Hindu Monotheism

[Vinayaka]

That is untrue. I am trying to see how all the "pieces" fit together based on what I understand to be competing philosophies or theologies of what is called "Hinduism" at least as expressed by traditional religion versus that of Vedanta, Arya Samaj etc. Indeed, the strict monotheists have argued that the Vedas themselves are strictly monotheistic. But the point is putting together pieces together in what appears to be a puzzle for an outsider who is looking for more than a superficial understanding. Vineyaka I think you display a bit of intolerance or impatience.

You are free to think of me whatever you wish. Best wishes.

 

[SomeRandom]

That is untrue. I am trying to see how all the "pieces" fit together based on what I understand to be competing philosophies or theologies of what is called "Hinduism" at least as expressed by traditional religion versus that of Vedanta, Arya Samaj etc. Indeed, the strict monotheists have argued that the Vedas themselves are strictly monotheistic. But the point is putting together pieces together in what appears to be a puzzle for an outsider who is looking for more than a superficial understanding. Vineyaka I think you display a bit of intolerance or impatience.

But it's not a puzzle. You are in effect trying to fit together 100 little unique religions and calling it one. Hinduism simply doesn't work like that. This is what the Colonials tried to do and how Hinduism got it's name. Which is probably not going to win you any favours on here any time soon. You're dealing with a lot of baggage which will inevitably get people on the defensive.
Incidentally some people are so disagreeable to the term "Hinduism" they reject it outright.
As has been stressed over and over to you, which you would do well to heed my friend, is Religious beliefs among the Dharmics as a whole are so personal, one might as well say each individual person has their own religion. And that's just how it is. Do they all fit together? No. But just like a family is made up of unique oddballs that seemingly do not fit together so does Hinduism.
You can't treat it like an organised religion, because it's not.
People find what they like, follow the familial traditions and live their lives. That's that.
C'est la vie.

 

[LuisDantas]

That is untrue. I am trying to see how all the "pieces" fit together based on what I understand to be competing philosophies or theologies of what is called "Hinduism" at least as expressed by traditional religion versus that of Vedanta, Arya Samaj etc. Indeed, the strict monotheists have argued that the Vedas themselves are strictly monotheistic. But the point is putting together pieces together in what appears to be a puzzle for an outsider who is looking for more than a superficial understanding. Vineyaka I think you display a bit of intolerance or impatience.

If I may be so bold, I would offer that you may be taking the "competing" part far too seriously.

Anedoctal evidence for sure, but I have at least once engaged in conversation with a Hare Krishna from the neighborhood. We disagreed on things such as whether there is an Atman, let alone how many and how major the Devas are. I am not sure that we noticed the part about the Devas during the conversation. It just wasn't important.

 

[Kirran]

Duvduv you do seem to me also to be approaching this with a strong agenda of imposing your own system onto another religion.

Questions like 'did Swami Vivekananda try and get rid of multiple deities?' only demonstrates that you're still not trying to get any of this.

Read Swami Vivekananda's 'Bhakti Yoga', available free online. That might help you.

 

[Marcion]

I am, but I can't escape the logic of focusing on the Supreme God exclusively who is always accessible since he is everywhere....

There is only one God and there is nothing beyond Him. But the reality of that one God is a mystery for us since He (as Brahman) is too large for our very limited minds to comprehend since our minds are always limited by time, space and person.

In the relatively very short history of humanity there have been several great teachers, masters or gurus who have taught people how to attain God. These great teachers have often been seen as special mysterious expressions of God Himself. Since many of such teachings involve some type of bhakti or love for the Supreme God, it is encouraged to use the personality of such Masters as vehicles for that bhakti. Even christians do this with their Jesus. Hindus call such devine masters Ista Deva's. You cannot feel bhakti for a God who has no form because of the limitations of the human mind.

As there have been more of such masters it is tempting to think of this as polytheism, but that is not the case. God can take many forms to instruct humanity according to space and time but He still remains the same One who cannot be known by the human mind. He expressed Himself in the form of Shiva, Krishna and perhaps in many other forms on this planet and on other planets but that takes nothing away from his Oneness.

As your bhakti, your love for the Supreme increases you slowly start to realise how He is everywhere and eventually you will realise His limitlessness. But in the meantime you can use the Ista Deva as your point of focuss, since the Ista Deva is already (mysteriously) merged with the Supreme.

 

[duvduv]

There is only one God and there is nothing beyond Him. But the reality of that one God is a mystery for us since He (as Brahman) is too large for our very limited minds to comprehend since our minds are always limited by time, space and person[......................]
As your bhakti, your love for the Supreme increases you slowly start to realise how He is everywhere and eventually you will realise His limitlessness. But in the meantime you can use the Ista Deva as your point of focuss, since the Ista Deva is already (mysteriously) merged with the Supreme.

I do understand your point, but then how do you understand the approach of people such as Dayanand Saraswati in asserting that the Vedas were solely monotheistic? It means simply that he did not see any problem, or that the Supreme God is too mysterious for our human minds. Did he want to eliminate references to the deities and devas in the Vedas???

 

[duvduv]

Duvduv you do seem to me also to be approaching this with a strong agenda of imposing your own system onto another religion.

Questions like 'did Swami Vivekananda try and get rid of multiple deities?' only demonstrates that you're still not trying to get any of this.

Read Swami Vivekananda's 'Bhakti Yoga', available free online. That might help you.

Then I must restate that I am not imposing anything. I am simply trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together as an outsider. Please read my reply to Marcion. It's the same issue. And Dayanand Sarwaswati and Vivekananda are to be asked whether they did seek to change or reinterpret the Vedas from how they were interpreted for thousands of years, and if so, how can that be done?

 

[duvduv]

But it's not a puzzle. You are in effect trying to fit together 100 little unique religions and calling it one. Hinduism simply doesn't work like that. This is what the Colonials tried to do and how Hinduism got it's name. Which is probably not going to win you any favours on here any time soon. You're dealing with a lot of baggage which will inevitably get people on the defensive.
Incidentally some people are so disagreeable to the term "Hinduism" they reject it outright.
As has been stressed over and over to you, which you would do well to heed my friend, is Religious beliefs among the Dharmics as a whole are so personal, one might as well say each individual person has their own religion. And that's just how it is. Do they all fit together? No. But just like a family is made up of unique oddballs that seemingly do not fit together so does Hinduism.
You can't treat it like an organised religion, because it's not.
People find what they like, follow the familial traditions and live their lives. That's that.
C'est la vie.

Then how do you understand the views of Swami Vivekananda and Dayanand Saraswati for instance about religion and the Vedas???

 

[SomeRandom]

Then how do you understand the views of Swami Vivekananda and Dayanand Saraswati for instance about religion and the Vedas???

They're not important to my faith. Even an English teacher may have a blind spot in the canon.
I confess I haven't read much about either. What I have read gives me respect for their accomplishments. Otherwise. Meh, not important.

 

[Vinayaka]

They're not important to my faith. Even an English teacher may have a blind spot in the canon.
I confess I haven't read much about either. What I have read gives me respect for their accomplishments. Otherwise. Meh, not important.

Not for me either. OP still stuck on some single entity idea.

 

[Vinayaka]

There is only one God and there is nothing beyond Him. But the reality of that one God is a mystery for us since He (as Brahman) is too large for our very limited minds to comprehend since our minds are always limited by time, space and person.

In the relatively very short history of humanity there have been several great teachers, masters or gurus who have taught people how to attain God. These great teachers have often been seen as special mysterious expressions of God Himself. Since many of such teachings involve some type of bhakti or love for the Supreme God, it is encouraged to use the personality of such Masters as vehicles for that bhakti. Even christians do this with their Jesus. Hindus call such devine masters Ista Deva's. You cannot feel bhakti for a God who has no form because of the limitations of the human mind.

As there have been more of such masters it is tempting to think of this as polytheism, but that is not the case. God can take many forms to instruct humanity according to space and time but He still remains the same One who cannot be known by the human mind. He expressed Himself in the form of Shiva, Krishna and perhaps in many other forms on this planet and on other planets but that takes nothing away from his Oneness.

As your bhakti, your love for the Supreme increases you slowly start to realise how He is everywhere and eventually you will realise His limitlessness. But in the meantime you can use the Ista Deva as your point of focuss, since the Ista Deva is already (mysteriously) merged with the Supreme.

Thanks for adding another view/opinion that demonstrates the diversity of Hinduism.

 

[SomeRandom]

Not for me either. OP still stuck on some single entity idea.

Yeah. I mean I am more inclined towards Ramakrishna because of his devotion to Kali Ma. So I'd probably just go straight to him rather than his own devotees. But then again I've always walked my own path so I might not even do that. I'm okay with that.
Not sure why the OP needs us to weigh in on each and every single master. We have "our favourites" but that's as close as most of us come.

 

[Vinayaka]

Yeah. I mean I am more inclined towards Ramakrishna because of his devotion to Kali Ma. So I'd probably just go straight to him rather than his own devotees. But then again I've always walked my own path so I might not even do that. I'm okay with that.
Not sure why the OP needs us to weigh in on each and every single master. We have "our favourites" but that's as close as most of us come.

My Guru encourages all His devotees to walk their own path. He gives signposts, but ultimately you have to discover it all for yourself by yourself anyway. Like you, I think for myself. We agree on that for sure. Masters all vary slightly, (or a lot) so looking at them all looking for consensus is rather silly.

 

[SomeRandom]

My Guru encourages all His devotees to walk their own path. He gives signposts, but ultimately you have to discover it all for yourself by yourself anyway. Like you, I think for myself. We agree on that for sure. Masters all vary slightly, (or a lot) so looking at them all looking for consensus is rather silly.

Indeed. We're pretty independent if you look at us all. Lol
The masters have all found their own enlightenment. But to expect them to agree with each other wholeheartedly is a bit of a stretch.

 

[Vinayaka]

Indeed. We're pretty independent if you look at us all. Lol
The masters have all found their own enlightenment. But to expect them to agree with each other wholeheartedly is a bit of a stretch.

I believe, but I could be wrong, that at the deepest level (where there are no words) they would all agree. (Not the many pretenders, but the real ones) But once it comes out to the external realms at all, there are differences, like just how to get there. The essence is 'Know thyself."

 

[SomeRandom]

I believe, but I could be wrong, that at the deepest level (where there are no words) they would all agree. (Not the many pretenders, but the real ones) But once it comes out to the external realms at all, there are differences, like just how to get there. The essence is 'Know thyself."

Of course. The ending is the same, but the stories differ endlessly. Or something like that lol.

 

[sayak83]

Then how do you understand the views of Swami Vivekananda and Dayanand Saraswati for instance about religion and the Vedas???

Vivekananda were perfectly OK with multiple deities.
Arya Samaj themselves only focus on formless Brahman, but they don't consider other ways of Hindu worship as illegitimate. The attitude that only my way is right and everyone else is wrong is not very common among the Hindu groups.

 

[duvduv]

Is it OK if a ask what some might consider a stupid question? That's not a bad disclaimer I hope. Anyway, is there a way that Hindu teachings would differentiate between the avatar and the atman even with the named deities, on the one hand, and the religions of the Greeks, Romans and Egyptians that usually did not claim any acknowledgement of a supreme God above all?

 

[SomeRandom]

Is it OK if a ask what some might consider a stupid question? That's not a bad disclaimer I hope. Anyway, is there a way that Hindu teachings would differentiate between the avatar and the atman even with the named deities, on the one hand, and the religions of the Greeks, Romans and Egyptians that usually did not claim any acknowledgement of a supreme God above all?

How other religions are understood inside a Hindu framework does somewhat differ depending on who's interpreting it I suppose.
Generally all religions are seen as valid pathways.

 

[Marcion]

I do understand your point, but then how do you understand the approach of people such as Dayanand Saraswati in asserting that the Vedas were solely monotheistic? It means simply that he did not see any problem, or that the Supreme God is too mysterious for our human minds. Did he want to eliminate references to the deities and devas in the Vedas???

The earlier Veda's are not monotheistic because they come from the religion of white folk (outside of India) who still worshipped multiple gods connected with the forces of nature. I have not read anything of Dayanand Saraswati but it seems he is projecting the idea of monotheism on those older texts that are still polytheistic. I'm not sure though whether there are any hindus who still subscribe to the old religion. The old vedic religion also included things such as animal sacrifice, fire worship and other superstitious practises.

This all is far removed from the advanced spiritual philosphy in the later Vedas which focuss more on real spiritual practises. Of course you can still see many remnants of the old ways of thinking in hinduism caught in their traditions, even gods with stone age type of (like elephant) heads.
Hinduism is not really a single religion but more a very old collection of more or less related ideologies, Christianity and Islam are much less old and have been much more restricted in their development. Any ideology that sprang up within hindu culture could argueably be called hinduism, even buddhism.