This post was inspired by an earlier post of X.T.M where he mentioned that this question generates a lot of traffic for BP.
If we consider the literal definition of Paganism, the question becomes quite simple. Historically, the term “Paganism” was not used to describe religious beliefs prior to the 20th century. It first emerged in the context of Early Christianity, serving as a pejorative for the folk religions still practiced in the rural regions of the Roman Empire. By this definition, it’s clear that Hinduism does not fit the label of Pagan.
However, in contemporary usage, many Neo-pagans view Paganism as a neutral descriptive term, applicable to all cultures that are philosophically incompatible with the three Abrahamic faiths. The question whether Hinduism can be considered Pagan in this broader sense is not so simple since most Hindus assert belief in a singular God or multiple manifestations of one God (30 percent and 60 percent, according to PEW surveys).
To start answering this question, we need to pinpoint the philosophical foundation of Hinduism. Thankfully, this isn’t too complicated, as several Vedic verses touch on this theme (e.g. Brihadaranyaka 4.4.18 and 4.4.22), all leading to the same conclusion. These verses indicate that the essence of all spiritual paths in ancient India revolves around Adhyatma (the doctrine of enlightened self). The central concept of Adhyatma is Atman—an ancient, observer consciousness believed to be deeply embedded within each of us. The ultimate aim is to attain Moksha, i.e. to awaken and realize this concealed enlightened self. Now, if we were to bring the God of Abraham and Atman together on a talk show, asking them to explain their doctrines to the audience, it might go like this:
God : I am the all powerful God.
Atman : I am your peaceful inner self.
God : I am the true creator of everything that you perceive.
Atman : I am the true experiencer of all that you perceive.
God : Submit to me unconditionally and obey all my commands.
Atman : Become one with me and be liberated.
God : If you are loyal to me I will take to heaven after you die.
Atman : Whenever you see yourself as me, the Earth looks like heaven.
God : Initiate force against others if they oppose your faith.
Atman : Mix with others if they oppose initiation of force.
Even in these highly simplified versions one can clearly see that the Atman doctrine is Pagan if we apply the more inclusive definition of Paganism. It can also be viewed as a branch of Pantheism. In Adhyatma the analogue of impersonal supreme God is Brahman, the entire universe seen from an enlightened perspective. Since experiencing Brahman is same as experiencing one’s Atman, many experience oriented spiritual traditions use them as interchangeable terms. So when Hindus talk about one God, the are referring to the impersonal God, not the God of Abraham.
Is Hinduism the non-Abraham Indian religion.
Buddhism and Sikhism are ultimately Hindu as well?
Buddhism and Sikhism are ultimately Hindu as well?
Maybe Sikhism, not Buddhism
Buddhist never had animal sacrifices
Even the question of God or Gods is in Doubt.
Personal Salvation
Better read up the Dhammapada, the original teachings of the Buddha
I think you are equating Hinduism with Vedic/Puranic Hinduism. One needs to compare Buddhism with the spiritual traditions present in Hinduism during the time of the Buddha, such as Advaita or Yoga/Samkhya. Faith in God or the practice of animal sacrifice played no role in these traditions.
If we use contemporary definitions then Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism are distinct religions and they are not seen as spiritual traditions of Hinduism. Nonetheless, they all share a ommon core as Dharmic traditions. In each of these paths, the ultimate aim is personal salvation -termed Nirvana in Buddhism, Kaivalya in Jainism, Moksha in Advaita and Samadhi in Yoga, among others. Furthermore, all these traditions emphasize becoming a spiritual beggar, meditating, and embracing Ahimsa as essential steps toward achieving enlightenment. Given that this core template was established in Hinduism prior to the arrival of the other traditions, one could argue that they are, in a certain sense, rooted in Hindu principles.
ince most Hindus assert belief in a singular God or multiple manifestations of one God
Buddhism is AGNOSTC
God or Gods are not needed for the path. God or Gods may or may not exist and are IRRELEVANT according to the Buddha
Read the Dammapada the philosophy of a man, not a self proclaimed God or Prophet.
As mentioned in the above post, when Hindus refer to one God, they are talking about Brahman—the entirety of the universe from an enlightened perspective. As intellectual constructs and objects of experience it is same as Atman (enlightened self), and the core philosophical layer often uses them as interchangeable terms. Thus, if you focus solely on core philosophy, Hinduism is agnostic. If you delve into the ritualistic aspects and the beliefs of everyday practitioners, you’ll find plenty of religious and supernatural stuff in both Hinduism and Buddhism.
Why are you so fixated in dragging the teaching of the Buddha into the Hindu fold.
The Buddha was just a human being who came up with a philosophy. No god or gods, no atman, just self reliance and awareness.
find plenty of religious and supernatural stuff in both Hinduism and Buddhism
As they are literate Even the poorest Buddhist farmer in Sri Lanka understands the difference between Buddhist Philosophy and totemic supernatural beliefs. They are not mixed and kept separate.
imo theism (mono vs poly) falls within broader dvaita philosophy. That is the creator(s) is/are different from their creations. Whereas Advaita says everything or being springs from same single consciouness. The philosophical differences between these 2 schools within Hinduism( not to mention vishishtadvaita) is order of magnitude bigger than that of any between the abrahamic ones. It is literally five blind men and the elephant story :-).
Another interesting thread on the fractal nature of life/consciousness.
https://x.com/homam108/status/1948924733954949152
Another interpretation is that both schools agree on there being one consciousness. As per Dvaita, this manifests at different levels. In our vyavarhik world, creator and creation are different even though in “param satya” or ultimate reality both are same. Advaita seems to think our world is mithya or illusion.
Anyway this is all about things at the upper end of Maslow’s hierarchy not the stuff which will launch a thousand ships or tanks/drones in today’s world but did cause medieval steppe hordes to launch hundreds of raids to plunder and loot.
p.s. This my amateur understanding.
Interesting interpretations. As an aside, some scholars think that Dvaita may have been influenced by Islam. This is of course debatable but the focus on the creator-creation distinction, the central role of devotion, and the belief in Vishnu as the sole supreme God certainly align it more closely with Abrahamic monotheism than with other major spiritual traditions.
Of course leli historians who chose ignore vedas/upanishads think that.