Is Hinduism “monotheism in disguise”?
Earlier today, while browsing through Apollo’s blog, I came across this post, “Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion“�in which he has reviewed Richard Dawkin’s latest book. I have not yet read the book (although a lot of people are talking about it) but this excerpt from Apollo’s post�caught my eye:
“But paradoxically Richard Dawkins asserts that the polytheism of the Hindu faith is nothing but �monotheism in disguise�.
(Richard Dawkin’s quote) There is only one God – Lord Brahma the creator, Lord Vishnu the preserver, Lord Shiva the destroyer, the godesses Saraswati, laxmi and Parvati(Wives of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva), Lord Ganesh the elephant god, and hundreds of others, all are just different manifestations or incarnations of the one God (Quote End).
This is somewhat puzzling to me and It is best left to people more knowledgeable on the Hindu scriptures to say whether Dawkins is right or wrong in this matter.”
It caught my eye because Munish�in his comment on my post, “India as a role model for global peace and prosperity” had said a similar thing which had set me thinking.
So in the tradition of this blog (which began as a personal quest for knowledge), I will attempt to find an answer that either supports Richard Dawkin’s contention or refutes it. In either case, I hope to learn something….
As always, if there are readers out there who are knowledgeable enough to comment on this (and I think there are), please do so…
More soon…
I have talked to couple of learned hindu friends about monotheism in hinuism. They said Bhrama, visnua and Maheshvra are three rup of a one person and their wivers are made from them them so these 3 bhagvans are 1. Rest of all which we call bhagvan like hanumna, ganesh are not bhagvan but “dev”.
Ummahlover, hopefully, my latest post has clarified this a little bit:
http://hindudharma.wordpress.com/2007/03/01/hinduism-not-monotheism-in-disguise/
There’s not necessarily a conflict here, because there are transitional forms between polytheism and monotheism. Look up henotheism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henotheism
Essentially it boils down to worshipping one god as your hometown god and thinking s/he is the bst, but recognizing the rest in the pantheon. History has many examples of this, often associated with neighboring city-states – for example, the Maya, or Bronze Age Mesopotamia. We even have at least one attested example of an attempted transition to full monotheism, when King Tut’s dad tried to shut down the rest of the cults in favor of one true Ra. As usual, it was about political power – he wanted to deprive the priest class of their influence, and he was hated for it.
“Mono”theists are interesting because although they claim the only god is X, and Y is His prophet, they still believe in other supernatural beings (but don’t call them gods). So, it’s not a stretch to imagine that Judaism is an example of a surviving Semitic cult that’s undergone the full poly to heno to mono transition, and that Satan, Gabriel, or Baal were gods of other city-states that were eventually relegated to inferior positions in the Semitic pantheon when the Yahweh-worshipping city-state dominated the rest. If Brahma (or another Hindu deity) is achieving ascendancy in Hinduism, we may be seeing the same phenomenon today.
http://luckyatheist.blogspot.com
I have talked to a couple of learned analysts about cyber-Jihadis in disguise. They said that Ummahlover, Tarique and Xiong Hui are the three rup (forms) of one person and all the propaganda is cooked from the same source. So all these 3 jihadis are one. Rest of us are Kafirs.
@ Michael Caton – Sounds logical for religions where one is required to ‘believe’ in some entity, but you miss the sublimation of religion into spirituality (in Advaita, Buddhism). In Advaita God is not an entity unless attempted to be understood by the mind (which is deemed impossible) but experienced as self-evident, behind and beyond all manifestation. From what I know of Indian History none of the Hindu religions were defined as a political tool to expand kingdoms or establish empires. In most cases the religious symbols were re-interpreted to reach the ‘spiritual’ or the only reality. Buddhism started out as spiritual practice before descending into religious symbols, liturgies and traditions. Gautam Buddha wanted everyone to be Buddha, not to be worshiped as a god!
Sanatan Dharma or Hindu Dharma: A Total Way of Life
Excepts.
The first fundamental principle of Hindu Dharma is that “the Reality is one without a second.” This reality is beyond description by human mind. Hence it is indicated by a single world, “Brahman”. “Infinite, eternal, changeless existence is the All; from that All, All comes forth; to that All, all returns,” that is what the Chandogya Upanishad (vi.2.1) tells us.
Hinduism is the only faith to have boldly and confidently proclaimed that “Truth is one, the wise call it by various names.” (Rig Veda).
Read this site and enlight yourself and others.
http://www.hinduwisdom.info/introduction_to_hinduism.htm
http://www.hinduwisdom.info/index_new.htm
The first point to make, for me, is to say that Hinduism is not a DISGUISE of anything. For anyone to say so or to suggest such is insulting. Nothing about Hinduism is a disguise because nothing about Hinduism is deceiving or manipulative. It’s all very straightforward for those who want to learn. And for those who don’t want to learn they are going to believe what they want to believe no matter what anyone says about it.
Jai
Dawkins would be correct if all the Deities were manifestations of a personal god. However, Brahman is nonpersonal (without nama rupa) and therefore technically he is incorrect in calling it theism. Perhaps monodeism would be better; except of course the individual deities do have name and form and therefore would entail a form of theism.
Dawkins also says that pantheism is “sexed up atheism”–which would mean that the belief in God being in all things (which Hindus do believe) is just a form of atheism.
The problem with Dawkins and indeed most westerners is the inability to see unity and multiplicity as aspects of one truth. This is a product of their dualistic, all or nothing mindset.
I am reminded of an old Indian story of six blind men confronting an elephant; each one grabs hold of one part of the elephant and makes a judgement about the whole animal. Thus, the one who touches the body says it is a wall; the one who touches the ears says it is a fan; the one who touches the trunk says it is a snake etc. The point being that none of them are right.
Hinduism is best described by a line in the Upanishads, which describes Brahman “neti, neti” –Not this, not that , or perhaps –also this, also that.
Read Swami Vivekananda’s books, your confusion will be dispelled. Hinduism is neither monotheistic in the truest sense of term, nor it is polytheistic. There are various theories presented, by Shankar, Ramanuja and other stalwarts, like that of Dwaita or Duality, Adwaita or non duality, special duality or Dwaita-Adwaita etc. Without going into the details of all these, suffice to say that Vedanta considers one Brahman or supreme being which it refers to as “that” or “Tvat”, and presence of divinity in all Jeeva as Atman. Hinduism at its core says that Divinity expresses itself in all beings through this Atman and goal of every individual is to realize this divinity. One Vedic sage proclaimed, “Srinvantu, Visve, Amritasva Putrah! Vedamaham Etam”, i.e. “Listen ye sons of immortality, I have known it, that we are all children of immortality, with glows of sun, and you must also experience the same”.
However the same Brahmana can be expressed as Purusha and Prakriti, i.e male and female form. Hindus worship both forms as Vishnu, Shiva, Durga, Lakshmi etc. for different manifestations of same divine power.
Ramakrishna Paramhansa said that in the ocean of vast cosmic consciousness whether Iswara is Sakara (with form) or Nirakara (without form) how does that matter? As long as you strive to experience God you may think of various forms to reach it, but once you are at the brink of infinite consciousness, all forms disssolve into a vast sense of unity.