Of “Monkey Gods” and “Elephant Heads”

Hanuman_Statue_In_Haladiagada_Kendrapada

Last month (Nov 27), TIME ran a cover story (see The Pope Confronts Islam“) on the confrontation between Islam and Christianity in the context of Pope’s remarks about the Islam.

I came across several interesting remarks on the story by readers in the “Letters” section of the latest issue of the magazine. E.g. Carolyn D. Lewis remarked that, “Monotheistic religions that lay claim to one and only possible truth are doomed by their very nature to end up in conflict. The only way out is to free ourselves from these ancient divisive creeds and thus extinguish those dangerous fires of righteousness”

I completely agree with Carolyn except that she does not appear to have been introduced to Hinduism. While no doubt ancient, it can hardly be termed divisive (quite the contrary: it’s a model of inclusiveness) and the respected author and thinker Jean Pierre Lehmann has actually penned an article about how India/ Hinduism can be a model for an inclusive, peaceful, liberal and tolerant culture in the 21st century (pl. read Excerpts from “The Dangers of Monotheism“)

Gyan Ranjan Saha writes that the Pope appears to have omitted Hinduism in his dialogue of religions, “seeking ties with only those who invoke the name of a single God”. If true, this is unfortunate.

As we know, there are remarkably few leaders, thinkers and influencers who can talk intelligently about Hinduism.

No wonder misconceptions about Hinduism abound (e.g. see Continued ignorance about “Hinduism” and this category of posts on my blog) and Hinduism rarely gets mentioned amidst all the talk of inter-faith dialogue.

I sometimes despair thinking how badly we need a Swami Vivekananda at this moment to once again acquaint the world with the glories of our ancient culture, values and belief system.

Until that happens, we will continue to be dismissed as cow-worshipping vegetarians who pray to monkey-gods and elephant heads.

You may also like...

10 Responses

  1. varahmihir says:

    The classical classification of Hinduism as a polytheist religion can also be argued.

    In a way, when Islam and Christianity declare “Ours is the only God!” the Advaita branch of Hinduism counters, “There is only God”.

    That is the essential difference. This assumption that every particle in the universe and the universe itself, is a manifestation of God Himself is behind the uncountable forms that Hindu Gods have taken. In essence, it is the same Being that is being prayed to.

    Reminded me of this Shloka from The Bhagavada Gita,

    “”O! Arjuna, there is nothing greater than Me. All this is strung on Me as a row of beads on a thread.” (7-VII)

  2. Indian says:

    I think Hinduism is far ahead of all culture and religion. What ever we did as part of our culture and tradition had some solid reasons init, but as the time passed reasons were forgotten and traditions remained. And people started looking all traditions and culture as superstitious customs. Though there may be some evil but that may be not the part of hinduism.

    May be many must be knowing this still for those who don’t know

    Have people ever thought why we have importance of elephant as God? reason may be elephant is strongest but not meat eater, Elephant loves their babies with great care and protection, better than many human on this earth does.
    Why we offer banana as the best fruit to offer God. As banana never have bugs or worms in it. It can get fully riped but never rotts.
    Why we keep “Tulsi” that is Basil shrub near our house? As Basil is the only shrub which gives and takes oxygen in and out in both inhale and exhale process.

    This proves our science also more advanced in yester years. There are number of reason for everything, never doubt Hinduism, One will always get satisfactory answers.

  3. Raj Arumugam says:

    I’ve come in to this discussion a bit late, I think. Still, may I make the follwoing contribution. The short article I’ve copied and pasted from my website ww.ttscourses.com.au
    refers to Hinduism but it also refers to the concept of God or the Divine when all religions come together, peacefully or otherwise.

    One God or Many Gods?
    © Raj Arumugam 2007

    Is there one God or many Gods in Hinduism?

    This is a question frequently thrown at Hinduism. It is a question that beguiles many, including Hindus themselves.

    To know the answer to this question, one has to ask oneself:
    What does one mean by the word God?

    Is God a being who sits in the clouds and judges? Who moves and creates and preserves and destroys? What does one mean by the word God? What does one understand by the word Divine?

    The answer is in one’s own understanding – the answer is in the honesty and integrity of the search.

    On one level, the answer is simple:
    There are not many gods but many are the manifestations of the One Divine.
    The Divine goes by many names in Hinduism, and so goes the Divine by many names in all religions – and thus there are the Many but the One.
    Thus too are all the ways but one.

    The nature of the mind and language is such that the very use of the word God, even in religions that claim to have one God, manifests itself with different meanings in each person’s mind. So that even when one uses the word God, there are actually as many Gods as there are individuals accepting the idea or using the word. So each follower of the same religion – and this is true of any religion – has a different idea of God. So one God appears as many even with peoples who pride themselves as worshipping One God.
    Thus, there are not many gods but many are the manifestations of the One Divine.

    The Colours of the Divine

    – Must God be a Man?

    – Must God be a woman?

    – Must God be white? Must God be black?

    – Must God be represented in a physical form?

    – Can God not be represented in a form?

    – Does the Divine have a form?

    – Is giving God a name or simply identifying not the same as representing the Divine in an image?

    – Does God get angry?

    – Is God pure love?

    – Can any one religion claim monopoly of rights to the truth?

    – Is there such a thing as a true and a false religion?

    – Does God punish?

    – Does God actually send some beings to Heaven and some to Hell?

    – What is God?

    To see this article in context, please visit http://www.ttscourses.com.au.

    May we all send our love to all beings, in all religions.

  4. Krishen says:

    Excerpt from a review of “A BLUE HAND” by Deborah Baker; Penguin/ Viking publication:

    The end result, in Baker’s observation: “What held Allen Ginsberg and would hold him for the rest of his life was the sweetness and sympathy he found in the company of India’s sadhus, charlatans, poets and saints. They sang to him and they held his hand… The blue hand he grasped was not necessarily that of the pied piper Krishna, the ashen Shiva, or the mad and motherly Kali and Tara.

  5. Devshishya says:

    By very definition God has to be THE SUPREME and THe SOVEREIGN one. There can be MANY divine personalities but only ONE GOD.

    The moment anyone says that there are many gods, it only implies none of them is GOD. The phrase ‘many gods’ is an oxymoron.

  6. Jai Joshi says:

    At the same time we can all do our own bit to educate those around us. I don’t mean we should go around preaching Hinduism. That wouldn’t be a very Hindu way to behave. But when asked by others about our faith we should do our best to explain the basic concepts of Sanatan Dharma, including why we’re vegetarian and why we worship a monkey god (that monkey god happens to be very important to me). It’s things like that monkey god and vegetarianism that demonstrate why Sanatan Dharma is such a beautiful philosophy.

    So every opportunity we get, as individuals, we should utilize to educate others on our faith. A leader like Vivekananda coming to the forefront would be brilliant but we shouldn’t under estimate our own effectiveness.

    Jai

  7. Kaffir says:

    =>
    But when asked by others about our faith we should do our best to explain the basic concepts of Sanatan Dharma, including why we’re vegetarian and why we worship a monkey god (that monkey god happens to be very important to me).
    =>

    Joshi ji, excellent point. I’d add that we do not call our gods as “monkey god” or “elephant god”, and instead, use their proper names in our Indic languages. Those who are interested in learning more (for whom such monikers are created) need to make the effort to learn the proper names, instead of us Hindus making it easier for them by calling Hanuman a “monkey god” – that’s well-intentioned, but eventually, harmful. In many cases, using English words for Indic religions distort the meaning, because those words are coming from a Christian perspective, and are not always applicable*. Here is a post on “monkey god”: http://www.swaveda.com/articles.php?action=show&id=112

    * Shri S.N. Balgangadhara has written some excellent essays on this subject.

  8. Jai Joshi says:

    Kaffir,

    I was using the term “monkey god” as tongue in cheek but you make a very good point. In explaining the philosophy of Sanatan Dharma we have a good opportunity to explain also the names of our gods and what they truly represent.

    Jai

  9. B Shantanu says:

    @ Kaffir: Excellent point…I will have a look at the link…

    Some years ago, a reader alerted me to the use of “Lord” in one of my blog posts instead of the more appropriate “Eeshwar” or “Bhagwaan”..

    Since then, I consciously try and avoid saying “Lord Rama” or “Lord Krishna”, instead opting for Bhagwaan Shri Ram or Bhagwaan Shri Krishna(I also realise it sounds very very artificial to say “Lord Rama” – even if one avoids drawing out the “a” at the end of “Rama”!)

  10. B Shantanu says:

    From Hindus don’t need to prove Ganesha is a God:
    One distinguishing factor between Dharma — a loose label applied to the various Indic streams of philosophical thought that constitute Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, etc. — from Abrahamic religions like Islam and Christianity is the truth claim. Naik demands proof of Lord Ganesha’s truth. Lord Ganesha, oddly enough, offers no truth. At least not the variety that would satisfy the history-centric Naik. To Naik, miracles need to have actually happened, people need to have actually existed, and events need to have actually taken place in order to be true.

    Lord Ganesha does not draw the strength of his existence from history. He draws it from an open outlook on part of his devotees — the belief that the universe is a diverse place full of rich differences and multiple answers to each question. When devotees touch their books to Lord Ganesha’s feet, they are in fact paying homage to an ideal — the pursuit of knowledge and the promise of enlightenment through that pursuit.

    So when a Hindu says Lord Ganesha exists, he is most assuredly not talking about an actual elephant-headed deity that sits somewhere high up in the sky and issues directives to be followed to the word. When a Hindu pays homage to Lord Ganesha, he is approaching the divine through imagination.

    The Hindu is imagining Ganesha, and as a result, is letting himself be imagined by Ganesha in return.