{"id":2214,"date":"2018-11-07T10:10:10","date_gmt":"2018-11-07T10:10:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/iskconeducationalservices.org\/HoH\/?p=2214"},"modified":"2018-11-07T10:21:14","modified_gmt":"2018-11-07T10:21:14","slug":"art-0101-god-hindu-concepts-of","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/iskconeducationalservices.org\/HoH\/further-information-and-teaching-resources-secondary\/articles\/art-0101-god-hindu-concepts-of\/","title":{"rendered":"ART-0101 God, Hindu Concepts of"},"content":{"rendered":"

Download article ‘ART-0101 God, Hindu Concepts of’ as word document<\/a><\/p>\n

Hindu Concepts of God<\/h1>\n

Introduction<\/h3>\n

Hinduism has no single founder, no common creed nor a unified code of practice. It boasts many founders of diverse denominations, many spiritual leaders and many sacred books. It has no traceable beginning and its past recedes into uncertainty. Yet it remains today an overwhelming reality, a living and dynamic tradition \u2014 not only in India but throughout the world.<\/p>\n

There are over half a million Hindus in Britain. Their culture is conspicuous through their food, dress and music. But not only amongst Hindus themselves! Nose rings abound on the High Street; politicians\u2019 wives wear silk saris; and we, the more lowly, can buy samosas in the pub, to the strains of Kula Shaker.<\/p>\n

Ironically, it was the Colonialists in the nineteenth-century who wished to \u2018civilise the Hindoo\u2019 and convert the natives to European and Christian values. From the Hindu perspective, perhaps the tides of karma have now inevitably turned … .<\/p>\n

The reality, as the millennium closes, is that we live in a multicultural society. In the past we may have dispensed with others\u2019 beliefs and practices as \u2018foreign\u2019 or \u2018superstitious\u2019. Today its hard to avoid the challenge \u2014 and the opportunity \u2014 to reassess our own faith, our own world-view and our own spiritual values. We desperately need to understand the faith of those with whom we live, eat and work, who are often on the same, arduous, spiritual journey, though coming from traditions other than our own.<\/p>\n

Understanding Hinduism, though, presents specific challenges. For example, it features no single deity but a bewildering array of gods and goddesses, usually with many arms and often more than one head. Whereas previously we could have raised our own arms in dismay, charging the perpetrators with \u2018polytheism!\u2019, such an approach is no longer acceptable \u2014 nor accurate. Today, more enlightened experts claim that Hindus do indeed (like all educated people) believe that \u2018God is one\u2019. Nevertheless, their attempts to reconcile this with the many deities often \u2014 and quite understandably\u2014 fail to represent the breadth and depth of Hindu thought. In this article, I will attempt to unravel some of the complex issues surrounding Hindu concepts of God. In so doing, I will try to present a broad and accurate picture, whilst sharing some of my own convictions and experience as a member of the Vaishnava tradition. I will focus on the concept and meaning of \u201ca personal God\u201d, seeking to disabuse those who maintain that true monotheism is absent from Hinduism. I hope that this will not only enhance our comprehension of this ancient tradition but will help us reflect on our own ideas of the Supreme.<\/p>\n

What is Hinduism?<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Hinduism is difficult to precisely define and use of the term remains somewhat arbitrary for both scholar and practitioner. It has been described as \u2018a family of religions\u2019, suggesting a high degree of variance between beliefs and practices, yet the existence of an overall commonality. It is not easy to define this \u2018family likeness\u2019. Whatever definition we choose, we will undoubtedly find some who call themselves Hindus (or whom others consider Hindu) who fall outside these bounds. Nevertheless, we need some definitive form, and here we choose to define Hindus as \u2018those who follow the Vedas\u2019, the ancient Sanskrit texts of India.[i]<\/a><\/p>\n

Only more recently have the followers of this Vedic tradition been called upon to define their faith as a separate entity, in much the same way as the other great religions. Until the modern age, and particularly the rise of patriotic fundamentalism, Hindus hardly perceived their religion in terms of ethnic or political boundaries. Rather, they viewed it according to the psycho-physical nature and spiritual development of the individual. This was formalised through the varnashrama social system.[ii]<\/a> In this way, diversity of belief and practice \u2014 and indeed, focus of worship \u2014 did not represent the break up of a creedal tradition into opposing camps of opinion. Rather, it represented a unified system, a continuum, which accommodated the spiritual inclinations of everyone. Such an over-arching concept was more plausible with a theology that considered the spiritual journey a long one, spanning many lifetimes. In other words, the different traditions were considered to represent various stages on the prolonged path of spiritual evolution. So although there is no one \u2018Hindu concept of God\u2019, it is useful to consider that the myriad ideas may be somewhat connected, though some are seen as ultimately more desirable.<\/p>\n

The Hindu religious traditions may well represent the whole gambit of human responses to God \u2014 from the propitiation of ghosts and minor deities up to direct communion with the Supreme. Keeping this in mind, we will focus here on the six orthodox traditions, and specifically Vedanta, usually considered their culmination. Indeed, the very word Vedanta means \u2018the end of the Vedas\u2019 or, more precisely, \u2018the ultimate conclusion of all knowledge\u2019.[iii]<\/a><\/p>\n

Vedanta<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Vedanta was first popularised in the West by Vivekananda, a disciple of Ramakrishna. Both followed the footsteps of Shankara, a theologian who preached the philosophy of monism. Very often today his specific philosophy is considered representative of all Hinduism. However, not only is Hinduism broader than Vedanta, but there are several prominent schools within the Vedantic traditions. Here we will explore the two broadest categories, namely the advaita and the dvaita schools of thought.<\/p>\n

Advaita Vedanta<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Advaita means \u2018non-dual\u2019 and refers to the doctrine of monism, in which the soul, God and matter are considered one undifferentiated whole, called Brahman. Brahman is often translated as \u2018God\u2019, or in this specific tradition, \u2018the universal world-soul\u2019. Any apparent distinction between the soul and God, or indeed any variety in life, is considered maya<\/em> (or illusion), a mere projection of the worldly mind.<\/p>\n

This concept easily reconciles the multiplicity of Hindu deities with the belief that \u2018God is one\u2019. The gods and goddesses are considered imaginary, symbolic representations of the various aspects and qualities of the Supreme. This stance also rationalises well the worship of the murti <\/em>(sacred image) which is considered a meditational aid rather than a factual object of worship. The murti<\/em> is, at least initially, a necessary device to help focus the mind on the inconceivable Supreme, who is without form.<\/p>\n

In this paradigm, liberation consists of merging one\u2019s individual existence into the Supreme, or dissolving all notion of self as a distinct being. In the words of the famous Beatles song, \u2018I am you, and you are me, and we are all together\u2019.<\/p>\n

Advaita was largely established and propagated by Acharya Sankara (788 CE \u2013 820 CE). As we have already touched upon, much of current popular writing suggests that Sankara\u2019s view is largely or exclusively representative of all Hinduism. This is a mistaken view and in Britain today much of the worship of Krishna and Rama (perhaps the two most popular deities here) follows in the footsteps of other great thinkers.<\/p>\n

Dvaita Vedanta<\/h4>\n

Dvaita theology has several principal forms. Each is represented by a corresponding disciplic succession headed by theologians such as Madhva, Ramanuja, Ballabha and Caitanya. Unlike Sankara, they acknowledge distinctions between the soul, matter and God (though they do, to different degrees, accept some commonality). They teach of a God who possesses attributes such as form, name, qualities, activities and, ultimately, personhood.\u00a0\u00a0 Unlike the monists, they accept such attributes as real, rather than imaginary, and as intrinsically spiritual rather than the material embodiment of spirit.<\/p>\n

Most dvaitins are Vaishnavas (worshippers of Vishnu). They believe that Vishnu (or one of his forms such as Rama, Krishna or Narayana), is Supreme and that all other gods are subordinate, wielding different degrees of cosmic or universal power. In this sense, these traditions also claim to be monotheistic (i.e. believing in one Supreme God), whilst accepting the existence of the other Hindu deities. This doctrine has been aptly termed \u2018inclusive monotheism\u2019.[iv]<\/a><\/p>\n

For dualists, liberation also consists of \u2018union with God\u2019 but not in terms of merging with the Lord\u2019s existence, as in the monist view. Rather, both the individual soul and the Supreme Soul maintain their individual identity but are united in purpose through loving devotional service\u2019 (bhakti<\/em>).<\/p>\n

My experience, as a member of the personalistic tradition, suggests that its actual theology is largely misunderstood. Although many scholars and practitioners ostensibly accept bhakti <\/em>and its attendant practices, underlying their support is adherence to the monistic worldview. Thus, for them, bhakti<\/em> is a means to a different end, or a higher goal. It is often considered suitable for the less intelligent or those still largely influenced by emotions. Academics, who tend to favour the philosophical approach of Sankara, have largely accepted this view and through their influence have reinforced certain misconceptions in this minds of the public. Although these beliefs may represent the monistic understanding of God, they contradict the bhakti <\/em>tradition itself. Here I\u2019d like to address three such common misrepresentations of the personalistic theology.<\/p>\n

The first fallacy is that worship of the murti <\/em>or any image of a personal God is necessarily anthropomorphic. Accepting that worshippers often do project human experience onto God, and that such concoctions are personalistic, does not imply that God is therefore impersonal. Hindu monotheists believe that God has form and personality, intrinsically and ontologically, whatever others may or may not believe. According to scripture, those \u2018whose eyes are smeared with love of God\u2019 can constantly see Him within their hearts, and they carry forward, however imperfectly, those perceptions first to the mental plane and then to the physical. Thus, from the hearts of the pure, the painting or sculpture represents the absolute dimension. Any similarity to our relative experience is not because God has been fashioned within the workshops of the human mind, but because, in Christian terms, \u2018man is made in God\u2019s image\u2019.<\/p>\n

The second misunderstanding is that, in trying to synthesise the different aspects of God, many consider Him personal in immanence and impersonal in transcendence. From my experience, this is a widely held Christian point of view. For Hindu theologians, however, it is akin to monism, where the forms of the various deities are held to be manifestations of the formless Brahman \u2014 the way by which an impersonal God interacts with humankind. For Hindu personalists, however, God\u2019s personal form is transcendental. The Bhagavad-gita suggests this, stating that when God appears within the material realm, He brings a non-material body, rather than incarnating in the literal sense.<\/p>\n

The third misconception is that Hindus believe that all worshippers will reach the same goal. The Bhagavad-gita differs, stating, \u2018Those who worship the demigods, reach their respective planets. Those who worship ghosts and spirits, will take birth amongst such beings. And those who worship God will attain His kingdom.\u2019 It is accepted, however, that if the spiritualist is sincere and follows Vedic injunctions, he or she will eventually come to the ultimate goal. In the meantime, there is every chance of falling from the path (as Krishna discusses in the sixth chapter of the Gita). Thus the rather bland portrayal of Hinduism as \u2018all paths lead to the same goal\u2019 needs careful qualification.[v]<\/a><\/p>\n

In concluding this section, the Hindu tradition accommodates both personalist and impersonalist viewpoints and synthesises both in various ways. The pure monist ostensibly accepts bhakti<\/em>, but pragmatically, as a means to an end. The dualist usually accepts the commonality between God and the soul but qualifies this by also accepting differences. What is clear is that the monotheistic traditions within Hinduism are, for various reasons, seldom acknowledged in the Western world. This is particularly evidenced by common reference to the Semitic traditions as \u2018the monotheistic religions\u2019. Ironically, from the Hindu perspective, prominent groups within each of these three religions may be better described, not as \u2018monotheistic\u2019 but as monistic; that is, they do not have a personal concept of God.<\/p>\n

Male or Female?<\/strong><\/h3>\n

A key feature of personhood is sexuality. Hinduism is conspicuous for its many goddesses, raising the pertinent question as to God\u2019s gender. Hindu theologians accept that God, as the source of everything, must be the reservoir of both male and female attributes. Nevertheless, many contemporary Hindu writers suggest we use the pronoun \u2018it\u2019 to refer to Brahman (or God). What I really suspect, in many cases, is an attempt to gain credibility by pre-empting any claims of sexism. The problem here, though, is that \u2018it\u2019, whilst getting round the sexist problem, suggests neither male nor female and is usually befitting a material object rather than a living being. Many of us would quite naturally be offended if someone used \u2018it\u2019 to refer to our pet dog or cat. This may be less of a problem for the impersonalists, though I personally know some unhappy with the term.[vi]<\/a> For personalists, it is definitely problematic. We find them worshipping both<\/u> male and female, as Sita-Rama, Radha-Krishna, Laksmi-Narayana, etc. \u2014 not as gods and goddess (i.e. lower deities) but as part of the Godhead itself. The Hindu concept, therefore, is not one of smudging the boundaries or of the hermaphrodite[vii]<\/a>, but one in which male and female qualities remain quite distinct. This is evident in much foundational theology. The male is termed purusa, the female prakriti. Purusa is translated as \u2018the enjoyer\u2019, prakriti \u2018the enjoyed\u2019. Purusa is \u2018the worshippable\u2019, prakriti \u2018the worshipper\u2019. In response to anticipated claims of sexism, we could well point out that in most traditions the female deity is considered more powerful than her counterpart. For example, in the Caitanya school of Bengali Vaishnavism, Krishna is considered almighty. None of the demigods, even Shiva or Brahma, is equal to or greater than Him. This is demonstrated by many traditional stories, such as the famous lifting of the Govardhana Hill. Equally though, Krishna devotees relish hearing how the Lord remains pliable and subservient to the love of His devotees, his friends, his parents and especially his consort, Radha. In the region of Vraja today, where Krishna lived, Radharani is considered the queen and the inhabitants worship Krishna only because He is Radha\u2019s consort, and not vice-versa. In this case, the female deity is more important than the male \u2014 yet their distinct and complementary roles are preserved.[viii]<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0 In fact, the differences, such as male and female, are considered impetuses for enjoyment, whether material or spiritual. Hinduism well endorses the proverb that \u2018variety is the spice of life\u2019 \u2014 hence, a whole range of deities, both male and female, which some texts number as high as thirty-three million.<\/p>\n

The Main Hindu Deities<\/h3>\n

Naturally, some deities are more popular or considered more prominent, though the various schools will dispute their respective positions. The three most widely worshipped deities are as follows:<\/p>\n