One God or Many

[The Hammer]

Why? Or why not?

What's your stance, and how does that help you see the world?

As many know I'm on the side of the Many, or Gods. This is because everyone has different spiritual experiences, and need varying ways to express that. Therefore it's important that Plurality be maintained, for the sake of Unity (non-aggression).

If there is/was a Creator deity/Brahman then would it really care How one worshipped as long as it was done compassionately?

I don't think so.

 

[sun rise]

If there is/was a Creator deity/Brahman then would it really care How one worshipped as long as it was done compassionately?

As rivers lead to the sea, all worship reaches the One. So I agree with that point.

As to one vs many, I'm in the advaita - there is only One and that all apparent duality is like foam on top of the sea - apparently separate from the sea but really not. Worship thus is in essence eventually the longing of the drop bubble reuniting with the sea consciously.

 

[The Hammer]

As to one vs many, I'm in the advaita - there is only One and that all apparent duality is like foam on top of the sea - apparently separate from the sea but really not. Worship thus is in essence eventually the longing of the drop bubble reuniting with the sea consciously.

Even if All there is is One. That split into Duality/Many is necessary, and what keeps the drama of Creation unfolding before us. So, there will always be sides, neither wrong or right.

 

[Valjean]

Depends on your concept of "god." Is any incorporeal being a god, or just some of them? Is god a "being" at all?
And what of the third option -- no gods?
In the Brihandaranyaka Upanishad the sage Yajnavalkya is asked about the number of gods several times. His response:

"Then Vidagdha, the son of Sakala, asked him: “How many gods are there, Yajnavalkya?
Yajnavalkya said, “As many as are indicated in the Nivid of the Visvadevas – 300 and 3003.”

“Very well,” said Sakalya. “How many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya?”
“Thirty-three.”

“Very well,” said Sakalya. “How many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya?”
“Six.”

“Very well,” said Sakalya. “How many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya?”
“Three.”

“Very well,” said Sakalya. “How many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya?”
“Two.”

“Very well,” said Sakalya. “How many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya?”
“One-and-a-half.”

“Very well,” said Sakalya. “How many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya?”
“One.”

Hinduism gets complicated.

 

[stvdv]

If there is/was a Creator deity/Brahman then would it really care How one worshipped as long as it was done compassionately?

Below is my opinion:

I accept what many Realized Sages have declared: "there is 1 God (Atma), called by various names" (by humans, which says it all).

This solves the problems of 1 vs. many gods. One is free to choose any name, all reach the one God.

The "one God" concept ends the fights imperfect humans have about "my God is higher, better than yours", as all are equally important

"The many" concept starts the fights caused by imperfect humans, whereas Truth, Righteousness, Peace and Non violence all have Love at their core

Hence, I choose the "one God" concept

History has proven that the "many gods" concept leads to violence, hence that can't be Truth, as Love is declared to be Divine, fights are the opposite

Note: God does not mean "Biblical God", as God = God. Biblical God again is duality. Praying to God mentioned in the Bible, the Koran, the Hindu Scriptures, etc. all reach the One God

 

[Valjean]

Depends on your concept of "god." Is any incorporeal being a god, or just some of them? Is god a "being" at all?
And what of the third option -- no gods?
In the Brihandaranyaka Upanishad the sage Yajnavalkya is asked about the number of gods several times. His response:

"Then Vidagdha, the son of Sakala, asked him: “How many gods are there, Yajnavalkya?
Yajnavalkya said, “As many as are indicated in the Nivid of the Visvadevas – 300 and 3003.”

“Very well,” said Sakalya. “How many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya?”
“Thirty-three.”

“Very well,” said Sakalya. “How many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya?”
“Six.”

“Very well,” said Sakalya. “How many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya?”
“Three.”

“Very well,” said Sakalya. “How many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya?”
“Two.”

“Very well,” said Sakalya. “How many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya?”
“One-and-a-half.”

“Very well,” said Sakalya. “How many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya?”
“One.”

Hinduism gets complicated.

 

[Valjean]

History has proven that the "many gods" concept leads to violence, hence that can't be Truth.

Source?

How does this follow? Harmful effects have nothing to do with ontological reality.

History has shown that E=MC^2 leads to atomic bombs, hence, E=MC^2 is untrue.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

As rivers lead to the sea, all worship reaches the One. So I agree with that point.

As to one vs many, I'm in the advaita - there is only One and that all apparent duality is like foam on top of the sea - apparently separate from the sea but really not. Worship thus is in essence eventually the longing of the drop bubble reuniting with the sea consciously.

Even if All there is is One. That split into Duality/Many is necessary, and what keeps the drama of Creation unfolding before us. So, there will always be sides, neither wrong or right.

The above quotes are my answer.

 

[stvdv]

Source?

How does this follow? Harmful effects have nothing to do with ontological reality.

History has shown that E=MC^2 leads to atomic bombs, hence, E=MC^2 is untrue.

E=MC^2 is still duality
Harmful effects is still duality
Words is still duality

Hence I started: this is my opinion

Hence I NEVER debate on this

Fine with me if you find faults in my posts
I know that any word is duality, and incapable to describe the Truth, which is said to be beyond words

 

[The Hammer]

Hinduism gets complicated.

Which is why I just say many and don't give a number

 

[The Hammer]

E=MC^2 is still duality
Harmful effects is still duality
Words is still duality

Non-action and action must always coexist. Duality = Reality

 

[Valjean]

E=MC^2 is still duality
Harmful effects is still duality
Words is still duality

Hence I started: this is my opinion

Hence I NEVER debate on this

Fine with me if you find faults in my posts
I know that any word is duality, and incapable to describe the Truth, which is said to be beyond words

I agree.

 

[Fool]

Why? Or why not?

What's your stance, and how does that help you see the world?

As many know I'm on the side of the Many, or Gods. This is because everyone has different spiritual experiences, and need varying ways to express that. Therefore it's important that Plurality be maintained, for the sake of Unity (non-aggression).

If there is/was a Creator deity/Brahman then would it really care How one worshipped as long as it was done compassionately?

I don't think so.

many forms and only one collective conscious action

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Why? Or why not?

What's your stance, and how does that help you see the world?

As many know I'm on the side of the Many, or Gods. This is because everyone has different spiritual experiences, and need varying ways to express that. Therefore it's important that Plurality be maintained, for the sake of Unity (non-aggression).

If there is/was a Creator deity/Brahman then would it really care How one worshipped as long as it was done compassionately?

I don't think so.

I used to be monotheistic but then I realized my religion had polytheistic roots and monotheism is due to political pressure.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Why? Or why not?

What's your stance, and how does that help you see the world?

As many know I'm on the side of the Many, or Gods. This is because everyone has different spiritual experiences, and need varying ways to express that. Therefore it's important that Plurality be maintained, for the sake of Unity (non-aggression).

If there is/was a Creator deity/Brahman then would it really care How one worshipped as long as it was done compassionately?

I don't think so.

One. Because "there is no divine essence distinct from the divine existence, there is no general category under which various distinct divine beings could fall, and thus no sense to be made of the idea of there being this God, that God, the other God, and so forth." (E. Feser)

 

[PearlSeeker]

 

[The Hammer]

Not if the One, is dictating there be Many

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Why? Or why not?

What's your stance, and how does that help you see the world?

As many know I'm on the side of the Many, or Gods. This is because everyone has different spiritual experiences, and need varying ways to express that. Therefore it's important that Plurality be maintained, for the sake of Unity (non-aggression).

If there is/was a Creator deity/Brahman then would it really care How one worshipped as long as it was done compassionately?

I don't think so.

I think the natural evolution of religion is towards monotheism. It just is more sensible than polytheism. In polytheism you have different gods espousing different sets of values -- it's just nuts to say that Yesterday I served the goddess of love, but TODAY I serve the god of war. It's just mentally confusing and inconsistent. When you have one God, you have one set of morals and values to espouse.

I think that Hinduism is evolving into monotheism, with the idea that all of the gods are not actually real, but are simply masks that Brahman wears.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why? Or why not?

What's your stance, and how does that help you see the world?

As many know I'm on the side of the Many, or Gods. This is because everyone has different spiritual experiences, and need varying ways to express that. Therefore it's important that Plurality be maintained, for the sake of Unity (non-aggression).

If there is/was a Creator deity/Brahman then would it really care How one worshipped as long as it was done compassionately?

I don't think so.

My stance is "none," but I think "many" is more reasonable than "one."

 

[paradox]

Why? Or why not?

What's your stance, and how does that help you see the world?

As many know I'm on the side of the Many, or Gods. This is because everyone has different spiritual experiences, and need varying ways to express that. Therefore it's important that Plurality be maintained, for the sake of Unity (non-aggression).

If there is/was a Creator deity/Brahman then would it really care How one worshipped as long as it was done compassionately?

I don't think so.

Do we agree that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent by nature?

If yes, then God is a superior being, which means there is no grater being.
If God is superior being then there can be only one God because all other beings are inferior.

If there are multiple gods then which one is superior?
If none then they can't be gods because they are inferior to superior being.
If there is no superior God then gods don't exist.