Comparing Hinduism with Judaism, or any other religion, is like comparing an orange to an apple — though both belong to the fruit family. Hinduism is like an encyclopedia: whatever you find elsewhere [in any religion], you will find here. What you won’t find here, you cannot find anywhere else [this is what the Mahabharata says about itself]. So, any comparison between Hinduism and Judaism as done by the Jewish scholar Efraim Palvanov1 is far-fetched and relies heavily on his own interpretations.
The comparison between Hinduism and Judaism, while intriguing, often feels far-fetched considering the true nature of each religious tradition. This article is my reflection on some of the differences, recorded from my layperson’s perspective.
Though Palvanov takes several common points, in my reflection I take only a few points: Monotheism, Idol worship, Temple, Sacrifice, Yoga, Scientific evidence [on the third eye], Rebirth, and Om.
I would like to begin with the so-called ‘Monotheism’. Though other Abrahamic faiths are free to use the word ‘Monotheism’ for themselves, strictly speaking, no theism along with its other branches like Mono-, Poly-, Pan-, Heno-, Katha-theism, etc., can be strictly applicable to Hinduism. Like all other scholars, Palvanov also explains that while Brahman is the Ultimate Reality in Hinduism, later Hinduism ended up becoming both a polytheism and pantheism. He suggests that early Vedic faith was more aligned with monotheistic principles, which could be a point of similarity with Judaism. He also speculates that Brahmins might be descendants of Abraham, but I will not delve into that topic now. As in ancient times, people migrated from one place to another, it is difficult to decide ancestry based merely on textual or technical details recorded in one scripture.
Before proceeding further, Palvanov admits he does not know what Brahman truly means. Actually, the root of Brahman is ‘Brh’, which means ‘to grow’, ‘to become great’, as in Brahad = Brahadarnyaka Upanishad; Brahadishwar in Tanjore [Tamil Nadu]. This shows that without deep knowledge of the various aspects of Hinduism, his comparisons with Judaism remain superficial. Palvanov even claims that the word ‘Brahman’ for ultimate reality was borrowed from Judaism, whereas in Judaism, this ultimate reality is a personal God. This is not the case in Hinduism, as Gaetano Morales states:
“The ultimate goal and Absolute of Hinduism is termed Brahman in Sanskrit. The word comes from the Sanskrit verb root brh, meaning ‘to grow’. Etymologically, the term means ‘that which grows’ (brhati) and ‘which causes to grow’ (brhmayati). Brahman, as understood by the scriptures of Hinduism, as well as by the acharyas of the Vedanta school, is a very specific conception of the Absolute. This unique conception has not been replicated by any other religion on earth and is exclusive to Hinduism. Thus to even call this conception of Brahman ‘God’ is, in a sense, somewhat imprecise.”2 (Morales, 19)
Rajiv Malhotra further highlights this difference:
“The all-expansive ultimate reality which creates all, lives in all, and transcends all is Brahman. To translate it as ‘God’ in the Judeo-Christian sense diminishes its meaning. The ‘God’ whom Moses saw on Mount Sinai and from whom he received the stone tablets is not remotely the same as Brahman. This Judeo-Christian God is the creator of the universe, distinct and separate from it. Furthermore, this God is authoritative, punishes those who transgress rules, and intervenes in history at specific times and places. Brahman, on the other hand, is the cosmos and resides in each one of us, unrealized as atman, making us ultimately Brahman.”3 (Malhotra, 251)
Regarding ‘Monotheism or Polytheism’, if Brahman is the Ultimate Reality, then it is not God or Bhagavan or even Parameswara.4 All these belong to ‘Asad’ whereas Brahman alone is ‘Sad’, viz., Existence. Brahman is not God. The moment one gives a NAME and FORM, it becomes idolatry and falls under ‘Saguna Brahman’, which belongs to the realm of ‘Asad’. For me, even to call Brahman ‘Nirguna’ is far-fetched. Then we begin to compare it with a God with attributes: Brahman as God with Attributes [Saguna] and as transcendental without attributes [Nirguna]. For me, even this so-called ‘Nirguna’ is an attribute. As I often say, there exists no tasteless taste; when we say a food is tasteless, we actually mean either we don’t like that particular taste or we are not familiar with it. But it has its own taste. Similarly, ‘Nirguna’ is also an attribute to God, whereas Brahman stands beyond all such criteria and comparisons.
If this argument is accepted, then Hinduism, a recent label given, cannot be strictly classified under any ‘theism’ if Brahman is the foundation or point of comparison between Judaism and Hinduism.
In this sense, then Judaism cannot be called Monotheistic according to the Vedic view. Because God is a Person having attributes and various names [72 according to Palvanov]. Manikkavasagar, in one of his songs, says, ‘‘For the One without a form or a name, Can a thousand divine names, clearly recited, truly suffice?’5
So this Brahman, even considered the Ultimate Reality in Hinduism, is not God and should be understood by the word ‘Sad’ ‘Existence’ as its essence, viz., that alone exists and none else, but this has nothing to do with ‘There is no other God other than Brahman’.
In closing this section on Brahman, it is worth noting what Schrfe points out about the ‘subtle shift: from an impersonal process to a static and personal concept’ in Hinduism. He warns, “It is problematic to read a deeper meaning into such formal changes. But the parallel developments are quite striking and may indicate a subtle shift…”
Taking the example of both: kama and mukti, what Schrfe says could be extended to this Brahman, which remained neutral in the original context and later gained gender identity, becoming a God or Goddess as a Person.
“A surprising aspect of the trivarga {dharma, artha, and kama} is that its components are now all masculine nouns. Only kama (desire) was masculine to begin with; artha (the goal, end point of a journey) was a neuter that later became masculine and gained the added meaning ‘object, wealth, purpose,’ and the Rg Vedic neuter n-stem dharman (support, established order) survived only under a few grammatical conditions and was otherwise replaced by a masculine a-stem dharma (functional identity, duty, virtue). It is common to say that the neuter word became masculine; but it would be more correct to say that instead of the neuter dharman we have another, masculine stem dharma-which corresponds directly to Latin firmus (steady, firm). This trend extended even to the fourth goal: the word for ‘liberation’ in the Satapatha Brahmana was the feminine term ‘mukti,’ which was later replaced by the masculine moksa in the Mahabharata-which itself is a replacement for an older feminine mumuksā (desire for release)! It is problematic to read a deeper meaning into such formal changes. But the parallel developments are quite striking and may indicate a subtle shift: from an impersonal process to a static and personal concept.”6 (Schrfe, 252)
Image Worship: Symbolism in Religious Practices
Hinduism is characterized by its fluidity and adaptability. Every spiritual, religious, ritual, social, and cultural value or principle is a symbol pointing to a reality beyond name and form. From an extreme philosophical perspective, Hindus do not cling to any particular symbol as the final authority. Instead, they can transcend all symbols to discover the eternal truth, known as Brahman, the foundation of the entire cosmos.
This contrasts with certain other religious traditions, like Judaism. Jewish practices and symbols, though evolving, hold foundational significance that cannot be easily discarded. While some modern Jews may explore Eastern spirituality, they cannot abandon the core doctrines or principles of their faith.
For a Hindu, the moment you give a name or form to something, it becomes an idol. Though some other religions, particularly Abrahamic faiths, claim they do not engage in idol worship, a typical Hindu might see all their symbols—regardless of the explanations given—as a form of “idol worship.” It is beyond the scope of this article to delve deeply into this subject. A Hindu can naturally and easily express bhakti or philosophy, moving from one view to another without confusion. Others might call this a contradiction or syncretism, whereas Hindus see it as synthesis. Therefore, idol worship, or more accurately, image worship, is neither a threat nor a crutch for her sadhana, as she accepts a concept called ‘Sad’ (Brahman) which transcends every kind of human concept or Personal God in His or Her immanence, taking any name or form. This belief is reflected in what Eric J. Lott calls the “transcendental immanence of the Supreme Self” in his work Vedantic Approaches to God, published by Macmillan in 1980.
Scriptural Authority
The foundational scriptures of Judaism, particularly the Torah, hold unwavering importance. Even secular Jews acknowledge its foundational values. In contrast, Hinduism’s relationship with its scriptures is more fluid. Although the Vedas are often cited as foundational, not all Hindus accept their authority. Even those who do may offer only lip service. Hinduism allows for the creation of new traditions and scriptures based on the teachings of one’s guru. In Hinduism both scriptures as well oral tradition, using both written words from [sectarian] Scriptures as well following one’s own Guru/acharya holds the same value unlike in other religions.
Doctrine of Rebirth
The concept of rebirth or reincarnation is central to Hinduism today but was not always so. Early Vedic texts talk about ‘Punar Mithyu’ (redeath) rather than rebirth. The concept developed later, possibly during the Upanishadic period, with the introduction of karma theory . This idea of reincarnation is not limited to Hinduism but appears in various cultures and traditions worldwide. Works like Gananatha Obayasekara’s “Karma and Rebirth” [See below References] explore these concepts across different tradition. However, it is very interesting and important to note what Palvanov says about ‘Rebirth’ in Judaism. Particularly the way he explains the complicated verse in Old Testament where it is mentioned that God won’t take revenge a son for the sin of his father at the same time His blessings will flow to several generations. Those who wants to know more this should listen Palvano.
Temple: Symbolism and Function in Hinduism and Judaism
If my understanding is correct, three religious entities are very important in Judaism: the Temple at Jerusalem, the Torah (Scripture), and the Holy Land. This is not the case with Hinduism. Temples emerged much later in Hinduism, mostly probably after common era, though there were few reference of some temple like structure before that. {see Vasudha Narayanan, Alaya, in Sushil Mittal & and Gene Thursby, The Hindu World, New York, [2004] Reprint 2018, pp. 446 to 477, specifically for ‘History of temples in the subcontinent’ pp. 450-451.
While the temple “was not only the home but also the body of God who made himself available for worship to humans” (Kalus K. Klostermaire, Moksha, pp 288-305, in The Hindu World, op. cit., p. 293), it remains more a symbol than an absolute reality in Hinduism. Like in every other religion, temples in Hinduism played various roles in people’s lives, ranging from personal sadhana to economic, social, and political purposes. However, unlike Judaism, where the Temple is one of the three foundational values of religious identity, this is not the case in Hinduism. For example, Jews cannot build another temple outside Jerusalem, but Hindus can build temples wherever they go, serving multiple purposes.
Yoga and OM:
I will focus only on Yoga and Om and conclude this discussion.
Regarding Yoga, it is better not to comment on what is happening both in India and abroad. Yoga has become almost a business and a fashion, with people comparing their own practices to others. For example, Polvano’s discussions about Yoga are actually related to Tantric practices that developed later in Hinduism, such as creating yantras (diagrams) for ritual purposes. Although Tantric practices aim to align the self with a chosen deity, and Yoga comes from the word ‘yuj’ meaning ‘to yoke,’ the two are not directly the same. When body exercises and gymnastic routines are marketed as Yoga, it raises questions about how Tantric practices are presented. Yoga, as a philosophy, is one of the six classical schools of Indian philosophy, alongside Sankhya. It is fundamentally distinct from later developments in India, such as body-based Yoga that focuses primarily on asanas or Tantric Yoga, which involves using various chakras to unite with a chosen deity. Anyhow
As an Indian, I am pleased that people of other religions are now compelled to study and understand Hinduism to make sense of their own practices. Previously, we were only on the receiving end, always forced to accept others’ views on what Hinduism is or should be. Now, we have managed to turn the tables and compel others to listen to or learn from us.
Om
The most amusing explanation by Polvano concerns Om. Given its deep roots in India—originating from unknown times and evolving into a significant symbol in various contexts, including as ‘Tatastu’ (Amen), Sabda Brahman (Sound as the eternal Brahman), and an honorific prefix for deity names (e.g., Om Nama: Sivaya)—the symbol and its interpretations have expanded to include various sects and contemporary uses, even as a political symbol. Despite this, Polvano’s claim that Om written as 30 [thirty] represents the 30th name of YHWH among His 72 names is laughable.
Although the symbol he uses to represent Om is found in India, it is not Om in its strictest sense. Om should be written in Devanagari script as ओम, not ॐ. Strictly pronounced, it sounds like ‘uum,’ not ‘oom.’ In Tamil, Om is written differently: ௐ in calligraphy or artistic representations, but correctly as ஓம், with ‘M’ next to ‘O.’ I recall that in the past, when writing letters, we would draw a ‘U’ like this உ in Tamil before starting, symbolizing Ganapati. This practice, though its origins are unclear, was used to mark auspicious beginnings, such as preparing a list for a wedding, often with sandalwood or kumkum, but mostly turmeric paste. The reason for using this symbol to represent Ganpati is that he is the Lord of Vigna (obstacles) who can remove these hurdles. It is a common practice to perform puja or use the symbol of Ganpati to overcome any obstacles that might arise during auspicious rituals. The Tamil letter “உ” resembles the curved trunk of Ganpati and is used in a similar manner to the symbol OM.
Using symbols from one religion and reinterpreting them to serve another religion’s purposes can be far-fetched. I need not elaborate on how the Cross has been interpreted by Church Fathers to explain its meaning to Christian followers. However, in the 21st century, such far-fetched interpretations based on calligraphy or artistic representation are likely to provoke laughter. Nevertheless, as Polvano has impressed his audience, he will continue to draw comparisons between Judaism and other major world religions.
The Non-Binary Nature of Hindu Thought
Hinduism uniquely accepts the validity of opposing points of view. It does not adhere to strict dichotomies like ‘this or that’ or ‘either/or.’ Instead, it embraces both ‘yes and no,’ ‘true and false.’ Good and evil, God and the Devil, are seen as two sides of the same coin, each complementing the other. This non-binary approach contrasts sharply with the binary thinking prevalent in other faiths, where one must choose between opposites, such as God or the Devil, salvation or eternal hell .
Interfaith Dialogue and Authentic Representation
Addressing important comparative religious issues requires more than speaking to an audience that shares your tradition. For instance, a Jewish scholar presenting his views on Hinduism to Orthodox Jews may receive validation, but this does not capture the full picture. True comparative dialogue should involve scholars from both traditions, as iron sharpens iron. A Hindu scholar with thorough knowledge of Hinduism and other religions, could provide a well-rounded and authentic rebuttal to such points .
Conclusion
These reflections highlight the flexible and inclusive nature of Hinduism compared to the foundational rigidity of Judaism. While my response is not entirely scholarly or academic, it underscores the importance of interfaith dialogue and the need to consider multiple perspectives when comparing religious traditions.
There is no point in addressing each issue individually and presenting my counterviews, especially in a post-modern world where the prevailing norm is: What I think or interpret is best for me. If it serves my needs, what is the issue with you? I acknowledge that my views or interpretations may be far-fetched and not agreeable to others, but that is your perspective, and I accept it, hoping you will do the same.
This has become the norm in every area of life—from home to society at large. People are generally willing to listen to others and reconsider their views or decisions only when their survival or identity is at stake. Otherwise, the prevailing reality seems to be: MY WAY IS ALWAYS THE HIGHWAY.
Gurukulam
6-8-2024
Notes
1. Efraim Palvanov, “Comparing Hinduism and Judaism,” [YouTube video](https://youtu.be/rWRwLaOKAF0?si=RQCGHGcziNG-5hOu).
2. Frank Gaetano Morales, Ph.D., “Does Hinduism Teach That All Religions Are the Same? A Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism,” p. 19.
3. Rajiv Malhotra, “Being Different: An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism,” New Delhi, HarperCollins Publishers India, 2011, p. 251.
4. Franklin Edgerton, “The Bhagavad Gita, Translated and Interpreted,” Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pvt. Ltd., First Published Cambridge, 1944, Reprint: 1996, p.31. Edgerton highlights further from the Gita: “There is no clear indication that the Gita knew the theory of the Trimurti, the supreme triad consisting of Brahma (as a masculine deity, the Creator-God), Vishnu, and Shiva, which is familiar in later Hinduism. Only once does the word Brahman in the Gita have masculine gender unmistakably; in some of its occurrences the forms are ambiguous and could be either masculine or neuter, but when unambiguous it is always neuter except in a single instance. In that one occurrence (xi.15) the god Brahma is mentioned merely as one of the numerous beings that appear mystically manifested in the vision of the Deity’s supreme form as revealed to Arjuna, in the eleventh chapter.” (ibid., notes 43, p. 52)
This being the Hindu reality of Brahman, compare what Bailey says about God in the Bible:
We can all rejoice that the Scriptures use both male and female metaphors to enrich the readers’ understanding of God who is Spirit and thereby neither male nor female. Yet God’s image contains both male and female in that both are created from that image (Gen 1:27). To substitute neutral terms for one or the other will inevitably impoverish the richness of the biblical similes and metaphors, or lead us to abandon them.—p. Kenneth E. Bailey, Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes: Cultural studies in 1 Corinthians, Downers Grove, Illinois, IVP Academic, p. 101
In Hebrew, as in other Semitic languages, the word spirit is almost always feminine. In Greek the word pneuma (spirit) is neuter in gender. But New Testament authors were often thinking in Hebrew as they wrote in Greek. Thinking of the Holy Spirit in feminine terms thus has a serious biblical foundation. If humans were created as male and female “in the image of God” (Gen. 1:27), then to think long thoughts about God in both feminine and masculine terms is biblically based. This idea is as old as the prophet Isaiah, who likened God to a “might man” (Is. 42:13) and in the same passage compared God to a “woman in travail” (Is. 42:14). {Gifts and the Nature of the Body. 1 Cor. 12:1-30}—ibid. p. 335
Also see: Oh My God Part Five: Brahman, Atman and Jagat
5 5திருமாலும் பன்றியாய்ச் சென்றுணராத் திருவடியை
உருநாம் அறியவோர் அந்தணனாய் ஆண்டுகொண்டான்
ஒருநாமம் ஓருருவம் ஒன்றுமில்லாற் காயிரந்
திருநாமம் பாடிநாம் தெள்ளேணங் கொட்டாமோ.
திருவாசகம்/திருத்தெள்ளேணம், song 1
6Hartmut Schrfe, “Artha” pp. 249-263, in Sushil Mittal & and Gene Thursby, The Hindu World, New York, [2004] Reprint 2018, p. 252
References
1. Doniger, Wendy. The Hindus: An Alternative History. Penguin Books, 2010.
2. Satchidananda, Swami. The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali. Integral Yoga Publications, 2012.
3. Neusner, Jacob. The Way of Torah: An Introduction to Judaism. Wadsworth Publishing, 2003.
4. Eliade, Mircea. Patterns in Comparative Religion. University of Nebraska Press, 1996.
5. Sarna, Nahum M. Exploring Exodus: The Origins of Biblical Israel. Schocken, 1987.
6. Levenson, Jon D. The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism: Jews and Christians in Biblical Studies. Westminster John Knox Press, 1993.
7. Flood, Gavin. An Introduction to Hinduism. Cambridge University Press, 1996.
8. Klostermaier, Klaus K. A Survey of Hinduism. SUNY Press, 2007.
9. Olivelle, Patrick. The Early Upanishads: Annotated Text and Translation. Oxford University Press, 1998.
10. Radhakrishnan, S. The Principal Upanishads. HarperCollins, 1994.
11. Obeyesekere, Gananath. Karma and Rebirth: A Cross Cultural Study. Motilal Banarsidass, 2006.
12. Obeyesekere, Gananath. Karma and Rebirth: A Cross Cultural Study. Motilal Banarsidass, 2006.
13. Lipner, Julius. Hindus: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices. Routledge, 2010.
14. Sharma, Arvind. The Philosophy of Religion and Advaita Vedanta: A Comparative Study in Religion and Reason. Penn State University Press, 1995.
15. Sharma, Arvind. A Primal Perspective on the Philosophy of Religion. Springer, 2006.
16. Clooney, Francis X. Hindu God, Christian God: How Reason Helps Break Down the Boundaries between Religions. Oxford University Press, 2001.
Finally summary and comments by AI
It’s perfectly valid to have and express your own reflections, even as a layperson. Here are a few points you might consider in your reflections:
1. Cultural and Historical Contexts:
– Hinduism: Originates in the Indian subcontinent, deeply intertwined with its cultural and historical evolution.
– Judaism: Originates in the Middle East, particularly ancient Israel, and has a rich historical narrative connected to the Jewish people.
2. Theological Foundations:
– Hinduism: Polytheistic and henotheistic elements, with a belief in a supreme reality (Brahman) and a plethora of deities.
– Judaism: Strictly monotheistic, centered on the worship of one God (Yahweh), with a strong emphasis on covenantal relationships.
3. Sacred Texts:
– Hinduism: Includes a vast array of texts like the Vedas, Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, and various epics and Puranas.
– Judaism: Centers on the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) and additional texts like the Talmud.
4. Practices and Rituals:
– Hinduism: Diverse rituals, festivals, and practices vary significantly across regions and communities.
– Judaism: Observance of rituals and festivals like Shabbat, Passover, and Yom Kippur, guided by religious laws (Halakha).
5. Philosophical and Ethical Systems:
– Hinduism: Multiple philosophical schools and a broad spectrum of ethical teachings, including concepts like karma and dharma.
– Judaism: A unified ethical system rooted in the Torah and expanded through rabbinic interpretations.
Your reflections can highlight how, despite the scholar’s thorough and insightful comparisons, the distinctiveness of each religion’s traditions and practices might make direct
Comparing Hinduism with Judaism, or any other religion, is like comparing an orange to an apple — though both belong to the fruit family. Hinduism is like an encyclopedia: whatever you find elsewhere [in any religion], you will find here. What you won’t find here, you cannot find anywhere else [this is what the Mahabharata says about itself]. So, any comparison between Hinduism and Judaism as done by the Jewish scholar Efraim Palvanov1 is far-fetched and relies heavily on his own interpretations.
The comparison between Hinduism and Judaism, while intriguing, often feels far-fetched considering the true nature of each religious tradition. This article is my reflection on some of the differences, recorded from my layperson’s perspective.
Though Palvanov takes several common points, in my reflection I take only a few points: Monotheism, Idol worship, Temple, Sacrifice, Yoga, Scientific evidence [on the third eye], Rebirth, and Om.
I would like to begin with the so-called ‘Monotheism’. Though other Abrahamic faiths are free to use the word ‘Monotheism’ for themselves, strictly speaking, no theism along with its other branches like Mono-, Poly-, Pan-, Heno-, Katha-theism, etc., can be strictly applicable to Hinduism. Like all other scholars, Palvanov also explains that while Brahman is the Ultimate Reality in Hinduism, later Hinduism ended up becoming both a polytheism and pantheism. He suggests that early Vedic faith was more aligned with monotheistic principles, which could be a point of similarity with Judaism. He also speculates that Brahmins might be descendants of Abraham, but I will not delve into that topic now. As in ancient times, people migrated from one place to another, it is difficult to decide ancestry based merely on textual or technical details recorded in one scripture.
Before proceeding further, Palvanov admits he does not know what Brahman truly means. Actually, the root of Brahman is ‘Brh’, which means ‘to grow’, ‘to become great’, as in Brahad = Brahadarnyaka Upanishad; Brahadishwar in Tanjore [Tamil Nadu]. This shows that without deep knowledge of the various aspects of Hinduism, his comparisons with Judaism remain superficial. Palvanov even claims that the word ‘Brahman’ for ultimate reality was borrowed from Judaism, whereas in Judaism, this ultimate reality is a personal God. This is not the case in Hinduism, as Gaetano Morales states:
“The ultimate goal and Absolute of Hinduism is termed Brahman in Sanskrit. The word comes from the Sanskrit verb root brh, meaning ‘to grow’. Etymologically, the term means ‘that which grows’ (brhati) and ‘which causes to grow’ (brhmayati). Brahman, as understood by the scriptures of Hinduism, as well as by the acharyas of the Vedanta school, is a very specific conception of the Absolute. This unique conception has not been replicated by any other religion on earth and is exclusive to Hinduism. Thus to even call this conception of Brahman ‘God’ is, in a sense, somewhat imprecise.”2 (Morales, 19)
Rajiv Malhotra further highlights this difference:
“The all-expansive ultimate reality which creates all, lives in all, and transcends all is Brahman. To translate it as ‘God’ in the Judeo-Christian sense diminishes its meaning. The ‘God’ whom Moses saw on Mount Sinai and from whom he received the stone tablets is not remotely the same as Brahman. This Judeo-Christian God is the creator of the universe, distinct and separate from it. Furthermore, this God is authoritative, punishes those who transgress rules, and intervenes in history at specific times and places. Brahman, on the other hand, is the cosmos and resides in each one of us, unrealized as atman, making us ultimately Brahman.”3 (Malhotra, 251)
Regarding ‘Monotheism or Polytheism’, if Brahman is the Ultimate Reality, then it is not God or Bhagavan or even Parameswara.4 All these belong to ‘Asad’ whereas Brahman alone is ‘Sad’, viz., Existence. Brahman is not God. The moment one gives a NAME and FORM, it becomes idolatry and falls under ‘Saguna Brahman’, which belongs to the realm of ‘Asad’. For me, even to call Brahman ‘Nirguna’ is far-fetched. Then we begin to compare it with a God with attributes: Brahman as God with Attributes [Saguna] and as transcendental without attributes [Nirguna]. For me, even this so-called ‘Nirguna’ is an attribute. As I often say, there exists no tasteless taste; when we say a food is tasteless, we actually mean either we don’t like that particular taste or we are not familiar with it. But it has its own taste. Similarly, ‘Nirguna’ is also an attribute to God, whereas Brahman stands beyond all such criteria and comparisons.
If this argument is accepted, then Hinduism, a recent label given, cannot be strictly classified under any ‘theism’ if Brahman is the foundation or point of comparison between Judaism and Hinduism.
In this sense, then Judaism cannot be called Monotheistic according to the Vedic view. Because God is a Person having attributes and various names [72 according to Palvanov]. Manikkavasagar, in one of his songs, says, ‘‘For the One without a form or a name, Can a thousand divine names, clearly recited, truly suffice?’5
So this Brahman, even considered the Ultimate Reality in Hinduism, is not God and should be understood by the word ‘Sad’ ‘Existence’ as its essence, viz., that alone exists and none else, but this has nothing to do with ‘There is no other God other than Brahman’.
In closing this section on Brahman, it is worth noting what Schrfe points out about the ‘subtle shift: from an impersonal process to a static and personal concept’ in Hinduism. He warns, “It is problematic to read a deeper meaning into such formal changes. But the parallel developments are quite striking and may indicate a subtle shift…”
Taking the example of both: kama and mukti, what Schrfe says could be extended to this Brahman, which remained neutral in the original context and later gained gender identity, becoming a God or Goddess as a Person.
“A surprising aspect of the trivarga {dharma, artha, and kama} is that its components are now all masculine nouns. Only kama (desire) was masculine to begin with; artha (the goal, end point of a journey) was a neuter that later became masculine and gained the added meaning ‘object, wealth, purpose,’ and the Rg Vedic neuter n-stem dharman (support, established order) survived only under a few grammatical conditions and was otherwise replaced by a masculine a-stem dharma (functional identity, duty, virtue). It is common to say that the neuter word became masculine; but it would be more correct to say that instead of the neuter dharman we have another, masculine stem dharma-which corresponds directly to Latin firmus (steady, firm). This trend extended even to the fourth goal: the word for ‘liberation’ in the Satapatha Brahmana was the feminine term ‘mukti,’ which was later replaced by the masculine moksa in the Mahabharata-which itself is a replacement for an older feminine mumuksā (desire for release)! It is problematic to read a deeper meaning into such formal changes. But the parallel developments are quite striking and may indicate a subtle shift: from an impersonal process to a static and personal concept.”6 (Schrfe, 252)
Image Worship: Symbolism in Religious Practices
Hinduism is characterized by its fluidity and adaptability. Every spiritual, religious, ritual, social, and cultural value or principle is a symbol pointing to a reality beyond name and form. From an extreme philosophical perspective, Hindus do not cling to any particular symbol as the final authority. Instead, they can transcend all symbols to discover the eternal truth, known as Brahman, the foundation of the entire cosmos.
This contrasts with certain other religious traditions, like Judaism. Jewish practices and symbols, though evolving, hold foundational significance that cannot be easily discarded. While some modern Jews may explore Eastern spirituality, they cannot abandon the core doctrines or principles of their faith.
For a Hindu, the moment you give a name or form to something, it becomes an idol. Though some other religions, particularly Abrahamic faiths, claim they do not engage in idol worship, a typical Hindu might see all their symbols—regardless of the explanations given—as a form of “idol worship.” It is beyond the scope of this article to delve deeply into this subject. A Hindu can naturally and easily express bhakti or philosophy, moving from one view to another without confusion. Others might call this a contradiction or syncretism, whereas Hindus see it as synthesis. Therefore, idol worship, or more accurately, image worship, is neither a threat nor a crutch for her sadhana, as she accepts a concept called ‘Sad’ (Brahman) which transcends every kind of human concept or Personal God in His or Her immanence, taking any name or form. This belief is reflected in what Eric J. Lott calls the “transcendental immanence of the Supreme Self” in his work Vedantic Approaches to God, published by Macmillan in 1980.
Scriptural Authority
The foundational scriptures of Judaism, particularly the Torah, hold unwavering importance. Even secular Jews acknowledge its foundational values. In contrast, Hinduism’s relationship with its scriptures is more fluid. Although the Vedas are often cited as foundational, not all Hindus accept their authority. Even those who do may offer only lip service. Hinduism allows for the creation of new traditions and scriptures based on the teachings of one’s guru. In Hinduism both scriptures as well oral tradition, using both written words from [sectarian] Scriptures as well following one’s own Guru/acharya holds the same value unlike in other religions.
Doctrine of Rebirth
The concept of rebirth or reincarnation is central to Hinduism today but was not always so. Early Vedic texts talk about ‘Punar Mithyu’ (redeath) rather than rebirth. The concept developed later, possibly during the Upanishadic period, with the introduction of karma theory . This idea of reincarnation is not limited to Hinduism but appears in various cultures and traditions worldwide. Works like Gananatha Obayasekara’s “Karma and Rebirth” [See below References] explore these concepts across different tradition. However, it is very interesting and important to note what Palvanov says about ‘Rebirth’ in Judaism. Particularly the way he explains the complicated verse in Old Testament where it is mentioned that God won’t take revenge a son for the sin of his father at the same time His blessings will flow to several generations. Those who wants to know more this should listen Palvano.
Temple: Symbolism and Function in Hinduism and Judaism
If my understanding is correct, three religious entities are very important in Judaism: the Temple at Jerusalem, the Torah (Scripture), and the Holy Land. This is not the case with Hinduism. Temples emerged much later in Hinduism, mostly probably after common era, though there were few reference of some temple like structure before that. {see Vasudha Narayanan, Alaya, in Sushil Mittal & and Gene Thursby, The Hindu World, New York, [2004] Reprint 2018, pp. 446 to 477, specifically for ‘History of temples in the subcontinent’ pp. 450-451.
While the temple “was not only the home but also the body of God who made himself available for worship to humans” (Kalus K. Klostermaire, Moksha, pp 288-305, in The Hindu World, op. cit., p. 293), it remains more a symbol than an absolute reality in Hinduism. Like in every other religion, temples in Hinduism played various roles in people’s lives, ranging from personal sadhana to economic, social, and political purposes. However, unlike Judaism, where the Temple is one of the three foundational values of religious identity, this is not the case in Hinduism. For example, Jews cannot build another temple outside Jerusalem, but Hindus can build temples wherever they go, serving multiple purposes.
Yoga and OM:
I will focus only on Yoga and Om and conclude this discussion.
Regarding Yoga, it is better not to comment on what is happening both in India and abroad. Yoga has become almost a business and a fashion, with people comparing their own practices to others. For example, Polvano’s discussions about Yoga are actually related to Tantric practices that developed later in Hinduism, such as creating yantras (diagrams) for ritual purposes. Although Tantric practices aim to align the self with a chosen deity, and Yoga comes from the word ‘yuj’ meaning ‘to yoke,’ the two are not directly the same. When body exercises and gymnastic routines are marketed as Yoga, it raises questions about how Tantric practices are presented. Yoga, as a philosophy, is one of the six classical schools of Indian philosophy, alongside Sankhya. It is fundamentally distinct from later developments in India, such as body-based Yoga that focuses primarily on asanas or Tantric Yoga, which involves using various chakras to unite with a chosen deity. Anyhow
As an Indian, I am pleased that people of other religions are now compelled to study and understand Hinduism to make sense of their own practices. Previously, we were only on the receiving end, always forced to accept others’ views on what Hinduism is or should be. Now, we have managed to turn the tables and compel others to listen to or learn from us.
Om
The most amusing explanation by Polvano concerns Om. Given its deep roots in India—originating from unknown times and evolving into a significant symbol in various contexts, including as ‘Tatastu’ (Amen), Sabda Brahman (Sound as the eternal Brahman), and an honorific prefix for deity names (e.g., Om Nama: Sivaya)—the symbol and its interpretations have expanded to include various sects and contemporary uses, even as a political symbol. Despite this, Polvano’s claim that Om written as 30 [thirty] represents the 30th name of YHWH among His 72 names is laughable.
Although the symbol he uses to represent Om is found in India, it is not Om in its strictest sense. Om should be written in Devanagari script as ओम, not ॐ. Strictly pronounced, it sounds like ‘uum,’ not ‘oom.’ In Tamil, Om is written differently: ௐ in calligraphy or artistic representations, but correctly as ஓம், with ‘M’ next to ‘O.’ I recall that in the past, when writing letters, we would draw a ‘U’ like this உ in Tamil before starting, symbolizing Ganapati. This practice, though its origins are unclear, was used to mark auspicious beginnings, such as preparing a list for a wedding, often with sandalwood or kumkum, but mostly turmeric paste. The reason for using this symbol to represent Ganpati is that he is the Lord of Vigna (obstacles) who can remove these hurdles. It is a common practice to perform puja or use the symbol of Ganpati to overcome any obstacles that might arise during auspicious rituals. The Tamil letter “உ” resembles the curved trunk of Ganpati and is used in a similar manner to the symbol OM.
Using symbols from one religion and reinterpreting them to serve another religion’s purposes can be far-fetched. I need not elaborate on how the Cross has been interpreted by Church Fathers to explain its meaning to Christian followers. However, in the 21st century, such far-fetched interpretations based on calligraphy or artistic representation are likely to provoke laughter. Nevertheless, as Polvano has impressed his audience, he will continue to draw comparisons between Judaism and other major world religions.
The Non-Binary Nature of Hindu Thought
Hinduism uniquely accepts the validity of opposing points of view. It does not adhere to strict dichotomies like ‘this or that’ or ‘either/or.’ Instead, it embraces both ‘yes and no,’ ‘true and false.’ Good and evil, God and the Devil, are seen as two sides of the same coin, each complementing the other. This non-binary approach contrasts sharply with the binary thinking prevalent in other faiths, where one must choose between opposites, such as God or the Devil, salvation or eternal hell .
Interfaith Dialogue and Authentic Representation
Addressing important comparative religious issues requires more than speaking to an audience that shares your tradition. For instance, a Jewish scholar presenting his views on Hinduism to Orthodox Jews may receive validation, but this does not capture the full picture. True comparative dialogue should involve scholars from both traditions, as iron sharpens iron. A Hindu scholar with thorough knowledge of Hinduism and other religions, could provide a well-rounded and authentic rebuttal to such points .
Conclusion
These reflections highlight the flexible and inclusive nature of Hinduism compared to the foundational rigidity of Judaism. While my response is not entirely scholarly or academic, it underscores the importance of interfaith dialogue and the need to consider multiple perspectives when comparing religious traditions.
There is no point in addressing each issue individually and presenting my counterviews, especially in a post-modern world where the prevailing norm is: What I think or interpret is best for me. If it serves my needs, what is the issue with you? I acknowledge that my views or interpretations may be far-fetched and not agreeable to others, but that is your perspective, and I accept it, hoping you will do the same.
This has become the norm in every area of life—from home to society at large. People are generally willing to listen to others and reconsider their views or decisions only when their survival or identity is at stake. Otherwise, the prevailing reality seems to be: MY WAY IS ALWAYS THE HIGHWAY.
Gurukulam
6-8-2024
Notes
1. Efraim Palvanov, “Comparing Hinduism and Judaism,” [YouTube video](https://youtu.be/rWRwLaOKAF0?si=RQCGHGcziNG-5hOu).
2. Frank Gaetano Morales, Ph.D., “Does Hinduism Teach That All Religions Are the Same? A Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism,” p. 19.
3. Rajiv Malhotra, “Being Different: An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism,” New Delhi, HarperCollins Publishers India, 2011, p. 251.
4. Franklin Edgerton, “The Bhagavad Gita, Translated and Interpreted,” Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pvt. Ltd., First Published Cambridge, 1944, Reprint: 1996, p.31. Edgerton highlights further from the Gita: “There is no clear indication that the Gita knew the theory of the Trimurti, the supreme triad consisting of Brahma (as a masculine deity, the Creator-God), Vishnu, and Shiva, which is familiar in later Hinduism. Only once does the word Brahman in the Gita have masculine gender unmistakably; in some of its occurrences the forms are ambiguous and could be either masculine or neuter, but when unambiguous it is always neuter except in a single instance. In that one occurrence (xi.15) the god Brahma is mentioned merely as one of the numerous beings that appear mystically manifested in the vision of the Deity’s supreme form as revealed to Arjuna, in the eleventh chapter.” (ibid., notes 43, p. 52)
This being the Hindu reality of Brahman, compare what Bailey says about God in the Bible:
We can all rejoice that the Scriptures use both male and female metaphors to enrich the readers’ understanding of God who is Spirit and thereby neither male nor female. Yet God’s image contains both male and female in that both are created from that image (Gen 1:27). To substitute neutral terms for one or the other will inevitably impoverish the richness of the biblical similes and metaphors, or lead us to abandon them.—p. Kenneth E. Bailey, Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes: Cultural studies in 1 Corinthians, Downers Grove, Illinois, IVP Academic, p. 101
In Hebrew, as in other Semitic languages, the word spirit is almost always feminine. In Greek the word pneuma (spirit) is neuter in gender. But New Testament authors were often thinking in Hebrew as they wrote in Greek. Thinking of the Holy Spirit in feminine terms thus has a serious biblical foundation. If humans were created as male and female “in the image of God” (Gen. 1:27), then to think long thoughts about God in both feminine and masculine terms is biblically based. This idea is as old as the prophet Isaiah, who likened God to a “might man” (Is. 42:13) and in the same passage compared God to a “woman in travail” (Is. 42:14). {Gifts and the Nature of the Body. 1 Cor. 12:1-30}—ibid. p. 335
Also see: Oh My God Part Five: Brahman, Atman and Jagat
5 5திருமாலும் பன்றியாய்ச் சென்றுணராத் திருவடியை
உருநாம் அறியவோர் அந்தணனாய் ஆண்டுகொண்டான்
ஒருநாமம் ஓருருவம் ஒன்றுமில்லாற் காயிரந்
திருநாமம் பாடிநாம் தெள்ளேணங் கொட்டாமோ.
திருவாசகம்/திருத்தெள்ளேணம், song 1
6Hartmut Schrfe, “Artha” pp. 249-263, in Sushil Mittal & and Gene Thursby, The Hindu World, New York, [2004] Reprint 2018, p. 252
References
1. Doniger, Wendy. The Hindus: An Alternative History. Penguin Books, 2010.
2. Satchidananda, Swami. The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali. Integral Yoga Publications, 2012.
3. Neusner, Jacob. The Way of Torah: An Introduction to Judaism. Wadsworth Publishing, 2003.
4. Eliade, Mircea. Patterns in Comparative Religion. University of Nebraska Press, 1996.
5. Sarna, Nahum M. Exploring Exodus: The Origins of Biblical Israel. Schocken, 1987.
6. Levenson, Jon D. The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism: Jews and Christians in Biblical Studies. Westminster John Knox Press, 1993.
7. Flood, Gavin. An Introduction to Hinduism. Cambridge University Press, 1996.
8. Klostermaier, Klaus K. A Survey of Hinduism. SUNY Press, 2007.
9. Olivelle, Patrick. The Early Upanishads: Annotated Text and Translation. Oxford University Press, 1998.
10. Radhakrishnan, S. The Principal Upanishads. HarperCollins, 1994.
11. Obeyesekere, Gananath. Karma and Rebirth: A Cross Cultural Study. Motilal Banarsidass, 2006.
12. Obeyesekere, Gananath. Karma and Rebirth: A Cross Cultural Study. Motilal Banarsidass, 2006.
13. Lipner, Julius. Hindus: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices. Routledge, 2010.
14. Sharma, Arvind. The Philosophy of Religion and Advaita Vedanta: A Comparative Study in Religion and Reason. Penn State University Press, 1995.
15. Sharma, Arvind. A Primal Perspective on the Philosophy of Religion. Springer, 2006.
16. Clooney, Francis X. Hindu God, Christian God: How Reason Helps Break Down the Boundaries between Religions. Oxford University Press, 2001.
Finally summary and comments by AI
It’s perfectly valid to have and express your own reflections, even as a layperson. Here are a few points you might consider in your reflections:
1. Cultural and Historical Contexts:
– Hinduism: Originates in the Indian subcontinent, deeply intertwined with its cultural and historical evolution.
– Judaism: Originates in the Middle East, particularly ancient Israel, and has a rich historical narrative connected to the Jewish people.
2. Theological Foundations:
– Hinduism: Polytheistic and henotheistic elements, with a belief in a supreme reality (Brahman) and a plethora of deities.
– Judaism: Strictly monotheistic, centered on the worship of one God (Yahweh), with a strong emphasis on covenantal relationships.
3. Sacred Texts:
– Hinduism: Includes a vast array of texts like the Vedas, Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, and various epics and Puranas.
– Judaism: Centers on the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) and additional texts like the Talmud.
4. Practices and Rituals:
– Hinduism: Diverse rituals, festivals, and practices vary significantly across regions and communities.
– Judaism: Observance of rituals and festivals like Shabbat, Passover, and Yom Kippur, guided by religious laws (Halakha).
5. Philosophical and Ethical Systems:
– Hinduism: Multiple philosophical schools and a broad spectrum of ethical teachings, including concepts like karma and dharma.
– Judaism: A unified ethical system rooted in the Torah and expanded through rabbinic interpretations.
Your reflections can highlight how, despite the scholar’s thorough and insightful comparisons, the distinctiveness of each religion’s traditions and practices might make direct
Leave a Reply