When did Hindus start viewing their gods as mere archetypes?

[dyanaprajna2011]

I've read somewhere, in a Buddhist book, and I'm not sure how accurate this is, but after the advent of the Buddha, that he had a great impact on Hinduism, somewhere down the road, especially the Advaita Vedanta school, and some forms of Hinduism started taking on more Buddhist aspects. But, like I said, I might be completely wrong on this. The more simple answer would be that, like all religions, things change and evolve, so differing sects took on differing interpretations of their scriptures/stories.

 

[atanu]

I've read somewhere, in a Buddhist book, and I'm not sure how accurate this is, but after the advent of the Buddha, that he had a great impact on Hinduism, somewhere down the road, especially the Advaita Vedanta school, and some forms of Hinduism started taking on more Buddhist aspects. But, like I said, I might be completely wrong on this. The more simple answer would be that, like all religions, things change and evolve, so differing sects took on differing interpretations of their scriptures/stories.

Hello mattmcneal31

There are six schools of Hindu philosophy and Vedanta is one of them. And Vedanta itself has three main schools. These three Vedantic schools that are equivalent of Advaita, Dvaita and Vi****advaita, existed pre Buddha, well recorded in upanishads. Rishis representing these three schools are named in Brahma Sutras.

...

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I will say this much. The idea of the devas as merely higher beings who aren't omnipotent or anything like that are perfectly compatiable with Buddhist thought. In Buddhist thought there is no omnipotent creator god.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Hello mattmcneal31

There are six schools of Hindu philosophy and Vedanta is one of them. And Vedanta itself has three main schools. These three Vedantic schools that are equivalent of Advaita, Dvaita and Vi****advaita, existed pre Buddha, well recorded in upanishads. Rishis representing these three schools are named in Brahma Sutras.

...

Thank you for that correction. I figured I was probably wrong about that.

 

[atanu]

When did this begin? I have encountered many Hindus who say the devas are only archetype symbols or false images of the true god, that are used to give one a point of focus. When and why did Hindus start viewing their deities this way? Hindus don't believe the devas are real existing beings? Didn't Sri Ramakrishna argue that Kali was indeed a real being? How can a Hindu view a deva as a mere symbol? It's my understanding that Hinduism used to believe these deities were quite real, no?

Namaste Proud 2B Gay

I think you already have stated it but I wish to recapitulate that Ishwara - the reflection of the Supreme Immutable Truth in our conditioned consciousness is not a mere Deva, who is bound with limitations. On the other hand, Devas are divine entitities in charge of varying functions acting from different realms.They are limited and time constrained.




Two important aspects of Hinduism must be mentioned:

• PurANas mention that the worlds of gods (devas) have existences beyond that of the universe. Therefore, the reality of gods (devas) transcend the reality of the human world.
• Yet, the ultimate reality is only Brahman, which is Absolute, Infinite and Eternal. All other realities--of human and divine worlds--are only relative, although completely real in their own domain of time and space.

IMO, the confusion arises when we perceive from our gross physical-discrete perspective, which we take as the primary reality. If we begin from the perspective of Turya, which is spiritual unbrokenness, both the above statements are valid. The spiritual domains of devas and asuras exist between the waking equivalentagnivaisvanaro world/realm and the dream equivalent Hiranyagarbha -Ishwara world/realm.

The embodied ones who believe in spiritual truth of Hinduism cannot by-pass the teaching that if a body-mind exists in this realm, then there must be its spiritual equivalent and also a spiritual creator/controller etc. -- and so on.

Even now Hindus believe that Deities are real -- at least in phenomenal realms. Otherwise the whole meaning of spiritual preceding the material will be lost. However, devas on one hand and the Deities that are worshipped as forms of the Immutable Truth on the other are different. On the aspect of which Deity is Supreme Brahman, there are different opinions in different schools.

...,

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I've read somewhere, in a Buddhist book, and I'm not sure how accurate this is, but after the advent of the Buddha, that he had a great impact on Hinduism, somewhere down the road, especially the Advaita Vedanta school, and some forms of Hinduism started taking on more Buddhist aspects. But, like I said, I might be completely wrong on this. The more simple answer would be that, like all religions, things change and evolve, so differing sects took on differing interpretations of their scriptures/stories.

The Dali Lama says that Buddhism and Hinduism are brother and sister religions. Like any sibaling relationship. Both personalities have great influence on each other.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Didn't Sri Ramakrishna argue that his mother Kali was real when someone approached him about the devas only being images? He said something to the effect of- yes, but even images are real. I think he loved Kali a lot, and that kept him from certain ideas.

 

[iamfact]

When did this begin? I have encountered many Hindus who say the devas are only archetype symbols or false images of the true god, that are used to give one a point of focus. When and why did Hindus start viewing their deities this way? Hindus don't believe the devas are real existing beings? Didn't Sri Ramakrishna argue that Kali was indeed a real being? How can a Hindu view a deva as a mere symbol? It's my understanding that Hinduism used to believe these deities were quite real, no?

As many people already mentioned, there are differing views in different schools of thought. However there are verses in the Vedas that point to deities being a part of an underlying Reality or God. It has been well established by many scholars that Vedic Hinduism was a monistic, non-dualistic, pantheistic or maybe monotheistic:

[Rig Veda 1.164.46]
"They (the men of wisdom) call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and he is the heavenly, noble-winged Garutman. The Reality is one, but sages call it by many names; they call it Agni, Yama, Matarishvan (and so on)."

[Rig Veda 1.129] (Creation Hymn)
"That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever."

...

Furthermore, each God represents a natural (or moral) force, and almost each god is called the Supreme in their respective verses. The only way this can be is if they all are names given to One Being / Reality. After all, it becomes a logical fallacy to say each God is distinct and separate, yet each is the only One Supreme God.