A friend of mine and I were having a conversation on religion the other day, and a question struck me: Why is Hinduism the only polytheistic religion with a reasonable number of followers? Why is monotheism so prevalent? We came up with a few answers, and I'd like to hear some discussion about this topic. Underlying all of this is a general ignorance of Indian history, and of Hinduism in general Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Hopefully, though, I can learn something. First, India is more or less geographically isolated from outside influence. Because the natural progression in human history is to ascribe different natural occurrences to different gods, it seems reasonable that polytheism should be born first. Monotheism started in the middle east, and India is more or less completely isolated from monotheism until later in its development. Second, the Indian population is highly dispersed, with the terrain of the sub-continent more or less completely isolating one set of Indians from another. Additional obstacles include different customs and dialects which would make communication difficult (although clearly not impossible), which would hamper the flow of new ideas across the country. There are colonies of Muslim and Christian Indians, mostly around coastal towns, but this makes sense because these people would have had the most contact with the outside world, and the fact that they are more or less insulated from the rest of the population means that their religions would have a hard time spreading. Third, Hinduism doesn't grant the ruler of the nation divine status. For example, in Egyptian religions, the pharroh was admitted to the pantheon upon expiration. This works against polytheism because the inhabitants of the country see themselves as subject to the gods. An oppressive king with a lavish life being admitted into the company of gods hardly seems fair, when you're hauling limestone bricks across a desert to build his tomb. Fourth, the caste system is so deeply ingrained in the culture that any new influences would be incredibly difficult to adopt. This is evidenced by the fact that even today (with legislation in place), traditions of segregation persist in India. I'm still a bit confused, though. I know much less about Confusionism than I do about Hinduism, but I don't understand why Chinese people are largely without religion. (Of course, I'm not sure to what extent this statement is true.) It seems that the only religions which have "staying power" are monotheistic in nature. I understand that this may just be because they are in general younger, and will gradually fade away as the polytheistic religions of the past.
There is a misconception that hinduism is predominantly Polytheistic. In short, in the pursuit of culturally catagorizing the culture of India, Imperial Britain accepted the writings of Sankaracharya as representative of Hinduism, at the expense of all others (such as vaishnavism for example). Things reached a critical level during india's push for independence, which saw a string of political reformers take the religious angle (which still happens to this day in india) and took to the path of polytheism in order to catalyze a united india. Here's a good article about it For Whom does Hinduism Speak? We came up with a few answers, and I'd like to hear some discussion about this topic. Underlying all of this is a general ignorance of Indian history, and of Hinduism in general Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Hopefully, though, I can learn something. First, India is more or less geographically isolated from outside influence. Because the natural progression in human history is to ascribe different natural occurrences to different gods, it seems reasonable that polytheism should be born first. Monotheism started in the middle east, and India is more or less completely isolated from monotheism until later in its development.[/QUOTE] You can find practically all religions of the world in India ... and they have been there for a long time. Greek orthodox christians have been there longer than white men have been in america. Also India has its own monotheistic tradition within its vedic teachings. There is even a comment by one prominent christian preacher of the time that the biggest challenge to the british program in india was vaishnavism, since, philosophically speaking, it is remarkably similar to christianity (ie culminates in a notion of devotion to one god who oversees everything, who is the summum bonum, etc etc) hehe even today, the only thing that unifies india is the rail system ... and if the british didn't come in and do it (mostly for the sake of sending all its resources off on their boats) they would probably still be working on it today There is one writing that deals with the history of kings in india - basically two dynasties - the lunar and solar dynasty - anyway, long lists of names there, getting briefer and briefer, and goes all the way up till about 800 AD, which is about 4000 years into the age of kali or social deterioration - After that point it mentions the invasion of the greeks and the arabs and goes on to mention that the standard of politics the world over is simply that of one rascal followed by another so its not worth discussing caste, as designated by birth (or janma), is something recent in india (maybe the last 2000 years or so) - at least there is no scriptural mention of caste (or varna) being determined by birth (or janma) - rather it is said to be determined by work (karma) and quality (guna) - kind of like if one is the son of a high court judge there is a better chance that they can enter into the field of law, but ultimately they have to meet the requirements of the quality of work Short answer Mao One thing many people overlook is that the philosophical contribution of polytheism is limited, although admitedly more than animism. IOW if you want to start looking at answering the "big questions" of life, it requires the medium of monotheism.
Well, certainly you wouldn't call Hinduism the first monotheistic religion. I understand that Indian (specifically, Hindus) would class their pantheon as simply different facets of the same stone (perhaps in some sense similar to the Trinity, of Chrisianity). There is a Christian tradition that St. Thomas (stick your hand in my side Thomas) was the first missionary to go to India, c. 52 AD. Of course, this will be true in any country that trades with it's neighbors. I deleted what I had written in the OP about totalitarian governments not liking competition when I remembered the quote by Marx "Religion is the opiate of the masses". So your point is that we LOOK for unification in all things, even religion? So that a religion with one God is a priori simpler, and more explanatory than a religion with multiple Gods?
OT and just a point of semantics really, but the more correct English translation of the Marx quote is "religion is the opium of the people."
BenTheMan, - Firstly, Japanese Shinto are polytheistic. - Secondly, Egyptian polytheism lasted for about 4000 years. Greek "polytheists" were somewhat "monotheistic" and lastly, Greecoroman polytheism lasted for as long as Xianity. - Thirdly, maybe polytheism is more tolerant? That's what I think. - Fourth, up until recently many people were still polytheists, but, they were conquered by Xians and many people converted simply because Europeans were more advanced and so they though, yup, these guys much be right. Native Americans were all polytheistic. - Fifth, with all the Saints one would think Catholics are polytheists? No? MII
How many followers of Shintoism are there? I'm sure there are still people who worship the Norse pantheon, but not many. I was limiting my discussion to the major religions in the world. Christianity is one of three monotheistic religions, the oldest of which is Judaism. Your contention is that all religions have a lifespan, and it just so happens that these past two millenia were dominated by monotheism because of the Europeans? In what sense? There are militant Hindu sects in India. And what do you mean "polytheism is more tolerant"? Do you mean polytheists are more tolerant? I think it would be difficult to class Catholicism as a polytheistic religion, just as it would be very difficult to call Hinduism monotheistic.
As per Wikipedia: Polytheism is the belief in or worship of multiple deities, such as gods and goddesses. These are usually assembled into a pantheon, along with their own mythologies and rituals. Many religions, both historical and contemporary, have a belief in polytheism, such as Hinduism, Shinto, Chinese folk religion, Neopagan faiths, Anglo-Saxon paganism and Greek paganism. Polytheists do not usually worship all the gods equally, but are monolatrists, specialising in the worship of one particular deity. Other polytheists can be kathenotheists, worshiping different deities at different times. Polytheism is a type of theism (belief in one or more gods), but contrasts with monotheism (belief in a singular god), which is the dominant belief in the world today. In certain religions, such as Hinduism and Wicca, it is believed alongside pantheism or panentheism, with the various deities seen as emanations of a greater Godhead. ---------------------- It may be a good idea to watch the 6 part BBC series "The Story of India" (mininova?) to understand the developments in India. India had 3 levels of migration from Africa, South Central and Central Asia with all their beliefs all blended together today. My understanding is that at the ultimate form there is one Formless God called "Nirakar" (Ni - not, Akar - Form), then it changes to the trinity - The Trimurti (English: ‘three forms’; Sanskrit: त्रिमूर्ति trimūrti) is a concept in Hinduism "in which the cosmic functions of creation, maintenance, and destruction are personified by the forms of Brahmā the creator, Vishnu the maintainer or preserver, and Śiva the destroyer or transformer." These three deities have been called "the Hindu triad" [3] or the "Great Trinity". They are often looked at as the creator, preserver and destroyer respectively. Then you have many gods and goddresses because they have their own place like people....and like Greek Gods... Most Indians pray to their personal one God that they think they receive benefit from - that can be any religion God. Because the first wave of Africans some 25,000 or more ago had their own Gods and Animals etc that god blended in to the last phase Aryans invasion from Tajikistan who were nature lovers and did not really have Gods (ref: Rig Veda) but adopted from the prevaling culture. So, bottom line Hinduism is both mono and poly depending on who practices what!
BenTheMan, Think almost all Japanese are Shinto. I was there for New Year (last week) and there were hundreds of thousands in Kyoto lined up at the Shinto Shrine. Michael
Greeks were somewhat polytheistic and monotheistic. Monotheism certain as a concept is older than Judaism. Actually jews used to think there were other Gods, they only worshiped one of them. Not much different than most other people in the area really. I think that's in response to monotheism and has a nationalistic twist. Hindus probably see Hinduism as "Indian" and Xians/Muslims as foreign and therefor bad. I think polytheists can genuinely accept other people's beliefs easier - even if they don't share them exactly. Monotheists have a hard time doing this and most can not. That's what I mean. Maybe, but it seems with all the different saints they pray to, well, to be pretty much the same thing as polytheists. Sort of anyway.
There is too much confusion about Hinduism. I've heard it called Brahmaan. At its heart, Hinduism believes everything goes back to an ultimate reality.
I'm not really sure there needs to be a reason why monotheistic religions succeeded over polytheistic ones; and I'm not convinced they actually did. Catholicism was, for the most part, polytheistic through out most of it's reign in Europe. The worship of the Trinity is polytheism, despite whatever a Christian may tell you, especially the way most brain-dead baptists practice. You're also ignoring the pagan beliefs of Sub-Saharan Africa, where Islam didn't get to spread, and Christianity showed up on the heels of European colonists, more intent on resource extraction than state-sanctioned conversion. Hell, even Latin America worships The Virgin as much as The Son. Anyway, let's assume that monotheism took over everywhere. It seems to be linked more strongly with invading forces, rather than any tenets of the religion. The polytheism of the Native Americans wasn't given up in a theological debate- it was scourged with flame, famine, plague and rack, hounds and rifles. Islam was spread by warriors that slaughtered their away from Arabia to Spain. I think India got to keep polytheism because it's tucked sort of out of the way, and wasn't ever subjected to the holocausts that America, North Africa, or the Middle East saw. There were never any strong enough forces to unite India long enough to kill enough. Europe, on the other hand, spent the better part of a millennium making sure everyone replaced their backwood gods with saints. The Church has a long history of replacing pagan alters with their own. Even in the New World, Catholic Churches are on top of Aztec ziggurats.
From Wikipedia: Since the time of the Buddha, the refutation of the existence of a creator has been seen as a key point in distinguishing Buddhist from non-Buddhist views.[1] Buddhism is usually considered a religion, but is also commonly described as a "spiritual philosophy", because it generally lacks an Absolute creator god. The Buddhist approach is clinical and systematic. In the Four Noble Truths, the Buddha analyzed the problem of suffering, diagnosed its root cause and prescribed a method to dispel suffering. He taught that through insight into the nature of existence and the wisdom of "no-self" or "selflessness" (anatta) all sentient beings can dispel ignorance and thereby suffering. Hence Buddhism does not hinge upon the concept of a Creator God but upon the personal practice of meditation. Buddhist meditation can also be contrasted with Hindu practices designed to facilitate contemplation of some conceived Self, the definition of which varies between sects. However, in all Buddhist traditions, veneration of the Buddha as transmitter of Dharma is a significant practice and an important part of spiritual development.
I was watching a show on Interfaith last night. Pretty good. There's a Presbyterian Priest in New York who allowed a Shinto ceremony to be held in his Cathedral. Of course many MANY Xian parishioners were mortified, but, being the Big Apple, there's enough people to support a polytheistic Ceremony in a Church. Pretty cool I thought. Then the Shinto invited him to Japan to hold the Xian ceremony. And since then they now have this Interfaith thing going on. That's good social development IMM. I think this man was a very clever and open minded fellow. This is the sort of thing we need to make much much more public and make it so that IF your church isn't doing this - well, what's wrong with you!?!
xtians claim that they are monotheistic, but the hand waving and claiming 3 gods in one is too stupid even for them to explain and "the devil" has all the attibutes of a major deity with saints, mary and various demons fulfilling the roles of demigods and heros.
BenTheMan That's the first premise that the British worked off when they first came Historically India was kind of like a cultural zone that had numerous different practices based on the Vedas. IOW you would have a variety of spiritual disciplines based on the authority of the Vedas. For instance the highly philosophical ones (ie impersonal monists) would give special interest to the upanisads, people who's mode of life reflected goodness, passion or ignorance would be drawn to the recommendations of the Puranas that fall in those catagories, and those who were more inclined to the traditional model of monism would be drawn to those teachings of bhakti. So for example, the idea of worshiping a host of different demigods for the sake of securing all sorts of material facilities is something you find prominent in those parts of the Puranas that are in passion (or rajas). As a side point, the word "Hindu" never appears in any (ancient) scripture. It was a term coined by the muslims for those who lived over (what was then called) the Sindu river (apparently they had a phonetic issue with their "H"'s). During the medieval period of India you had Indians who answered to the (muslim) call of "Hindu" but who never referred or identified them selves like that in their own community. Kind of like if a big tough guy calls you "george" when your name is "tom", pretty soon you learn to answer to the word "george". And then during the modern period of india you have huge populations of india identifying themselves as "hindu" in the pursuit of nationalism, etc. Take this simple example. If you ask a christian what it means to be a christian generally they will base the answer on the teachings of the bible. If you ask a muslim what it means to be a muslim generally they will base the answer on the teachings of the koran. But if you ask a hindu what it means to be a hindu generally they will give one of several answers A nyone born in India is automatically a Hindu (the ethnicity fallacy); if your parents are Hindu, then you are Hindu (the familial argument); if you are born into a certain caste, then you are Hindu (the genetic inheritance model); if you believe in reincarnation, then you are Hindu (forgetting that many non-Hindu religions share at least some of the beliefs of Hinduism); if you practice any religion originating from India, then you are a Hindu (the national origin fallacy). well religion is part of the universe Its more like the question of univeral unification never arises within polytheistic systems. A good example is Ancient Greece, where it started to really take off as a culture (that still has influences today) due to the influences of persons like Plato. He began not by rejecting the greek pantheon as behaving like teenagers with personality issues, but by analyzing the nature of the "chos" (or "gap", from which we get words like "chasm") which was said to be the cause of the greek pantheon. In systems that view the highest ontological category of universal management as belonging to a host of personalities, modes of worship and philosophical inquiry do not go beyond the pursuit of material benefits. A good vedic parallel is however ....
Creation Hymn, Rig-Veda The non-existent was not; the existent was not at that time. The atmosphere was not nor the heavens which are beyond. What was concealed? Where? In whose protection? Was it water? An unfathomable abyss? There was neither death nor immortality then. There was not distinction of day or night. That alone breathed windless by its own power. Other than that there was not anything else. Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning. All this was an indistinguishable sea. That which becomes, that which was enveloped by the void, that alone was born through the power of heat. Upon that desire arose in the beginning. This was the first discharge of thought. Sages discovered this link of the existent to the nonexistent, having searched in the heart with wisdom. Their line [of vision] was extended across; what was below, what was above? There were impregnators, there were powers: inherent power below, impulses above. Who knows truly? Who here will declare whence it arose, whence this creation? The gods are subsequent to the creation of this. Who, then, knows whence it has come into being? Whence this creation has come into being; whether it was made or not; he in the highest heaven is its surveyor. Surely he knows, or perhaps he knows not.
Just in brief The vedas (particularly the 4 vedas, Rg, Sama, Arthava and Yajur) are kind of like compressed computer files that have to be "unzipped". This ability to "unzip" them requires not only that one have a strongly sattvic (or "mode of goodness") existence but also a thorough understanding of sanskrit and a familiarity with the vedic literature in general. For this reason, it is recommended that the best means of understanding the vedic conclusion it through the guidance of other scriptural commentaries. Why? Otherwise one may not understand that it is mentioned that there is a primary and secondary stage of creation for the material universe. SB 2.5.33 Thus when all these became assembled by force of the energy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, this universe certainly came into being by accepting both the primary and secondary causes of creation. ..... and one might reference a quote in regards to secondary creation (visarga) thinking it is relevant to the primary one (sarga). Infact, the topic of sarga and visarga are the first two subjects dealt with in the Srimad Bhagavatam (1) Sarga: the first creation by Visnu , the bringing forth of the five gross material elements, the five objects of sense perception, the ten senses, the mind, the intelligence, the false ego and the total material energy, or universal form. (2) Visarga: the secondary creation, or the work of Brahma in producing the moving and unmoving bodies in the universe (brahmanda).
In additon, it would help if you also understand the modern astrophysics and science too to articulate in present language....IMHO....
