The Glory of Polytheism

[Vaagmi]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Respected dear Sangom Sir,

I was referring to your usages like mosquito/Parasurama coming in the night and telling things etc., as "needling". May be some of what I have written, appears to you as "needling"; if you point out I will definitely avoid repetition. Again, I did not intend to include you in the "very active" group and I know that you know it well!

What you clipped has that multiple needle component. It is this: "You may kindly note that we now have a few Vaishnava members very, very active in propagating their faith with zeal, in this forum, and any mention that goes against their pet notions is likely to even get reported to the police and I may land in prison (while you may not; inshah Allah!)."
I am glad that you do not consider me a zealot having pet notions who tries to propagate them.

Here again, I think there is a tendency to exaggerate, by using adjectives like immature, 'enlightened', "e", etc. Bereft of these and inaccuracies like Christ and Mohammed teaching universal consciousness, I agree with the gist of what you write. But you may also be knowing well enough that items like naming children, eating modakam, etc., did not actually figure in the discussions; at least that is my memory.

Your memory is playing tricks. If you go sufficiently back into the archives you will find many such instances. How can you forget that puliyotharai has become a controversial food item and a convenient stick for some members in this forum.

As regards Vaishnavam becoming a major section of Brahmanas, I think it is correct to say that it happened only after Ramanuja and his giving shape to the visishtadvaita philosophy in contradiction to Advaita. To that extent, it will not be incorrect, within this Tamil Brahmins' forum to have the view that Ramanuja is a reference point as regards Vaishnava Brahmins.

I have heard this said by many smarthas: 1. Advaitam is the mother of all philosophies and visishtadvaitis will ultimately accept advaitam as they grow and evolve in their spiritual path. 2. Vaishnavam did not exist before Ramanuja came on the scene.

Both these are plain lies repeated with elan. It is as if there were no philosophies before sankara and advaitam came on the scene, as if advaitam is far superior and requires more maturity to understand. It is as if before Ramanuja came on the scene there was no vaishnavam. Alwars were just non-existent. I am a vaishnava brahmin and you have to listen to me if you want to know what we vaishnava brahmins think about Ramanuja. Unlike what you have understood, for us Ramanuja, like many other acharyas in vaishnavam, was just one of the many shining reference points. We are indebted to him because he took a critical look at what Sankara offered and gave us an alternative with sufficient reason to discard Sankara's offer. Mature TBs can live with this truth. Only immature partisan mediocre among the crowd who are sold completely to a certain ism will not be able to tolerate this truth. Vaishnavam existed much before Ramanuja came on the scene. Every vaishnava recites Thondaradippodi Alwars "oorilen kaani illai, uravum matroruvar illai...." pasuram before going to sleep every night. This is so even though they have Ramanuja's gathyam which is also appropriate for the occasion. Please consult a vaishnava before writing such stuff in a forum like this - is my request to you.

Sankara has quoted from vishnupurana and a second purana which ha has not named. Hence I think only Vishnu Purana is to be considered authoritative; the other purana is yet to be identified. The remaining puranas might not have attained popularity and authority during Sankara's times, is my view, because most of the Puranas were compiled during the Gupta dynasty's time, as per scholars.

My view on this is that Sankara while writing on prasthanathraya drew from the wealth of knowledge that was available in puranas on the basis of his need as the context demanded. From this to draw conclusions about puranas is not proper.

I have understood that the classification under Satvik, Rajasic and Thamasic is done according to the portrayal of the central deity (godhead) of each purana; their authoritativeness has nothing to do with this classification.[

This is not true. Your understanding is wrong. The nature of a purana and its classification is determined on the basis of the contents and the way its narrative is formed and documented. Thus a purana which starts with loaded questions to a teacher are identified as non satvik because the anxiety on the part of the student who seeks answers and the teacher who dispenses them to glorify a particular godhead is palpable and all too revealing. It is as if they have come there to discuss with a secret agenda. LOL. Whereas a sAtvika purana always is neutral with no loaded questions, no anxiety on the part of the teacher to glorify anything going out of the way etc., Please read the puranas again and you will find the logic perfectly meaningful in them.

 

[auh]

...It is a character alright, but don't you think increasingly this character is becoming a significant weakness?...

---

These very same activists normally don't bat an eyelid on animal slaughter by people belonging to other religions, bakrid for example. Therefore, the monotheistic faiths are able to protect their rights/culture/tradition etc much better than the polytheistic faith.

Of course, in the case of Hinduism these army of activists who are going after one hindu custom after another often claim to be hindu themselves. (there is a neat symmetry to this to what happens in this forum too.) They are the agnostic/atheist/secular hindus and are probably inspired by the Buddhist/jain religion. We get to hear that this has been happening for several centuries from the times of Buddha/mahavira/carvaka etc.

The polytheistic faith cannot survive the attack of a secular state and seculars, unless the component members of the polytheistic faith align themselves with a monotheistic faith. So the polytheistic faith may or may not be glorious, it will find it difficult to thrive.

Dear KBji,

Faith, polytheistic that is, has become a commercial venture with many trusts and institutions, oiled with donations from the followers of the respective deities. In such a case where even a godman is elevated to the status of a "god", how do you think that the different and differing beliefs and sub-faiths, albeit part of a larger umberella, can reconcile themselves?

Perhaps you are alluding to an "independence-like movement" that swept through India (part of it hyped up by the social intellectual elite) to happen to counter the tentacles of the monotheistic faiths. Perhaps not. But were we to dig deeper and deeper into the purported polytheism of the faith, it may be that there is really no "poly", but a "mono", and the "poly" was introduced only so that the natives may acquiesce with the faith of the conqueror.

Subtleties aside, why do the respective deities, Vishnu, Siva, Subramanya, Aditya, Ganapathy, Shakthi, sit silently while their followers are being swept aside by the army of the monotheistic? Can they not unite and create a super godhead, like Durga, to combat the mahishasuras of today?

 

[Vaagmi]

Dear KBji,

Faith, polytheistic that is, has become a commercial venture with many trusts and institutions, oiled with donations from the followers of the respective deities. In such a case where even a godman is elevated to the status of a "god", how do you think that the different and differing beliefs and sub-faiths, albeit part of a larger umberella, can reconcile themselves?

Perhaps you are alluding to an "independence-like movement" that swept through India (part of it hyped up by the social intellectual elite) to happen to counter the tentacles of the monotheistic faiths. Perhaps not. But were we to dig deeper and deeper into the purported polytheism of the faith, it may be that there is really no "poly", but a "mono", and the "poly" was introduced only so that the natives may acquiesce with the faith of the conqueror.

Subtleties aside, why do the respective deities, Vishnu, Siva, Subramanya, Aditya, Ganapathy, Shakthi, sit silently while their followers are being swept aside by the army of the monotheistic? Can they not unite and create a super godhead, like Durga, to combat the mahishasuras of today?

The God of all gods(there you have the polytheism alive and kicking in that plural) has to be "mono".

So perhaps He likes it when the monotheistic jihadis go about coveting and converting and winning.

That is why He is refusing to intervene.

 

[mkrishna100]

Vaishnavam existed much before Ramanuja came on the scene.

True .

Please consult a vaishnava before writing such stuff in a forum like this - is my request to you.

True and it is not just with regard to discussiing Vaishnavism .It can apply when discussing with any ism . A Hindu's view of Buddhism is different from a Buddhist view of Buddhism and a Hindu's view of Sikhism is different from a Sikh's view of Sikhism and vice versa . Last year when I visited Amritsar and other Holy Sikh shrines nearby I got a different view of Sikhism than the superficial and many wrong views that Hindus have about Sikhism . So when it comes to writing about other faiths/philosophies different from one's native faith better to first"Listen " & "Understand" what the others have to say before giving one half baked superficial opinions .
I am a Smartha Brahmin and primarily follow Adviata Sampradaya of Shankaracharya but I also keep educating myself by reading the works of great Vaishnava Scholars like Sri Velukudi Krishnan and Sri Mukkur Narasimhacharyar and also read the opinions of the Atheists /Rationalists/Buddhists with regard to our Vedas and Puranas to educate myself with regard to the various dimensions with which the same texts are seen and I find that process enriching .

 

[CHANDRU1849]

True .


True and it is not just with regard to discussiing Vaishnavism .It can apply when discussing with any ism . A Hindu's view of Buddhism is different from a Buddhist view of Buddhism and a Hindu's view of Sikhism is different from a Sikh's view of Sikhism and vice versa . Last year when I visited Amritsar and other Holy Sikh shrines nearby I got a different view of Sikhism than the superficial and many wrong views that Hindus have about Sikhism . So when it comes to writing about other faiths/philosophies different from one's native faith better to first"Listen " & "Understand" what the others have to say before giving one half baked superficial opinions .
I am a Smartha Brahmin and primarily follow Adviata Sampradaya of Shankaracharya but I also keep educating myself by reading the works of great Vaishnava Scholars like Sri Velukudi Krishnan and Sri Mukkur Narasimhacharyar and also read the opinions of the Atheists /Rationalists/Buddhists with regard to our Vedas and Puranas to educate myself with regard to the various dimensions with which the same texts are seen and I find that process enriching .

Have you arrived at any conclusion, by listening to other sects' works and non-believers? It will be of great help if you present your findings.

 

[prasad1]

The God of all gods(there you have the polytheism alive and kicking in that plural) has to be "mono".

So perhaps He likes it when the monotheistic jihadis go about coveting and converting and winning.

That is why He is refusing to intervene.

I am sorry to intervene in this conversation, but why ascribe a gender to this "god'?

Auhji,

Subtleties aside, why do the respective deities, Vishnu, Siva, Subramanya, Aditya, Ganapathy, Shakthi, sit silently while their followers are being swept aside by the army of the monotheistic? Can they not unite and create a super godhead, like Durga, to combat the mahishasuras of today?

These human made distinctions can only be solved by humans.

 

[Vaagmi]

I am sorry to intervene in this conversation, but why ascribe a gender to this "god'?

That is the limitation of language. While I speak about God the pronouns he, she, it are all just a convenience and the word represents he, she, it and more beyond.

 

[prasad1]

Have you arrived at any conclusion, by listening to other sects' works and non-believers? It will be of great help if you present your findings.

Unfortunately I have come to opposite conclusion. I feel that we human beings talk about god and various aspect of god without understanding (and we may never understand it). It is almost like the story of six blind men describing an elephant. At least in that story they could feel some part and get some understanding.

I am in a similar situation as MKrishnaji. But my faith in Advaita philosophy is getting stronger. I was never for the bhakti marg, and more i read (in this forum) and attend these "satya narayan" katha I am more turned off by it. Why are we becoming beggars(or like Renukaji says ransomers), asking for favors.
Sangomji's ,Renukaji, and Vaagmi make strong case. But the origin of puranic stories is troubling. And that is shaken my belief in some of the aspects of Hinduism.

 

[Vaagmi]

Unfortunately I have come to opposite conclusion. I feel that we human beings talk about god and various aspect of god without understanding (and we may never understand it). It is almost like the story of six blind men describing an elephant. At least in that story they could feel some part and get some understanding.

I am in a similar situation as MKrishnaji. But my faith in Advaita philosophy is getting stronger. I was never for the bhakti marg, and more i read (in this forum) and attend these "satya narayan" katha I am more turned off by it. Why are we becoming beggars(or like Renukaji says ransomers), asking for favors.
Sangomji's ,Renukaji, and Vaagmi make strong case. But the origin of puranic stories is troubling. And that is shaken my belief in some of the aspects of Hinduism.

A boat/ship abandoned on the high seas drifts listlessly and is tossed and turned by the choppy sea. It may end up in a wreck. An anchor saves the boat from such a fate. Anchors dropped do not reach the bottom of the sea. But they do work is saving the boat. Scriptures including puranas are anchors. Anchors do not nail the boat to the floor but just help float. Puranas give you answers to the extent possible when you look for them. If you are not satisfied you go further deep and take your search one level up to vedas. I did that but without blaming anyone or anything.

 

[prasad1]

I attended a "shoke subha" (assebly of family and friends of departed not a funeral) of jain family. Generally it will have some bhajans and then some speeches. Usually it lasts about an hour. It was for a Jain family, and I know the gentleman who passed away as very religious man The people who spoke including the family members spoke as if he was Christian, with tributes like "god in heaven" , "angels looking down", "rest in peace". I was disturbed that we can not even express our grief with out mixing our sentiments.

 

[prasad1]

A boat/ship abandoned on the high seas drifts listlessly and is tossed and turned by the choppy sea. It may end up in a wreck. An anchor saves the boat from such a fate. Anchors dropped do not reach the bottom of the sea. But they do work is saving the boat. Scriptures including puranas are anchors. Anchors do not nail the boat to the floor but just help float. Puranas give you answers to the extent possible when you look for them. If you are not satisfied you go further deep and take your search one level up to vedas. I did that but without blaming anyone or anything.

I kind this Vaagmiji, a true teacher, unlike the other Vaagmiji who chides and snickers at the students. Thanks

 

[mkrishna100]

Have you arrived at any conclusion, by listening to other sects' works and non-believers? It will be of great help if you present your findings.

I am still in the learning phase but coming from the advaite sampradaya I have an natural bias or affinity to it but at the same time I want to educate myself on other schools of thought like Vaishnava Sampradaya , Buddhist , Atheist etc so that I have all my doubts clarified from various dimensions . BTW this is for my own self enrichment and not for doing any PhD thesis .I have a good advaita teacher with whom I go regularly for clarifying my doubts and it is an ongoing process and I have no fixed time farme for the same and may be after 5 years or so I will be able to articulate my thoughts much better on these things .Right now I replied in this thread only to point out the fact that better edcuate yourself on all the aspects of any issue ( be it Spirituality ,Religion , Politics , Culture etc etc ) before commenting on the same .

 

[auh]

I kinda tend to think, maybe of late, that the polytheistic feature is a long list of assimilation of legendary heroes who were deified by the locals. Madurai veeran like.

The more old the story the greater the chance of spinning a nice quality yarn.

Of course this does not mean that any of the "monos" are bereft of yarn; only that the quality varies.

 

[renuka]

But the origin of puranic stories is troubling. And that is shaken my belief in some of the aspects of Hinduism.

Dear Prasad Ji,

Many a times I feel you have used the word "Troubling".Let me share with you my experience on this.

Many a times before some texts I read were so troubling that it took me some time to re open those books.

Then I wondered "why am I troubled?"

Then I could reason that I too had my own perception on how religion should be and since what I read did not match my perception hence I felt "troubled".

The solution?? I dropped the idea of having any perception of religion or God and read the texts with an open mind that did not allow anything to create imprints in it.

Like watching a movie..after the movie is over we do not think about it anymore.

When we drop any preconceived notions in our mind we are seldom troubled becos we are just spectators.

The harsh reality is none of this texts can make us realize anything.The Unknown is always the Unknown.

 

[biswa]

The monos have plenty of yarn I think from the Bible to Vishnu Purana. But I agree that polytheism has allowed the incorporation of local deities.

I kinda tend to think, maybe of late, that the polytheistic feature is a long list of assimilation of legendary heroes who were deified by the locals. Madurai veeran like.

The more old the story the greater the chance of spinning a nice quality yarn.

Of course this does not mean that any of the "monos" are bereft of yarn; only that the quality varies.

 

[Vaagmi]

The monos have plenty of yarn I think from the Bible to Vishnu Purana. But I agree that polytheism has allowed the incorporation of local deities.

Polytheism like the polyester yarn is a multi filament yarn. Bad for humans. But cheaply available in plenty. And very attractive. Fatal attraction. Not natural but synthesized. LOL.

 

[renuka]

Polytheism like the polyester yarn is a multi filament yarn. Bad for humans. But cheaply available in plenty. And very attractive. Fatal attraction. Not natural but synthesized. LOL.

That is why Pitaambara is supposedly wearing Silk!LOL

 

[Vaagmi]

That is why Pitaambara is supposedly wearing Silk!LOL

Is it Pitaambara or Pitaambaratara...... My sanskrit is extremely poor.

 

[renuka]

Dear Vaagmi ji,


It depends how you want to look at it...as a Sandhi or a Samasa.

If one is sticking to Sandhi...then pIta(Yellow) ambara(Cloth) combination makes its pItAmbara meaning Yellow Cloth.

If one is viewing it as a Samasa(Bahuvrihi)..then the combination of these 2 words pIta and ambara ..pItAmbara means "the one dressed in yellow garment" also known as Vishnu.

In Bahuvrihi samasa the emphasis is not on the yellow or the cloth but on the person who is donning it.


Now coming back to the non grammar world..

Bahuvrihi means "Multi grains..lots of rice"

Pita is a type of Middle Eastern bread!

Samasa sounds like Samosa.

My Sanskrit grammar is also not so good..that is why I only thought of Pita Bread, Samosa and lots of Rice!LOL

 

[Vaagmi]

Dear Vaagmi ji,


It depends how you want to look at it...as a Sandhi or a Samasa.

If one is sticking to Sandhi...then pIta(Yellow) ambara(Cloth) combination makes its pItAmbara meaning Yellow Cloth.

If one is viewing it as a Samasa(Bahuvrihi)..then the combination of these 2 words pIta and ambara ..pItAmbara means "the one dressed in yellow garment" also known as Vishnu.

In Bahuvrihi samasa the emphasis is not on the yellow or the cloth but on the person who is donning it.


Now coming back to the non grammar world..

Bahuvrihi means "Multi grains..lots of rice"

Pita is a type of Middle Eastern bread!

Samasa sounds like Samosa.

My Sanskrit grammar is also not so good..that is why I only thought of Pita Bread, Samosa and lots of Rice!LOL

I am sad that you did not think of puliyodarai. LOL.

 

[GOPI.S]

It is the freedom that is allowed in SANATANA DHARMA in questioning on anything related to GOD, that had made this DHARMA so unique. It is different because of this unique quality of quesitoning that is not only allowed but encouraged by seers, rishis and even avatarsConsidering the vastness of the creation it is useless to say whether POLYTHEISM is necessary or not. When you have GOD with and without attributes, it is necessary to accept polytheism. Due to freedom or by choice each one under this dharma is allowed to have his own GOD whether it is accepted by others or not.

 

[a-TB]

All isms are based on human ego. There is nothing to glorify or demonize any practices.

 

[tks]

Hinduism is a united nation of religious and philosophical thoughts. It has practices that support every ism defined by the west and this includes atheism as well but the foundation on which the traditions are based on are none of the above.

So Hinduism followers with Puranic stories practice what may be like Polytheism without any glory but the religion itself is not Polytheistic.

Some centuries ago there were many schools of thought illustrated by this somewhat funny characterization

(Light bulbs did not exist in those days but if they did this is how they would characterize it)

(taken from an email I received)

How many Indian philosophers does it take to change a light bulb?

Vaiyākaraṇa: What is this word, "light"?

Sphoṭavādin: There is an invariable quality of light that happens to
burst in this particular bulb. We do not know why the previous bulb burst.

Sāṃkhya-Yogin: There is an ontological difference between the light and
the bulb, one an enlivening force and the other an inert vehicle. We
will enumerate for you the elaborate psycho-physical complex of the
bulb. Accessing light will take years and perhaps lifetimes of ascetic
observance. Good luck.

Naiyāyika: Before we can act meaningfully with reference to the light
bulb, we must first ascertain how we come to know of its existence.

Navya Naiyāyika: The inhering quality of light-ness on the part of the
bulb is the property delimiting the counterpositivity of the absence of
light-hood in the locus previously specified. We don't know if this
means we are supposed to change it or not.

Yogācāra: The light is simply a representation of your own
consciousness..es. One of them anyway.

Kṣaṇika-Vijñānavādin: The light only ever flickers.

Śūnyavādin: There is no light bulb.

Madhyamika: Darkness itself is light.

Anekāntavādin: There are so many ways to change a light bulb...

Mīmāṃsaka: We require four Vedic priests: one to screw it in, one to
read the instructions, one to sing high-pitched cheers, and one to sit
silently in the corner and make sure the others don't mess it up. Once
the mechanics have been completed with great precision, if the light
bulb doesn't turn on, then don't blame us. It may turn on in the
hereafter, when everyone is dead.

Vedāntin: The light is eternal and can never undergo change.
-Advaitin: You are the light.
-Viśiṣṭādvaitin: You are but a spark of the light.
-Dvaitin: You must climb a ladder to reach the light, only accessible to
a hierarchically ordered elect. We have about thirty-five hundred texts
to prove that this is the case. You have never seen any of them.
-Gauḍīya: Hare Krishna.

Cārvāka: You can always eat by candlelight.

 

[tks]

All isms are based on human ego. There is nothing to glorify or demonize any practices.

I borrowed the word isms from your post!

Good observation

 

[Naina_Marbus]

Can polytheism provide a moral and spiritual model to the world ? Why polytheism is better than monotheism?

Recently, I happened to run into an article on the web that I thought I could share with the members of the forum. The following is an excerpt ( with some modifications ).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you have only one god, and you believe that god is all powerful and omniscient, and you come across someone who does not agree, then you may feel it is your duty to kill him.


​

If, on the other hand, you believe there are hundreds, indeed thousands of gods, and that none can be totally almighty or omniscient, then you are likely to be far more tolerant.


​

(The West).. gets shocked when execution is carried out in the Arab countries for someone converting to Christianity. This is a crime, we are told, punishable by death according to Shariah law, which is the law of the land in many Muslim countries. It is a telling example of the intolerance that is often the result of strict monotheism.

Christianity was … worse in its own heyday - "heathens" were exterminated, so were those whose Christianity was considered as "heterodox." The Spanish conquistadores in Latin America, in collusion with the Church authorities, burned a good number of ‘infidel’ American Indians. Over the course of the last couple of centuries or so, as the political clout and influence of the Christian churches has waned, the execution, torture and imprisonment of infidels and heretics has greatly decreased. Today, converts to Islam living in Christian countries have encountered relatively little hostility. But, the idea that Christian civilization had renounced religious persecution simply because the power of the churches declined, was belied by the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century events leading to the Holocaust. Despite being carried out by “secular” authorities, the Holocaust took place in ‘Christian’ countries — and with the silent connivance of the established Christian churches. The fate of the Jews who were brought to the concentration camps was far worse than that of a muslim-convert-to-christianity, who is often told that he would not be executed if he converts back to Islam. The Jews at Auschwitz were not given a similar option.

Although both Christianity and Islam each have their strong points, their historical records show, on balance, more warfare, more intolerance, more persecution, than any other religion. The number of people killed in the name of these two religions is far greater than the numbers killed for any other cause. In the first decades of the 21st century, monotheistic religions seem to play a far more prominent role than ever. Judaism, Christianity and Islam - all have been hijacked by their respective fundamentalists.

The progress of civilization requires eradication of all forms of established religion - not by force, but by the evidence of history, the rationality of man and the pursuit of humanist secularism. In much of the Christian Western world (whose intellectuals orchestrated humanistic secularism), the vast majority of the population is no longer Christian in anything but name, but humanism has not taken hold. The prevailing mood is one of addiction for money, or psychoanalysis or drugs — or a combination of the three - humanism is clearly not on the cards.

So it would seem people have a natural desire for, if not religion, something that can be substituted for it — if not god, then mammon. ( Mammon, according to New Testament Bible, is a deity personifying material wealth or greed, and is used as a pejorative term, to describe gluttony and unjust worldly gain.The term is often used to refer to excessive materialism or greed as a negative influence.)

(In recognition of this reality)… it would seem that perhaps rather than eradicating religion per se, we should instead eradicate monotheistic religion in favor of a polytheistic religion.

If you have only one god, and you believe that god is all powerful and omniscient, and you come across someone who does not agree, then you may feel it is your duty to kill him.

If, on the other hand, you believe there are hundreds, indeed thousands of gods, and that none can be totally almighty or omniscient, then you are likely to be far more tolerant.

Non-Christian civilizations of Greece and Rome had …a far healthier view of their frolicking gods and goddesses than the intolerant monotheistic Christianity that later came to dominate Europe. Polytheistic religions also tend to have a far more positive and healthier attitude to sex, which is seen as a good thing, than do the monotheistic faiths, where there is a much stronger tendency to equate sex with sin….

Perhaps the most encouraging development in this early 21st century is the emergence of India as an increasingly global force, economically, politically and culturally. There are many anomalies, problems and injustices in Indian society. …But India is a microcosmic reflection of how globalization can work, especially in its generally remarkable ability to have managed multiculturalism to such a brilliant extent.

India's one billion plus population is the most heterogeneous in the world. There are far more ethnic, linguistic and religious groups than in, say, the European Union. Yet, a far greater degree of unity has been achieved among India's disparate ethnicities than among the tribes of Western Europe. Perhaps the greatest achievement of India is to have maintained a very robust democracy in an extremely multi-ethnic environment. …Contrast that with any other country with monotheistic faith.…..

Of course India is not Utopia. No place is — and no human is perfect. And yes, there are failings galore…

But in a global environment desperate for ideas, philosophy and religion, India is the most prolific birthplace of all three — because of the great synergy of democracy and diversity, and the much greater degree of self-confidence that Indians now feel. Indians and Indian Diaspora are the thought leaders in economics, business, philosophy, political science, religion and literature.

The planet needs quite desperately a sense of moral order, spirituality and an ethical compass. The Indian religious and philosophical traditions can provide a great deal of all three.

It was in a recent conversation with an Indian religious guru that I was also pleased to discover I could adhere to his religious tenets, while maintaining my secular convictions. No imam or priest would allow me that.

The planet needs an alternative geopolitical force to the American Christian fundamentalist brand of hegemonic thinking … Europe is an inward-looking and, in many ways, spent force. China is a dictatorship. The Islamic world is going through an awkward moment - to put it mildly.

Hence the importance of the role India must play in this respect — both because of its innate qualities and because there is no other serious contender. The 21st century better become the century inspired by the virtues of Indian polytheism — or else we are headed for disaster.

Jean-Pierre Lehmann, Emeritus Professor of International Political Economy at IMD in Lausanne, Switzerland.

The Dangers of Monotheism in the Age of Globalization - The Globalist