• 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!

Brahman and Monotheism

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I realize that Hinduism has many different sects. Some would say that its actually more than one religion. So I'm not trying to oversimplify Hinduism and make it seem like all Hindus are into what I'm talking about. I know that many are polytheistic. I know that many are henatheistic. Some emphasize the three gods of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. Others have only the god of their family.

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.
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
Brahma means the same as Havah in Hebrew, and often in Hindu texts it is put Lord Brahma, which in Ancient Hebrew is Yahavah.
this looks extremely close to monotheism
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. :innocent:
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Brahman is the ultimate Source of reality, and everything comes from it; in the Bible this is the God Most High (El Elyon).
Interesting... why? I would have said Ein Sof or Atik Yomin.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
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. :innocent:
SOME scholars advance the idea that BEFORE Babylon Israel was henotheistic, believing that other people's god's were real, but that they were to worship only the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob.

Whether that is the case or not, it certainly changed in Babylon.

For example, we have the non-canonical story of Bel in the longer version of Daniel (the one in Greek but not Hebrew, so it's not part of the Tanakh), where Daniel proves that an idol is nothing but an idol and its priests are frauds.

Certainly in Babylon and after, Jews were never tempted by idolatry again. Obviously this is because we were finally convinced that no other gods existed.

The theory I read that makes the most sense is that prior to Babylon, the prevailing worldview was that the strongest god would prevail. If your city or nation got conquered by another, it meant their god was bigger than yours so you adopted the god of your conqueror. But when Judah went into captivity, something different happened. Because the prophets had warned that God would punish, they didn't view captivity as being the other god being the bigger god. Rather they saw their God as being not just the god of Israel, but the God of the whole world. And that meant there were no other gods.

It's worth thinking about.
 

WhyIsThatSo

Well-Known Member
SOME scholars advance the idea that BEFORE Babylon Israel was henotheistic, believing that other people's god's were real, but that they were to worship only the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob.

Whether that is the case or not, it certainly changed in Babylon.

For example, we have the non-canonical story of Bel in the longer version of Daniel (the one in Greek but not Hebrew, so it's not part of the Tanakh), where Daniel proves that an idol is nothing but an idol and its priests are frauds.

Certainly in Babylon and after, Jews were never tempted by idolatry again. Obviously this is because we were finally convinced that no other gods existed.

The theory I read that makes the most sense is that prior to Babylon, the prevailing worldview was that the strongest god would prevail. If your city or nation got conquered by another, it meant their god was bigger than yours so you adopted the god of your conqueror. But when Judah went into captivity, something different happened. Because the prophets had warned that God would punish, they didn't view captivity as being the other god being the bigger god. Rather they saw their God as being not just the god of Israel, but the God of the whole world. And that meant there were no other gods.

It's worth thinking about.

If ancient peoples considered malevolent "extraterrestrials" as "gods",
then yes, it is worth thinking about.
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
Interesting... why? I would have said Ein Sof or Atik Yomin.
The Ancient of Days has a form, and Ein Sof implies Yahavah which also has a form, which is a form of Henotheism; where Judaism has become a religion about following "the name" (Hashem).

It is in the 2nd commandment, that no form or image should be ascribed to the Source (El); the same is stated about Brahman, that the Source has no names or form, as all names, and everything comes from it.

It is easier to understand in a computer analogy, that imagine reality is a universal quantum computer: the Source is the CPU, for it to interact with the Matrix, it must make applications to go into the simulation.

Yahavah was the first Divine Being, which made the rest of the Divine Council.

In my opinion. :innocent:
 

WhyIsThatSo

Well-Known Member
The Ancient of Days has a form, and Ein Sof implies Yahavah which also has a form, which is a form of Henotheism; where Judaism has become a religion about following "the name" (Hashem).

It is in the 2nd commandment, that no form or image should be ascribed to the Source (El); the same is stated about Brahman, that the Source has no names or form, as all names, and everything comes from it.

It is easier to understand in a computer analogy, that imagine reality is a universal quantum computer: the Source is the CPU, for it to interact with the Matrix, it must make applications to go into the simulation.

Yahavah was the first Divine Being, which made the rest of the Divine Council.

In my opinion. :innocent:

His "name" is "MAN".
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
Certainly in Babylon and after, Jews were never tempted by idolatry again.
Because of the language this has been confused, in Isaiah 46:9 it declares El is not like the Elohim, recalling the ancient theology found in Deuteronomy 32:7-9, where El Elyon is above the Elohim (Divine Council).

Therefore when Yahavah Elohim was seen walking in the Garden of Eden, sat and had dinner with Abraham, wrestled with Jacob, clearly it has a form, and therefore is not the Source, yet a Divine Being (Eloh) interacting for it.

Monotheism in Hinduism is to recognize that the Source (Brahman) is all that exists, and all forms manifest by it are only illusions, for us to understand its nature.

In my opinion. :innocent:
 

WhyIsThatSo

Well-Known Member
Because of the language this has been confused, in Isaiah 46:9 it declares El is not like the Elohim, recalling the ancient theology found in Deuteronomy 32:7-9, where El Elyon is above the Elohim (Divine Council).

Therefore when Yahavah Elohim was seen walking in the Garden of Eden, sat and had dinner with Abraham, wrestled with Jacob, clearly it has a form, and therefore is not the Source, yet a Divine Being (Eloh) interacting for it.

Monotheism in Hinduism is to recognize that the Source (Brahman) is all that exists, and all forms manifest by it are only illusions, for us to understand its nature.

In my opinion. :innocent:

All "forms" are "MAN-ifestations"
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Because of the language this has been confused, in Isaiah 46:9 it declares El is not like the Elohim, recalling the ancient theology found in Deuteronomy 32:7-9, where El Elyon is above the Elohim (Divine Council).

Therefore when Yahavah Elohim was seen walking in the Garden of Eden, sat and had dinner with Abraham, wrestled with Jacob, clearly it has a form, and therefore is not the Source, yet a Divine Being (Eloh) interacting for it.

Monotheism in Hinduism is to recognize that the Source (Brahman) is all that exists, and all forms manifest by it are only illusions, for us to understand its nature.

In my opinion. :innocent:
First of all, it is a cheap shot for you to change the text of the sacred word of God. The verse you quoted, Isaiah 46:9, does not use the word Elohim at all. Deuteronomy 32:7-9also doesn't say anything about Elohim or any divine council. The word simply isn't there.

This is why I don't like talking to you. I hope you don't mind if I ignore your future posts.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Yes, they do, if you really understood what you are asking.
I understand perfectly what you area saying. I'm asking you very nicely, out of respect for me as the writer of the OP, don't bring extraterrestrials into the discussion about Brahman. For one thing, I really only asked for replies from those Hindus which believed what I described.
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
The verse you quoted, Isaiah 46:9, does not use the word Elohim at all.
Isaiah 46:9 זכרו ראשׁנות מעולם כי אנכי אל ואין עוד אלהים ואפס כמוני׃

Isaiah 46:9 Remember the former things of old (Deuteronomy 32:7-9), that I Am the Source, and the Divine Beings are nothing like me, and there is none besides.
Deuteronomy 32:7-9also doesn't say anything about Elohim or any divine council.
If we look at the alternate versions of Deuteronomy 32:7-9 there is a discrepancy, where it used to say Elohim or the Sons of El.
This is why I don't like talking to you. I hope you don't mind if I ignore your future posts.
Yeah it must be hard speaking with people who provide evidence, and can prove they're a Divine Being sent from Heaven; thus I don't mind if you reject listening to the Messiah, and logic.

In my opinion. :innocent:
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Isaiah 46:9 זכרו ראשׁנות מעולם כי אנכי אל ואין עוד אלהים ואפס כמוני׃

Isaiah 46:9 Remember the former things of old (Deuteronomy 32:7-9), that I Am the Source, and the Divine Beings are nothing like me, and there is none besides.
OH I see what happened.I looked at 49:6. You are quoting 46:9. Sorry about that. Let's look at the text.

ט זִכְרוּ רִאשֹׁנוֹת, מֵעוֹלָם: כִּי אָנֹכִי אֵל וְאֵין עוֹד, אֱלֹהִים וְאֶפֶס כָּמוֹנִי. 9 Remember the former things of old: that I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like Me;

the first time the text says God, it uses El. The second time it says God, it uses Elohim. The same person, God, aka the person who name is the Tetragrammaton, is speaking of himself using both El and Elohim. Thus, in this case, Elohim is NOT designating the Divine Council, but is one of the designations for yad hay and vav hey.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I think there is a difference between monism, and monotheism. Interesting to me on who you heard from, considering who you asked. Shucks eh?
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?
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
I'm not a Hindu so please correct me if I'm wrong but I think what you are referring to is Advaita Vedanta.
 
Top