Hindu Monotheism

[Kirran]

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?

Not really scripture-based, for the most part.

Go on, do go read Swami Vivekananda's 'Bhakti Yoga'.

 

[SomeRandom]

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.

*ponders*
Pretty sure fire worship is still ubiquitous among Hindus to this very day. Animal Sacrifice is found among some of the Shakti cults, tolerance differs of course. Superstitious practices still abounds. Not sure if that has anything to do with the old religion, though. Just an observation.

 

[Marcion]

*ponders*
Pretty sure fire worship is still ubiquitous among Hindus to this very day. Animal Sacrifice is found among some of the Shakti cults, tolerance differs of course. Superstitious practices still abounds. Not sure if that has anything to do with the old religion, though. Just an observation.

I'm no expert but that does not really surprise me.

Covering up ideological differences within one collection of scriptures is not something unique for hindus, christians also do it all the time with their biblical text collection. The authors of the gospel stories distorted the ideology found in the Q sayings (which may go back to the historical Jesus) and christians now (sadly) more or less ignore the earlier meaning of those older sayings.

 

[SomeRandom]

I'm no expert but that does not really surprise me.

Covering up ideological differences within one collection of scriptures is not something unique for hindus, christians also do it all the time with their biblical text collection. The authors of the gospel stories distorted the ideology found in the Q sayings (which may go back to the historical Jesus) and christians now (sadly) more or less ignore the earlier meaning of those older sayings.

I guess so. I think traditions are really hard to break with Hindus, due to their perceived familial duty.

 

[Vinayaka]

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.

Arya Samaj sannyasis pay cordial visits to other monasteries (like the one I'm associated with) and out of politeness, join in deity worship. They wouldn't do that in their home monastery. One of the real beauties of Hinduism is the tolerance and respect amongst sects.

 

[Vinayaka]

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?

Some Hindu teachings would. Others wouldn't.

 

[LuisDantas]

It might perhaps help to consider for a moment that the variety of forms of Hinduism might allow for people to find specific useful environments for their expression, reflection and learning. I stand personally convinced that such variety is welcome if not actually necessary.

However, it is only fair to point out that such a situation is not very similar to the model of religion that presumes the necessity for a divinely-given code of conduct that should ideally apply to everyone and be followed by everyone.

Those are not even opposite conceptions of religiosity. They are just not very comparable.

 

[duvduv]

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.

What does skin color have to do with this? In any case, you may have a point about projecting something onto something else in this case, the Vedas. I would like to see what a Hindu would say about your comments on the origins of the Vedas and the religion of the first Vedic believers. On the other hand, there are arguments that those who had the Vedas were INDIGENOUS to the Indian subcontinent rather than outside invaders, about which nothing is written in ancient Indian texts.

 

[duvduv]

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.

What I have been wondering about is how Hindus viewed the nature of ancient theology of the Egyptians, Romans and Greeks inasmuch as they had multiple deities. Insofar as the Bible is concerned, I'd be interested in how Vedic Hindus view the nature of the covenantal world of the Old Testament and the relationship between the Supreme Deity and the descendants of the one man, Abraham.

 

[Marcion]

What does skin color have to do with this? In any case, you may have a point about projecting something onto something else in this case, the Vedas. I would like to see what a Hindu would say about your comments on the origins of the Vedas and the religion of the first Vedic believers. On the other hand, there are arguments that those who had the Vedas were INDIGENOUS to the Indian subcontinent rather than outside invaders, about which nothing is written in ancient Indian texts.

These ideas are also found among intelectuals in India, I did not make them up myself but learnt them from Indians. Of course there is also denial of the immigration of different types of people into India, but these immigrations are supported by research of DNA-gradients in the Indian continent.

What you call the "first Vedic believers" were in fact not yet proper hindus because these people with their indo-european language lived outside of India fo a long time. But they did bring their holy scriptures with them. This religion then was gradually influenced by the more tantric spirituality of the more indigenous peoples of India and by this syncretic proces hinduism developed and the character of the later Veda's produced inside India became different relative to the earlier Veda's.

The great tantric guru Shiva was originally mainly the God/Ista deva of the more indigenous peoples who did not use the Veda's of those times. Shiva used to refuse to attend royal weddings in India when these involved Vedic rituals where hundreds of horses used to be slaughtered ritually.

The denial of the very varied and rich genetic composition of the people of India reminds me of Trump and his alternative facts. There are also religious people in India who don't believe that we humans are descended from apes but have existed as evolved modern humans for many millions of years. I like to support a more rational way of thinking. I also don't support christians who defend creationism.

 

[duvduv]

Marcion, are you arguing for the idea that the Vedas were somehow merging primitive polytheism with mystical monotheism? I have been asking Hindus why so many Hindus require the multiple deity system if all their orientation is to the single Supreme God whether named Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu, Krishna, etc.

 

[LuisDantas]

Marcion, are you arguing for the idea that the Vedas were somehow merging primitive polytheism with mystical monotheism? I have been asking Hindus why so many Hindus require the multiple deity system if all their orientation is to the single Supreme God whether named Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu, Krishna, etc.

With all due respect, you are telling me right there that you are not paying attention to the answers you were given in this thread.

 

[Spiderman]

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]

Hindu Monotheism sounds radically awesome!

 

[duvduv]

With all due respect, you are telling me right there that you are not paying attention to the answers you were given in this thread.

With all due respect, you are telling me right there that you are not paying attention to the answers you were given in this thread.

I most certainly am paying attention. I am asking Marcion about his perspective.

 

[Marcion]

Marcion, are you arguing for the idea that the Vedas were somehow merging primitive polytheism with mystical monotheism? I have been asking Hindus why so many Hindus require the multiple deity system if all their orientation is to the single Supreme God whether named Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu, Krishna, etc.

An Ista Deva is something different from the God who is the absolute reality which is reached by people who become enlightened.
God can be described as the Supreme Consciousness, the 'Parama Purusha'.

The Ista Deva is considered God (Narayana) because He has a whole list of supernatural and some more mundane qualities, but He is not the same as the unmanifested God because He has taken on a certain shape and personality within time and space.
The Ista Deva is a bridge between God as the unexpressed Supreme Consciousness (Nirguna Brahma) and God as the creator of the universe (Saguna Brahma) and can do so at different times and in different shapes according to the needs of the times.

This relationship with an Ista Deva is derived from the need for a personal relationship with a great master who serves as both an instructor and a figure through Whom the disciple can direct their love for God. Perhaps this is comparable to Jesus and the Father/Abba where Jesus is also seen as more or less spiritually merged with his Father and serves a similar role to the Ista Deva in hinduism.

Of course there are also hindus who will say that this or that Ista Deva of others is only a "half-god" or perhaps even just a mythical creation. That does not surprise me because how can you know the actual historical reality of such ancient persona who have been worshipped for thousands of years? We don't even have proof that Jesus was a historical person or what his real status was.

I think it is only the Smarta part of hinduism that actually worships multiple Ista Deva's, most hindus stick to just one just like christians do.

There is no question of an actual mixing of polytheism and monotheism, it is more that the old polytheism that was connected to forces in nature disappeared while being replaced by more sophisticated explanations of a single God with His different aspects. A lot can be said about God and hindus give these aspects different names, such as Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesvara (also Shiva) for the creative, the operative and the destructive parts of God within His manifested universe.

You see how complicated things get when they start mixing up these names for aspects of God with an Ista Deva who actually lived as a historical spiritual master.
Shiva was such a master who many accept as their Ista Deva but in the very complex hindu mythology Shiva has also become the aspect of God that destroys the things He created and operated earlier.

This problem of all kinds of older and newer layers in hinduism can also be found in christianity when you pick apart the developmental layers of the New Testament. For practising hindus and christians this is not a problem because they will understand their religion and its scriptures as a unified whole through the coloured lense of their own religious sect and explain everything accordingly, so in fact through the lense of one the later layers.

In the sect where I learnt to meditate they strip away many of these layers and all of the mythology, a bit like what happened in Buddhism where only Nirvana (Saguna Brahma) and Mahanirvana (Nirgina Brahma) remained.

 

[Vinayaka]

What I have been wondering about is how Hindus viewed the nature of ancient theology of the Egyptians, Romans and Greeks inasmuch as they had multiple deities. Insofar as the Bible is concerned, I'd be interested in how Vedic Hindus view the nature of the covenantal world of the Old Testament and the relationship between the Supreme Deity and the descendants of the one man, Abraham.

Mostly we have no view of these things. Does the captain of a ship ponder about what the airplane pilot is doing? No, because it's unrelated. Only a few people on either side who have a real interest in comparative religion do this. and unless they start from a neutral stance, (they have no paradigm/lens they're looking through) it generally goes awry.

It's far more just ... 'You do your thing, and we'll do our thing.'

 

[Vinayaka]

Hindu Monotheism sounds radically awesome!

Too bad it's very rare, in the form being described here.

 

[Vinayaka]

An Ista Deva is something different from the God who is the absolute reality which is reached by people who become enlightened.
God can be described as the Supreme Consciousness, the 'Parama Purusha'.

Of course there are also hindus who will say that this or that Ista Deva of others is only a "half-god" or perhaps even just a mythical creation.

Shiva was such a master who many accept as their Ista Deva but in the very complex hindu mythology Shiva has also become the aspect of God that destroys the things He created and operated earlier.

Many folks don't have an ishta at all, or even understand it as a concept. The concept of ishta devata came mostly from Smartism.

The Shiva you speak of here is the Puranic version, and is far far away from the Shiva of Kashmiri Saivism, Saiva Siddhanta, or Virasaivism.

 

[Marcion]

Many folks don't have an ishta at all, or even understand it as a concept. The concept of ishta devata came mostly from Smartism.

The Shiva you speak of here is the Puranic version, and is far far away from the Shiva of Kashmiri Saivism, Saiva Siddhanta, or Virasaivism.

That is what I meant with all the layers, the Puranic layer is relatively late and how people worship great guru's such as Krishna or Shiva is not necessarily the same way as their original disciples followed them and it differs among "hindus" as well. I have never heard about the concept of Ista Deva coming from Smartism, my own tradition is certainly not Smartism and has it.

Anyway, the Ista Devata concept can explain how more than one godly Guru does not imply that hinduism is polytheistic. God is the Ultimate Subjectivity or Reality and He is only One. Such a universal God can never be entirely present in one specific form or personality because in that case what would be the status of everything outside that form or personality?

 

[Vinayaka]

That is what I meant with all the layers, the Puranic layer is relatively late and how people worship great guru's such as Krishna or Shiva is not necessarily the same way as their original disciples followed them and it differs among "hindus" as well. I have never heard about the concept of Ista Deva coming from Smartism, my own tradition is certainly not Smartism and has it.

Anyway, the Ista Devata concept can explain how more than one godly Guru does not imply that hinduism is polytheistic. God is the Ultimate Subjectivity or Reality and He is only One. Such a universal God can never be entirely present in one specific form or personality because in that case what would be the status of everything outside that form or personality?

In my tradition, and for many, Shiva is not a Guru. He's God. There are many traditions, and monotheism isn't the only one.