Oh My God: Part Two
Though I found my guru in the Lord, as I tried to learn more about his life and teachings, I began to read the Muktiveda with commentaries. However, that’s where the problems started. The more I read and tried to understand, the more unresolved and unresolvable questions arose. To this day, I have many questions that I have recorded in a brainstorm, which I have never shared with anyone. I may never get answers to these questions in my lifetime. But one consolation I found is that I cannot limit God only within the frame of the Muktiveda. If I do, I will despise the very same God who created all of humanity in His own image, reflecting on their understanding of God. My Hindu tradition helps me resolve some of these questions, though I may or may not share them with others. Nonetheless, all my readings and understanding have helped me recognize my limitations, which will never allow me to fully comprehend God. Knowing my limitations, I will live with my questions and doubts without letting them affect my devotion to the Lord. This is one of the contributions of my Hindu tradition. [I wrote the BT Song based on this reflection.]
As a devotee of Muktinath, I understand and accept the authority of the Muktiveda in my life. This is easy for me to comprehend because, as an Indian (read Hinduism), we have many (sectarian) scriptures that hold the same authority for the followers of those sampradayas. One interesting fact is that while giving supreme authority to their own (sectarian) scripture, Hindus never despise the same authority of other scriptures in their sampradayas. That is why Sudhakar, a leading evangelical of his time, did not hesitate to state that:
“To say that the Bible is the Word of God is Biblical, but it is unbiblical to say that the Bible only is the Word of God. The Biblical truth has to be seen separate from the cultural additions and even distortions of it. If God is the God revealed in the Bible, who is the Father, Creator, Redeemer, and Savior, and who is also light and life, and whose name is love, then it is evident that the knowledge of Him cannot be confined to a people in one geographical area. Hindu scriptures contain deep insights on God, and meaningful dialogues with Hindus will only enrich the churches’ understanding of God and Christ.”1
This is neither liberalism nor pluralism but recognizing the work of God among other people who are created in His own image. But what Christians have done is create a formula about God based on their own [wrong] interpretation of the Muktivedic text, acknowledging that once upon a time there existed a ‘primitive monotheism’ believing in a Single God like the Abrahamic faiths, which got distorted over their long history, paving the way for various kinds of ‘theisms’ like ‘poly, pan, keo, ken-eno, etc. theisms.’ It is now their obligation to restore it by INTRODUCING the God of Muktiveda as that One Single God.
However, this approach is entirely their understanding and interpretation of their Scripture. Considering the vast number of scriptures in Hinduism, one can find all kinds of ‘theisms’ ranging from ‘monotheism’ to no theism [atheism] at all. The authors who wrote those particular scriptures never felt any need to prove any doctrine about God or Creation or Atman, etc. These were the work of later philosophers and theologians who, like their counterparts in other religions, can only do this by text-torturing. As I have already shared, quoting from scholars, I need not repeat that here.
But I would like to close this second part on ‘Oh My God’, which might extend to several parts in the future, with what Walls2 have written about tracing any ‘primitive Monotheism’ guided by ‘natural theology’ based on the [wrong] interpretation, which will help us understand what went wrong with Christians. [See Chapter 5: Romans One and the Modern Missionary Movement, particularly pp. 61 ff.] I quote to highlight my point:
“…The missionary affirmation of the idea of a supreme God was immediately suspect; for animistic peoples who had not reached the appropriate stage, such a conception could only be a missionary invention. The charge was quite unjustified, for, on the reading of Romans 1 which most early missionaries had, there was no need to invent a High God in any non-Christian religion. They found the High God in African religion because he was there, not because their theology demanded his presence.
As the evolutionist doctrine gained repute, the rival doctrine of a primitive monotheism from which all nonbiblical religions were descended was more clearly enunciated, and Romans 1:20 ff. was its prime source. Sir Monier Monier-Williams, an influential Sanskrit scholar and himself a devout Evangelical, argued that, just because of the original monotheism behind all religions, one could expect to find fragments of truth.3 No longer was it necessary to presuppose borrowing from Jewish sources to explain every acceptable element in non-Christian religion. At one point, he went further and declared that some of the essential doctrines of Christianity were present in germ in all religions, awaiting the development and fulfillment which only Christianity could bring.4 (p.63)
In early days humanity had a greater treasure of spiritual goods, but neglected its knowledge and renounced its dependence until nothing remained but a dim presentiment.5 Not that all saw anything as formalized as a primitive monotheism in Romans 1. A.E. Garvie, a formative influence on several important missionary writers of the twentieth century, argued that the essence of Paul’s argument had nothing to do with the origin of religions at all but simply with the “close connection between false views of God and wrong standards of duty,” and that the Roman society of which Paul was primarily speaking had, to common knowledge, suffered a decline.6 (p.64)
For many missionaries, the practical way of expressing an attitude to the religions came to that, while elements of good remained, the systems stood condemned. (p. 65). [emphasis original]—pp. 63 to 65
Of course, William’s view was rejected, and another famous Fulfillment theology later emerged.7
This ‘primitive monotheism’ concept prompted me to find out if there are any Vedic texts, which are considered by most Indians, if not by all, that contain any exclusive verses talking about the existence of ‘Only One God and none other.’ I asked ChatGPT to find them for me. It first showed three Vedic mantras, often wrongly interpreted even by Hindus: Rig Veda 1.164.46, Yajur Veda 13:4, and the Isha Upanishad verse 1.8 But in response, I sent another message:
DB: “Sorry. None of them specifically say that there’s only one God. All the texts that you quote, the context is entirely different.”
Then it sent the following message:
ChatGPT: “I apologize if the previous texts did not meet your criteria. The idea of monotheism or the oneness of God in Vedic literature can be complex due to the layered and multifaceted nature of the texts. However, there is a more specific verse from the Atharva Veda that asserts the oneness of God in a clear manner:
Atharva Veda 10.8.1
एको देवः सर्वभूतेषु गूढः सर्वव्यापी सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा।
ekaḥ devaḥ sarvabhūteṣu gūḍhaḥ sarvavyāpī sarvabhūtāntarātmā।
Translation: ‘There is one God hidden in all beings, all-pervading, the inner Self of all beings.’
This verse directly speaks to the concept of a single, all-encompassing deity that resides within all beings, highlighting the notion of one God.
The Vedic texts often convey complex theological ideas, and interpretations can vary, but the above verse is among the more direct assertions of monotheism in the Vedas.”
Even if we grant that Rig Veda 1.164.46 (“Truth is one, the wise call it by many names”) talks about One God, this cannot be called ‘Primitive Monotheism.’ The entire 1.164 never says that ‘this Truth alone exists and none other.’ As this verse itself points out, it is called by various names. Then one cannot jump and say that even in the Purva Veda (Old Testament) uses several names of Yahweh, though it never says that ‘I am the I Am’ is so and so. Though it clearly says that no other Gods exist, according to some scholars, one could find the same Henotheism in the early part of the Purva Veda as this term was coined and imposed on Hinduism also by Indologists.9
So, even if we take it for granted that there is one clear reference about the existence of a Single God in Veda, this cannot be called exclusive monotheism but ‘Panentheism [not pantheism]’10
Unlike Abrahamic faiths, which claim the authority of a single scripture as the only authority of their faith, no such claim is made in Hinduism. While acknowledging the relevance and importance of other scriptures, each sampradaya holds its own scripture as its authority, where the concept of a strict ‘monotheism’ denying the existence of other Gods, is rarely found. Of course, those Hindu apologists faced with the challenges of Abrahamic faiths attempt to assert monotheism, knowing well that it is not the Hindu reality. For argument’s sake, even if one claims that ample evidence of monotheism can be found among various Hindu sampradaya scriptures, it should be noted that while each sampradaya may keep their God as ‘the Only God,’ they never deny the existence of other Gods in other sampradayas within Hinduism. They never say, ‘Our God is the only one and there is none other.’ They recognize the presence of other Gods but most of the time subordinating to the God of their Sampradaya.
As I have already shared, it is unclear whether any Hindu has a clear understanding of the so-called ‘G-O-D’ as interpreted by non-Hindu faiths. They have various concepts about God, but none of them can be defined by the technical terms coined by non-Hindu scholars [See Oh My God—Part One].
To reinforce my point, let me share this again. One tribe told missionaries that they only brought the gospel to them, not God, as He was already there. The following point by Walls endorses this:
“…In primal societies in quite diverse parts of the world, the Christian preachers found God already there, known by a vernacular name. Often associated with the sky, creator of earth and moral governor of humanity, having no altars or priesthood, and perhaps no regular worship, some named Being could be identified behind the whole constitution of the phenomenal and transcendental worlds. More often than not, that name has been used in Scripture translation, liturgy, and preaching as the name of the God of Israel and of the Church. Where this has happened, the coming of Christianity has not been—as in northern Christian experience—bringing God to the people, so much as bringing him near. The fact that, however severe the Christian judgment may have been about the religion and life of primal societies, the name of God was in so many instances retained, may yet have momentous consequences for the future shape of Christian theology. God is “the God of the Gentiles also” [Romans 3:29} in a way which lies outside the experience of Western Christians.”11
DB, Gurukulam, 4-6-2024
Notes
1Wilhelmina Sudhakar, Chosen to Serve: The Life and Writings of Paul Sudhakar, 2007. p. 269
2Andrews F. Walls, The Missionary Movement In Christian History: Studies in the Transmission of Faith, New York, Orbis Books, [1996], 10th Printing 2005
3 M. Monier Williams, Indian Wisdom, or Examples of the Religious, Philosophical and Ethical Doctrines of the Hindus, London, 1875, pp. 143f. (4th ed., p. 132 n.)
4 M. Monier Williams, Modern India and the Indians, London, 1887, p. 234
5 Quoted by S. M. Zwemer, The Influence of Animism of Islam, London, 1920
6, A. E. Garvie, Romans, Century Bible ad loc
7, see J. N. Farquhar, The Crown of Hinduism, Oxford 1913.
8. The concept of a single, supreme God is indeed present in various Vedic texts. One of the most frequently cited hymns that explicitly declares the unity of God is from the Rigveda. The verse is as follows:
*Rigveda 1.164.46*:
एकं सद् विप्रा बहुधा वदन्ति।
ekaṃ sad viprā bahudhā vadanti।
Translation: “Truth is one, the wise call it by many names.”
This verse emphasizes the notion that while there may be many different names and forms used to describe the divine, ultimately, there is one underlying reality or truth.
Additionally, the *Yajurveda* also conveys a similar message:
यो देवानां प्रभवश्चोद्भवश्च विश्वाधिपो रुद्रो महर्षिः।
हिरण्यगर्भं जनयामास पूर्वं स नो बुद्ध्या शुभया संयुनक्तु॥
yo devānāṃ prabhavaścodbhavaśca viśvāadhipo rudro maharṣiḥ।
hiraṇyagarbhaṃ janayāmāsa pūrvaṃ sa no buddhyā śubhayā saṃyunaktu॥
Translation: “He who is the origin and cause of the gods, the lord of all, Rudra the great seer, who produced Hiranyagarbha in the beginning—may he endow us with good understanding.” 13:4
In the *Upanishads*, which are considered the concluding part of the Vedic literature, the idea of a single, all-encompassing reality or God is further elaborated. For instance:
*Isha Upanishad, Verse 1*:
ईशावास्यमिदं सर्वं यत्किञ्च जगत्यां जगत्।
īśāvāsyam idaṃ sarvaṃ yat kiñca jagatyāṃ jagat।
Translation: “All this, whatsoever moves in this moving world, is enveloped by God.”
These texts collectively underscore the Vedic perspective of a singular divine reality that manifests in various forms and names.
9 Klinger: In the Hebrew Bible there are both references to the one and only God and in various passages also to gods. Thus monotheism and polytheism do not absolutely exclude each other. Just as there is presently a discussion among exegetes, to what extent monotheism represents, from a historical perspective, perhaps only a late form of the Biblical belief in God, which had its breakthrough only two hundred years before Christ, while earlier, for long periods of history, a henotheism was more characteristic of the Biblical faith.—ibid. God – Gods – Transcendence. Adelheid Mette. Pp. 43-86, in, Andreas Bsthe (ed.), Hinduism questioning Christianity: Christian Faith in the Encounter with Hinduism, vol. 1, Modling, 2007, St Gabriedl Publications, originally first published in German: A. Bsteh (ed.,), Der Hinduismus als Anfrage an christliche Theologie und Philosophie (Studien Zur Religionstheologies; 3). Modling, 1997, Translation by Ingeborg Bogensberge, Vienna, in cooperation with John MMercer and Adrianne Nagy DaPonte, Boston, p. 63. Also see John H. Walton; Victor H. Matthews & Mark W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, Old Testament, Downers Grove, Illinois, 2000, DEUTERONOMY (6:4), p.177
10 Panentheism refers to the world as God and at the same time God remaining transcendent. This dual character of God is central to integral unity. God is the unchangeable transcendent and also everything that exists, and hence ever in flux. Charles Hartshorne, a prominent philosopher and theologian, introduced the term ‘panentheism’ into the Western lexicon after his detailed study of Hindu metaphysics in the 1930s (especially Ramanuja and Sri Jiva Goswami).— Rajiv Malhotra, Being Different: An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism, New Delhi, HaperCollins Publishers India, 2011, Notes, 5, p. 393
11. Walls, op. cit. p. 71
Oh My God: Part Two
Though I found my guru in the Lord, as I tried to learn more about his life and teachings, I began to read the Muktiveda with commentaries. However, that’s where the problems started. The more I read and tried to understand, the more unresolved and unresolvable questions arose. To this day, I have many questions that I have recorded in a brainstorm, which I have never shared with anyone. I may never get answers to these questions in my lifetime. But one consolation I found is that I cannot limit God only within the frame of the Muktiveda. If I do, I will despise the very same God who created all of humanity in His own image, reflecting on their understanding of God. My Hindu tradition helps me resolve some of these questions, though I may or may not share them with others. Nonetheless, all my readings and understanding have helped me recognize my limitations, which will never allow me to fully comprehend God. Knowing my limitations, I will live with my questions and doubts without letting them affect my devotion to the Lord. This is one of the contributions of my Hindu tradition. [I wrote the BT Song based on this reflection.]
As a devotee of Muktinath, I understand and accept the authority of the Muktiveda in my life. This is easy for me to comprehend because, as an Indian (read Hinduism), we have many (sectarian) scriptures that hold the same authority for the followers of those sampradayas. One interesting fact is that while giving supreme authority to their own (sectarian) scripture, Hindus never despise the same authority of other scriptures in their sampradayas. That is why Sudhakar, a leading evangelical of his time, did not hesitate to state that:
“To say that the Bible is the Word of God is Biblical, but it is unbiblical to say that the Bible only is the Word of God. The Biblical truth has to be seen separate from the cultural additions and even distortions of it. If God is the God revealed in the Bible, who is the Father, Creator, Redeemer, and Savior, and who is also light and life, and whose name is love, then it is evident that the knowledge of Him cannot be confined to a people in one geographical area. Hindu scriptures contain deep insights on God, and meaningful dialogues with Hindus will only enrich the churches’ understanding of God and Christ.”1
This is neither liberalism nor pluralism but recognizing the work of God among other people who are created in His own image. But what Christians have done is create a formula about God based on their own [wrong] interpretation of the Muktivedic text, acknowledging that once upon a time there existed a ‘primitive monotheism’ believing in a Single God like the Abrahamic faiths, which got distorted over their long history, paving the way for various kinds of ‘theisms’ like ‘poly, pan, keo, ken-eno, etc. theisms.’ It is now their obligation to restore it by INTRODUCING the God of Muktiveda as that One Single God.
However, this approach is entirely their understanding and interpretation of their Scripture. Considering the vast number of scriptures in Hinduism, one can find all kinds of ‘theisms’ ranging from ‘monotheism’ to no theism [atheism] at all. The authors who wrote those particular scriptures never felt any need to prove any doctrine about God or Creation or Atman, etc. These were the work of later philosophers and theologians who, like their counterparts in other religions, can only do this by text-torturing. As I have already shared, quoting from scholars, I need not repeat that here.
But I would like to close this second part on ‘Oh My God’, which might extend to several parts in the future, with what Walls2 have written about tracing any ‘primitive Monotheism’ guided by ‘natural theology’ based on the [wrong] interpretation, which will help us understand what went wrong with Christians. [See Chapter 5: Romans One and the Modern Missionary Movement, particularly pp. 61 ff.] I quote to highlight my point:
“…The missionary affirmation of the idea of a supreme God was immediately suspect; for animistic peoples who had not reached the appropriate stage, such a conception could only be a missionary invention. The charge was quite unjustified, for, on the reading of Romans 1 which most early missionaries had, there was no need to invent a High God in any non-Christian religion. They found the High God in African religion because he was there, not because their theology demanded his presence.
As the evolutionist doctrine gained repute, the rival doctrine of a primitive monotheism from which all nonbiblical religions were descended was more clearly enunciated, and Romans 1:20 ff. was its prime source. Sir Monier Monier-Williams, an influential Sanskrit scholar and himself a devout Evangelical, argued that, just because of the original monotheism behind all religions, one could expect to find fragments of truth.3 No longer was it necessary to presuppose borrowing from Jewish sources to explain every acceptable element in non-Christian religion. At one point, he went further and declared that some of the essential doctrines of Christianity were present in germ in all religions, awaiting the development and fulfillment which only Christianity could bring.4 (p.63)
In early days humanity had a greater treasure of spiritual goods, but neglected its knowledge and renounced its dependence until nothing remained but a dim presentiment.5 Not that all saw anything as formalized as a primitive monotheism in Romans 1. A.E. Garvie, a formative influence on several important missionary writers of the twentieth century, argued that the essence of Paul’s argument had nothing to do with the origin of religions at all but simply with the “close connection between false views of God and wrong standards of duty,” and that the Roman society of which Paul was primarily speaking had, to common knowledge, suffered a decline.6 (p.64)
For many missionaries, the practical way of expressing an attitude to the religions came to that, while elements of good remained, the systems stood condemned. (p. 65). [emphasis original]—pp. 63 to 65
Of course, William’s view was rejected, and another famous Fulfillment theology later emerged.7
This ‘primitive monotheism’ concept prompted me to find out if there are any Vedic texts, which are considered by most Indians, if not by all, that contain any exclusive verses talking about the existence of ‘Only One God and none other.’ I asked ChatGPT to find them for me. It first showed three Vedic mantras, often wrongly interpreted even by Hindus: Rig Veda 1.164.46, Yajur Veda 13:4, and the Isha Upanishad verse 1.8 But in response, I sent another message:
DB: “Sorry. None of them specifically say that there’s only one God. All the texts that you quote, the context is entirely different.”
Then it sent the following message:
ChatGPT: “I apologize if the previous texts did not meet your criteria. The idea of monotheism or the oneness of God in Vedic literature can be complex due to the layered and multifaceted nature of the texts. However, there is a more specific verse from the Atharva Veda that asserts the oneness of God in a clear manner:
Atharva Veda 10.8.1
एको देवः सर्वभूतेषु गूढः सर्वव्यापी सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा।
ekaḥ devaḥ sarvabhūteṣu gūḍhaḥ sarvavyāpī sarvabhūtāntarātmā।
Translation: ‘There is one God hidden in all beings, all-pervading, the inner Self of all beings.’
This verse directly speaks to the concept of a single, all-encompassing deity that resides within all beings, highlighting the notion of one God.
The Vedic texts often convey complex theological ideas, and interpretations can vary, but the above verse is among the more direct assertions of monotheism in the Vedas.”
Even if we grant that Rig Veda 1.164.46 (“Truth is one, the wise call it by many names”) talks about One God, this cannot be called ‘Primitive Monotheism.’ The entire 1.164 never says that ‘this Truth alone exists and none other.’ As this verse itself points out, it is called by various names. Then one cannot jump and say that even in the Purva Veda (Old Testament) uses several names of Yahweh, though it never says that ‘I am the I Am’ is so and so. Though it clearly says that no other Gods exist, according to some scholars, one could find the same Henotheism in the early part of the Purva Veda as this term was coined and imposed on Hinduism also by Indologists.9
So, even if we take it for granted that there is one clear reference about the existence of a Single God in Veda, this cannot be called exclusive monotheism but ‘Panentheism [not pantheism]’10
Unlike Abrahamic faiths, which claim the authority of a single scripture as the only authority of their faith, no such claim is made in Hinduism. While acknowledging the relevance and importance of other scriptures, each sampradaya holds its own scripture as its authority, where the concept of a strict ‘monotheism’ denying the existence of other Gods, is rarely found. Of course, those Hindu apologists faced with the challenges of Abrahamic faiths attempt to assert monotheism, knowing well that it is not the Hindu reality. For argument’s sake, even if one claims that ample evidence of monotheism can be found among various Hindu sampradaya scriptures, it should be noted that while each sampradaya may keep their God as ‘the Only God,’ they never deny the existence of other Gods in other sampradayas within Hinduism. They never say, ‘Our God is the only one and there is none other.’ They recognize the presence of other Gods but most of the time subordinating to the God of their Sampradaya.
As I have already shared, it is unclear whether any Hindu has a clear understanding of the so-called ‘G-O-D’ as interpreted by non-Hindu faiths. They have various concepts about God, but none of them can be defined by the technical terms coined by non-Hindu scholars [See Oh My God—Part One].
To reinforce my point, let me share this again. One tribe told missionaries that they only brought the gospel to them, not God, as He was already there. The following point by Walls endorses this:
“…In primal societies in quite diverse parts of the world, the Christian preachers found God already there, known by a vernacular name. Often associated with the sky, creator of earth and moral governor of humanity, having no altars or priesthood, and perhaps no regular worship, some named Being could be identified behind the whole constitution of the phenomenal and transcendental worlds. More often than not, that name has been used in Scripture translation, liturgy, and preaching as the name of the God of Israel and of the Church. Where this has happened, the coming of Christianity has not been—as in northern Christian experience—bringing God to the people, so much as bringing him near. The fact that, however severe the Christian judgment may have been about the religion and life of primal societies, the name of God was in so many instances retained, may yet have momentous consequences for the future shape of Christian theology. God is “the God of the Gentiles also” [Romans 3:29} in a way which lies outside the experience of Western Christians.”11
DB, Gurukulam, 4-6-2024
Notes
1Wilhelmina Sudhakar, Chosen to Serve: The Life and Writings of Paul Sudhakar, 2007. p. 269
2Andrews F. Walls, The Missionary Movement In Christian History: Studies in the Transmission of Faith, New York, Orbis Books, [1996], 10th Printing 2005
3 M. Monier Williams, Indian Wisdom, or Examples of the Religious, Philosophical and Ethical Doctrines of the Hindus, London, 1875, pp. 143f. (4th ed., p. 132 n.)
4 M. Monier Williams, Modern India and the Indians, London, 1887, p. 234
5 Quoted by S. M. Zwemer, The Influence of Animism of Islam, London, 1920
6, A. E. Garvie, Romans, Century Bible ad loc
7, see J. N. Farquhar, The Crown of Hinduism, Oxford 1913.
8. The concept of a single, supreme God is indeed present in various Vedic texts. One of the most frequently cited hymns that explicitly declares the unity of God is from the Rigveda. The verse is as follows:
*Rigveda 1.164.46*:
एकं सद् विप्रा बहुधा वदन्ति।
ekaṃ sad viprā bahudhā vadanti।
Translation: “Truth is one, the wise call it by many names.”
This verse emphasizes the notion that while there may be many different names and forms used to describe the divine, ultimately, there is one underlying reality or truth.
Additionally, the *Yajurveda* also conveys a similar message:
यो देवानां प्रभवश्चोद्भवश्च विश्वाधिपो रुद्रो महर्षिः।
हिरण्यगर्भं जनयामास पूर्वं स नो बुद्ध्या शुभया संयुनक्तु॥
yo devānāṃ prabhavaścodbhavaśca viśvāadhipo rudro maharṣiḥ।
hiraṇyagarbhaṃ janayāmāsa pūrvaṃ sa no buddhyā śubhayā saṃyunaktu॥
Translation: “He who is the origin and cause of the gods, the lord of all, Rudra the great seer, who produced Hiranyagarbha in the beginning—may he endow us with good understanding.” 13:4
In the *Upanishads*, which are considered the concluding part of the Vedic literature, the idea of a single, all-encompassing reality or God is further elaborated. For instance:
*Isha Upanishad, Verse 1*:
ईशावास्यमिदं सर्वं यत्किञ्च जगत्यां जगत्।
īśāvāsyam idaṃ sarvaṃ yat kiñca jagatyāṃ jagat।
Translation: “All this, whatsoever moves in this moving world, is enveloped by God.”
These texts collectively underscore the Vedic perspective of a singular divine reality that manifests in various forms and names.
9 Klinger: In the Hebrew Bible there are both references to the one and only God and in various passages also to gods. Thus monotheism and polytheism do not absolutely exclude each other. Just as there is presently a discussion among exegetes, to what extent monotheism represents, from a historical perspective, perhaps only a late form of the Biblical belief in God, which had its breakthrough only two hundred years before Christ, while earlier, for long periods of history, a henotheism was more characteristic of the Biblical faith.—ibid. God – Gods – Transcendence. Adelheid Mette. Pp. 43-86, in, Andreas Bsthe (ed.), Hinduism questioning Christianity: Christian Faith in the Encounter with Hinduism, vol. 1, Modling, 2007, St Gabriedl Publications, originally first published in German: A. Bsteh (ed.,), Der Hinduismus als Anfrage an christliche Theologie und Philosophie (Studien Zur Religionstheologies; 3). Modling, 1997, Translation by Ingeborg Bogensberge, Vienna, in cooperation with John MMercer and Adrianne Nagy DaPonte, Boston, p. 63. Also see John H. Walton; Victor H. Matthews & Mark W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, Old Testament, Downers Grove, Illinois, 2000, DEUTERONOMY (6:4), p.177
10 Panentheism refers to the world as God and at the same time God remaining transcendent. This dual character of God is central to integral unity. God is the unchangeable transcendent and also everything that exists, and hence ever in flux. Charles Hartshorne, a prominent philosopher and theologian, introduced the term ‘panentheism’ into the Western lexicon after his detailed study of Hindu metaphysics in the 1930s (especially Ramanuja and Sri Jiva Goswami).— Rajiv Malhotra, Being Different: An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism, New Delhi, HaperCollins Publishers India, 2011, Notes, 5, p. 393
11. Walls, op. cit. p. 71
Appendix. One: This appendix is the notes to the article Using ‘Mother’ for God and Nature
1. … ‘pantheism’—a term coined by an English writer, John Toland (1670-1722) to express the idea that all is in God….— Geoffrey A. Oddie. British Protestant Missionary Constructions of Hinduism, 1793-1900. New Delhi, SAGE Publications, 2006, p.196.
…pantheism—the deification of the universe as a single vast metadeity or “everything-god” (pantheos).— Thomas McEvilley, Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, (2002), First Indian Edition, 2008. p. 24
…pantheism—the deification of the universe as a single vast metadeity or “everything-god” (pantheos). This preoccupation was in part a by-product of political amalgamations. When power shifted, the priests of the newly dominant group would compose a theology which elevated their god over those of the dominated groups. At such a moment, a Mesopotamian priesthood would imitate the model of the state, declaring that its god was king of the other gods; by contrast, the more metaphysically inclined Egyptians were apt to declare that the newly dominant deity had absorbed the other gods into himself or become them….—ibid. p. 24
The concept of the simultaneously immanent and transcendent pantheos is a transitional concept between mythology, which it compacts beyond recognition, and philosophy, which will unfold from it….—ibid. p.28
…The growing trend towards the impersonalization of God in modern European philosophy had (p.299) posed a serious threat to Christianity which could be counteracted only through a reiteration of faith in the Biblical God, who was personal in nature, and was different from the God of the philosophers. As a consequence of this, religion and philosophy, which had gone hand in hand till then even in the Western world, were disentangled and rendered apart. This separation of religion and philosophy was accompanied by the growth of a new mode of theology which was the result of intensive Christian intellectual activity. The Christian theologians now made it explicit, as never before, that religion was a matter of faith and emotion, and not of knowledge and reason. Acceptance of the philosophical abstractions regarding God was not to be confused with the true belief in God. Theism, therefore, was technically defined as belief in God. The differentiation between monotheism and monism was an outcome of this definition of theism, and the principle of division between religion and philosophy. Monotheism was defined as belief in One Personal God; and the philosophical explanations of the oneness of God in impersonal terms, as either pantheism or monism.— Krishna Sharma, ‘Towards a New Perspective’ in David N. Lorenzen. Religious Movements in South Asia 600-1800. New Delhi, Oxford, 2004, pp. 299-300
…Hinduism in which religion and philosophy have always remained interconnected and wherein ‘theism’ does not necessarily imply belief in a personal God. Besides, the Hindu thinkers never thought of making any distinction between what is understood by monotheism and monism. In other words, the impersonal concept of God (as Brahman or Atman) has been as much a part of Hindu religious tradition as the worship of numerous personal deities. Disregarding these factors, when the Western scholars applied alien criteria in the analysis of Hinduism, it resulted in a number of misconceptions, including those connected with the bhakti theme.— Krishna Sharma, ‘Towards a New Perspective’ in ibid. p. 300
…Taking into account the Hindu pantheon and the seeming Hindu polytheism, in what way can the existence and nature of Hindu monotheism be correctly determined? Is it justifiable to connect Hindu monotheism with the worship of any one personal deity of the Hindu pantheon, like Vishnu, as suggested in the Bhakti theories? Should it not be sought in the realm of Hindu speculations about the oneness of God? My inquiry into the nature of Hindu theism and monotheism is an attempt to answer these questions. Such an inquiry is very necessary to rectify the long standing errors that the modern definition of bhakti entails.— Krishna Sharma, ‘Towards a New Perspective’ in ibid. p. 302
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.— Krishna Sharma, ‘Towards a New Perspective’ in ibid. p. 307
Appendix Two: Various Theisms
List provided by Open AI.
You are right. Thank you for pointing that out. *Ana-theos*, coined by Richard Kearney, is another form of theism. Here’s a brief description:
*Ana-theism*: It refers to a “return to God after God.” This concept explores the possibility of re-engaging with the divine after traditional notions of God have been deconstructed, often emphasizing a more personal, experiential, and transformative encounter with the divine.
Here’s an updated list including ana-theism:
1. *Monotheism*: Belief in a single, all-powerful God.
2. *Polytheism*: Belief in multiple gods.
3. *Pantheism*: Belief that God is identical with the universe and everything in it.
4. *Panentheism*: Belief that God is greater than the universe and includes and interpenetrates it.
5. *Deism*: Belief in a creator who does not intervene in the universe.
6. *Henotheism*: Worship of one god without denying the existence of other gods.
7. *Kathenotheism*: Worship of one god at a time as supreme, while not denying the existence of other gods.
8. *Monolatry*: Acknowledgement of the existence of many gods but consistent worship of only one.
9. *Dystheism*: Belief in a god who is not wholly good and might be evil.
10. *Misotheism*: Hatred of God or gods.
11. *Atheism*: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
12. *Agnosticism*: Belief that the existence of God or gods is unknown or unknowable.
13. *Autotheism*: Belief that oneself is a deity or that one’s own divinity is real.
14. *Bitheism/Ditheism*: Belief in two gods, often in opposition (e.g., good vs. evil).
15. *Transtheism*: Belief that transcends theism and atheism, often involving the belief in a divine reality that is beyond traditional theism.
16. *Hero Theism*: Veneration of heroes or demigods as divine or semi-divine figures.
17. *Ana-theism*: A return to God after God, exploring a renewed, experiential, and transformative encounter with the divine.
Thanks again for the addition! If you have any other questions or need further information, feel free to ask.
Certainly! Here’s the revised list with the names of those who coined or popularized these terms:
1. *Monotheism* (coined by Henry More)
2. *Polytheism* (ancient concept, used by Herodotus)
3. *Pantheism* (coined by John Toland)
4. *Panentheism* (coined by Karl Krause)
5. *Deism* (popularized during the Enlightenment, term used by Edward Herbert)
6. *Henotheism* (coined by Friedrich Schelling)
7. *Kathenotheism* (coined by Max Müller)
8. *Monolatry* (term used by Julius Wellhausen)
9. *Dystheism* (popularized in the modern era, no single coiner)
10. *Misotheism* (used by Friedrich Nietzsche)
11. *Atheism* (ancient concept, term used by Diagoras of Melos)
12. *Agnosticism* (coined by Thomas Huxley)
13. *Autotheism* (ancient concept, no single coiner)
14. *Bitheism/Ditheism* (ancient concept, no single coiner)
15. *Transtheism* (coined by Paul Tillich)
16. *Hero Theism* (ancient concept, no single coiner)
17. *Ana-theism* (coined by Richard Kearney)—accessed on 18-7-2024
Leave a Reply