Is Hinduism a polytheistic religion?

[removeduser_426582376423734]

I thought I'd open this because of an argument via PM with felicissimus.

And yes,hinduism is the best and purest example of pagan religion ,if not the only one alive nowadays .

It is a very common misconception for Hinduism to be classed as polytheism, and paganism. Hinduism uses various deities as a medium through which to see the true "Bhraman". These deities are merely a part of him, and descend to Earth to teach Hindus, and bring them closeer to realization of Bhraman. This is shown through mediums - the gods, that you speak of. But, there was always only one.

Now, if you understand what I just said, please explain to me how you are still right, and I'll show you a few essays I've written on the subject.

I doubt such was the understanding of hinduism at the time it was written .I've read a part of the Vedae and have some understanding what 's in question .

And I doubt that before the council of Nicaea the Trinity was thought about. Yet, you believe it, don't you? Now, I'm not a Hindu, but I defend the right to believe in it, seemingly, you hypocritically don't.

Why hypocritically ? I openly claim one shouldn't believe in politheistic/daemonic religions .

Hypocritical because of what I just said. The concept of the trinity is the same as the concept of many avatars in Hinduism. Who's to say that the max is 3?

Christians believe the trinity is three persons in one substance - one God, three components. Why is Hinduism different? The Son goes to Earth, why can Krsna not?

"The three " are not persons but emanations of the One God .I don't see any comparison with Krysna . And at all,hinduists are the least that should understand of christian religion .

How do you not? Jesus came to Earth through 'kenosis', where the Son was poured into a human template. The same happened with Krsna.

Your second point is irrelevant, we aren't arguing about who understands what. I've already said I'm not a Hindu, and anyway, I understand Christianity plently.

[Gaidin]

Define pagan.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Title changed - I meant, polytheistic.

[Irishman]

In essence it is monotheistic as all Gods are part of the supreme non-sentient existence called Brahman.

That is what I have been told by some of my Hindu friends. The Gods are just higher beings but under the same existence of Brahman.

[Captain Arrrgh!]

In essence it is monotheistic as all Gods are part of the supreme non-sentient existence called Brahman.

That is what I have been told by some of my Hindu friends. The Gods are just higher beings but under the same existence of Brahman.

Hello all, forgive my ignorance, but could not the point above be more accurately described as pantheistic, then? An all powerful 'Zeus'-like figure, with the various sub and semi dieties beneath, then us humans at the bottom of the ladder?
Also, the council of Nicea would primarily apply to the Catholic church, would it not? The Catholic church is seen as an abomination by other branches of Christianity, for the very fact that it stratizes God worship and mans' relationship with him, including setting up so-called saints as idols, and idolatrous Mary worship.

[felicissimus]

Hello all, forgive my ignorance, but could not the point above be more accurately described as pantheistic, then? An all powerful 'Zeus'-like figure, with the various sub and semi dieties beneath, then us humans at the bottom of the ladder?
Also, the council of Nicea would primarily apply to the Catholic church, would it not? The Catholic church is seen as an abomination by other branches of Christianity, for the very fact that it stratizes God worship and mans' relationship with him, including setting up so-called saints as idols, and idolatrous Mary worship.

The Council of Nicea applies primarily to the Orthodox Church and to the Catholic also .The Orthodox view the catholics as having minor mistakes but not in any case as "abomination" as you say .More than anything the orthodox and the catholic agree that protestantism is an "abomination " and the reverence of the saints is a normal and unquestionable practise .As they two are the primarily and only one Churches for 1600 years it is very much in question whether such things as "protestant theology " exists and if exists ,isn't it a mere residue of the once exclusive orthodox/catholic theology .

And really this thread has no purpose .I have always thought the practises within hinduism are not only controversial but even unaware of one another .And as they have no touch with the greko-roman phylosophy and world dening any logic,this inter-religious comparison must be suspended .

[ajm317]

This is fairly murky water and it largely depends on specifically how you define things.

I have heard it argued, for example, that Christianity is no more monotheistic than the religion of the ancient Greeks. Both have a supreme god, (God in one case, Zeus in the other) and a pantheon of lower "gods" who are subject to his will (Hermes, Apollo, angels, and Satan). I'm not a theologan, so I don't know if I agree with that, but I can certainly see where the argument is coming from. That you don't call Satan or Michael a "god" does not necessarily change the fact that they function the same way as gods do in other religions.

[felicissimus]

The "gods " in this religion are so separate from one another and so different that I doubt they have been ever thought as something ONE .The main hinduistic book "Vedae" for sure doesn't contain such generalisation .I wonder when and who developed such phylosophy of hinduism .

[removeduser_426582376423734]

The "gods " in this religion are so separate from one another and so different that I doubt they have been ever thought as something ONE .The main hinduistic book "Vedae" for sure doesn't contain such generalisation .I wonder when and who developed such phylosophy of hinduism .

Heh, because I remember seeing the word Trinity all over before Nicaea.

In reference to your first point: they're so different? Oh, come on, because the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are what, similar? They polarize each other for christs sake.

[Pra]

The "gods " in this religion are so separate from one another and so different that I doubt they have been ever thought as something ONE .The main hinduistic book "Vedae" for sure doesn't contain such generalisation .I wonder when and who developed such phylosophy of hinduism .

It was done, like anything else, to appeal to the masses. Hinduism in it's purest sense is more 'empirical meditation', from what I understand it, and it is so tolerant to beliefs that it allows for people to start from the more 'simplistic' angle and proceeds to the empirical end. To call it pagan, or purely polytheistic is a gross understatement.

I would like to explain it is co-existance, but in christianity, according to Dante, Boetheus, Athanasius, Aquinas, and I think the Bible, man, being an image of God, is only a man and only exists insomuch as he reflects the image of God. This is how he is united in will yet seperate in being.

How is this absorption of the will made in Hinduism?

To my limited understanding, it is one and the same, only differing in some slight definition. Hinduism says in the end we are all part of the Brahma, which is such a complicated concept that we needed different gods to explain the 'multifaceted-ness' of Brahma. I'm not sure how an absorption of the 'will' is made, but I think it's starting to split hairs and is too complicated for me to fully comprehend.


Just read Fish's Post, and I have to agree. Hinduism is basically a tolerant religion that allows various beliefs within itself. I remember someone saying that Hindus ask each other what their sadhana is (belief structure.) I think a Hindu is a broad sweeping religion and to pinpoint it to one thing is, I suppose, slightly wrong and depends highly on where in the structure of Hinduism you are examining-(be it the purely 'empirical' vedic structure or the 'puranic' structure with the different dieties/demi-gods.)

Nonetheless, from reading this thread it seems Fellicissimus, desperately needs to be right in branding Hinduism as a 'pagan' religion. I believe his assertions are not meant to garner any further knowledge on Hinduism or its intricacies but are meant to further his dogmas of generalizations, condescension, contempt, elitism, and hatred. Well if it is that important for you to brand us then go ahead; we are your humble pagans.

[zrweber]

To my limited understanding, it is one and the same, only differing in some slight definition. Hinduism says in the end we are all part of the Brahma, which is such a complicated concept that we needed different gods to explain the 'multifaceted-ness' of Brahma. I'm not sure how an absorption of the 'will' is made, but I think it's starting to split hairs and is too complicated for me to fully comprehend.

Well, christanity is very strong in saying that Creation is seprate from God in being. Not to say creation is self existant, but it is not part of God. It is a reflection or an image of the being of God.

[Pra]

Well, christanity is very strong in saying that Creation is seprate from God in being. Not to say creation is self existant, but it is not part of God. It is a reflection or an image of the being of God.

Oh ok, so let me see if I understand this. In Christianity, man was made in the image of God, so he isn't really a part of God; in that case when man (Adam Eve etc.) dies then his or her soul (if I understand that correct) go to heaven and become part of God? Or is the soul a separate entity and is distinct from the formless God?

[zrweber]

Oh ok, so let me see if I understand this. In Christianity, man was made in the image of God, so he isn't really a part of God; in that case when man (Adam Eve etc.) dies then his or her soul (if I understand that correct) go to heaven and become part of God? Or is the soul a separate entity and is distinct from the formless God?

Very much a seperate entity, though again in no way self existant.


Praying can simply be another word for comunicating, it can be seen like asking a another person to pray for you but this some ones like a pope. Now praying to mary is a bit different in roman catholisism, it's done for other reasons but I really haven't looked in to it I only know it has something to do with some type thing were she is saved by christ before her birth. As of now I myself differ from Roman Catholisism on this but I have very little understanding on the subject.

[felicissimus]

Oh ok, so let me see if I understand this. In Christianity, man was made in the image of God, so he isn't really a part of God; in that case when man (Adam Eve etc.) dies then his or her soul (if I understand that correct) go to heaven and become part of God? Or is the soul a separate entity and is distinct from the formless God?

The soul always remains a separate entity distinct from the unachievable God .It never merges with him .It gets as much divination,that is contact with the divine energy and spirit as possible as to accept for a limited creature .Thus it can get god-like creatures ,opposing the natural laws like walking over water (for the saints etc ) being unaffected by illnesses and destruction ,or finally resurrection .The soul in communion with God gets all this but as a prolongation of its own existance,not becoming part of the God .Though it can be said for somebody "his spirit is divine " it simply means his spirit was divinated by the always separate God's energy-not that his spirit has become a part of God's spirit .In this sence something of the created things can be a part of God -by being in cooperation with Him and participateing in His actions aided by the Divine Grace ,but not becoming what He is by nature which is something always holy,unrevealable and unachievable .

And don't conplain so much about my demands .It is simply a necessity of understanding that I want an acknowledgement of polytheism .You see it is inpossible to mark something in OUR view as both mono-,poly,and pan-theistic .Though i see your justification,it can not be accepted from our point of view .Things have to be definite otherwise their meaning is susceptible to destruction and change to the opposite which noone can accept .

[Irishman]

The "gods " in this religion are so separate from one another and so different that I doubt they have been ever thought as something ONE .The main hinduistic book "Vedae" for sure doesn't contain such generalisation .I wonder when and who developed such phylosophy of hinduism .

Have you actually studied Hinduism? The goal, from an outsider's perspective, is to escape reincarnation by behaving morally and rising the levels of being until you reach Brahman.

And yes, Brahman has been mentioned since the beginings of hinduism, and is the supreme reality under which all beings (gods included) exist.

[felicissimus]

Have you actually studied Hinduism? The goal, from an outsider's perspective, is to escape reincarnation by behaving morally and rising the levels of being until you reach Brahman.

And yes, Brahman has been mentioned since the beginings of hinduism, and is the supreme reality under which all beings (gods included) exist.

Ah the Brahman,and what does this figure prove ? That the 100 deities are not deities ?!

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Ah the Brahman,and what does this figure prove ? That the 100 deities are not deities ?!

Proves it just as much as the Christian God proves that Jesus is not a separate entity and deity.

[therussian]

It is a very common misconception for Hinduism to be classed as polytheism, and paganism. Hinduism uses various deities as a medium through which to see the true "Bhraman". These deities are merely a part of him, and descend to Earth to teach Hindus, and bring them closeer to realization of Bhraman. This is shown through mediums - the gods, that you speak of. But, there was always only one.

Now, if you understand what I just said, please explain to me how you are still right, and I'll show you a few essays I've written on the subject.

So in this sense, it's like the Trinity, but with hundreds (or is it thousands?) of branches.


Edit: Oh, didn't see your previous posts.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

So in this sense, it's like the Trinity, but with hundreds (or is it thousands?) of branches.


Edit: Oh, didn't see your previous posts.

That's a theory.

[Darkragnar]

So in this sense, it's like the Trinity, but with hundreds (or is it thousands?) of branches.


Edit: Oh, didn't see your previous posts.

No actually its Unity.



1 God; from Him come 3 Main Incarnations; (His own incarnations, so in a sense all 3 are the same and are really just 3 perspectives of 1)

From the 3 Main Incarnations come all the various Demi-Gods , like Varun the God Of Wind, Kuber the god's treasurer ..etc etc

All these are just a part of the Unity... the basic concept of Hinduism is that everything...and i mean everything... is unity...its all the same.. whether its **** or gold or this world or this universe or human beings or dimensions or quantity or time.... it's all the same.

So i dont know how can u call Hinduism polytheistic when eveything present is Unity..

Infact the Main goal of anyone is to Return to Unity..to be one again, by overcoming certain obstacles that bind us to this Maya..this false existence.. like Ego ,Ignorance etc.etc. once that is overcome u reach a state of Unity,

Well actually u go to the Astral World first and after overcoming obstacles and challenges their you move on to the cossal world after which you can finally join with the One, kinnda like Jonathan Livingston Seagull.

So the Hindus have a trinity? So what? The Celts, Romans, Germanics, and Greeks had their own forms of a trinity. Usually, there are two trinities in Pagan faiths, one with three Male deities, and one with three Female deities. In Hellenism, this is seen in the triad of Zeus,(ruler of the sky, the "creator") Poseidon,(ruler of the sea, the "preserver"......I guess) and Hades,(ruler of the Dead, the "destroyer") and then there's their female counterparts Artemis, Hera, and Athena. The Celts and Germanics have their own versions but I'm not well versed in their faiths so I'll have to use the Greeks as my example.

Anyway the point is that, while it can be argued that Hinduism is not "Polytheistic" it is certainly Pagan, in the sense that it is a religion of native India that goes back thousands of years in their history. Also, plenty of Hindu farmers have their own personal gods & goddesses, just as the Ancients had their own local deities and demi-gods.(And Pagan means something like "an old country dweller, rustic", does it not?) I really can't see how Hindus can argue that they aren't Pagan without a lot of evidence falling at their doorstep. But perhaps I'm about to be proven wrong eh?

Well mate the thing is its not a Trinity , as i said its Unity, read above.

Ah...by your definition of paganism shouldn't Christianity be the same ???
according to ur guidelines for paganism
a)Christianity goes back to 2000 years in Histroy, and was the native religion of the Roman empire.
b)a lot of Christian Farmers had their very own Saints up till recently..which they prayed to "ala a kind of worship".

As for the Brahman, again didn't the Greeks have something called the "Kosmos"? Not really sure what it is but its something that the Gods are supposed to protect from destruction or something. Maybe someone else can verify what thats about.

The Kosmos is a completely different thing Kosmos litterally means the Universe , while Brahman can be closely related to God, and while the The Greeks have a Pantheon of gods which are immortal , in Hinduism we have only 1 big buy and His trinity (Bhrama , Vishnu , Shiv) are kind of like Manifestations of him but they arnt the ultimate power in a way... the trinity also have a life span...it goes something like this

After a Gazillion Years*[Approximation ] Shiv would Destroy this Universe after which Bramha will Create ..Vishnu will look after the denzins of Brahmas universe and Shiv will again destroy ... this has happened before , about 1000 times and will go on for 1000's more.. until the universe has been created and destroyed for about 63,000 (cant remeber the exact figure) then the Trinity will also be destroyed and a New trinity will come to take its place...and this cycle also continues..

Infact its said that This also has happened , and this new trinity that we know (Bhrama , Vishnu and Shiv) are the latest ones to take their place...and the trinity has also been destroyed X no of times*[Damn memory cant remeber the Figure]