Is Hinduism the eldest of Islam and Christianity and budism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter excaliber
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Matariel said:
Actually, Hinduism can be seen as polytheistic, tri-henotheistic, or panentheistic, depending on your emphasis. Altogether, panentheistic is the most apt description, though on a practical level, it can be polytheistic.
Click to expand...
Hinduism is a confederation of religions. It has many different streams of beliefs, starting with pantheism. Polytheism is the more commonly known aspect of it. Yet, worship of one favorite deity, is also integral to Hinduism and it is practiced by the common Hindu. Guru Pooja, or worship of the guru as god, is also common practice. Complex Hindu philosophies is less well known to the common Hindu in India and is of interest only to a few. The cultural and social aspect of Hinduism, with its caste system should not be forgotten.

But in the West, it is Hindu philosophy that sparks greatest interest. The many New Age religions and philosophies that arose from Hinduism and Buddhism in the West is a different thing altogether and should not be mixed up with Hinduism or Buddhism in India.

The Vedas, the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita are all classical Hindu Scripture, written at different times in the history of Hinduism, and they contain different religious philosophies that reflects the changes in understanding of God and religion in Hinduism.
 
S_J_Thaikattil said:
Hinduism is a confederation of religions. It has many different streams of beliefs, starting with pantheism. Polytheism is the more commonly known aspect of it. Yet, worship of one favorite deity, is also integral to Hinduism and it is practiced by the common Hindu. Guru Pooja, or worship of the guru as god, is also common practice. Complex Hindu philosophies is less well known to the common Hindu in India and is of interest only to a few. The cultural and social aspect of Hinduism, with its caste system should not be forgotten.

But in the West, it is Hindu philosophy that sparks greatest interest. The many New Age religions and philosophies that arose from Hinduism and Buddhism in the West is a different thing altogether and should not be mixed up with Hinduism or Buddhism in India.

The Vedas, the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita are all classical Hindu Scripture, written at different times in the history of Hinduism, and they contain different religious philosophies that reflects the changes in understanding of God and religion in Hinduism.
Click to expand...
I agree with you completely, but I would not go so far as to say that Hinduism is “a confederation of religions”. I would say that there are many different groupings of beliefs within Hinduism, similar to how there are different belief groups in the many different sects of Protestant Christianity. Nearly all major anthropologists, historians, theologians, and religious professors would say that Hinduism is considered one religion.
 
Matariel said:
I agree with you completely, but I would not go so far as to say that Hinduism is “a confederation of religions”. I would say that there are many different groupings of beliefs within Hinduism, similar to how there are different belief groups in the many different sects of Protestant Christianity. Nearly all major anthropologists, historians, theologians, and religious professors would say that Hinduism is considered one religion.
Click to expand...
The only way Hinduism can be considered “one religion” would be if Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are considered “one religion”.🙂
 
SedesDomi said:
The only way Hinduism can be considered “one religion” would be if Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are considered “one religion”.🙂
Click to expand...
I fail to see how this sentence would be true, and I fail to see the comparison. Hinduism is universally considered one religion.

** Addendum: I accidentally stated before that Moses was the one who confronted Lilith, but that’s incorrect. It was Isaiah.*]
 
Huh?.Hinduism amalgamated tribal religions of India.their gods also .What I think is ,if you see a god-goddess you can trace them to Either brahma ,vishnu or shiva.
 
Matariel said:
I fail to see how this sentence would be true, and I fail to see the comparison. Hinduism is universally considered one religion.
Click to expand...
Well, my point would be that if Hinduism is universally considered one religion, then we should consider Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as one religion.

All Christians follow Christ. All Jews follow the Torah. All Muslims follow Muhammad. And we all say that each of these follows a “different” religion. And yet, at least in Catholic teaching, they all worship the same God.

Contrast that with the traditions we place under the label “Hinduism”:

Devotees of Ram and devotees of Siva and devotees of Shakti and practitioners of jnana yoga (self-enquiry) and practitioners of raja yoga and disciples of Sai Baba of Shirdi and disciples of Sri Chaitanya – all of whom hold views of the universe, deity, and humanity that are more diverse than Jews, Christians, and Muslims put together – all of these are lumped together as “one religion”. Something doesn’t make sense here.

And the reason they are lumped together – “universally” – is because the very term “religion” was developed in Europe and then imposed upon non-Europeans. Since Hinduism was termed “one religion” by early European scholars (anthropologists, theologians, philosophers) who didn’t appreciate the diversity within India, the “one religion”-ness of Hinduism now dominates the discourse. Of course, that is beginning to change nowadays. From the entry “Hinduism”:
Hinduism is the world’s most ancient religion and encompasses a broad spectrum of philosophies ranging from pluralistic theism to absolute monism. It is a family of myriad faiths with four primary denominations: Saivism, Vaishnavism, Shaktism and Smartism. These four hold such divergent beliefs that each is a complete and independent religion.
Click to expand...
 
Article 2.
Whether “one” and “many” are opposed to each other?
Objection 1. It seems that “one” and “many” are not mutually opposed. For no opposite thing is predicated of its opposite. But every “multitude” is in a certain way “one,” as appears from the preceding article. Therefore “one” is not opposed to “multitude.”

Objection 2. Further, no opposite thing is constituted by its opposite. But “multitude” is constituted by “one.” Therefore it is not opposed to “multitude.”

Objection 3. Further, “one” is opposed to “one.” But the idea of “few” is opposed to “many.” Therefore “one” is not opposed to “many.”

Objection 4. Further, if “one” is opposed to “multitude,” it is opposed as the undivided is to the divided; and is thus opposed to it as privation is to habit. But this appears to be incongruous; because it would follow that “one” comes after “multitude,” and is defined by it; whereas, on the contrary, “multitude” is defined by “one.” Hence there would be a vicious circle in the definition; which is inadmissible. Therefore “one” and “many” are not opposed.

On the contrary, Things which are opposed in idea, are themselves opposed to each other. But the idea of “one” consists in indivisibility; and the idea of “multitude” contains division. Therefore “one” and “many” are opposed to each other.

I answer that, “One” is opposed to “many,” but in various ways. The “one” which is the principle of number is opposed to “multitude” which is number, as the measure is to the thing measured. For “one” implies the idea of a primary measure; and number is “multitude” measured by “one,” as is clear from Metaph. x. But the “one” which convertible with “being” is opposed to “multitude” by way of privation; as the undivided is to the thing divided.

Reply to Objection 1. No privation entirely takes away the being of a thing, inasmuch as privation means “negation in the subject,” according to the Philosopher (Categor. viii). Nevertheless every privation takes away some being; and so in being, by reason of its universality, the privation of being has its foundation in being; which is not the case in privations of special forms, as of sight, or of whiteness and the like. And what applies to being applies also to one and to good, which are convertible with being, for the privation of good is founded in some good; likewise the removal of unity is founded in some one thing. Hence it happens that multitude is some one thing; and evil is some good thing, and non-being is some kind of being. Nevertheless, opposite is not predicated of opposite; forasmuch as one is absolute, and the other is relative; for what is relative being (as a potentiality) is non-being absolutely, i.e. actually; or what is absolute being in the genus of substance is non-being relatively as regards some accidental being. In the same way, what is relatively good is absolutely bad, or vice versa; likewise what is absolutely “one” is relatively “many,” and vice versa.

Reply to Objection 2. A “whole” is twofold. In one sense it is homogeneous, composed of like parts; in another sense it is heterogeneous, composed of dissimilar parts. Now in every homogeneous whole, the whole is made up of parts having the form of the whole; as, for instance, every part of water is water; and such is the constitution of a continuous thing made up of its parts. In every heterogeneous whole, however, every part is wanting in the form belonging to the whole; as, for instance, no part of a house is a house, nor is any part of a man a man. Now multitude is such a kind of a whole. Therefore inasmuch as its part has not the form of the multitude, the latter is composed of unities, as a house is composed of not houses; not, indeed, as if unities constituted multitude so far as they are undivided, in which way they are opposed to multitude; but so far as they have being, as also the parts of a house make up the house by the fact that they are beings, not by the fact that they are not houses.

Reply to Objection 3. “Many” is taken in two ways: absolutely, and in that sense it is opposed to “one”; in another way as importing some kind of excess, in which sense it is opposed to “few”; hence in the first sense two are many but not in the second sense.

Reply to Objection 4. “One” is opposed to “many” privatively, inasmuch as the idea of “many” involves division. Hence division must be prior to unity, not absolutely in itself, but according to our way of apprehension. For we apprehend simple things by compound things; and hence we define a point to be, “what has no part,” or “the beginning of a line.” “Multitude” also, in idea, follows on “one”; because we do not understand divided things to convey the idea of multitude except by the fact that we attribute unity to every part. Hence “one” is placed in the definition of “multitude”; but “multitude” is not placed in the definition of “one.” But division comes to be understood from the very negation of being: so what first comes to mind is being; secondly, that this being is not that being, and thus we apprehend division as a consequence; thirdly, comes the notion of one; fourthly, the notion of multitude.
 
Article 3.
Whether God is one?
Objection 1. It seems that God is not one. For it is written “For there be many gods and many lords” (1 Corinthians 8:5).

Objection 2. Further, “One,” as the principle of number, cannot be predicated of God, since quantity is not predicated of God; likewise, neither can “one” which is convertible with “being” be predicated of God, because it imports privation, and every privation is an imperfection, which cannot apply to God. Therefore God is not one.

On the contrary, It is written “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4).

I answer that, It can be shown from these three sources that God is one.

First from His simplicity. For it is manifest that the reason why any singular thing is “this particular thing” is because it cannot be communicated to many: since that whereby Socrates is a man, can be communicated to many; whereas, what makes him this particular man, is only communicable to one. Therefore, if Socrates were a man by what makes him to be this particular man, as there cannot be many Socrates, so there could not in that way be many men. Now this belongs to God alone; for God Himself is His own nature, as was shown above (Question 3, Article 3). Therefore, in the very same way God is God, and He is this God. Impossible is it therefore that many Gods should exist.

Secondly, this is proved from the infinity of His perfection. For it was shown above (Question 4, Article 2) that God comprehends in Himself the whole perfection of being. If then many gods existed, they would necessarily differ from each other. Something therefore would belong to one which did not belong to another. And if this were a privation, one of them would not be absolutely perfect; but if a perfection, one of them would be without it. So it is impossible for many gods to exist. Hence also the ancient philosophers, constrained as it were by truth, when they asserted an infinite principle, asserted likewise that there was only one such principle.

Thirdly, this is shown from the unity of the world. For all things that exist are seen to be ordered to each other since some serve others. But things that are diverse do not harmonize in the same order, unless they are ordered thereto by one. For many are reduced into one order by one better than by many: because one is the “per se” cause of one, and many are only the accidental cause of one, inasmuch as they are in some way one. Since therefore what is first is most perfect, and is so “per se” and not accidentally, it must be that the first which reduces all into one order should be only one. And this one is God.

Reply to Objection 1. Gods are called many by the error of some who worshipped many deities, thinking as they did that the planets and other stars were gods, and also the separate parts of the world. Hence the Apostle adds: “Our God is one,” etc.

Reply to Objection 2. “One” which is the principle of number is not predicated of God, but only of material things. For “one” the principle of number belongs to the “genus” of mathematics, which are material in being, and abstracted from matter only in idea. But “one” which is convertible with being is a metaphysical entity and does not depend on matter in its being. And although in God there is no privation, still, according to the mode of our apprehension, He is known to us by way only of privation and remotion. Thus there is no reason why a certain kind of privation should not be predicated of God; for instance, that He is incorporeal and infinite; and in the same way it is said of God that He is one.
 
Article 4. Whether God is supremely one?
Objection 1. It seems that God is not supremely “one.” For “one” is so called from the privation of division. But privation cannot be greater or less. Therefore God is not more “one” than other things which are called “one.”

Objection 2. Further, nothing seems to be more indivisible than what is actually and potentially indivisible; such as a point and unity. But a thing is said to be more “one” according as it is indivisible. Therefore God is not more “one” than unity is “one” and a point is “one.”

Objection 3. Further, what is essentially good is supremely good. Therefore what is essentially “one” is supremely “one.” But every being is essentially “one,” as the Philosopher says (Metaph. iv). Therefore every being is supremely “one”; and therefore God is not “one” more than any other being is “one.”

On the contrary, Bernard says (De Consid. v): “Among all things called one, the unity of the Divine Trinity holds the first place.”

I answer that, Since “one” is an undivided being, if anything is supremely “one” it must be supremely being, and supremely undivided. Now both of these belong to God. For He is supremely being, inasmuch as His being is not determined by any nature to which it is adjoined; since He is being itself, subsistent, absolutely undetermined. But He is supremely undivided inasmuch as He is divided neither actually nor potentially, by any mode of division; since He is altogether simple, as was shown above (Question 3, Article 7). Hence it is manifest that God is “one” in the supreme degree.

Reply to Objection 1. Although privation considered in itself is not susceptive of more or less, still according as its opposite is subject to more or less, privation also can be considered itself in the light of more and less. Therefore according as a thing is more divided, or is divisible, either less or not at all, in the degree it is called more, or less, or supremely, “one.”

Reply to Objection 2. A point and unity which is the principle of number, are not supremely being, inasmuch as they have being only in some subject. Hence neither of them can be supremely “one.” For as a subject cannot be supremely “one,” because of the difference within it of accident and subject, so neither can an accident.

Reply to Objection 3. Although every being is “one” by its substance, still every such substance is not equally the cause of unity; for the substance of some things is compound and of others simple.

I hope this solves some things…👍 Aquinas always does.
 
Whether one and many are contradictory.

Then, whether God is one.

Then whether God is Supremely one.
 
Because Hindus believe in many gods. I aim here to demolish the myth of polytheism. I am of course aware that there is also the panthiest aspect…but I still need to find Aquinas’ thoughts on that.
 
What’s to demolish? In terms of faith, there are as many “God”'s as those who believe in “Him.” As to God Himself, He is unknowable by human mind.
 
Naturally. But if He gives revelation to Man as He has done through Jesus Christ and the Holy Catholic Church, we can know Him.
 
pjk123 said:
Huh?.Hinduism amalgamated tribal religions of India.their gods also .What I think is ,if you see a god-goddess you can trace them to Either brahma ,vishnu or shiva.
Click to expand...
Here two links on Hindu gods and godesses:

saigan.com/heritage/gindex.html

sanatansociety.org/hindu_gods_and_goddesses.htm

It is from a prominent Hindu scholar I heard that Hinduism is a confederation of religions. The important difference between Judaism, Christianity and Islam being that the three are “revealed” religions, whereas religions from the Indian subcontinent are not.

If you were to study the mythology relating to the various gods and goddesses, and Hindu philosophies and practices you would agree there is more than one religion in it. What does worship of a Hindu guru as God go to do with Shiva, Brahma and Vishnu? But Guru Pooja is real Hinduism too.

I am to understand that Hinduism was a term coined by the British to group all religions practiced by those living in the Indus Valley civilization or the Indian subcontinent, Hindustan, other than those which do not worship gods and goddesses and with known founders like Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism.
 
Matariel said:
I agree with you completely, but I would not go so far as to say that Hinduism is “a confederation of religions”. I would say that there are many different groupings of beliefs within Hinduism, similar to how there are different belief groups in the many different sects of Protestant Christianity. Nearly all major anthropologists, historians, theologians, and religious professors would say that Hinduism is considered one religion.
Click to expand...
Sorry. As I mentioned in my earlier post, it is a Hindu scholar himself who said that Hinduism is a confederation of religions, and it is common knowledge that the term Hindu and the religion of the Hindu as Hinduism was introduced by Europeans. They do have a couple of common beliefs of course like Karma and Reincarnation, but for the rest, there are far too many differences.

It is not the term “religion” that is a European description of Indian religions, but the word Hinduism. As mentioned it simply refers to all the religions practiced by a Hindu, or a person who lives in Hindustan. (Hindustan from Indus Valley)

It is one religion only in the sense it is practiced by people of only one subcontinent India, Hindustan, people of the Indus Valley civilization. Hinduism has no element of proselytization.
 
narrowpath said:
Because Hindus believe in many gods. I aim here to demolish the myth of polytheism. I am of course aware that there is also the panthiest aspect…but I still need to find Aquinas’ thoughts on that.
Click to expand...
It is impossible to demolish the polytheism of a Hindu because they worship gods only as attributes of God. Invariably a Hindu has a favorite God they worship exclusively although they do refer to other gods or even have idols of those gods. It is part of the Bakthi Yoga (Bakthi = devotion, Yoga = Union; meaning union with God through devotion to one God) tradition, a late development in Hinduism, dealt with in detail in the Bhagavad Gita, but nevertheless the most popular one for householders or ordinary lay people.

Every temple is dedicated only to one God.
 
S_J_Thaikattil said:
Sorry. As I mentioned in my earlier post, it is a Hindu scholar himself who said that Hinduism is a confederation of religions, and it is common knowledge that the term Hindu and the religion of the Hindu as Hinduism was introduced by Europeans. They do have a couple of common beliefs of course like Karma and Reincarnation, but for the rest, there are far too many differences.

It is not the term “religion” that is a European description of Indian religions, but the word Hinduism. As mentioned it simply refers to all the religions practiced by a Hindu, or a person who lives in Hindustan. (Hindustan from Indus Valley)

It is one religion only in the sense it is practiced by people of only one subcontinent India, Hindustan, people of the Indus Valley civilization. Hinduism has no element of proselytization.
Click to expand...
In that case, Protestantism is a different religion than Catholicism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top