Does Monotheism Are Superior to Polytheistic Belief - Essay Example

? Monotheism vs Polytheism Does Monotheism, as Represented by Judaism, Christianity and Islam, is Superior to Polytheistic Belief? Introduction The world’s most important religions nowadays – in terms of diffusion, inspiration capability and spiritual influence – are Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam and Judaism. The origins of Hinduism could be traced back to 1750 – 1500 bce, which defines Hinduism as one of the world’s oldest major living religions (Sarma, 1953; Oxtoby and Amore, 2008); as against Judaism’s claim about dating from the twentieth – eighteenth century bce (Brettler, 2005). Buddhism, in turn, refers to a “vast and complex religious and philosophical tradition” stretching over some 2500 years, including Hindu tradition (Gethin, 1998); while Christianity and Islam derived their foundations from the Bible, which is considered the cornerstone of Judaism (Steinsaltz, 2006), being based on the lives and teachings of Jesus Christ and Mohammed respectively. Each and every one of these religions is comprised of a particular set of beliefs and rituals, whose centerpiece is the concept of divinity. The latter not only represents the hub of any religious doctrine, but also accounts for the major source of either difference or similarity between one and another. In that regard, Hinduism and Buddhism on the one hand, being an amalgamation of various ancient traditions (Ahloowaila, 2009), and Judaism, Christianity and Islam on the other – having developed, and respectively build on the notion of the One pre-eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, and infinite God – epitomize the monotheistic-polytheistic divide. Besides the divinity concept, as developed in the monotheistic and polytheistic beliefs, this paper examines the focal tenet of Hinduism/Buddhism – reincarnation/rebirth – as against the notion of eternal life in monotheistic religions. The Concept of Brahman-Atman and It’s Expansions The relationship between Brahman (the Supreme Being) and Atman (a ‘self’, or a world for all beings, along with the human soul), which is generally described as the “frame and the substance of universe”, hence “inseparably united but not identical” (Oxtoby and Amore, 2008), is central to Hinduism. Despite some prima facie similarity to the Holy Trinity, the Brahman-Atman relationship actually implies certain imperfection. This is not only because of Brahman’s need of additional powers and classes in order to get fully developed, thus necessitating an array of deities as vehicles of those powers, but also, and perhaps more importantly, due to both components’ mutual dependence on each other – Brahman is the inner controller of Atman and Atman provides Brahman with corporeal avataras which are Gods’ physical presence (Hume, 1921; Klostermaier, 1998). On the other hand, according to Klostermaier (1998), avataras are required to make Supreme Vishnu accessible to humans (Pancaratra doctrine), along with the super-human spiritual beings, called ‘vinhas’, an inner presence, named ‘antaryamin’ – the ruler within – and ‘arcavatara’, which is Gods’ visible presence in an image made of either stone or metal. Thus, to put it in a nutshell, Hindu deities need specific attributes in order to become recognized in the material world and to make themselves available to the believers. The twin concepts of Karma and Samsara are characteristic of both Hinduism and Buddhism; while the former generally refers to a system of cause and effect, or action and reaction, which is considered a natural law, rather than an act of divine judgment, the latter is defined as a cycle of death and rebirth, or reincarnation (Oxtoby and Amore, 2008). According to the Upanishads, one would be liberated from the Samsara cycle – hence to become immortal – only if achieved transforming experiential wisdom (Oxtoby and Amore, 2008). Thus, polytheism, as represented by Hinduism and Buddhism, has laid great emphasis on human senses, perceptions, experiences and demands, rather than being concerned with the divine and divinity. The Lord is One “Hear O Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord alone” (Deut. 6:4 New Revised Standard Version). As Jacobs points out, this verse represents the most powerful single declaration of the significance of Judaism and actually denotes a denial of polytheism (1973). The meaning of the word ‘alone’, or ‘one’, is that God is indivisible in His essence, in a marked contrast to the conception of Brahman-Atman, as well as unique, hence God is totally different not only from all that man name as gods, but also from all His creatures; which uniqueness is implied in the term ‘God’ as used in monotheistic religions (Jacobs, 1973). While polytheistic deities are considered more or less separate entities, often descending from, transforming into, and being frequently in conflict with each other, monotheism affirms that there can be only one God, one Supreme Being who is Lord of the material and non-material worlds (Jacobs, 1973). Or, according to Tillich’s formulation, “God is not being among others – in stark contrast to polytheistic deities – but being-itself (cited in Jacobs, 1973). An additional dimension is added by the possession of ruah, or ruah elohim – the spirit of God – as described in the Old Testament (Gen.1:2, Exodus 31:3, Judges 3:10, Sam. 10:10, etc.). The spirit of God is inextricably connected with God’s action over time, either in the act of creation, or throughout the history of Israel, supporting, inspiring and endowing anointed persons to lead the people in realizing the God’s will (Judges 3:10, 6:34, 11:29; 1Kings; 1Sam. 24:6). The action of the spirit of God on the human beings towards fulfillment of God’s will and decisions is described with the verb ‘halah’, whose meaning is enter, or penetrate (Judges 14:6, 15:14; 1Sam 10:6, etc.); thus eliminating the necessity for specific forms of non-divine manifestation, like the Hindu avataras, in order to be recognized. God has endowed His spirit to rest in the hearts of human beings, but also could deprive them of this gift since the spirit of God does not depend on humans themselves (1Sam 16:14). A particular expression of the spirit of God is the messianic prophecies related to the birth, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ; while the conception of God in Islam is pretty close to that in Judaism, the concept of the Holy Trinity, introduced by Christianity, is considered to have elaborated on the notion of God’s infinity, immanence and transcendence. In a marked contrast to Samsara cycle, the notion of eternal life, as developed by Christianity, is only dependent on the divine judgment and mercy; nevertheless, the human beings are granted a free will to make a choice (Williams, 2001). Conclusion The different concepts of divinity, as defined by Polytheism and Monotheism, actually reflect the degree to which either doctrine has preserved certain connection with the preceding pagan religious cults. In other words, polytheistic beliefs are by far more grounded in the pagan idea for a number of deities being possessed of various manifestation forms, including such as plants, trees or animals, and “each having a part of the universe for his or her domain” (Jacobs, 1973). Monotheism, in turn, has not only cut off, for the most part, that heritage line, but also elaborated the notion of God, introducing the proper understanding of what ‘God’ actually denotes (Jacobs, 1973). Thus, while the Brahman and Atman constituents complement each other in order to form the whole of a deity, the one God is perfect by definition and doesn’t need outward attributes, or physical presence to act upon the material world. Finally, the Holy Trinity further advances the notion of God’s infinity, representing the three ‘persons’ of one eternal, omnipotent and all-perfect God. References Ahloowaila, B.S., (2009). Invasion of the Genes: Genetic Heritage of India. New York: Eloquent Books. Retrieved from http://books.google.bg/books?id=Vp_q_MjupOIC&lpg=PA184&dq=vedic+religion+proto-indo-european&pg=PA184&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=vedic%20religion%20proto-indo-european&f=false Brettler, Mark Z., (2005). How to Read the Bible. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society. Gethin, R., (1998). The Foundations of Buddhism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://books.google.bg/books?id=al_Wlh2mwWIC&printsec=frontcover&hl=bg#v=onepage&q&f=false Hume, Robert E., (Ed., Trans.), (1921). The Thirteen Principal Upanishads. London: Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2058&Itemid=27 Jacobs, Louis, (1973). A Jewish Theology. London: Darton, Longman & Todd ltd. Retrieved from http://books.google.bg/books?id=XgZ2KkgD3lQC&printsec=frontcover&hl=bg#v=onepage&q&f=false Klostermaier, Klaus K., (1998). Hinduism: A Short Introduction. Oxford: Oneworld. Oxtoby, Willard and Roy Amore, (Eds.), (2008). World Religions: Eastern Traditions. New York: Oxford University Press. Sarma, D.S., (1953). The Nature and History of Hinduism. In Kenneth W. Morgan (Ed.), Religion of the Hindus. New York: Ronald Press Co. Steinsaltz, Adin, (2006). The Essential Talmud. (Chaya Galai, Trans.). New York: Basic Books. Williams, R., (2001). “Making Moral Decisions”. In Gill, R., (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Christian Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://books.google.ca/books/about/The_Cambridge_Companion_to_Christian_Eth.html?id=Hlhx_Zh7qnUC Read More