Some American law-makers recently characterized Hinduism as pagan. This raises the question: is Hinduism a pagan religion?
The Abrahamic religious traditions, as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are collectively called, associate paganism with the worship of many gods, and their many idols. The former is condemned as polytheism and the latter as idolatry; and the two are viewed as inextricably intertwined forms of worship, which has been superseded in the aniconic monotheism and which these religions self-consciously uphold and propagate.
Hinduism at first blush appears to conform to paganism. It seems to worship many gods and seems to do so by worshipping different images. It thus comes across as polytheistic and idolatrous and therefore pagan. This perception fuels the missionary zeal of the Abrahamic religions to destroy such paganism.
There is only one problem with this scenario. It is based on a false presumption. It is true that there are many gods in Hinduism and that it abounds in image worship, but while these various gods are considered different gods in paganism as traditionally represented, in Hinduism they represent the various forms of the one and same God. Thus a plurality of gods does not denote polytheism in Hinduism but rather the plurality of the forms in which the same one God might appear. A new word such as polyformism may have to be coined, or an older word polymorphism may have to be invoked, to be set beside polytheism, to provide the corrective. The Hindu situation is characterized not by polytheism but what might be called at best "apparent polytheism," because the reality underlying all the different gods is the reality of one God. Hence, ironically, the situation could also in a sense be described as one of "apparent monotheism," in the sense that the one God appears in various forms.
Similarly, the various images of the various gods also reflect the same point. Any of the many forms, in which God might be seen as appearing, can be visually represented in Hinduism, as a way of focusing the mind on God. This should not be taken for some new-fangled apologetic exegetical sleight of hand performed by modern Hinduism. When the 17th century French traveler, Francois Bernier, was shocked by what he saw of Hinduism, this is how the pandits of Banaras explained the situation to him: "We have indeed in our temples a great variety of images. ...To all these images we pay great honour; prostrating our bodies, and presenting to them, with much ceremony, flowers, rice, scented oil, saffron, and other similar articles. Yet we do not believe that these statues are themselves Brahma or Vishnu; but merely their images and representations. We show them deference only for the sake of the deity whom they represent, and when we pray it is not to the statue, but to that deity. Images are admitted in our temples because we conceive that prayers are offered up with more devotion when there is something before the eyes that fixes the mind, but in fact we acknowledge that God alone is absolute, that He only is the omnipotent Lord.'"
The explanation may not have convinced Bernier but Hindus apparently have no difficulty with it. Sometimes Abrahamic parents wonder whether this plurality does not end up leaving the Hindus confused, and particularly their children. For the Hindus, however, such plurality does not create any confusion of identity, no more than several pictures of us in our album, taken at different stages of our life and in different forms and dresses, causes us to become confused about our identity.
Thus no matter how paganesque Hinduism might appear, it is not pagan in the sense attributed to the word by Abrahamic religions. As a well-known scholar of Hinduism, who was also a missionary in India for a while, Klaus K. Klostermaier observes: "Many Hindu homes are lavishly decorated with color prints of a great many Hindu gods and goddesses, often joined by the gods and goddesses of other religions and the pictures of contemporary heroes. Thus side by side with Śiva and Viṣṇu and Devī one can see Jesus and Zoroaster, Gautama Buddha and Jīna Mahāvīra, Mahātmā Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, and many others. But if questioned about the many gods even the illiterate villager will answer: bhagvān ek hai -- the Lord is One. He may not be able to figure out in theological terms how the many gods and the one God hang together and he may not be sure about the hierarchy obtaining among the many manifestations, but he does know that ultimately there is only One and that the many somehow merge into the One."
This then is the great difference between Hinduism and the Abrahamic religions. Monotheism in Abrahamic religions represents the denial of gods in God, while the monotheism of Hinduism represents the affirmation of gods in God. Failure to recognize this tempts the followers of Abrahamic religions into branding Hinduism as pagan.
Thus in an Indian language, you may say, "I prayed to Shiva and Parvati, I hope God hears my prayers". It would be ungrammatical and plain bizzare to say "I prayed to Shiva and Parvati, I hope the gods hear my prayers".
This is unlike the ancient Greek or Roman religions, where talk of "the gods on Mount Olympus" etc. was perfectly OK.
Yoga Rave in Argentina: http://youtu.be/7_uT3VsRgsg
I got a ride home from Kroger with a manager, who was Hindu. He had a little "figurine" on his dash board, looked like a ghost or something. I asked him "what's that?". He said either (can't remember the exact word) "It's a god" or "It's my god". I said "Oh, ok".
I knew he wasn't saying "it's one of many Gods that rule the universe" but instead was saying "it's my representation of the One, True God- we just happen to also call the representation 'god' ". very confusing, I know. It's his/a god, but it's not God. Very confusing, using the word G/god in such similar ways, in a world were some people see multiple G/gods as unthinkable, no matter how the word is actually used and meant.
There are those of us who solidly work to keep to the truth. Many if not most, regardless of country, want to keep it simple, truth becomes the first victim by those who choose to manipulate others by generalizations.
Pagan to those who are pagan and defined by the surge of pre-christian beliefs. Beliefs that were ostensibly erradicated by Christians. We are mainly talking about European aboriginal beliefs, and those in North Africa also.
The Broad Political brush that conservatives use to simplify the us and them mentality, is well suited for those who needed exceptionally simple guidelines in an ever chaotic world of their own creation. It is sad, the lack of study and simplistic knee jerk reactions and beliefs created by and for overwhelmed people, to manipulate them for further abuse would boggle my mind, were it not proven by these efforts over and over.
http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/en/multimedia_en.asp
Also: http://youtu.be/8zcGLlLEbmI (U of. Chicago lecture on links between the Indus Valley Vedic civilization and Mesopotamia)
Who today cling to the ancient gods and traditions and are mainly conservative and rural?
Which is a process that Christianity's been pursuing all around the world to this day: it kept on throughout the American West and the enslavement of Africans and the various evangelical pushes in Africa and elsewhere that are still ongoing.
I'm not seeing much 'vibrant development' out of that, but rather strife and misery and atrocity and and the rest.
Actually the 'pagani' label was when the 'Christian soldiers' considered the locals 'native civilians' as an invading army. Even more literally than the metaphors are still used today.
More of us are rural people than some would portray us: everything I learned about farming and such I learned from Pagans, actually. It's pretty typical of us to value and pursue at least one traditional skill, contrary to certain portrayals. I'd probably be out there myself if my health was up to it.
Consider the words of Maximus of Tyre.
Let men know what is divine, let them know: that is all. If a Greek is stirred to the remembrance of God by the art of Phidias, an Egyptian by paying worship to animals, another man by a river, another by fire--I have no anger for their divergences; only let them know, let them love, let them recall." [1] [p. 239]
http://www.noteaccess.com/APPROACHES/AGW/Hellenism.htm
Infact, Hinduism itself is an umbrella term. What Hindus believe, to be more precise, is called Vedanta. And Vedanta has absolutely nothing to do with Paganism.
The Gods of the Vedas are the same Gods as the Gods of Ancient Greece and Rome, only the names are changed. The Lord of the Dance may be Shiva in India and Apollo in Greece, but He remains the same God. Comparative religion has established beyond any doubt that that the Indo-Europeans (our common ancestors) had a Pantheon of Deities who were worshiped throughout Europe, Anatolia, India, and surrounding lands.
"In a treaty between the Hittites and the Mitanni, the deities Mitra, Varuna, Indra, and Nasatya (Ashvins) are invoked. Their chief festival was the celebration of the solstice (vishuva) which was common in most cultures in the ancient world. The Mitanni warriors were called marya, the term for warrior in Sanskrit as well..."
If you want to claim that all the Deities are aspects of the Divine I would not argue, but to say that the Gods themselves are not worshiped as individuals is to redefine history and religion to fit a monotheistic paradigm.
What you choose to be called is something you'll find Pagans *very* much accept in general: but in the process you shouldn't take the way Christians have *used* that word as a negative at face value, either. Frankly, while we don't mind being termed polytheistic, you'll find that we answer those charges of 'idolatry' in much the same way as Hindu people are here.
'Paganism' itself is of course an umbrella term, in very similar ways. Especially in a modern and interconnected world, it's a much more interconnected if polymorphic faith group, ...and it usually does connote 'European-derived,' ...certainly it's usually applied west of India, and that's OK.
The thing is, you shouldn't repeat the still-ongoing slanders and think that successfully distances you from the prejudices of the Abrahamics. It just doesn't. That's why they denigrate Hindus as 'Pagans' in the first place.
How would you feel if Christians were going after we Pagans with the claims, 'You're just a bunch of damned Hindus,' and the Pagans went, 'Oh, no, we're nothing like *Hindus,* the demonic idolaters?'
Do you think that would either work or be a very nice or accurate thing to say?
http://www.chakranews.com/de-monotheising-the-human-mind-the-hindu-way/2138
This is the mistake Professor Sharma makes. He seems to believe that if Hindus can convince the Abrahamics that Hinduism is not pagan, they will not try to destroy us. But look at the zeal with which they destroy each other - Christians vs. Jews for most of the last 2000 years culminating in the Holocaust, Islamic jihads against Jews and Christians starting with Muhammad and continuing to this day, the crusades in which Christians fought Muslims (and sometimes the Jews for good measure). Even if Professor Sharma could convince them that Hinduism is an Abrahamic religion, attacks on Hinduism will continue. For devout Abrahamics, it is not enough to believe in the One God (they all worship the same god) - it is necessary to also believe in the same prophet and the same holy book or you are dead meat. I am not saying Hinduism is more tolerant - our intolerance is expressed internally with the caste system, rather than externally towards people of other faiths.
Stop worrying about convincing the Abrahamics about the virtues of Hinduism. We do our own thing and if they don't like it, they can stuff it - it really isn't any of their business whether I worship a cow or an iPhone. Thomas Jefferson would agree.