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

  • Thread starter Thread starter scapularkid8
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I would really encourage anyone interested in what Buddhism is all about to go to ewtns audio programs search page and find the journey home episode with Paul Williams. He is a British university professor who was a practising Buddhist for many years. He even wrote books on Buddhism and was a noted, respected man in his field. Then he became Catholic! It is a very informative, enjoyable interview, or so I thought anyway. 👍 👍 from me.

He also has a book about his conversion which I have not read.
amazon.com/Unexpected-Way-Converting-Buddhism-Catholicism/dp/0567088308
 
notself said:
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.
Click to expand...
This line of argument would be valid if directed against many of the Catholics here who claim that their interpretation of the faith is the only real one and those who disagree aren’t “real Catholics.” But I don’t buy this, no matter who says it. In particular, such arguments have no meaning for outsiders to a tradition. As a Christian, I can say that I don’t recognize some alleged Christians (including some Episcopalians, such as John Shelby Spong) as “real Christians” in the sense that they deny doctrines I consider essential to the faith. But I can’t expect outsiders to accept my definition of what is “essential.” Nor can you expect me to do this. I am interested in observing what Buddhists think and do. I am not interested in judging which of you are practicing “real Buddhism.” And I certainly have no reason to accept your speculative and rather harsh judgments as to the motivations of those who practice Buddhism differently from you.

Edwin
 
I never said that Buddhists who practice differently than I are not real Buddhists. What I said was those Buddhists who worship devas in the hope for intervention in their lives or who have faith in amulets and fortune tellers are not following the teachings of the Buddha in these aspects of their lives. No one is perfect in their practice except those who have obtained release.

I hope this clears things up for you.
 
vee8 said:
I would really encourage anyone interested in what Buddhism is all about to go to ewtns audio programs search page and find the journey home episode with Paul Williams. He is a British university professor who was a practising Buddhist for many years. He even wrote books on Buddhism and was a noted, respected man in his field. Then he became Catholic! It is a very informative, enjoyable interview, or so I thought anyway. 👍 👍 from me.

He also has a book about his conversion which I have not read.
amazon.com/Unexpected-Way-Converting-Buddhism-Catholicism/dp/0567088308
Click to expand...
Buddhism is not for everyone.
 
AgnosTheist said:
What is your basis for saying that most buddhists are polytheistic?
Click to expand...
My original statement was defining “gods” as the “devas,” in whose existence Buddhists believe. No one disputes that Buddhists believe in the existence of devas, and that these beings are taken over from Hinduism and were originally the gods of Vedic (Indo-European, though I know we’re getting into murky waters at this point) religion. I acknowledged that Buddhists do not think that the devas can grant salvation (except insofar as in Mahayana Buddhism some boddhisattvas may be devas or may manifest themselves as devas). I take the point that many/most Buddhist teachers frown on paying any kind of worship to the devas, but notself admits that a number of Buddhists disregard or disagree with this teaching. I have nothing particularly invested in the proposition that Buddhists are polytheistic. I was mostly trying to complicate the OP’s overly simplistic picture in which most of the world except for Hindus had abandoned polytheism. I agree that it all depends on how we define “gods.” The devas are in a sense parallel to angels in the Judeo-Christian tradition (superhuman beings who are not to be worshiped).

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
My original statement was defining “gods” as the “devas,” in whose existence Buddhists believe. No one disputes that Buddhists believe in the existence of devas, and that these beings are taken over from Hinduism and were originally the gods of Vedic (Indo-European, though I know we’re getting into murky waters at this point) religion. I acknowledged that Buddhists do not think that the devas can grant salvation (except insofar as in Mahayana Buddhism some boddhisattvas may be devas or may manifest themselves as devas). I take the point that many/most Buddhist teachers frown on paying any kind of worship to the devas…
Click to expand...
That depends upon how you are defining “worship”. If by “worship” you mean “intensive contemplation of”, then the Buddha himself invited his disciples to “worship” the devas.

Contemplation of the radiant nature and radiant mind of the higher devas (those devas with highly developed spiritual natures) is part of the contemplative practices called “the ten recollections” outlined in the Pali (Theravada) canon. Such meditation is meant to aid in the spiritual journey of both monks/nuns and laypeople, even if the ultimate aim of the Buddhist practitioner is nirvana, and not merely rebirth in the heavenly deva-realms. The practitioner is to meditate on the fact that the devas were once human, and that any higher quality or virtue that the devas now have, are present in seed form in all humans, waiting to be cultivated and perfected.
 
Thank you for your comment, Ahimsa. You did cover an area of practice that I neglected to mention.

Contemplation on the virtues of devas is similar to the contemplation of the virtues of Saints. Catholics do not consider themselves polytheists because of this practice. In the same way, Buddhists do not consider themselves polytheists.
 
notself said:
Thank you for your comment, Ahimsa. You did cover an area of practice that I neglected to mention.

Contemplation on the virtues of devas is similar to the contemplation of the virtues of Saints. Catholics do not consider themselves polytheists because of this practice. In the same way, Buddhists do not consider themselves polytheists.
Click to expand...
And in my experience Hindus generally don’t consider themselves polytheists either. That’s the point I’m trying to make. The OP was drawing a sharp distinction between Hindus and Buddhists. My point is that the truly polytheistic devas of the Vedic literature are given a distinctly subordinate position in postclassical Hinduism as in Buddhism. Both postclassical Hinduism and Buddhism are in a sense developments from the ancient, truly polytheistic religion of the Vedas. Buddhism breaks with that tradition more radically and certainly deserves the “polytheistic” label less. But postclassical Hinduism agrees that the devas (except insofar as some of them are identified with postclassical deities) are mortal beings who cannot save us. Vishnu and/or Shiva are on a whole different level in postclassical Hinduism.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
And in my experience Hindus generally don’t consider themselves polytheists either. That’s the point I’m trying to make.
Edwin
Click to expand...
It is my understanding that the deities of Hinduism are all aspects of Brahman, the source of all. This would indicate that at its very core all Hindu beliefs are monotheistic.

Catholicism with its saints and reverence for Mary is seen by many other Christians as polytheistic. The use and venerations of statues and icons is considered by some Christians as being idol worship.

I find it odd that Catholics on this thread belittle Hinduism for practices that are somewhat similar to those practiced by Catholics the world over. Catholics dedicate themselves to the veneration of Mary or to veneration of a particular Saint in the same way that Hindus dedicate their practice to Vishnu or Shiva or Shakti, the Divine Mother. In my experience labels are not usually accurate in describing religious belief.
 
notself said:
It is my understanding that the deities of Hinduism are all aspects of Brahman, the source of all. This would indicate that at its very core all Hindu beliefs are monotheistic.

Catholicism with its saints and reverence for Mary is seen by many other Christians as polytheistic. The use and venerations of statues and icons is considered by some Christians as being idol worship.

I find it odd that Catholics on this thread belittle Hinduism for practices that are somewhat similar to those practiced by Catholics the world over. Catholics dedicate themselves to the veneration of Mary or to veneration of a particular Saint in the same way that Hindus dedicate their practice to Vishnu or Shiva or Shakti, the Divine Mother. In my experience labels are not usually accurate in describing religious belief.
Click to expand...
There are differences, though–as you pointed out, the parallel is probably closer between Catholic devotion to saints and Buddhist devotion to Buddhas and Boddhisattvas.

As I mentioned earlier, the traditional distinction between “dulia” (honor due to saints) and “latria” (the worship due only to God) is drawn over the issue of sacrifice. And as you note, that’s also a major difference between Buddhism (except for some of the Hindu-Buddhist syncretists) and Hinduism with regard to the devas.

Obviously there are all sorts of distinctions we can draw, and I was not claiming that Buddhists were polytheistic in a strict sense. The OP seemed to be assuming that Hinduism is simply continuing ancient polytheistic tradition when all other religions have abandoned it, and my point is that this is not what has happened. Hindus, like Buddhists and Western monotheists, have challenged and modified their ancient polytheistic traditions. But they have done so less radically, through organic development rather than outright rejection. Buddhists have rejected polytheism more radically, and Western monotheists more radically still. But none of us simply continue to believe and worship as the ancient Vedic culture did, or as ancient Europeans and Mesopotamians did.

Edwin
 
AgnosTheist said:
Hinduism is very diverse and you just happened to bump with the monotheistic types. 😃
Click to expand...
Yes, I’m aware of this. The lady who welcomed me and my students when we visited a Hindu temple earlier this semester placed great emphasis on the idea that Hindus are not polytheists (her phrase was: “we’re more than monotheists, we’re monists”). I discussed this with my students afterward and pointed out that in a sense Hindu monism actually allows for what we Christians/Muslims/Jews would call polytheism, because all reality can be seen as an expression of God.

I think that the distinction between worshiping one God or worshiping many gods is really misleading, especially because it leads to the mistaken impression that there’s a class of being called “god” of which polytheists posit many members and monotheists only one (this is the assumption that seems to underlie a lot of atheist polemic). The one/many issue isn’t really the big deal. Clearly the gods/devas of polytheism don’t have the qualities that monotheists ascribe to the One God. The significant questions pertain rather to the relationship between the One (ultimate reality) and the many superhuman beings who may be flitting about the cosmos. Are the “many” expressions of the One? Creatures/emanations of the One? Messengers? Rebellious enemies? What should our attitude be to them? Should we leave them alone? Fear and propitiate them? Cultivate loving and respectful relationships with them? Fight them? Does the One have any attributes analogous to what we call “personality”? Can it relate to us in any way? Reveal itself? Become incarnate? Or is there a “One” at all? (Theravada Buddhists and modern materialistic atheists both deny this–arguably some ancient polytheists, such as the Germanic peoples, implicitly did so as well.) Only modern secularists and extremely liberal Christians deny the existence of many superhuman beings.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
And in my experience Hindus generally don’t consider themselves polytheists either. That’s the point I’m trying to make. The OP was drawing a sharp distinction between Hindus and Buddhists. My point is that the truly polytheistic devas of the Vedic literature are given a distinctly subordinate position in postclassical Hinduism as in Buddhism. Both postclassical Hinduism and Buddhism are in a sense developments from the ancient, truly polytheistic religion of the Vedas.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Of course, whether the Vedas are “truly” polytheistic is up for debate.
 
Ahimsa said:
Of course, whether the Vedas are “truly” polytheistic is up for debate.
Click to expand...
Is it? I know that some of the Vedas point in the direction of the philosophical questions raised by the Upanishads. Can you tell me more about scholars who have discussed this? (If you are counting the Upanishads as part of the Vedas, then I’m not disagreeing with you. I’m speaking of the original hymns themselves–and I guess I’m thinking primarily of the Rig-Veda.)

I’m a poor church historian teaching world religions (and loving it, because I learn so much) because there’s no specialist in non-Chrsitian religions at my college! So any instruction you can give would be a spiritual (or at least intellectual) work of mercy.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
Is it? I know that some of the Vedas point in the direction of the philosophical questions raised by the Upanishads. Can you tell me more about scholars who have discussed this? (If you are counting the Upanishads as part of the Vedas, then I’m not disagreeing with you. I’m speaking of the original hymns themselves–and I guess I’m thinking primarily of the Rig-Veda.)

I’m a poor church historian teaching world religions (and loving it, because I learn so much) because there’s no specialist in non-Chrsitian religions at my college! So any instruction you can give would be a spiritual (or at least intellectual) work of mercy.

Edwin
Click to expand...
If we just stick with the Rig Vedas, perhaps one of the most famous verses is from Mandala 1, Hymn 164, Verse 46:

They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni,
and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutman.
To what is One, sages give many a title –
they call it Agni, Yama, Matarisvan.

But, one might point out, Mandala 1 is considered by many scholars to be one of the later mandalas of the Rig Veda.

True, which is why I also refer to Mandala 6, Hymn 36, Verse 4:
Lauded by us, let flow the spring, O Indra, of excellent and brightly-shining riches.
For thou art Lord of men, without an equal: of all the world thou art the only Sovereign.
Click to expand...
 
scapularkid8 said:
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?
Click to expand...
This posting exhibits SUCH ignorance of Sanatana Dharma that it really isn’t worth a responce!

I haven’t read the rest of the posts…

But “Hinduism” is such a vast thing that one can’t make such sweeping generalizations as calling it “polytheistic.”

Once again - the arrogant west pushing its suposedly superior values on everyone else without actually know what they are talking about.

This gets very tiresome!!!

“Christos Anesti?”

Don’t EVEN get me started on the Orthodox Church!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top