In reading through chapter 7 of this online English version of Satyarth Prakash we find that Dayanad Saraswati was very politically incorrect and had very strong opinions. He basically distinguishes between the authentic religion of the Vedas and the corrupted teachings found in everything else including the Bhagavad Gita. He asserts that confusion developed over time as Indians were trying to incorporate teachings of the Vedas with primitive polytheistic beliefs and a misunderstanding of some of the Vedas, which he claimed were absolutely monotheistic. He also expresses criticism for the pro-westernizing movements such as Brahmo Samaj and for the origins of Sikhism under Guru Nanak whom he criticized for how Guru Nanak characterized the Vedas. It is an extremely interesting perspective.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Hindu Monotheism
- Thread starter duvduv
- Start date
In my tradition it is taught that there can only be one Guru and that is God Himself. So God is the Guru per definition. But that Guru is not limited to the body or form of the Ishta Deva as in avatarism.
Yes, there are many traditions. It's a diverse religion, and that's my main point.
And there are another 1000 books like that giving 'extremely interesting' perspectives.
Are you sure that he cared all that much about polytheism and monotheism?
Maybe it is just me, but I would think of that as rather odd.
That is the reason I don't consider hinduism to be a religion.
I distinguish between tantric and vedic types of approach and that across the whole board of so-called religions. Hindu traditions are way too varied to call them a religion.
Read it online yourself. It's there, especially chapters7, 11 and 12. There is in his view a stark distinction between the Veda religion and what is called Hinduism.
Last edited:
I definitely consider Hinduism a religion. Not in the Abrahamic sense, but in a dharmic sense, which is a broader definition of the term. There is also much less discrimination against us if we're a religion.
It is clear that you do not know me well. Or else you would not ask me to do such a thing.
I do not have a previous inclination to value monotheism for monotheism's sake.
And I am most definitely not going to mine from written texts, least of all some form of scripture, in order to attempt to find reason to challenge living traditions out of their own best judgements.
I am not like that.
Last edited:
The problem is that you have been given very fair explanation of how Hinduism is and still insist on misrepresenting it.
No. In my opinion, being aware of the diverse nature of Hinduism and wanting to selectively represent it is, at best, stubborness.
I would rather see dharma in a broader sense. Some christians or muslims are better at following the human dharma than some hindus. Just because you are born a hindu does not make you develop faster in a dharmic way.
Although my tradition is philosophically closer to hindu types of ideology, in a practical sense they don't fit in, no temple worship, no hindu rituals, no pandits or belief in perfect Veda sciptures etc.
And there must be more of such hindu type taditions that hardly fit in, hinduism is so broad that anything could fit in, even the teachings of Jesus and Buddhism. To call it a religion is like saying the rainbow is a seperate colour.
ChanaR
Member
I don't understand this.How can you understand unless you understand that Hinduism is a free form religion in which polytheism and monotheism and even atheism exist side by side? A Hindu is free to choose his views. For example, I am an orthodox, strong atheist Hindu.
I don't know a lot about Hinduism (I'm here to become better educated), so I don't know a lot of the vocabulary. But I know that the objective in Hinduism is to reach a state of enlightenment where one breaks free from the cycle of karma/reincarnation and unites with God (which is more of a pantheistic being). If that's the objective, then wouldn't you want to educate others to that end, help them cultivate towards that goal? If you lie to them, and promote polytheism, you are interfering with their ability to cultivate. That doesn't sound very virtuous.
This is not to pick at you. I'm not looking for trouble. It's a sincere question I have had for many years and have never had the opportunity to ask a Hindu.
I think more panentheistic and beyond being or non-being.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
I understand. But that is just one facet of Hinduism. I am a staunch atheist Hindu with no desire for Moksha. Never generalize about Hindus. There is no 'ism' which you would not find in Hinduism (Hindus generally are not Agnostics or Apatheists and have strong personal views about Brahman/God/Gods/Goddesses)*. Because Hinduism does not depend on 'isms', whether it is monotheism, pantheism, polytheism or even atheism. That is supposed to be a persons own choice. Hinduism depends on 'Dharma' (fulfillment of one's duties and engaging in righteous conduct). That is the bed-rock of Hinduism. We feel that it is very childish when Abrahamics talk about their one Gods.
* Atheism Deism Henotheism Ignosticism Monotheism Monism Dualism Monolatry Kathenotheism Omnism Pandeism Panpsychism Panentheism Pantheism Polytheism Theism Transtheism - Wikipedia
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Sorry, late in replying to your querry. All Hindus do not take Vishnu to be the Supreme God. For many it is Shiva or Mother Durga.
Kiorran, you know Hinduism better than that. I will point to the story when Saint Tulsi das went to a Krishna temple and did not bow. His explanation:
कहा कहौं छवि आज की, भले बने हो नाथ । तुलसी मस्तक तब नवै, जब धनुष बान लो हाथ ।।
I cannot describe the majesty of your form today, it is beautiful. But Tulsi das will bow his head when you would take Bow and Arrows in your hand.
Hindus have their preferences. I get the best vibe when I have Lord Ram and Mother Sita before me. Shiva or Durga are completely different.
Last edited:
Polytheism is one (valid) form of perceiving the sacred. Monotheism is another. And so are atheism and henotheism and deism and pantheism.
Dharma transcends any and all of those forms, although all of them can be productive if proper care to avoid abuse and misunderstanding is taken.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Not all Hindus or I can say the majority of Hindus do not subscribe to this view. However, if you ask a Hindu that is God one - He would say 'yes'. If you ask them if there are many God, then also he would say 'yes'. With Hindus, switching sides is no big deal.