Hindu Monotheism

[Fool]

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.

i can understand.

 

[ChanaR]

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.

The Divine is ineffible. Anything I say here is going to be wrong because it will fall short. But I'll give it my best shot. We can perceive parts of the Divine as separate beings--everything that exists in creation contains the Divine Spark, so Judaism teaches. But in truth, each of these beings are only aspects of the Divine. Even in monotheism, if one has this idea of an old man with a beard in a long robe sitting on a throne up in heaven, one is only seeing an aspect of the Divine. All of these miss the point. The Tao may be the mother of ten thousand things, but the ten thousand things return to the Tao. The greatest thing imaginable is to, after death, be with the Divine in love for all eternity. Hinduism teaches that one can't do that if one is not enlightened, meaning that one is still stuck in a state of ignorance. What I'm saying is that we should help one another cultivate. It is ultimately selfish to allow each other to remain in a state of ignorance. Personally, I wouldn't want to spend eternity in bliss so long as there are those still stuck in ignorance.

 

[ChanaR]

We feel that it is very childish when Abrahamics talk about their one Gods.

You are open to monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, panentheism, atheism, and much more, within Hinduism, but you find monotheism outside of Hinduism to be childish? You don't see the irony in that?

As an inclusive monotheist, I see no difference between my God and Brahman, except that my God has intelligence. I have no problems however with those who do not experience the Divine as intelligent, except that I feel sorry that they miss out on the love relationship.

 

[ChanaR]

I think more panentheistic and beyond being or non-being.

Yes, as I think about it, I see that you are right.

Do you know, although Judaism is supposed to be monotheistic, it talks about all creation having within it the "Divine spark."

 

[LuisDantas]

The Divine is ineffible. Anything I say here is going to be wrong because it will fall short. But I'll give it my best shot. We can perceive parts of the Divine as separate beings--everything that exists in creation contains the Divine Spark, so Judaism teaches. But in truth, each of these beings are only aspects of the Divine. Even in monotheism, if one has this idea of an old man with a beard in a long robe sitting on a throne up in heaven, one is only seeing an aspect of the Divine. All of these miss the point. The Tao may be the mother of ten thousand things, but the ten thousand things return to the Tao. The greatest thing imaginable is to, after death, be with the Divine in love for all eternity. Hinduism teaches that one can't do that if one is not enlightened, meaning that one is still stuck in a state of ignorance. What I'm saying is that we should help one another cultivate. It is ultimately selfish to allow each other to remain in a state of ignorance. Personally, I wouldn't want to spend eternity in bliss so long as there are those still stuck in ignorance.

It seems to me that you will quickly come to understand the perspective of Hinduism.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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

If all is water, then water worshiping water does not make any sense.

 

[Fool]

If all is water, then water worshiping water does not make any sense.

there are three primary parts that create the one. mind, body, spirit, or consciousness, form, and movement; so the worship of one is not the worship of all 3.

i also understand it as the mind, body, spirit, complex.

 

[Vinayaka]

It seems to me that you will quickly come to understand the perspective of Hinduism.

I would be pleasantly surprised, as few here from such differing paradigms have been able to. But it could happen too.

 

[Aupmanyav]

there are three primary parts that create the one. mind, body, spirit, or consciousness, form, and movement; so the worship of one is not the worship of all 3. I also understand it as the mind, body, spirit, complex.

Friend I have deleted my post on spirit. I have returned to the topic late and it is not wise to invoke old posts. Then discussion on spirit is so futile. You do not have proof for its existence, I do not have proof of its non-existence. Therefore the deletion.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So you mean that it isn't obvious that one should appeal to the power that is the greatest who can respond and does respond to mankind who he has created?

How would you prove that power to me? I am an atheist Hindu.

 

[Fool]

Friend I have deleted my post on spirit. I have returned to the topic late and it is not wise to invoke old posts. Then discussion on spirit is so futile. You do not have proof for its existence, I do not have proof of its non-existence. Therefore the deletion.

i offer self as proof of energy, consciousness, matter

the paramatman is not just brahma creating, or exclusively shiva destroying, but also vishnu transforming.

best wishes in your journey

 

[Aupmanyav]

But in the case of Hindus how does a Hindu feel he is "obligated" in a set of observances to fulfill the divine will (Dharma)? And how would any particular person know if his sensibilities fit better with worship of God as Vishnu or Shiva, Ganesha, Rama, Krishna, etc. and not the other?

'Dharma' is not 'divine will' or 'commandment'. It is a social necessity. As for your second question, each person jams with a different idea. Some Hindus and Abrahamics jam with the idea of one God, some don't. They need a particular representation, a Shiva, a Durga, a Rama or a Krishna. Some jam with all. It is like liking a particular form of music or liking all music.

I tend to feel that it is not too unlike acceptance of the variety of preferences for forms of art. Just because a certain form is valid for some people it does not have to follow that other, alternate forms are not valid as well. There is no need to choose, and certainly no need to choose with exclusion.

I don't think of that as idolatry or even necessarily polytheism, because IMO it takes a certain set of perceptions to make idolatry possible.

I have posted your first paragraph to support what I have said here. It is not a reply to your post. We said exactly the same thing.

But there is nothing wrong with idolatry also. Like Vinayaka and many others get their energy from their consecrated idols.

 

[Aupmanyav]

i offer self as proof of energy, consciousness, matter. the paramatman is not just brahma creating, or exclusively shiva destroying, but also vishnu transforming.

I have completed the journey. Energy, matter I understand. I understand consciousness too (working of brain), but that does not take me beyond physics or chemistry.

 

[LuisDantas]

But there is nothing wrong with idolatry also. Like Vinayaka and many others get their energy from their consecrated idols.

I don't disagree, but there is the catch that far as I know that word is never used in a respectful way. "Idolatry" is not simple idol-assisted worship; it is misguided use of idols.

 

[Aupmanyav]

We don't find any fault with 'idolatry' also, if it satisfies some people. For us, there is no 'misguided' use of idols. Preaching the 'right way' is not a Hindu obsession. The individual decides.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It isn't polytheistic. Vishnu is the Supreme God in one aspect, and in other aspect he is called Shiva. Not really that big a deal.

Again, it is your Abrahamic background. Vishnu does not hold any attraction to me, though Rama and Krishna do. They are the indigenous Gods of Hindus. Vishnu is a foreign God, a minor deity of Aryans. And they are all Supreme - Shiva, Durga, Rama and Krishna, not just one. And they exist harmoniously - Rama worshiping Shiva and Shiva worshiping Krishna.

One of our members here has this as the signature: 'Shivasya hridayam Vishnuh, Vishnuh cha hridayam Shivah'
(Vishnu is in Shiva's heart and in Vishnu's heart is Shiva)
If you can understand this, you understand Hindu worship. Our Gods do not fight for Supremacy.

The overall website dharmacentral.com is very interesting indeed. He points to how in the Vedas Shiva is subservient to Vishnu who is Narayana, the supreme creator. And describes Shaktiism. But the similarity of the ideas of Narayana to Kabbalah is striking.

Each site or sect will describe Hinduism with their own bias. Not every Hindu will subscribe to that. You are choosing only what suits you.

How do Hindus distinguish between Vishnu and Krishna if it is the same person (i.e. in the Bhagavad Gita)? And since the system states that all creating carries divinity, which is omnipresent, how can there be an avatar?

How does an avatara deny omnipresence? It is here as well as there.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Doesn't "Sanatana Dharma" Hindu worship allow for the concept of the conduit to be done even without any statue?

Sanatan Dharma does not bar you from worshiping in any way whatsoever. We have the concept of 'Saguna' and 'Nirguna' Brahman. The first with attributes (Shiva, Rama, Krishna etc.) and the second with NO attributes - you cannot attach any attributes to it, of form, desires, actions, etc.

Saint Tulsidas was asked whether he worships God in 'Saguna' form (He was a Rama devotee) or in 'Nirguna' form. He replied that he worships as 'Nirguna' in mind and 'Saguna' in heart.

And how is an avatar conceived of having "more" spirituality than any other human if Brahma/Narayana fills all creation, including every human being?

It is a question of abandoning ignorance and attachments (to pre-defined views). You too can be as spiritual as any avatara. Our books mention "Brahma Veda Brahmaiva Bhavati" (One who understands Brahman, verily, becomes Brahman). That is what at least 'Advaita' view says. The perception of duality, of differences is ignorance. Even Gods are shown as bowing to realized sages.

duvduv, your thinking is at a complete cross with Hindu thinking. Even understanding Hinduism seems difficult for you.

And how does Krishna end up specifically as Vishnu/Narayana as a focus even among those who recognize Vishnu as Narayana?

Why we have nine major avataras of Lord Vishnu. Ram is the seventh, Krishna is the eighth and Buddha is the ninth. Note, Buddha is till now the last avatara of Vishnu for Hindus.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What I find confusing is that I have read that each was already described to have been an ordinary human being, and is then conceived of as the Supreme God under different names and personalities. How are Hindus able to keep track of all of this complexity?! With us it's so simple and easy: one supreme God to serve, follow his laws, and that's it.

Avataras are both, human and divine at the same time. It poses no problem for us because either we are born into it or have read and understood this. You have not understood it till now. Follow what you want to follow, and also let us follow what we want to follow. The problem comes when anyone wants to be one-up. Keep your simple but oppressive system to yourself, let us follow our complicated but non-fettering system. We would feel so asphyxiated in your system.

"I am Yahweh your God, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourselves an idol, nor any image of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow yourself down to them, nor serve them, for I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and on the fourth generation of those who hate me, and showing loving kindness to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments."

Shucks, I am not subservient to any Lord or Master. I am my own master. Yahweh brought you out from one bondage to another.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why is it that popular discussion of Hinduism must always mention that there are 300 millon deities? Did anyone ever count them all?!

Sure, it will be difficult to count 300 million. That is why we don't do it. Even Wikipedia failed. They only give an incomplete list of deities:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hindu_deities#List_in_alphabetical_order

Forgive me for being a bit confused in all this. The description I find here in Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narayana indicates that Brahma and Narayana and Vishnu are the same thing, the ultimate supreme creator of everything.

RigVeda does not mention Narayana. It is a name given to Vishnu in a later period. Vishnu, sure is a respected, but a minor deity in RigVeda with just 6 hymns to his name as compared to 289 for Indra and 218 or Agni. As I have already mentioned Shiva, Rama, Krishna, Durga are indigenous Hindu deities from before the coming of Aryans. In the assimilation that happened later Vishnu became prominent by associating with Rama and Krishna.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am sorry I am not familiar enough yet with all the distinctions, however the video argues that the usual view about Shiva and Shakti is in fact a misunderstanding of the Vedas themselves. That is specifically the point I was thinking about, i.e. meaning that the highest focus is Brahma/Vishnu/Narayana.

According to Vaishnavas and that video. You can easily find videos where Shiva and Shakti (Durga) are Supreme. That video alone is not Hinduism nor the Narayana description in Wikipedia.

Here is an interesting link that discusses the Kabbalistic names of God by permutations of Hebrew letters. Unfortunately I don't understand most of it myself. As I get older I like to simplify things in life wherever possible.

That has no connection with the topic under discussion. What do we do with the link?

This understanding (if more or less accurate) would go a long way to understanding the language communicated by Hindus with non-Hindus who usually cannot make sense out of the religious language used and quoted.

No, this is not accurate. Majority of Hindus are polytheistic. Some Gods are supposed to be related to each other (Shiva, Parvati his spouse, Ganesha and Kartikeya/Murugan their sons), some are not (Saraswati, Hanuman, Durga, etc.). You see, if the non-Hindus want to force us to be monotheistic, we will never be; though on our own some of us can be monotheistic. Do you get a medal or eternal heaven on accepting monotheism? Why do you have this obsession to prove Hindus as monotheists?

I wonder how Hindu theology in general would look at that kind of picture.

We will see that as funny and false to make a person himself important as Zoroaster, Moses, Jesus, Mohammad or later ones did or tried. This has been the tradition in Monotheism. Moses only saw the hind part of Yahweh?