Brahman and Monotheism

[Sirona]

I would like to talk about the form of Hinduism that believes that Brahman is the source underlying the universe, and that all the other gods are but his masks, so to speak. (I realize this can get pretty complicated, but I don't want to write a book). To me this looks extremely close to monotheism, and in fact could very well be said to be a form of monotheism, if not a proto-monotheism.

I'd like to hear the thoughts about this from Hindus who are into this form.

Thanks.

I can't say much about Judaism because I was Catholic before I became a Hindu. In order to achieve some "harmony" between religions it is certainly not "wrong" to say that "God" is a manifestation of Brahman. However, I see more differences than similarities. The teaching of Advaita Vedanta is atman = Brahman, that you can find God within your soul. I don't know much about mysticism in Abrahamic religions, but at least the commonplace everyday Christian teaching is that God is "outside" you, "different" from you. If people realized that "God is within you", this often is the first step towards "heresy" because it questions the necessity of a God to rule and punish you, the necessity of salvation comming from "outside". Thus, I see more differences than similarities between a monotheistic God and Brahman, as Brahman doesn't make rules or punish you. In Hinduism, you enjoy or suffer the results of your own actions. Brahman is said to be a blissful experience, not a wrathful deity.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I can't say much about Judaism because I was Catholic before I became a Hindu. In order to achieve some "harmony" between religions it is certainly not "wrong" to say that "God" is a manifestation of Brahman. However, I see more differences than similarities. The teaching of Advaita Vedanta is atman = Brahman, that you can find God within your soul. I don't know much about mysticism in Abrahamic religions, but at least the commonplace everyday Christian teaching is that God is "outside" you, "different" from you. If people realized that "God is within you", this often is the first step towards "heresy" because it questions the necessity of a God to rule and punish you, the necessity of salvation comming from "outside". Thus, I see more differences than similarities between a monotheistic God and Brahman, as Brahman doesn't make rules or punish you. In Hinduism, you enjoy or suffer the results of your own actions. Brahman is said to be a blissful experience, not a wrathful deity.

Judaism walks a finer line than Christianity. We definitely see God as something/someone outside of us. He is Creator, and we are creation. That is how the very first chapter of our sacred text opens. But at the same time, Judaism acknowledge that every human being has within us the Divine spark.

Also, we speak of the anthropomorphizing of God. God has no body, no form. But we cannot understand that. So we speak of God AS IF he had a form. We refer to God as if he were male, when in fact he is beyond gender. We refer to the hand of God, the arm of God, the face of God, etc. even though he has no body. In the same way, human beings have a limbic system in our brains which produce emotions. God has no limbic system because he has no body. We therefore speak AS IF God feels anger, because he responds to things in a way that we would feel anger if we were responding in that way, such as if a child disobeyed us for the 100th time and we had to discipline them. All of these things are conveniences for us in order for us to talk about God.

Also, we speak of God as being everywhere. He is not bound by space and time, which are peculiarities of the created universe. Thus we speak of him as being in eternity, in heaven, in the Shekinah above the Ark of the Covenant, and all of these things are true. You want to say that God is within you? I can't find fault in that either. What I wouldn't say is that God is ONLY within you. He is much too big to be contained by the universe.

This is a lovely discussion. I hope it will continue.

 

[sun rise]

You obviously have some knowledge. Can you explain to me what advalta vedanta is?

My personal knowledge is skin deep. I know just a tiny bit about it.

But one essential piece is that the "atman", soul is not different from Brahman. From Wikipedia: What created all existence is also present in and reflected in all beings and inert matter, the creative principle was and is everywhere, always. That can be simply expressed as "God alone is real. Know you are not separate from Him."

There are many sites on the internet that go into detail if we don't hear from someone here, such as The Concept of Advaita Vedanta - The beginning part of that site agrees with what I've heard and read elsewhere. I don't know enough history to speak to that part of the page.

Then there's web sites from followers such as The Advaita Vedânta Home Page

 

[IndigoChild5559]

My personal knowledge is skin deep. I know just a tiny bit about it.

But one essential piece is that the "atman", soul is not different from Brahman. From Wikipedia: What created all existence is also present in and reflected in all beings and inert matter, the creative principle was and is everywhere, always. That can be simply expressed as "God alone is real. Know you are not separate from Him."

There are many sites on the internet that go into detail if we don't hear from someone here, such as The Concept of Advaita Vedanta - The beginning part of that site agrees with what I've heard and read elsewhere. I don't know enough history to speak to that part of the page.

Then there's web sites from followers such as The Advaita Vedânta Home Page

I think the term for this is Panentheism. I'm probably ideosyncratic by wanting to group Panentheists in the monotheistic camp. Most monotheists will shudder at that idea. I'm sure my Jewish friends here are slowly inching further away... LOL

Thank you for the website. I learn much better through interaction, but if its not too long, I'll try to read it before I log off my computer.

 

[metis]

All "forms" are "MAN-ifestations"

In some forms of Hinduism, yes, and I do believe that is likely the most common at this time. Gandhi, for example, said prayers of the other faiths towards God as he strongly believed "they" were all one God but with different names because of different languages. Therefore, as you said above, all other forms used in Hinduism are basically manifestations of Brahma.

 

[Vinayaka]

Yes. I'm still waiting for the long lovely posts from Hindus LOL

I looked up monism, and among other things, it said, "The doctrine that only one supreme being exists." I don't see how that is different from monotheism. What am I missing?

You're getting some really excellent answers now, but this version of monism must have been written by someone not familiar with it, or someone looking for parallels.

Monism holds that there is an energy flowing through all form, (and simultaneously exists as formless), and at its essence, that energy is of one substance, one variation, it's the same essential energy everywhere. Whether you see it in a tree, in the akasha, in life forms, in a rock, its always just this energy. This is why we can have atheism in Hinduism. Atheists will claim that that same energy isn't God, but just energy. In Hinduism it's called Brahman.

So when you're looking at it from outside the paradigm of Hinduism, and you're looking for something to call God, this is about the only concept (in Advaita Vedanta) that is even remotely similar. Hence we have the long standing problem of some calling it (Brahman) God, some not calling it God. Not a creator God, not a separate God, just an existing God.

And to make things worse, this energy is to be realised mystically, not understood intellectually. One has to see it, feel it, to understand it. Way beyond any intellectual sense.

Sorry to confuse you any further.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

In some forms of Hinduism, yes, and I do believe that is likely the most common at this time. Gandhi, for example, said prayers of the other faiths towards God as he strongly believed "they" were all one God but with different names because of different languages. Therefore, as you said above, all other forms used in Hinduism are basically manifestations of Brahma.

I'm emphasizing the word "man" in the word "manifestation",
The word "God" means "Man" (esoterically).

 

[metis]

I'm emphasizing the word "man" in the word "manifestation",
The word "God" means "Man" (esoterically).

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You're getting some really excellent answers now, but this version of monism must have been written by someone not familiar with it, or someone looking for parallels.

Monism holds that there is an energy flowing through all form, (and simultaneously exists as formless), and at its essence, that energy is of one substance, one variation, it's the same essential energy everywhere. Whether you see it in a tree, in the akasha, in life forms, in a rock, its always just this energy. This is why we can have atheism in Hinduism. Atheists will claim that that same energy isn't God, but just energy. In Hinduism it's called Brahman.

So when you're looking at it from outside the paradigm of Hinduism, and you're looking for something to call God, this is about the only concept (in Advaita Vedanta) that is even remotely similar. Hence we have the long standing problem of some calling it (Brahman) God, some not calling it God. Not a creator God, not a separate God, just an existing God.

And to make things worse, this energy is to be realised mystically, not understood intellectually. One has to see it, feel it, to understand it. Way beyond any intellectual sense.

Sorry to confuse you any further.

No really, you did a good job explaining. I have a good idea what monism is now.

I'm very peculiar in my beliefs. Yes, I'm a monotheist, but I'm empathic enough to see through the eyes of others, to the point where I cn say to myself, (to borrow from the Buddhists) hmmm one blind person says its a snake, one blind person says its a column, one blind person says its a broom, and we are all describing the same elephant. I can't give that vision to someone who can only see from their own eyes. But it what makes me far more inclined to include things like this particular concept of Brahman as a "different form" of monotheism. And like I said in a different post, I realize that saying this does not at all endear me to my fellow monotheists.

The idea that all is illusion? That's stumbling block. Maybe its just wrong. Maybe I haven't reached the point where I've understood it yet. Maybe as I study Quantum Mechanics it will become clearer to me, perhaps as something close but not quite. Certainly I don't think that objective reality is the way we experience it -- science is very clear about that.

 

[wizanda]

the first time the text says God, it uses El. The second time it says God, it uses Elohim.

That is so illogical; there are two unique words in the Hebrew that mean different things, to assume they both mean the same, and overwrite contexts, is why Moses prophesied this corruption is the reason for Judgement Day Fire (Deuteronomy 32:15-22).

The same person, God, aka the person who name is the Tetragrammaton, is speaking of himself using both El and Elohim.

The Tetragrammaton is a Divine Being (Eloh) who interacts with mankind, and the text is making clear the Source (El) is more than the parts.

Hindu texts explain this far clearer, if we read what Krishna said in the Bhagavad Gita, he made clear that the Source is ultimately where everything comes from; yet beings of form, only understand something with form, and therefore can not understand the Source, which is beyond all concepts.

Thus, in this case, Elohim is NOT designating the Divine Council, but is one of the designations for yad hay and vav hey.

Elohim is not always used for Yahavah, it is also used about false deities of other religions.

David in multiple places defines the Source (God Most High - El Elyon), 'and' Yahavah as distinct:

2 Samuel 22:14 & Psalms 18:13 Yahavah thundered from heaven 'and' The Most High uttered his voice. + Psalms 21:7 + Psalms 50:14 + Psalms 78:35 + Psalms 92:1.

In my opinion.

 

[ManSinha]

At @IndigoChild5559

I am not a "Hindu" in the strictest sense of the word - so please take what I have to say with that bias in mind - @Aupmanyav and @SalixIncendium when they deign to come along - may add more

Some references for you -

Astika schools of philosophy - goes all the way from belief in a deity to total non belief in a god (Samkhya) as close as it gets to atheism proper

Vedanta - as @Vinayaka referred to - is a study of subjects appearing at the end of the Vedas (Ved = from Vedas; ant = end)

While the three "major" figures of the supreme lord are Brahma (NOT to be confused with Brahman) Vishnu and Shiva - respectively the Creator, Sustainer and Destroyer - there is an excellent reply on Quora from Rami Sivan - who is an expert in the Mimamsa philosophy - you may want to look him up on Quora - I have found his replies steeped in pragmatism and showing of a deep knowledge of not only Hindu teachings but also the three Abrahamic faiths - Judaism Christianity and Islam

He says and I quote directly:

"The most important thing to learn to avoid confusion is to differentiate between MYTHOLOGY and METAPHYSICS

Brahmā is the creative principle in the Universe, the cosmic mind and the impetus for potential to become actual. All the three tripartite forces of the Universe - evolution, existence and devolution and then evolution etc. are all the eternal repeating cycles interacting with one another, giving rise to one another and merging in each other.

He is also a character who features in the Puranas involved in all kinds of questionable practices and stories which are MYTHS which illustrate various aspects of Brahma in creative and entertain ways - not to be taken seriously.

So — Brahma is born from the navel of Vishnu who is born from the Shakti of Shiva who is born from the essence of Brahma who arose from the mind of Shiva who is in fact an alter-ego of Vishnu who lies on the thousand headed serpent of eternity who is just another aspect of himself lying on the ocean of milk which represents the undifferentiated stage of the Universe before its emanation into being.

Do you get it? "

To my way of understanding Brahman exists as Nirguna - devoid of attributes and Sarguna - those with attributes - which are two sides of the same coin

In my own path - "we" (the sum totality of existence) are part of the ocean of the universe and merge back into the one as individual droplets merge back into a body of water.

The ultimate supreme divine is called Param-Atma (the ultimate soul) whereas we are called Atman (individual souls) which are part of - and are expected to merge back at a point in time

In different Hindu sects or sampradeyas - different versions of the deity are thought to be the Supreme Being

For Saivites - it is Mahadev or Shiva - everything comes from him and he is the entire creation personified

For Vaisnavas - it is Vishnu and then others say that Vishnu in the form of Krishna is the embodiment of it all - as I have said before - to my limited knowledge - Krishna is the ONLY religious figure - mythical or otherwise - that showed his devotees that the entire Universe embodies in him - not once but at three different times - it is also reflected in the Gita

haika-sthaṁ jagat kṛitsnaṁ paśhyādya sa-charācharam
mama dehe guḍākeśha yach chānyad draṣhṭum ichchhasi

Gita 11:7

Behold now, Arjun, the entire universe, with everything moving and non-moving, assembled together in my universal form. Whatever else you wish to see, observe it all within this universal form.

And as I alluded to you in a prior post - there is also a couplet where Krishna implies that he alone represents as different deities to different individuals - implying that he is the Universe personified

For what it is worth - from one seeker's point of view ....

Thanks for reading

 

[Vinayaka]

No really, you did a good job explaining. I have a good idea what monism is now.

I'm very peculiar in my beliefs. Yes, I'm a monotheist, but I'm empathic enough to see through the eyes of others, to the point where I cn say to myself, (to borrow from the Buddhists) hmmm one blind person says its a snake, one blind person says its a column, one blind person says its a broom, and we are all describing the same elephant. I can't give that vision to someone who can only see from their own eyes. But it what makes me far more inclined to include things like this particular concept of Brahman as a "different form" of monotheism. And like I said in a different post, I realize that saying this does not at all endear me to my fellow monotheists.

The idea that all is illusion? That's stumbling block. Maybe its just wrong. Maybe I haven't reached the point where I've understood it yet. Maybe as I study Quantum Mechanics it will become clearer to me, perhaps as something close but not quite. Certainly I don't think that objective reality is the way we experience it -- science is very clear about that.

Illusion (maya) to me, is another misunderstood concept. It's deep, and from the absolute deepest perspective, the world of form is illusory. For one thing, it's entirely temporary. The universe spins, planets change, evolve, rock crumbles. There is not one thing of form that doesn't change.

From the normal waking perspective, it's all real. Hit someone upside the head with a rock, catch coronavirus, and people will all say it's real pain.

The challenge comes from folks taking this incredibly deep perspective, and bringing it to the external, where it has no place. An analogy is blood ... the physical body is totally oozing with blood as we speak. It's running through all parts ... brain, bones, gut, toes, etc. In order to understand that, we have to look deeper than skin. We have to have an x-ray, or colour it so the x-ray can see it, we have to think outside our normal awareness. The eyes don't see it, the ears don't hear it, the tastebuds don't taste it. But it's there all the time. But because of maya, we can't see it.

So again we have this intellectualisation of a concept that's deeper in nature. The intellectial advaitin uses words to describe stuff that is beyond words.

 

[Valjean]

Brahma means the same as Havah in Hebrew, and often in Hindu texts it is put Lord Brahma, which in Ancient Hebrew is Yahavah.

Brahman is the ultimate Source of reality, and everything comes from it; in the Bible this is the God Most High (El Elyon).

When we understand Dharmic monotheism, the Bible makes far more sense; as the Source of reality (El Elyon) is beyond form, and is all that should be worshipped...

In Arabic El Elyon is Ala Ilah, which then became the word 'Allah'; which implies the God Most High.

The Source of reality can not directly interact with the reality, so it manifests Divine Beings (Elohim), which are called Avatars in Hinduism, who then interacted with mankind.

In both the Hindu creation, and the Bible the Lord of Creation (Yahavah/Brahma) spoke the Word, and created the design of reality; yet reality comes from the Source, the God Most High.

Most of the world's religions have a similar theological architecture, there is a Divine Council of archangels (Elohim), and then the Source manifests everything.

As far as I understand Rabbinic Judaism follows henotheism since Babylon, and the Curse of Moses was placed on them for having rejected monotheism (Deuteronomy 32:7-22).

In my opinion.

I think the blue girl's referring to Brahman, rather than Brahma. Brahma is a religious entity; a god. He's the personification of the creative force that generates our perception of the world around us.

Brahman is a sort of brane from which realities emerge. It's not a god. It's more physics than religion, although it's associated with Vedantic Hindu metaphysics.

 

[wizanda]

Respectfully: Can you support this through a quote from Torah or Tanach?

Daniel 7:9 “I watched until thrones were placed, and one who was ancient of days sat. His clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool. His throne was fiery flames, and its wheels burning fire.

Same question as above...

Before He gave any shape to the world, before He produced any form, He was alone, without form and without resemblance to anything else. Who then can comprehend how He was before the Creation? Hence it is forbidden to lend Him any form or similitude, or even to call Him by His sacred name, or to indicate Him by a single letter or a single point... But after He created the form of the Heavenly Man, He used him as a chariot wherein to descend, and He wishes to be called after His form, which is the sacred name "YHWH". - Zohar.

In my opinion.

 

[dybmh]

Ein Sof implies Yahavah

I'm looking for this ^^.

What you offered from the wikipedia seems to say that Ein Sof does not imply Yahava. Seems to... I'm not claiming to understand this perfectly, myself...

 

[IndigoChild5559]

At @IndigoChild5559

I am not a "Hindu" in the strictest sense of the word - so please take what I have to say with that bias in mind - @Aupmanyav when he deigns to come along - may add more

Some references for you -

Astika schools of philosophy - goes all the way from belief in a deity to total non belief in a god (Samkhya) as close as it gets to atheism proper

Vedanta - as @Vinayaka referred to - is a study of subjects appearing at the end of the Vedas (Ved = from Vedas; ant = end)

While the three "major" figures of the supreme lord are Brahma (NOT to be confused with Brahman) Vishnu and Shiva - respectively the Creator, Sustainer and Destroyer - there is an excellent reply on Quora from Rami Sivan - who is an expert in the Mimamsa philosophy - you may want to look him up on Quora - I have found his replies steeped in pragmatism and showing of a deep knowledge of not only Hindu teachings but also the three Abrahamic faiths - Judaism Christianity and Islam

He says and I quote directly:

"The most important thing to learn to avoid confusion is to differentiate between MYTHOLOGY and METAPHYSICS

Brahmā is the creative principle in the Universe, the cosmic mind and the impetus for potential to become actual. All the three tripartite forces of the Universe - evolution, existence and devolution and then evolution etc. are all the eternal repeating cycles interacting with one another, giving rise to one another and merging in each other.

He is also a character who features in the Puranas involved in all kinds of questionable practices and stories which are MYTHS which illustrate various aspects of Brahma in creative and entertain ways - not to be taken seriously.

So — Brahma is born from the navel of Vishnu who is born from the Shakti of Shiva who is born from the essence of Brahma who arose from the mind of Shiva who is in fact an alter-ego of Vishnu who lies on the thousand headed serpent of eternity who is just another aspect of himself lying on the ocean of milk which represents the undifferentiated stage of the Universe before its emanation into being.

Do you get it? "

To my way of understanding Brahman exists as Nirguna - devoid of attributes and Sarguna - those with attributes - which are two sides of the same coin

View attachment 38083



In my own path - "we" (the sum totality of existence) are part of the ocean of the universe and merge back into the one as individual droplets merge back into a body of water.

View attachment 38077

The ultimate supreme divine is called Param-Atma (the ultimate soul) whereas we are called Atman (individual souls) which are part of - and are expected to merge back at a point in time

View attachment 38080

In different Hindu sects or sampradeyas - different versions of the deity are thought to be the Supreme Being

For Saivites - it is Mahadev or Shiva - everything comes from him and he is the entire creation personified

For Vaisnavas - it is Vishnu and then others say that Vishnu in the form of Krishna is the embodiment of it all - as I have said before - to my limited knowledge - Krishna is the ONLY religious figure - mythical or otherwise - that showed his devotees that the entire Universe embodies in him - not once but at three different times - it is also reflected in the Gita

haika-sthaṁ jagat kṛitsnaṁ paśhyādya sa-charācharam
mama dehe guḍākeśha yach chānyad draṣhṭum ichchhasi

Gita 11:7

Behold now, Arjun, the entire universe, with everything moving and non-moving, assembled together in my universal form. Whatever else you wish to see, observe it all within this universal form.

And as I alluded to you in a prior post - there is also a couplet where Krishna implies that he alone represents as different deities to different individuals - implying that he is the Universe personified

For what it worth - from one seeker's point of view ....

Thanks for reading

Thank you for a most wonderful post, especially the quotes. I have always enjoyed reading the sacred writings of other faiths. It doesn't tempt me to leave Judaism, but it reminds me how others have their own glimpse of the Divine. Very beautiful stuff. And it has the advantage of not claiming to replace Judaism or twisting our scriptures around, so it doesn't irritate me the way some religions do. LOL

Thank you for the tidbit about Krishna. I think I learned that long ago, but had completely forgotten it. I have not studied Hinduism for, oh, about 30 or so years, and basically have lost most of what I once learned, mostly for lack of anyone to talk with about it.

It's a fine line we walk in here. We have both similarities and differences. It would be a disservice to emphasize only one and not the other, like having cake without half the ingredients. I spend so much of my time debating in here. I really just needed a change of pace, to do something in the comparative religion side.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I'm looking for this ^^.

What you offered from the wikipedia seems to say that Ein Sof does not imply Yahava. Seems to... I'm not claiming to understand this perfectly, myself...

I supsect that anyone who really knew the Kabbalah would not be in this forum talking about it. Take him with a grain of salt.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Brahman isn't a classical monotheist deity. It is really the substrate of all existence, the ground of reality. It's not really a being. It's the ocean in which all things exists. It has no wants, needs or desires. It doesn't come up with morality or anything. It just is. Any theistic stance is compatible with belief in monism.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Brahman isn't a classical monotheists deity. It is really the substrate of all existence, the ground of reality. It's not really a being. It's the ocean in which all things exists. It has no wants, needs or desires. It doesn't come up with morality or anything. It just is. Any theistic stance is compatible with belief in monism.

Define God. If you think you can, I would say you don't really undrstand God. Th God of Judaism has no form either. The finite cannot comprehend the infinite.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Define God. If you think you can, I would say you don't really undrstand God. Th God of Judaism has no form either. The finite cannot comprehend the infinite.

The Abrahamic deity is a being with wants and desires that reveals moral codes and commandments to humanity. Brahman doesn't fit the bill with any of those things. It just does an eternal cycle of manifesting the cosmos, sustaining the cosmos for a while and then dissolving it, over and over.