Hinduism - Millions of Gods

[genkaus]

I am from India and I was born a Hindu, so let me make this clear.
There are three main types of Hinduism.
Number one is Pagan Hinduism. It involves idolatry. pagan Hindus worship millions of so-called gods and goddesses. Some of them even sacrifice animals even today! Most of them are not vegetarians. They even drink the blood of bulls!
Number two is Krishna Hinduism. They only worship Lord Krishna, but some of them do use idols for their worship. But, they don't kill animals as sacrifice. Majority of them follow a vegetarian diet.
Number three is Gandhian Hinduism. It is similar to "agnosticism". Gandhi worshiped Truth as God. That's all. Gandhian Hindus follow strict vegetarianism and reject animal sacrifices. They also don't support idolatry. They respect the Bhagavad Gita and treat it as a Holy Book.

There seem to be quite a few contradictions in your explanation.

First of all, it'd be impossible to even know, much less worship, millions of gods and goddesses. Further, the "millions" figure refers to the lower deities which are not worshiped. Even in "pagan" Hinduism, I don't think there would be more than 10-20 deities, including a few local ones varying from place to place, that are worshiped ritually.

Secondly, even with the worship of those gods, cow-sacrifice would be likely forbidden. While animal sacrifice is a part of certain rituals, cows (and by extension bulls) have a special place. So I find your claim about "drinking bull's blood" to be dubious.

Thirdly, there is no separate branch called Krishna Hinduism. Perhaps you are thinking of a sub-movement of ISKON, which is more of a western phenomena. Primarily, there is Vaishnavism, which worships Vishnu and his various incarnations.

Fourthly, why would Gandhian Hinduism be separate if Gandhi himself worshiped Ram (one of Vishnu's incarnations)?

Fifthly, if Gandhian Hinduism were separate from Krishna Hinduism, why would its holy book be the Bhagvat Gita, which was supposedly narrated by Krishna?

Sixthly, why are you ignoring all the other gods and deities which may be worshiped regardless of which branch of Hinduism one may belong to - and which are worshiped when their particular festival comes around? And while you are at that, why did you separate Vaishnavism into two parts while ignoring all the other types such a Shaivism, Smartism etc?

---

In fact, there are contradictions within the Vedas on who is the 'main' god. Shiv Puran tells us that Sada-Shiv (part of Shiv) is the first god who gave birth to other gods. However, for some reason unknown, Vishnu became the supreme head-god, relegating Shiv to mediate for eternity in the Himalayas. Vishnu also created Brahma to control the working of the universe. However, at any-time, one of these three can become the supreme one and do as he wishes.

The contradictions are not in the Vedas, since Shiv-Puran is not a part of them. You are confusing Hinduism with Christianity where there is supposed to be only one holy book. If the Vedas were to be taken as authority, then there is only Brahman and Bramha, Vishnu and Shiv are simply different manifestations of him. The latter literature was added to glorify the form they prefer to see god in.

Then comes those demi-gods, such as Indra, who are not full-fledged gods but can still kick the ass of those main gods whenever they desire.

No, they can't

I have studied Hinduism at depth

Doesn't seem like it.

and can only conclude that it is one of the most interesting mythological stories of all time (though everything is bull).

That is something we can agree on.

[Wright]

Well, there is officially no religious classification of Hinduism. I only did it to help you all understand. And, no, some (so-called) Hindus even sacrifice cows. And, Gandhi didn't worship Ram as a deity. That's where you are wrong.
Also, Gandhian Hinduism and Krishna Hinduism are not very different. So, it isn't confusing that they both regard the Bhagavad Gita as holy. Gandhi worshiped Krishna too but not as a deity.

[Mister Agenda]

India has around a billion people and has had hundreds of millions of them rise from poverty in just the last 20 years. India's middle class numbers more than the entire population of the USA. I say give 'em props.

[genkaus]

Well, there is officially no religious classification of Hinduism. I only did it to help you all understand.

My point is that you did not do it correctly.

And, no, some (so-called) Hindus even sacrifice cows.

Specific examples please. I want to use them the next time my family is on my ass about eating beef.

And, Gandhi didn't worship Ram as a deity. That's where you are wrong.

Really? Then I must be imagining the words "Hey Ram" inscribed on his cenotaph. Or that one of his favorite prayers was the bhajan about Ram.

Also, Gandhian Hinduism and Krishna Hinduism are not very different. So, it isn't confusing that they both regard the Bhagavad Gita as holy.

So why do you seek to distinguish between the two when there are so many other flavors present?

Gandhi worshiped Krishna too but not as a deity.

What does that even mean - "but not as a deity"? If Hinduism had denominations, then Gandhi would be a Vaishnav Hindu given his primary devotion to the Vishnu aspect of god. And like many others, he continued to believe that all religions (not just other denominations of Hinduism, but every religions int he world), are simply worshiping different aspects of the same god. (How they reconcile the contradictory aspects of the "same" god, I have no idea).

[Wright]

genkaus, you should try reading the book named "The story of my experiments with Truth" by Mahatma Gandhi. It will wipe out all your delusions about Hinduism.
And, no, I can't give you any examples of pagan Hindus who eat cows. Sacrificing cows is against Hinduism. So, they can't form an official cult or something. They do it using hidden ways or something. Or at least that's what the rumors say.

[genkaus]

genkaus, you should try reading the book named "The story of my experiments with Truth" by Mahatma Gandhi. It will wipe out all your delusions about Hinduism.

Why the hell would that book clear my doubts about Hinduism? Its Gandhi's autobiography, not a religious treatise. Is there a chapter on different categories of Hinduism in there somewhere?

And, no, I can't give you any examples of pagan Hindus who eat cows. Sacrificing cows is against Hinduism. So, they can't form an official cult or something. They do it using hidden ways or something. Or at least that's what the rumors say.

So, you evidence of cow-sacrificing, bull's blood drinking pagan Hinduism which can be classified as one of the major branches is - some rumors you heard about people doing that? Major fail dude, major fail.

[Wright]

You want to know why he mentioned Ram's name though he didn't worship Ram as a deity. All I can say is that you should read his books. No matter what you say, or what you do, only his biography can clear all your doubts about Hinduism because Gandhi's biography is not just a biography. It is a book that can teach you about true Hinduism and spirituality.
And I don't understand what you mean by "major fail". I am not here to argue with you or to force my opinions down your throat.
If you don't agree with me. It's fine. My opinion comes from my own experience, not from Wikipedia articles.

[genkaus]

You want to know why he mentioned Ram's name though he didn't worship Ram as a deity. All I can say is that you should read his books. No matter what you say, or what you do, only his biography can clear all your doubts about Hinduism because Gandhi's biography is not just a biography. It is a book that can teach you about true Hinduism and spirituality.

Skimmed through it. I found nothing relevant to the discussion there. From his autobiography, it seems that Gandhi was a typical Vaishnav Hindu and he teaches nothing about Hinduism or spirituality that is not already well-known to me. So, unless you have any actual evidence to put up, shut up.

And I don't understand what you mean by "major fail". I am not here to argue with you or to force my opinions down your throat.
If you don't agree with me. It's fine. My opinion comes from my own experience, not from Wikipedia articles.

When you start your sentences by saying "There are three main types of..." you are making a factual statement. Your opinion in the matter is irrelevant. You started your arguments as if you were stating the truth and no you have retracted to them being simply your opinion. That is a major failure of debate.

[Wright]

I strongly suggest you read the Biography of Mahatma Gandhi. If you did, do it again.
Either do that, or keep your garbage for yourself.

[genkaus]

I strongly suggest you read the Biography of Mahatma Gandhi. If you did, do it again.
Either do that, or keep your garbage for yourself.

You are the one spouting inaccurate garbage without an ounce of evidence. Instead of quoting relevant passages from the book that might support your position, you simply ask me to read it. Done and the answers are not in there. My reading it again would not change the book nor make your position magically true. So, unless you have any actual argument to present, I'd treat your position for what it is - worthless.