A History of Indian Philosophy, Volume 1 by Surendranath Dasgupta
page 45 of 817 (05%)
page 45 of 817 (05%)
![]() | ![]() |
|
and to ignore other gods, and by the
____________________________________________________________________ [Footnote 1: _The Rigveda_, by Kaegi, p. 27.] [Footnote 2: See _Ibid._ p. 33. See also Arrowsmith's note on it for other references to Henotheism.] [Footnote 3: Macdonell's _Vedic Mythology_, pp. 16, 17.] 19 growing belief in the unity of the gods (cf. the refrain of 3, 35) each of whom might be regarded as a type of the divine [Footnote ref 1]." But whether we call it Henotheism or the mere temporary exaggeration of the powers of the deity in question, it is evident that this stage can neither be properly called polytheistic nor monotheistic, but one which had a tendency towards them both, although it was not sufficiently developed to be identified with either of them. The tendency towards extreme exaggeration could be called a monotheistic bias in germ, whereas the correlation of different deities as independent of one another and yet existing side by side was a tendency towards polytheism. Growth of a Monotheistic tendency; Prajâpati, Vis'vakarma. This tendency towards extolling a god as the greatest and highest gradually brought forth the conception of a supreme Lord of all beings (Prajâpati), not by a process of conscious |
|