Hindu Monotheism

[Aupmanyav]

Is it fair to say that the strange stories and myths of the gods and their fights, marriages, etc. is a holdover from the more ancient polytheistic world (as in Europe) and is essentially unimportant, or are they reinterpreted in Vedic theological terms with more important metaphorical/allegorical meaning?

Whether it is Vedas or Puranas, the stories are important. Either they place before us precedents to follow or avoid, or are history. Hindu books do not confuse with metaphors or allegory ('now you guess the meaning'). If they have to say something, they would say it directly and precisely and proceed to give their reasons. Upanishads, Brahma Sutras, the various Gitas, Yoga Vasishtha, etc. are those sort of books.

Does this mean that the deeper ideas had been originally clothed in very primitive religious ideas of the very ancient peoples, or that their ideas were later adapted into the sophisticated Vedic ones? Of course this needs to touch upon the old debate as to whether in fact the Aryans were the originators of Vedic religion from OUTSIDE India or were native to India too. Or that it all originated in an Iranian region that spread and adapted east and west ..

Sure, Vedas are old, older than 4,000 BC and from Indo-Europeans in Pontic steppe/Kurgan region. Similarly, we had the indigenous Hindu tradition (Ahimsa, Maya which Aryans would not have understood). These two combined from 2,000 BC onwards and gave us the present Hindu system. I do not think there is much debate about it except for Chauvinist Hindus who do not accept the foreign origin of Aryans.

Yeah, but what this dude was saying was not that - he was saying when you know a guru, then the messiah coming or not is irrelevant.

I think the gentleman meant that once you understand the truth (through a guru, or as I would say, even without a guru), the idea of a God or a Messiah seems very funny and hollow. I think the gentleman was studying 'Advaita'.

 

[Aupmanyav]

No, I meant the communication of ideas and understanding of concepts. But I am fascinated by the idea of how potentially things in Hinduism could be so badly communicated because of ambiguities in Sanskrit that you describe.

Hinduism is excellently communicated in Sanskrit. But Sanskrit is not responsible for wrong translation by Europeans. However, I think, they made a good job of it. Ralph Griffiths translation is good and unbiased though there are mistakes here and there. I do not go for any other translation, certainly not by Indians which are generally biased.

Because it seems that Buddhism and even Hinduism do not provide what Judaism and Christianity and Islam do, a form of hope for the future of all of mankind, ..

Pray, describe what do Judaism/Christianity/Islam provide that Hinduism does not provide. Heaven, eternal life after death (Do the jews have a concept of eternal life?). What Hinduism does not provide is an overbearing God who easily gets disturbed if not worshiped and would go to any extent to harm people who do not worship him. At least the Hindu Gods do not do that. Duvduv, what trash are you writing?!

What would happen, Kirran, if a Hindu wanted simply to bypass all the cultural and inherited accretions and become a devotee of God as Narayana/Brahman/Brahma to the exclusion of all else (even if those names had been inherited from the primitive cultures preceding the Vedas)??

Firstly, Narayan and Brahman are two different ideas. Vaishnavas think Naryana is Brahman. Not all Hindus will think that way. For Vinayaka, Shiva is Brahman. For me, neither Narayana nor Shiva is Brahman . And Brahma is a completely different God, considered mortal, though his life-time is 317 trillion years.

Nothing. There have been/are people like that who were/are devoted to Brahman, Narayana, Shiva, Durga, Rama, Krishna, etc. to the exclusion of all other things, even their family or their own self. It is an individuals choice. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu of the Hare-Krishnas was one such person. Some of them are highly venerated as Saints in Hinduism.I am not naming others since you would not know about them.

 

[duvduv]

I think I am gaining clarification not only from the interesting postings on this thread but also from reading the ideas of Arya Samaj and other sources which establish a strong difference between Vedic religion and the varieties of Indian religions now called Hinduism, but which was never a pan-Indian religion before. In particular an online book translated into English called Atyarth Prakash by Dayanand Saraswati, especially chapters 9-12. Very interesting indeed. Also some interesting videos by Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya of Dharma Nation.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

No argument from me. I was just pointing out that the word is usually perceived (and probably meant from the get-go) as a pejorative, or at least as a criticism.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is more than a bit ironic how often Abrahamics, who are the people who most insist on the importance of the one true Creator God, resist the logical implications of such an idea.

 

[Kirran]

I think I am gaining clarification not only from the interesting postings on this thread but also from reading the ideas of Arya Samaj and other sources which establish a strong difference between Vedic religion and the varieties of Indian religions now called Hinduism, but which was never a pan-Indian religion before. In particular an online book translated into English called Atyarth Prakash by Dayanand Saraswati, especially chapters 9-12. Very interesting indeed. Also some interesting videos by Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya of Dharma Nation.

Well, that's one person and organisation, and one view. There's a lot of others. If you're insistent on finding a particular kind of view, then you will find it somewhere in Indian thought.

 

[ajay0]

Hinduism as depicted by Advaita Vedanta is essentially monistic or pantheistic , and Brahman is said to be the supreme Being.

As you have correctly stated in the op, all the devas or 330 million gods and goddesses spring from the one Brahman.

Any mantra to any of the gods starts with Om,which is considered as a symbol of Brahman. There are many who worship Om alone and not any of the gods.

For example...

Om Namah Shivaya (mantra for worship of Shiva)

Om Saraswatyai Namah ( mantra for worship of goddess Saraswati)

So worship of any of the gods or goddesses is essentially worship of Brahman alone, though there may be a particular aspect of existence as represented by that god or goddess which the devotee wishes to worship.

The goddess Saraswati represents learning and knowledge, the goddess Lakshmi represents wealth and prosperity, and the goddess Durga represents victory while facing adversity and is worshipped by warriors as such.

But all of them are various aspects of the same Brahman.


There are also purely monotheistic sects in Hinduism that worships Brahman alone or Brahman from a personalised pov called Saguna Brahman.

The Lingayats, Brahmo Samajis, Arya Samajis, Prajapita Brahmakumaris worship Saguna Brahman in a monotheistic fashion similar to other monotheistic religions without endowing it with human charecterestics.

The Prajapita Brahmakumaris is the world's only spiritual organisation in a male-dominated world led and taught by women administrators and teachers. They worship Shiva as an incorporeal point of light, and consider Shiva the same as Jehovah, Allah, Ahura Mazda of the other monotheistic religions. The Prajapita Brahmakumaris also have a presence all over the world where they disseminate the teachings of meditation and Shiva through their study centres.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma_Kumaris

http://www.brahmakumaris.org/

Contrast the Prajapita Brahmakumaris with Judaism which is essentially a male-dominated religion with male rabbis and which state menstruating women to be impure and which discouraged women from reading the Talmud and other advanced Jewish texts till the twentieth century.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Arya Samaj is constructed on a very contrived reading of Vedas. There is no translation of Vedas as bad as that by Arya Samaj. IMHO, you are reading only the wrong literature, but go on, it is not something of my concern.

Would there be a problem bypassing all the carryovers of multiple deities and myths even if he connected it to Buddhism or Vedantic philosophy?

Hinduism would see no problem. Views, opinions are an individual's rights. It is his/her life. For example, I am an atheist, my family is main-stream polytheist.

Only because there may be people who would like to bypass everything. What should they do?

Nothing much. Go with their views. If they want to call themselves Hindus, OK, if they don't, then also OK. Choice of religion is guaranteed by our Constitution.

Then what would be a sect of Sanatana Dharma who focus only on the formless Supreme Creator?

Advaita will be the closest, but Advaitists are the most difficult to be fooled.

I never knew that some Hindus had the bizarre practice of a widow throwing herself on the pyre to die with her husband. In any event, did these reformist leaders (Periyava, Vivekananda, Saraswati, etc.) want to sweep away from the Vedic teachings all references to multiple deities?

Immolation of widows was never a Vedic practice. Many have tried (not Maha Periyavar, former Sankaracharya of Kanchi, Swami Chandrasekharananda or Vivekananda), but it has not made a difference to a common Hindu.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You seem to be approaching it entirely from an intellectual perspective, looking for a sect that mostly agrees with your faith, and then somehow trying to prove that it's the 'correct' one. Just not how Hindus think .. at all. We just want to worship God and Gods, and feel uplifted doing so.

No, he is not looking at it from an intellectual angle. He is looking at it from an evangelical's angle. 'Which are the sects which I can evangelize?' Just fishing. He is probably a Christian posing as a jew. You know how easy it is to do that.

 

[Vinayaka]

No, he is not looking at it from an intellectual angle. He is looking at it from an evangelical's angle. 'Which are the sects which I can evangelize?' Just fishing. He is probably a Christian posing as a jew. You know how easy it is to do that.

That's one theory. Maybe. Maybe not. But it does explain why for the most part, out comments fall on deaf ears.

 

[Vinayaka]

I think I am gaining clarification not only from the interesting postings on this thread but also from reading the ideas of Arya Samaj and other sources which establish a strong difference between Vedic religion and the varieties of Indian religions now called Hinduism, but which was never a pan-Indian religion before. In particular an online book translated into English called Atyarth Prakash by Dayanand Saraswati, especially chapters 9-12. Very interesting indeed. Also some interesting videos by Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya of Dharma Nation.

Calling one's version of Hinduism 'the Vedic religion' is just a gimmick. All versions of Hinduism are Vedic religions. Some people feel it is a way of saying, 'My version is better because it's 'Vedic.' Most of us see through such nonsense easily. It might work on unsuspecting westerners, but won't work on Hindus who know better.

Just like many Chirstian sects argue, that their version is the REAL version. It's silliness, and childish.

 

[duvduv]

Well, that's one person and organisation, and one view. There's a lot of others. If you're insistent on finding a particular kind of view, then you will find it somewhere in Indian thought.

What do serious religious Hindus think about Dayanand Saraswati and his examinations of history and religion??

 

[duvduv]

Calling one's version of Hinduism 'the Vedic religion' is just a gimmick. All versions of Hinduism are Vedic religions. Some people feel it is a way of saying, 'My version is better because it's 'Vedic.' Most of us see through such nonsense easily. It might work on unsuspecting westerners, but won't work on Hindus who know better.

Just like many Chirstian sects argue, that their version is the REAL version. It's silliness, and childish.

I disagree. There can be criteria to employ. Not unlike in Christianity where a general consensus is that Mormonism is a corruption of Christianity. Is Hinduism a corruption of Vedism??

 

[Vinayaka]

I disagree. There can be criteria to employ. Not unlike in Christianity where a general consensus is that Mormonism is a corruption of Christianity. Is Hinduism a corruption of Vedism??

Of course you disagree. That's what you came here to do. There is no such thing as Vedism, just as there is no such thing as Bibleism, Torahism, or Koranism.

 

[Vinayaka]

What do serious religious Hindus think about Dayanand Saraswati and his examinations of history and religion??

Too vast to know. Many, if not most Hindus, have never heard of Arya Samaj. Intersectarian studies don't interest us. Worshipping God, practising dharma does interest us. We're first and foremost an experiential religion.

 

[LuisDantas]

What do serious religious Hindus think about Dayanand Saraswati and his examinations of history and religion??

You tell us who you are willing to consider "serious religious Hindus" and we go on from there, how about that?

 

[LuisDantas]

I disagree. There can be criteria to employ. Not unlike in Christianity where a general consensus is that Mormonism is a corruption of Christianity. Is Hinduism a corruption of Vedism??

If your goal is to breed unnecessary conflict and sectarism, I for one would like you to stop right now.

Edited to add: as a clarification, I can think of no constructive reason for the branding of Mormonism as a "corruption" of Christianity to be even considered. Let alone presented as a "general consensus".

It does indeed look like you are attempting something similar with Hinduism - decreeing that some perspective is clearly more legitimate than some other and encouraging people to choose sides for no good reason.

That way foolish pride and unfair discrimination lie. No one would benefit from that.

 

[Vinayaka]

If your goal is to breed unnecessary conflict and sectarism, I for one would like you to stop right now.

Luis, you'd make a good Hindu, lol.

 

[LuisDantas]

Luis, you'd make a good Hindu, lol.

That might well happen some day. It is no secret that I have Shaktism on high regard.

 

[Vinayaka]

That might well happen some day. It is no secret that I have Shaktism on high regard.

Yeah, then you'd go all sectarian and start claiming the Vaishnavites, the Saivites, etc. have nothing compared to those wonderful devotees of Maa. I can here it now ... ranting and raving, trying to tale me away from my Beloved Siva.

(Actually the Sri Lankans here are quite into Amman ... lots of Amman temples hither thither.)