Do people still follow Hinduism out of ignorance and cultural pressure?

[scapularkid8]

Perhaps this is an issue of education. At least correlation between religious practice in foreign countries and higher education. All my professors who are Jewish or Muslim (I don’t know of any Hindu professors I’ve had) all seem to be very devout individuals and actually very knowledgeable and respectful of the Catholic Faith.

Somewhere along the line in the US I think higher education missed the point of encouraging healthy and well informed philosophical and theological thought. If you look at the universities in the Middle East and Asia (as opposed to America and Europe) they heavily emphasize empirical questioning and delving into religious ideas regardless of if you believe them or not. I think we’re too afraid of hurting anyone’s feelings in the US to make people do that.

 

[Annie_B]

The mormon churches believe in the existence of many gods, although I don’t know if members of those churches worship more than one.

They do not.

 

[scapularkid8]

They do not.

Actually, yes. They do. At least from what I know the “God” we know as “God” was just a man in another reality until he was elevated to “god” by his “god”…thus they can say “God is Eternal” because there’s the same idea of an unbroken line like the papacy…

 

[Contarini]

It seems that Hinduism is the only world religion left that worships more than one God. Some argue it is monotheistic with the idea of Krishna, but that’s beside the point.

If you’re asking why Hindus are still polytheistic, then the question of whether they are in fact polytheistic would hardly seem to be beside the point Perhaps it is beside the point if you aren’t really interested in truth or understanding but only in pouring scorn on members of another religion.

My question is why so many follow this religion when the rest of the world frowns on polytheism? Is it just a because there’s such a strong fusion between religion and culture in Indian society?

There are many other polytheists still in the world. For one thing, most Buddhists are polytheistic–they believe in the existence of many gods, although they do not believe that these gods (unless you count the Buddhas and Boddhisattvas of Mayahana Buddhism) can bring them salvation.

Still, Hinduism is unique in the sense that it stands in continuity with the early polytheism of the Vedas–it’s an organic development from that religion, while the other great religions (even Buddhism) have originated in a distinct break with their polytheistic predecessors.

I think there are two main answers to your question, and they’re related:

1. Hinduism has developed a sophisticated philosophical and theological tradition which has a strong capacity to resist or absorb challenges. Many other polytheistic traditions were/are not well grounded in systematic philosophical reflection. For instance, ancient Greek philosophy had a rather arms-length relationship to the practice of the religion, so that Christianity was able to adopt much of the philosophy and use it to argue against the practice of polytheism.
2. This philosophical tradition has by and large moved in the direction of a kind of monotheism. But unlike Western monotheism, this “monotheism” (or monism) does not displace the worship of the gods, but rather relates all the gods to one ultimate Divine Reality. Greek Pagan Neoplatonism was moving in this direction, but Christianity co-opted it.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I just wondered why it was the only major religion left that didn’t worship only One God

Buddhists do not worship One God. You could say that for Mahayana Buddhists (not Theravada for whom Buddha is more like a Catholic saint) Buddha is a sort of God, but that’s not how they put it, and since they believe in many Buddhas who all embody “Buddha nature” they’re certainly no more monotheistic than Hindus.

Edwin

 

[lampstand]

It’s funny how no one seems to be talking about the oppressive caste system, which India has finally started to break out of, in recent decades. That was definitely enforced by Hinduism. There is a political correctness in some of the posts, that seems to not want to say bad things about Hinduism, because gosh, some Indians turn out to be doctors, don’t they?

Ask them how they treat their “untouchables” back in the old country. Buddhism arose in part out of a belief that the caste system was unjust.

 

[scapularkid8]

Ask them how they treat their “untouchables” back in the old country. Buddhism arose in part out of a belief that the caste system was unjust.

You have a point because there are huge social downfalls to the Hindu view of creation. But the caste system started in the Upanishadic era where traditional societies on the Indian peninsula were being solidified after the weakening of the Aryan and Vedic culture systems. The religious justification behind caste-ing is that there is a segment of the Upanishads which speaks of the Ultimate Being whose lips are the Bhramins (priests), his arms the Ksutryas (warriors), his legs the farmers, and his feet the lower class. Performing one’s birth caste duty was seen as a religious honor (compare it for discussion purposes to the vocation each Christian is given by God). Each class was meant to treat each other with respect accorded them as part of Bhrama and the Ultimate Person within Atman, but social stratification grew too harsh.

It’s heavily ingrained in society to still respect the caste system which is why it’s so hard to get rid of it in India. It’s like asking Catholics not to respect the position of a Bishop within the Christian community as a shepard of the people spiritually.

Buddhism did arise in this time, but there were also spiritual changes at this time that gave rise to Buddhism, not just the conglomeration of the caste system.

 

[scapularkid8]

Buddhists do not worship One God.

Some of them might debate you on that. The Three Jewels (Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha) are viewed in Mahayana (particularly Vajrayana/Tibetan Mahayana Buddhism) as, essentially, one. They take refuge within the Three Jewels as an approach to attaining Nirvana. (Somewhat similar concept to the Trinity, but certainly not the same.)

I can see how you would say that some of them are no more monotheistic than Hindus, and I would have to agree, but the perspective is different from within Buddhism. Of course there’s also the Buddhist idea that you need not believe in any creator god (which most don’t) to attain Nirvana.

 

[Contarini]

It’s funny how no one seems to be talking about the oppressive caste system, which India has finally started to break out of, in recent decades. That was definitely enforced by Hinduism. There is a political correctness in some of the posts, that seems to not want to say bad things about Hinduism, because gosh, some Indians turn out to be doctors, don’t they?

There’s a difference between saying bad things about Hinduism and saying that Hindus are dumb. Nazis were often very intelligent and highly educated, but we say bad things about them. (I’m NOT in any way equating Hindus and Nazis, only making the distinction between condemning people’s morals and insulting their intelligence.)

I also think that we shouldn’t generalize from condemning one thing about Hinduism historically to condemning the whole religion. Every religion (yes, including historic Christianity) has its dark side.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Some of them might debate you on that. The Three Jewels (Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha) are viewed in Mahayana (particularly Vajrayana/Tibetan Mahayana Buddhism) as, essentially, one.

But that’s not the same thing as “one God.”

I can see how you would say that some of them are no more monotheistic than Hindus,

Actually, I would say that none of them are more monotheistic than Hindus. Some of them perhaps approach being monotheistic in the same way Hindus are.

I think you’re being selective–for some reason you’re reading Buddhism more generously (in terms of what is “monotheism”) than Hinduism. I don’t think there’s any reasonable doubt that Hindus are more likely to fit some definition of monotheism than Buddhists.

Edwin

 

[AgnosTheist]

The OP was asking if people followed Hinduism out of ignorance. This is why I included the section on education.

Hi granny,

what does buddhism has more in common with?

polytheism?

monotheism?

atheism?

agnosticism?

thanks.

 

[notself]

Buddhism is neither monotheistic nor polytheistic. Devas are not Gods. The word Deva is tranlsated as god, but Devas are beings on another plane of existance. They are mortal and are in samsara, the round of birth, death and rebirth. Mahayana has the concept of the Bodhisattva which is a person who became enlightened but delays Nirvana until all other beings become enlightened. Bodhisattva is closer to a spiritual friend than a God.

This is what the Dalai Lama says about God.

The Buddha was silent on the question of God. What about you?

Why did the Buddha not say anything about God? Because he talked about the law of causality. Once you accept the law of cause and effect, the implication is that there is no ‘creator’. If the Buddha accepted the concept of a creator, he would not have been silent; everything would have been God!

Who caused the law of causality?

About that, the Buddha would say ‘the mind’, never God or dharmakaya or even the Buddha himself.

How did the mind come about?

The source of mind is nature. The word that been used for existence is ‘interdependent arising’. Talking of God, who created God? There is no point arguing. Dharmakeerti and Shantideva debate the existence of God and reach the conclusion that if we believe in a benevolent creator, how do we explain suffering? I remember a funny incident. In Tibetan drama, criticism is allowed and even the Buddha is not spared. There was this man acting on-stage and he was saying that he did not believe in God. If God made us, he said, instead of putting both the eyes in the front, one should be at the back! We would have been more efficient that way. Jokes apart, the idea is not to disrespect any religion but to analyze the nature of reality.

lifepositive.com/Spirit/world-religions/buddhism/dalai-interview.asp

Buddhists do not worship any God or Gods. This is what the Dhammapada says about salvation.

1. By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depended on oneself; no one can purify another.

1. It’s for you to strive ardently. The Buddha simply point out the way. Those who practice, absorbed in jhana, from Mara’s bonds they’ll be freed.

This lack of belief in a creator God or Savior is what makes Buddhism incompatible with theistic religions. One cannot be both a devout Christian and a devout Buddhist.

I hope this clears things up.

 

[AgnosTheist]

^ That sounds very atheistic.

Do all buddhist sects share this view? Or is there a sect which believes in a creator? Is there a sect who answers the question “does God exist” with the answer “i dont know. there is no way to know”?

 

[notself]

I can’t speak for all traditions of Buddhism. But the ones I am familiar with are either atheistic or believe that the question on whether there is or is not a God is unimportant.

Again, most of the confusion comes from the translation of the word deva as God. Devas are mortal and when they are dying they hope they will be reborn as human. Not exactly the wish of a God.

There are many books out there that are supposed to explain Buddhist beliefs, but one has to be careful. Some of these are just wrong.

The core teachings of all forms of Buddhism are the Nikayas (Theravada) and the Agamas (Mahayana & Tibetan). These two groups of teachings are almost identical. There is no Creator or Savior mentioned in either. There are lots of stories about devas, but again, devas are not immortal Gods who save humankind from sin and damnation.

 

[scapularkid8]

I can’t speak for all traditions of Buddhism. But the ones I am familiar with are either atheistic or believe that the question on whether there is or is not a God is unimportant.

Again, most of the confusion comes from the translation of the word deva as God. Devas are mortal and when they are dying they hope they will be reborn as human. Not exactly the wish of a God.

There are many books out there that are supposed to explain Buddhist beliefs, but one has to be careful. Some of these are just wrong.

The core teachings of all forms of Buddhism are the Nikayas (Theravada) and the Agamas (Mahayana & Tibetan). These two groups of teachings are almost identical. There is no Creator or Savior mentioned in either. There are lots of stories about devas, but again, devas are not immortal Gods who save humankind from sin and damnation.

This is pretty spot on. Nearly all Buddhists that I know of find the proposition and/or necessity of a God irrelevant. The devas are used in more of a “parable” sense than a salvific or beneficent way. But we’re getting off topic

 

[flameburns623]

It seems that Hinduism is the only world religion left that worships more than one God. Some argue it is monotheistic with the idea of Krishna, but that’s beside the point. My question is why so many follow this religion when the rest of the world frowns on polytheism? Is it just a because there’s such a strong fusion between religion and culture in Indian society?

Hinduism is monistic, meaning that it teaches all truths are ultimately one. It is a highly-developed philosophical system–and a hodgepodge of local customs, traditions, superstitions, and folkways. It tends to be henotheistic, meaning that although multiple gods and goddesses are recognized, many adherents give their primary devotion to only one of those deities. It has it’s own apologists and catechists. It can do a credible job of giving an account of itself in the face of opposing religious philosophies. People who are Hindu believe as they do for a variety of reasons.

A friend of mine has grown sick of the bickering among Christians generally and among Episcopalians in particular and he has begun to practice Hinduism. A more virulent anti-Catholic you will seldom meet, though the Vedanta Center where he attends is very friendly towards adherents of all faiths. The swami who runs the place actually met with Pope John Paul II years ago–so my friend’s antipathy against Catholics is not typically of his new co-religionists.

Hope this helps!

 

[Contarini]

This is pretty spot on. Nearly all Buddhists that I know of find the proposition and/or necessity of a God irrelevant. The devas are used in more of a “parable” sense than a salvific or beneficent way. But we’re getting off topic

As I understand it, the devas are just more powerful beings who happen to inhabit the universe. In other words, they are in fact equivalent to “gods” in the sense of Western polytheism. That’s what gods are. That’s why gods and God are two different things.

Edwin

 

[notself]

Here is an explanation from Thanissaro Bhikkhu, a well known and respected translator of the Buddhist canon.

In Buddhist cosmology, the heaven realms are blissful abodes whose present inhabitants (the devas) gained rebirth there through the power of their past meritorious actions. Like all beings still caught in samsara, however, these deities eventually succumb to aging, illness, and death, and must eventually take rebirth in other realms — pleasant or otherwise — according to the quality and strength of their past kamma.

The devas are not always especially knowledgable or spiritually mature — in fact many are quite intoxicated by their sensual indulgences — and none are considered worthy of veneration or worship. Nevertheless, the devas and their happy realms stand as important reminders to us both of the happy benefits that ensue from the performance of skillful and meritorious deeds and, finally, of the ultimate shortcomings of sensuality.

This is the definition of polytheism from New Advent. Note that Buddhism is not mentioned as polytheistic. Note that in polytheism ‘gods’ are worshipped.

Buddhists do not worship devas.

The belief in, and consequent worship of, many gods. See the various articles on national religions such as the Assyrian, Babylonian, Hindu, and the ancient religions of Egypt, Greece, and Rome; see also ANIMISM, FETISHISM, TOTEMISM, GOD, MONOTHEISM, PANTHEISM, etc.

 

[Contarini]

I don’t know how important this debate is. But are you saying that no members of Buddhist cultures ever ask the devas (or equivalent beings in Chinese or Japanese traditions) for help in anything having to do with their lives? For that matter, couldn’t the “nats” of Burmese cultural tradition be seen as “gods” in some sense? And what of the Mahayana concept of boddhisattvas, given how blurry the line between devas and boddhisattvas is (isn’t Maitreya a deva right now)?

The point I’m trying to make is that “worship” can mean a lot of things. By and large ancient polytheists did not ask the “gods” for salvation. Except for mystery religions and some philosophical traditions, the European polytheistic traditions didn’t have a doctrine of salvation. They didn’t really worship the gods in the sense that Christians worship God or in the sense that Hindus worship Vishnu or Shiva. (In Hinduism, devas such as Indra are not “worshiped” either in the sense that Vishnu and Shiva and associated deities are–i.e., Hindus do not look to them for salvation). Early Christians defined what the pagans were doing as worship primarily because the pagans offered sacrifices. I suppose one could make this the dividing line, and say that one “worships” the devas if one offers sacrifices to them. As I understand it, Buddhists frown on such sacrifices, but they do take place in areas where Buddhism and Hinduism have blended, such as Sri Lanka and the Himalayan kingdoms.

Edwin

 

[notself]

I don’t know how important this debate is. But are you saying that no members of Buddhist cultures ever ask the devas (or equivalent beings in Chinese or Japanese traditions) for help in anything having to do with their lives? For that matter, couldn’t the “nats” of Burmese cultural tradition be seen as “gods” in some sense? And what of the Mahayana concept of boddhisattvas, given how blurry the line between devas and boddhisattvas is (isn’t Maitreya a deva right now)?

The point I’m trying to make is that “worship” can mean a lot of things. By and large ancient polytheists did not ask the “gods” for salvation. Except for mystery religions and some philosophical traditions, the European polytheistic traditions didn’t have a doctrine of salvation. They didn’t really worship the gods in the sense that Christians worship God or in the sense that Hindus worship Vishnu or Shiva. (In Hinduism, devas such as Indra are not “worshiped” either in the sense that Vishnu and Shiva and associated deities are–i.e., Hindus do not look to them for salvation). Early Christians defined what the pagans were doing as worship primarily because the pagans offered sacrifices. I suppose one could make this the dividing line, and say that one “worships” the devas if one offers sacrifices to them. As I understand it, Buddhists frown on such sacrifices, but they do take place in areas where Buddhism and Hinduism have blended, such as Sri Lanka and the Himalayan kingdoms.

Edwin

Throughout Asia, the local gods and practices have merged with Buddhist practices particularly among laypeople unfamiliar with the actual teachings of the Buddha. This is similar to Catholics who see apparitions of Mary on screen doors and cheese sandwiches.

However, the Buddha never taught that devas should be worshipped in any manner. He rejected sacrifices of all kinds. He rejected the use of amulets, fortune telling, and magic

It is a breach of the monastic discipline for a Buddhist monk to participate in these things. (Many monks do so but they are breaching the Vinaya.) The most respected monks of Asia reject and teach against these things.

Just like any group of people whether religious or political, there are always those who label themselves as part of the group, but act differently usually out of ignorance but sometimes out of fear or greed.

One can find Catholics who practice birth control and do not confess it as a sin. There are Catholics who are pro choice and do not see it as a sin. Are these people Catholic? Yes. Are they “good” Catholics? No. They either lack the true understanding of their faith or they are ignoring the inconvenient parts.