Most of my relatives are devout Catholics, so when I was growing up, the only version of God I was exposed to was that of strict monotheism. Even though I was taught that God was always correct, I was never entirely comfortable with this monotheistic perspective.
The polytheistic aspect of Hinduism was one of the reasons I was first drawn to the religion, but the more I think about it, the less I am able to explain why I find polytheism to be more reassuring.
On a logical level, it seems I should be more comfortable with a single god that never errs than with multiple gods that do make mistakes. The example that comes to mind is when Shiva beheads his son Ganesh before he realizes who he is. I still cannot figure out why I find the Hindu pantheon, who make mistakes such as this to be more reassuring than a single, omniscient being. Perhaps it is because the Hindu gods and goddesses appear more human through their mistakes. Perhaps I have an easier time connecting with deities who act in ways that I have experienced, because I am better able to understand their actions. Perhaps my greatest issue with strict monotheism is that I cannot visualize what such an entity would be like, so I have a hard time connecting to it. I find I have an easier time believing in the existence of deities whose actions, and mistakes, make them more human, even though with that humanity comes the greater potential for error.
Related posts:
2 Comments
Your polytheistic interpretation of Hinduism is, to me, rather intriguing. Most Hindus in America consciously (or subconsciously?) downplay the polytheistic side of Hinduism. Most would attribute this reaction to the pervasive nature of Judeo-Christian morals, etc. I’m impressed that you are willing to do quite the opposite, and go far beyond the typical way of ascribing deities to “aspects or facets” of Brahman.
I would be interested, however, in hearing about your thoughts on divinity in particular. The Bible is largely comprised of accounts that detail all manners of errors committed by humanity, from which Christians derive morals and values. Above the purely mortal plane that encompasses most of these stories’ agents, the Trinity (as treated in Catholicism and other Chalcedonian churches) allows for the duality of Jesus as both God and human. Is such a hypostatic union so different from your conception of Hindu deities?
Though I also consider myself a Hindu (with views rather different from yours), I fear that your issues with strict monotheism conflate the idea of an erring divinity and multiplicity thereof. If you could clarify the following points, I (and other readers) might better understand your views:
- What do you mean by “reassuring”? Reassurance is generally defined as a restoring of confidence or allaying of apprehension. What is the object, then, of this reassurance? Existence/veracity of a particular conception?
- What do you mean by “on a logical level”? Can you explain why it is more logical to be more comfortable with an unerring single god?
- Why do you find it necessary to “visualize” an unerring divine figure?
- What do you mean by “connecting” to such entities?
- Finally, if deities have the capability to err, whence comes the discrimination/vivek(a) that allows us to recognize such errors?
Again, I am not trying to be critical of your beliefs, but more specificity in both your views and the context of Catholic monotheism you find disagreeable.
Whoops, the last sentence should end in “would be very helpful.”
Post a Comment