Judaism and Hinduism
When Hamas launched a brutal terrorist attack on Israel on October 7th, 2023, Modi was one of the first world leaders who not only condemned but openly supported Israel’s self defence by attacking back Hamas. At the same time, he also insisted for a peaceful settlement of the problem to the Palastine cause. From that time, suddenly there was again an interest in social media about the Civilizational contact [or influence] between Jews and Hindus. Certain old videos again started to circulate. One among them is one by Eyal Dujovny [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ-P-lcvCO8].
I watched that one interesting Video tracing the influence of Hinduism on Judaism by comparing so many crucial issues like language, temple, dress etc. I carefully listened till the end. Dujovny has deep knowledge on both Hinduism and Judaism. It is not surprising, as a Jew, he has such deep knowledge about his own faith, though most of them might not have this much knowledge. However what he attempts is more interesting.
Before further I would like to share similar attempts by some Christians in India, particularly in Tamilnadu [which is very famous for all kinds of such amusing studies by Christians]. Already one group called Tamilar Samayam [Tamil Religion, see their website] tried to prove that Hinduism came out of Christianity. Now their sub-branch tries to prove that actually it was the ancient Jews who came to India, particularly to South India and constructed the temples and inaugurated the temple ritual and rules exactly based on their way of worship first in the tabernacle and then in Jerusalem temple. Now they started to visit each and every major temple and started to take videos and photos and collect [according to them] all the crucial and important evidence to prove this point. And all the comparisons that they make both from the Bible [particularly from the Old Testament] and Hindu agamas were mind blowing and real amusement, not even an intellectual entertainment.
This is not limited to Christianity. Several Hindus already wrote how Hinduism ‘Hosts Christianity’1 and how Jesus came to India and lived in Kashmir and Tibet and learnt the Upanishadic teachings from our Rishi and went back and only propagated what he learnt from us. However it is clearly proved that such a story came from a forged document by one Russian war journalist.2 But all such attempts in the name of serious scholarship only remain mere amusement, not even intellectual entertainment.
Having said this, my view is this:
I don’t believe in the origin of mono civilization in one particular place and then spreading to other parts. Even now, as basic human needs and aspirations–physical and mental/spiritual needs remain the same, each Civilization/culture developing independently in various parts of the world, later influencing each other could be the best approach in understanding every Civilization and culture on its own merit.
So I am not surprised if there was mutual influence between these two oldest religious traditions in the past. However for me, more than the common grounds, what is the fundamental difference in each faith that would point out their uniqueness.
As a Hindu and a student of Hinduism, I have some elementary knowledge about my own Civilization/culture/faith. Regarding Judaism my knowledge is almost zero, though I have some kindergarten level of information on Judaism.
So, if my kindergarten information is correct, the central theme of Judaism is not Monotheism but the Covenant Promise that God made with Abraham. And the entire history and the records that one could find in the entire Old Testament is their complete failure to remain faithful on their part to that COVENANT—for which they are still punished.3
In a sense they strongly believed and also claimed that they are the ONLY CHOSEN PEOPLE OF GOD who have the DIVINE mandate from [their] God to REDEEM the fallen world [by the sin of Adam] and of course to rule the rest of the world as THE ONLY CHOSEN PEOPLE OF GOD. This is not surprising as all the three Abrahamic faiths coming from the same tradition almost hold similar hegemonic views about them and condescending others as pagans [Jews], Heathens [Christians] and Kafirs [Muslims]. One can easily find the origin and the meaning of these terms on the Internet. Naturally this gives birth to the present White Supremacy Racialism which is strongly borrowed only from these Abrahamic faiths. All the three claim exclusivism [Redemption only through Jews, Salvation only through Christ/Church and Allah is the Only God.] It is not surprising to note that the Romans in whose Civilization all these three faiths cherished called the rest of the non-Romans as Barberians4 as if they alone are civilized people.
If at all there is one similarity between the Jews and Aryans is this: The Aryans called themselves a NOBLES calling other mleccha. But remember this word has nothing to do with others faith but their language or how they speak. Again, see the Internet for the origin and meaning of this word. I wonder if anyone could find such a covenant promise in Hinduism in its entire history, though Brahmins called themselves as the only visible gods on this earth for humans.5
Regarding Monotheism in Hinduism, it is only in philosophical Hinduism existing and not among common Hindus—be it philosopher or a popular Hindu, again an artificial division. Even when a common Hindu talks about that ONE God it should be understood as if there exists only ONE God but ‘each one’s God’ what is known as ‘Ishtadevata’ [God of one’s personal choice].6
Remember even this monotheism is not accepted in every Hindu philosophy. That is why it really surprised me when Dujovny mentioned idol worship among the ‘UNEDUCATED PEOPLE’, particularly compared with monotheistic philosophy. If idol worship is done only by the uneducated, then almost all the great acharyas of Hinduism and educated Hindus are UNEDUCATED as they all not only promoted but also preserved Idol worship and continue to do even today. But this so-called Monotheism [even coining the word], like all other ‘isms’ is also an Oriental invention and not practised by 99 percent of Hindus. Even if there exists any MONOTHEISM in Hinduism that is also only when one talks about a so-called NIRGUN BRAHMAN. But when it comes to ISHWAR polytheism is the only Hindu reality.
I know well that when we Indians based on our own Scripture and tradition point out such Western imposition of several ‘isms’ on us, particularly on our faith(s), then we are dismissed by blaming that this is the current trend due to Right wing politics. But Prof. Sharma helps to understand this very clearly. As it is worth to read the entire quote, I would prefer to share here than in the footnotes:
The Christian thinkers rejected all explanations of God offered by the philosophers and proclaimed that religion and philosophy were two separate realms. They evolved a new form of Christian theology, through modern modes of reasoning, to establish the validity of the personal concept of God. Sharpening the difference between religion and philosophy, they defined religion strictly in terms of faith in a personal God. The conceptual categories of theism, monotheism, pantheism, and monism, as they are understood today, were evolved in accordance with the pattern of Christian theology which took shape after the emergence of modern European philosophy, to serve the Christian purpose. Subsequently, they were commonly used by the Western scholars in studies of other religions as well. No doubt, these categories could be applied with equal justification in the study of revealed religions similar to Christianity. But not to Hinduism. To the extent the Bhakti theories were conceived with the aid of these categories based on alien norms and non-Hindu criteria, they were artificial and contrived.7
The reason for me to say ‘so called nirgun’ is that, personally I believe that even this ‘nirgun’ is nothing but another kind of ‘gun’ attributed to Brahman. Because as there exists no ‘tasteless taste’ or ‘formless form’ or ‘colourless colour’ there exists no attributeless God or Brahman. We call a food tasteless because either we are not familiar with it or we don’t like it. But even this tastelessness is nothing but another kind of taste. Even the ‘formlessness is another kind of form’. Similarly ‘nirgun’ is nothing but another ‘gun’ for this God—both in Monotheism8 and Polytheism
So as I mentioned earlier, the basic needs of human beings are similar everywhere in the world. People living in various places in the past developed their own ways and means to address them. Later when they contacted, naturally there came mutual influence on each other. In the course of history it is very difficult for us to trace out who invented which one first and who influenced who. The best example that comes to my mind is food. Beginning from the emergence of humanity on this earth, each society used several kinds of food that were available to them locally. As they began to move and mingle with each other, due to the invention of agriculture, learning from each other, they added more and more items to their food. Potato, chilli, tomato which now become an integral part of Indian cuisines came from other countries. Both tea and coffee without which most of the Indians cannot survive even for a single day is not from this land. Similarly, India has exported so many food items like sinamin, elaichi, block paper even in ancient times to the west.
Otherwise, however well researched, certain conclusions drawn, in spite of proving the intended theme by the scholar will end up mere intellectual entertainment or even sometime as mere amusement as we found in the case of Dujovny saying that Abraham sending away Hagar and Ishmael to the East viz., to India not with need for their physical survival but with the deep knowledge about ‘Brahma’, who was deserted by the Hindus, not worshipping him anymore as he started to indulge in his own creation by longing more for material things [in his creation] than to think about his atman. We can say a lot about Brahma. But there is no need for that here as already lots of information is available on him on the Internet.
Another point in comparison between Judaism and Hinduism is the temple. In fact, there existed no temple in Vedic period. Its origin in India has its own regional variations in the whole India. Beginning from the structure and doing everyday ritual there is vast difference between region to region. Dujovny mentions about two times puja as one common point between Hinduism and Judaism. But in general, there will be minimum three times puja and maximum six time pujas, particularly in those temples that are constructed based on Agamas. [See the Internet Six period pujas in temple]. Two pujas are mostly limited to homes both morning and evening. Similarly, when comparing the temple architecture, he shows both the sketches of Jewish and Hindu temples. Such a huge structure with Agamic architecture is a complete later development, more specifically from the South and never known in Vedic time. Even the temple structures that were found in archaeological excavations are more simple and small, not like the grand structure of Jerusalem temple.
Similarly, unlike Jerusalem temple, yajna is not the centre of the temple worship, particularly offering animal sacrifice and burning them on the temple within the temple premises in Hinduism. Unless during the renovation of the temple [known as Kumbabishekam where grand yajnas would be performed] there won’t be even small homa [fire ritual done in Brahmins homes] in any major temples. Even Vedic Brahmanism vehemently opposed temples [See Michael Willis, The Archaeology of Hindu Ritual: Temples and the establishment of the Gods, Cambridge, 2009.]. Though now we try to create a pan-Indian identity for Hinduism, considering the fact that India itself is a sub-continent, in the primitive period no such pan-Indian religion or culture developed simultaneously everywhere almost sharing several common futures. Most of the culture and traditions developed locally and later began to influence each other—the best example is the assimilation of Aryan and non-Aryan civilizations.9 This being the Indian reality, what to say about the entire world or at least in Asia.
What naturally and spontaneously developed and spread cannot be now approached by our modern improved knowledge on every area of Human life. Religion is one such. So better celebrate the plurality and avoid supremacy and allow everyone to live based on the golden principle of: LIVE AND LET LIVE.
Though not related to this topic, I am tempted to share my view about the COVENANT PROMISE OF GOD that the Jews strongly believe as the ONLY CHOSEN PEOPLE OF God and fight for their RIGHT to go and occupy other’s land. At present most of the Jews didn’t believe in God or were more secular. But it is not only surprising but also shocking to see how they continue to fight and kill several innocents in the OCCUPIED territories in the name of A GOD who alone promised that land for them.
Considering this Putin and Xi are better to them. At least Putin wants to grab part of Ukraine not in the name of his [Catholic] faith or Xi zing tries to grab so many other lands [already occupied Tibet] around his country not based on any religious faith. But the Jews want to grab others’ land denying the very God who promised it to them. There is a Tamil proverb that says: The baby is good but its shit [faeces] is bad. This is what they are doing at present in Gaza. Here the baby is the land and SHIT is their God.
Gurukulam
11-12-23
1 I personally read this book by someone called ‘Swami Sidhbhavananda’ but at present I cannot give further references. See online about the relationships between Hinduism and Christianity
2 See Bart E. Eherman, Forged: Writing in the Name of God–Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are about The Unknown Life of Jesus Christ by Nicolas Notovitch, pp. 252 to 254
3 …Israel’s story, from the grumbling and idolatry of the wilderness generation to the unfaithfulness of kings and people in the days of the prophets, their covenant-betrayal that finally led to exile….— Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in The Gospels, Texas, Baylor University Press, 2016, p. 306
4 ‘less socially advanced and more violent than your own’—from Internet. This is similar to calling all other non-Brahmins as Sudhras in Tamilnadu by Brahmins.
5 …’Brahmana {Brahmins} are gods that are directly seen’ [Taitreya Samhita. I. 7.3.1]; ‘there are two kinds of gods; for indeed the gods are gods and the braahmanas {Brahmins} who have studied and teach the sacred lore are the human gods’ Satapatha Brahmana {Sacred Books of the East. Ed. F. Max vol. 12 p.309, vol.26 p. 341}….— Kaṇe, Paṇḍuranga Vamana (1968). History of Dharmasastra (Ancient and Medieval Religious and Civil Law in India). 5 vols. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Vol.II. Part.I.Ch.II. Varna: braahmanas. p.37
6 When a Tamilian says, ‘Onedre Kulam; Oruvane Devan’ = There exists only one humanity as there exists only one God, it doesn’t mean that it never recognizes the various divisions among human beings which is well recorded from ancient to modern Tamil Literatures. All such hyperbolic statements are expressing an idealism but not ground reality. So is the concept of philosophical Monotheism
7 Krishna Sharma, ‘Towards a New Perspective’ in pp. David N. Lorenzen. Religious Movements in South Asia 600-1800. New Delhi, Oxford, 2004, Krishna Sharma, ‘Towards a New Perspective’ p. 307
8 Monotheism: Calling Hinduism as a Monotheistic religion was recently promoted, mostly by Neo-Vedantists to counter the criticism of Christian Missionaries [and some orientalists] as polytheistic religion. Even those which exclusively promote Monotheism are more in the context of each Sampradaya [sectarian] highlighting its presiding deity as the One Eternal Brahman. Even there I am not sure this concept of ‘Monotheism’ is explicitly mentioned as the core of entire Hinduism. Even take the other common non-sectarian and famous Vedic mantra in Rig 1.164.46, here also the context is not to demonstrate any exclusive Monotheistic Hinduism. Quoting Sauch Selvanayagam says:
When Hindu thinkers use RV I.164.46 they are never concerned about its context. The only attempt to present its context is made by Gispert-Sauch in the Appendix of his article on “Sounding” (pp.129ff). We mention the most important points of his observation. Its background is “a collection of riddles as they used to be discussed in the sacrificial festivals.” The specific concern is speculations about time and on the human or poetic speech (Vaak), and of course about the ritual.” “Stanzas 45 and 46 refer undoubtedly to Vaak, eternal, transcendent, but somehow given to the humans. However….only one-fourth is available to us”. This is the One which the wise call by many names. It is powerful and made multiple. “Perhaps a couple of parallel passages will help us to determine the trend of the teaching.” `By their words the wise poets fashion the one bird (altar?) into many’.” There are passages in which the ideas of the power of word and the power of the sacrifice by which “the One becomes Many” are mentioned. The ritual of the fire altar signified the reintegration of the universe. “In RV itself the liturgical sacrifice re-presents the creative action, rather than complementing it: the purpose is the creation of the multiple out of the One.” These exegetical notes make clear that the affirmation of One Reality belongs to the Vedic pantheon and it is identified with a variety of powers of which the most important ones are the power of speech in a ritual and the ritual sacrifice itself. Interestingly, the concerned Vedic verse has been popularised in the context of the exclusive claims of Islam and Christianity which were challenging to Hinduism.– The Dynamics of Hindu Traditions, Israel Selvanayagam, ATC, Bangalore, 1996, p. 100. [I fail to take the reference for Sauch from Selvanayagam—db]
9 Joseph quotes from Dr Iravatham Mahadevan, the epigraphist who helped decipher the Tamil Brahmi script even call such diffusion as ‘unity in diversity’ which is the mark of Hinduism [unlike the Abrahamic faiths]. Let me quote his full statement:
‘The Indus heritage is shared by Dravidian as well as Indo-Aryan speakers. The Dravidian heritage is linguistic. The Indo-Aryan heritage is cultural, preserved through loanwords [words taken from another language], loan translations [phrases taken from another language], and myths…. As I read it, the message of the Indus Script is: unity in diversity.’ [‘Interpreting the Indus Script: Th Dravidian Solution’. Convocation address at the Dravidian University in Kuppam, Andhra Pradesh, February 2015]
In other words, after Indo-European-language speakers reached south Asia, the language of the Harappans became limited to south India, while the culture and myths of the Harappans melded with those of the new Indo-Aryan-language-speaking migrants to create a unique, syncretic tradition that is today seen as an essential part of Indian culture….—Tony Joseph, Early Indians: The story of our ancestors and where we came from, New Delhi, Juggernaut Books, 2018, p. 144
Leave a Reply