslims etc), where 'hearing' is very important ... doesn't this shine a lot of light on the people from these groups? Right?, in this one idea we notice that the cultures who gain insight/understanding by 'seeing' tend to have colorful gods, and statues, and all sorts of visual (comes from 'vidya' in Sanskrit, video in Latin) Cultures that gain insight by 'hearing' tend to not need such props (they use other props.)

(Christianity, btw, attempts to blend the two cultures)

Kinda neat, eh?

gillyflower wrote:Maya, Hindus are like Christians though, aren't they, in that they view other religions as fitting into their world view. I'm not putting that right. Some Christians view other people as worshipping devils because they believe that their is only one god, so.... Other Christians view other people (aka the Christian Scientists among others) as worshipping their god (there being only one) and not being aware of it. Some Hindus seem to fit other religions into their world view by saying everyone is worshipping the aspects of their god.

My religion doesn't try to fit other religion's beliefs into their world view. Do you see yourself as doing it? Why? Or do you think that their are two camps of religions, those that do and those that do not?

I cannot answer for Christian Science, but I can answer for the spinoff series, Divine Science, of which I am.

I believe there is only one "omni omni" Divine. This is what I call God. God is nameless, faceless, timeless. God is an energy, not a person. Everything we see, and everything that is, is a part of God. Unique individual peoples are part of God, and unique individual gods and devils, if they exist, are a part of God, because God is the energy that creates everything and causes everything in this Universe to be. I am pantheistic. This does not mean there are not individual peoples, or maybe individual gods, with their own unique good and bad personalities and souls. Everything that exists is as an atom in the great body of the Divine Oversoul, which "is all that is"; while everyone and everything is a part of God, you wouldn't confuse a part of God with the entire energy force. I wouldn't say Zeus, for example, "is the Divine", and "you're worshipping the Divine but you just don't know it!". I would say you're worshipping an expression of the Divine, just like you and I are an expression of the Divine, and your gods are not my god, but they are a part of my god which is Everything. My god is, for example, the crayon; and just because you are the color red and your personal god is the wrapper and I am the wax doesn't mean we aren't the crayon... we're just not the big picture of it all.

Gilly,

Maya, Hindus are like Christians though, aren't they, in that they view
other religions as fitting into their world view. I'm not putting that
right. Some Christians view other people as worshipping devils because
they believe that their is only one god, so.... Other Christians view
other people (aka the Christian Scientists among others) as worshipping
their god (there being only one) and not being aware of it. Some Hindus
seem to fit other religions into their world view by saying everyone is
worshipping the aspects of their god.

I understand what you mean.
In one sense yes, since at least Advaita Hindus like me believe that there is only one god that is everywhere, in a way people who believe in other Gods than us are believing in the same one anyway, just calling him/her/it by different names.
But we don't claim to know the truth. Nobody can really know the truth and we might be wrong.
Also your religion doesn't have to fit in with mine, because yours is just as valid and good as mine is.
(Which is why we do not proselytize).

My religion doesn't try to
fit other religion's beliefs into their world view. Do you see yourself
as doing it? Why? Or do you think that their are two camps of
religions, those that do and those that do not?

I'm not really sure if I understand your question right?
Do you mean if I use any other beliefs in my own practice that is not Hindu?
I can definitely do that, I'm open.
Or do you mean that if I think that your religion is just a deluded version of Hinduism because you don't understand that only Hinduism is correct?
I definitely do not do that or think that.

I have not really thought of your second part to the question.
I'm not sure.

Maya

Dot,

Hmmm...I hadn't thought of the Hindu "sub-deities" as akin to the
Roman Catholic saints. There's a definite distinction, of course, since
the saints are believed to be the exalted souls of deceased people who
act as intermediaries having particular influence in conveying the
petitioner's prayers to God. Thus, saints are regarded as very real
beings in their own right and not as the multiple deities function
within the context of Hinduism. However, the saints do have an
important role of being more approachable if a person feels too much in
awe of God to go directly to God in prayer, so perhaps in that sense
there is some similarity to the role of multiple deities within
Hinduism.

My friend who is Catholic and has a very strong faith, would agree that it is very similar. She has said the same thing, that she rather ask the saints than God because they are less overwhelming than God. She also loves Hinduism and often comes to the ashram with me.

My personal view of the different Murtis in Hinduism is not that they are more approachable than God, but I think that God sees my offerings and knows what I need when I offer in this specific way. Especially since miljions of people have done the same thing for thousands of years, I feel that it has made a direct pathway to God. Especially since the same mantras are used and the mantras are very powerful and vibrational. When I honor different Murtis on my altar for specific things it's almost like a button on the computer. You press a certain button to get a certain letter, but the letter that is important is the one on the screen not the keyboard.

I personally don't think that God needs to take the form of one of my murtis on my altar. But I think most Hindus believe that he/she/is can or does it.
But I think God is honored that he/she/it is invited to do so and I think it's very effective.
It's been extremely effective for me with lots of different things.
But I still think it's symbolic and just a way to get God to listen and see.

This is really my personal view of this.

Maya

Sakhaiva and TED,

I LOVE what both of you said.

Thank you all for having this discussion. Now I'm all excited

Maya

Thanks, I have a typo though.... here: "in short, the root of Indian theology/philosophy is pantheistic" .... I meant 'polytheistic'


What a difference a prefix makes.... (I hate when I screw up a good post. Damn. )

LoL! Theist..atheist... pantheist...polytheist..what's the big difference?