Hindu Monotheism

[atanu]

I don't understand, if the original essence of Hinduism is monotheism and acknowledgement of Brahma as only God (Ishwar), why do Hindus need to incorporate what we would consider polytheistic beliefs and observances? See below from the Vedas:

We may postpone this.

Yajurveda 32.11
Ishwar resides at each point in universe. No space is devoid of Him. He is self-sustaining and does not need help of any agent, angel, prophet or incarnation to perform His duties. The soul which is able to realize this One and only One Ishwar achieves Him and enjoys unconditional ultimate bliss or Moksha.
[Ishwar means God in Hindi]

Actually IMO first we must invert the understanding. It is not Brahman or Ishwara that resides at each point in the universe. Rather Space is in Brahman. All the universes of waking, dream, and sleep states that we traverse daily subsist on Brahman, which of course is transcendental to all our universes and also immanent in all. The very act of seeing and knowing happen because of it. And sans our forms we are brahman. So, it is said Ayam atma brahma (this Self is brahman). Easiest approximate analogy is of water, sea, and waves. Water is the essence (Brahman), ocean is Ishwara, and waves are all forms. The logic is that just as all forms of gold are actually gold only, all forms are Brahman alone.
...

This is my understanding based on Advaita vedanta school of Hinduism.

 

[Fool]

We may postpone this.



Actually IMO first we must invert the understanding. It is not Brahman or Ishwara that resides at each point in the universe. Rather Space is in Brahman. All the universes of waking, dream, and sleep states that we traverse daily subsist on Brahman, which of course is transcendental to all our universes and also immanent in all. The very act of seeing and knowing happen because of it. And sans our forms we are brahman. So, it is said Ayam atma brahma (this Self is brahman). Easiest approximate analogy is of water, sea, and waves. Water is the essence (Brahman), ocean is Ishwara, and waves are all forms. The logic is that just as all forms of gold are actually gold only, all forms are Brahman alone.
...

This is my understanding based on Advaita vedanta school of Hinduism.

so waves are a form of the ocean and the ocean is a form of water?

and water like brahman is all-pervading? omnipresent


interesting note that the first three lines of the book of berei****(genesis) speak of this idea of movement of water, or all forms arising from the distortion of water

 

[atanu]

so waves are a form of the ocean and the ocean is a form of water?
and water like brahman is all-pervading? omnipresent

And in this case, being of the nature of Jnanam (knowledge) is omniscient too.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"Yathā soumya! ekena mritpinḍena sarvaṃ mṛinmayaṃ vijñātaṃ syāt,
vāchāraṃbhaṇaṃ vikāro nāmadheyaṃ mṛittiketyeva satyaṃ." Chhandogya Upanishad 6.1.4

(Just as, O Gentle Enquirer, by a single clod of clay all that is made of clay is known, all modification being only distortions in name, but the truth is that verily, all that is clay.)

With form or without form, everything still is Brahman only.

"Eko sad, dwiteeyo nasti" (What exists is one, there is no second).

 

[Fool]

And in this case, being of the nature of Jnanam (knowledge) is omniscient too.

so everything is connected; obviously but not intuitively understood because the illusion of forms makes them appear in contrast.

so then, my mind is some how limited by me but in reality it is connected to the mind of all.

 

[sealchan]

I don't understand, if the original essence of Hinduism is monotheism and acknowledgement of Brahma as only God (Ishwar), why do Hindus need to incorporate what we would consider polytheistic beliefs and observances? See below from the Vedas:

Yajurveda 40.1:

This entire world is embedded within and managed by the One and Only One Ishwar. Never dare do any injustice or desire riches through unjust means. Instead follow the righteous path and enjoy His bliss. After all He alone is source of all bliss!

Rigveda 10.48.1

Ishwar alone is omnipresent and manager of entire universe. He alone provides victory and eternal cause of world. All souls should look up only to Him in same manner as children look up to their Father. He alone provides for our sustenance and bliss.

Rigveda 10.48.5

Ishwar enlightens the entire world. He alone is undefeated and undying. He alone is the creator of the world. All souls should seek bliss through seeking knowledge and acting thereupon. They should never shun the friendship of Ishwar.

Rigveda 10.49.1

Ishwar alone provides true knowledge to truth seekers. He alone is promoter of knowledge and motivates virtuous people into noble actions to seek bliss. He alone is the creator and manager of the world. Hence never worship anyone else except one and only Ishwar.

Yajurveda 13.4

There is one and only One Creator and Maintainer of the entire world. He alone is sustaining the earth, sky and other heavenly bodies. He is Bliss Himself! He alone deserves to be worshiped by us.

Atharvaveda 13.4.16-21

He is neither two, nor three, nor four, nor five, nor six, nor seven, nor eight, nor nine, nor ten. He is, on contrary, One and Only One. There is no Ishwar except Him. All Devtas reside within Him and are controlled by him. So He alone should be worshiped, none else.

Atharvaveda 10.7.38

Ishwar alone is greatest and worth being worshiped. He is the source of all knowledge and activities.

Yajurveda 32.11

Ishwar resides at each point in universe. No space is devoid of Him. He is self-sustaining and does not need help of any agent, angel, prophet or incarnation to perform His duties. The soul which is able to realize this One and only One Ishwar achieves Him and enjoys unconditional ultimate bliss or Moksha.
[Ishwar means God in Hindi]

Perhaps because there was not perceived to be such a need for a one God fits all belief system in ancient India.

 

[sealchan]

The God of Genesis appears ambiguously as a messenger, an angel or Himself in the text. God has angels and devils. The authors of Genesis tell the story of how the worship of one God emerged for a people out of a more diverse field of gods.

The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are essential aspects for many monotheistic Christian's. Many Christians believe in Angel's and devils. The differences between Hinduism and Abrahamic religions are more subtle than profound.

 

[duvduv]

We may postpone this.
..
Actually IMO first we must invert the understanding. It is not Brahman or Ishwara that resides at each point in the universe. Rather Space is in Brahman.
...
This is my understanding based on Advaita vedanta school of Hinduism.

Ironically I have thought of the creation being in the infinite God as well in a jewish perspective.

 

[duvduv]

How would descriptions of relating to Hindu deities compare to that of ancient Greek or Romsn religions?

 

[SomeRandom]

How would descriptions of relating to Hindu deities compare to that of ancient Greek or Romsn religions?

The Ancient Roman and Greeks mostly saw their mythology as literal history taking place. Hindus see their tales as either myth or fiction, but comfortable with both being true at the same time. Although I'm sure there were ancient Greeks and Romans who accepted that myth was also part of their respective religions.

 

[duvduv]

But don't Hindus accept the story of the Ramayana and of Krishna to be historical events?

 

[Vinayaka]

But don't Hindus accept the story of the Ramayana and of Krishna to be historical events?

Depends on the Hindu. Some do. Some don't.

 

[sayak83]

I Am interested in comparative religion. Now since these millions of devas were all created by the supreme God Brahma/Krishna/Vishnu like we were created, then why wouldn't everyone worship the supreme God exclusively instead of the servant Devas? By comparing the supreme God to the Supreme God of the Bible I meant that they would have to logically be the same being.

In Hinduism Brahman is everything...both God and the world...anything and everything..anyone and everyone. So Brahman transcends God. God is an aspect of Brahman, so am I, so is the ant...etc.
Everything and everyone is this essential Brahman diversified into various names and forms and functions. When you call something or someone God, the aspect of Brahman that manifests to you depends very-much on you, your habits, mind-structure and conceptual capacities. God of the alien flying heptapod in some star on the other side of the galaxy is very different from your God....but both maybe equally valid personal manifestations of Brahman. Or both maybe delusions created by false human or heptapod ego-s. So the focus should not be on somehow objectively fixing the form, but rather seeing if the praxis is yielding results or not. Whether its Siva, Jesus or Flying Sphagetti Monster...if the spiritual practice provides results, then it is a real manifestation..otherwise not.

 

[duvduv]

So how much of Hindu theology in general is considered historical?

How many Hindus have a feeling for the idea of a supreme God who is the object of worship, Ishwara, and what name is given? Is it called Brahman or Vishnu?

 

[Kirran]

So how much of Hindu theology in general is considered historical?

How many Hindus have a feeling for the idea of a supreme God who is the object of worship, Ishwara, and what name is given? Is it called Brahman or Vishnu?

Theology isn't historical, they're different things.

Most Hindus worship God in one way or other. In terms of devotion, big ones are Rama, Krishna, Ganesha, Hanuman, Shiva, the various forms of Devi. Murugan in some areas.

 

[Vinayaka]

So how much of Hindu theology in general is considered historical?

How many Hindus have a feeling for the idea of a supreme God who is the object of worship, Ishwara, and what name is given? Is it called Brahman or Vishnu?

I think you're missing out on the vastness of Hinduism. If you took Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, rolled it into one, called it Jerusalamism, that would be an apt comparison in terms of diversity. Same with the subcontinent of India. You could compare it to Europe. Divide it into 30 countries.

 

[SomeRandom]

So how much of Hindu theology in general is considered historical?

How many Hindus have a feeling for the idea of a supreme God who is the object of worship, Ishwara, and what name is given? Is it called Brahman or Vishnu?

All of those questions can be answered with
Depends on the Hindu.

 

[sayak83]

I think you're missing out on the vastness of Hinduism. If you took Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, rolled it into one, called it Jerusalamism, that would be an apt comparison in terms of diversity. Same with the subcontinent of India. You could compare it to Europe. Divide it into 30 countries.

No. Its more diverse. Christianity, Islam and Judaism together has less theological differences than sects of Saivism. Just because they squabble over trifles does not make them more different in any objective sense.

 

[sayak83]

So how much of Hindu theology in general is considered historical?

How many Hindus have a feeling for the idea of a supreme God who is the object of worship, Ishwara, and what name is given? Is it called Brahman or Vishnu?

How can theology be historical?
Hinduism considers revelations to be continuously and perpetually available to sufficiently advanced seekers. So it really does not matter all that much on who first said something first, where and when.

 

[atanu]

Ironically I have thought of the creation being in the infinite God as well in a jewish perspective.

(I have not read the whole thread and I do not know whether someone has already written the following perspective or not.)

So, actually if you delve deep into the upanishads, you will see that Hinduism is not classical Monotheism at all. I reproduce below the description of the Self, which has three manifest states: waking, dream, and sleep and a transcendental Fourth called Turiya where the consciousness is alive and there is no subject-object division. The fourth state of Self is not different from Brahman, and it is represented by the sacred syllable AUM or OM. The experience of this Fourth state is considered to be an ultimate blissful experience. It is said that the world functions based on a fraction of this bliss.

Mandukya Upanishad

The fourth condition of the Self corresponds to Ôm as One, indivisible Word. He is whole; beyond bargain. The world disappears in Him. He is the good; the one without a second. Thus Ôm is nothing but Self. He who understands, with the help of his personal Self, merges himself into the impersonal Self; He who understands.
​

Some people may not use 'He' or Him' for the Self, since it is not a person, in conventional sense. Yet, in Hindu literature, it is called Purusha, which is translatable as 'Male Person'. But 'purusha' actually means 'Purva' -'Usha' (before light). So, Purusha is the person before the light, which is daughter of the Purusha.

Since Purusha, Brahman, Self is one without a second, Monotheism is not the fundamental reality, as per Vedanta.
...

(Again, this is approximately from the perspective of Advaita Vedanta.)