Brahman and Monotheism

[George-ananda]

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

I am into Advaita Vedanta philosophy.

Here is the difference. The monotheism of Abrahamic religions is dualistic; meaning God and creation are two....We are not God

In Advaita Vedanta Hindu the philosophy is non-dualistic meaning God and creation are not-two. We are God. (The goal is to realize our Godness/Oneness)

 

[sun rise]

The intellectial advaitin uses words to describe stuff that is beyond words.

Yes. Words, being products of the intellect, are limited by the limitations of intellect. The Bible in the West, the great sufi Rumi and sages in the East all reflect on this. I like this poem of Rumi's:

"In Silence"

A guide has entered this life in silence.
His message is only heard in silence.

Take a sip of his precious wine
and lose yourself.
Don't insult the greatness of his love,
for he helps all those who suffer, in silence.

Polish the mirror between the breaths.
Go with him beyond words.
He knows your every deed.
He is the one who moves the wheel of heaven,
in silence.

Every thought is buried in your heart;
He will reveal them one by one, in silence.

Turn each of your thoughts into a bird
and let them fly to the other world.
One is an owl, one is a falcon, one is a crow.
Each one is different from the others
but they are all the same in silence.

To see the Moon that cannot be seen
turn your eyes inward and look at yourself,
in silence.

In this world and the next,
don't talk about this and that;
Let him show you everything,
shining as one . . .
in silence.

 

[Valjean]

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.

Good points.
Brahman; a theoretical concept having no attributes we can get a handle on, is notoriously difficult to discuss outside of pure mathematics. We're forced to attribute some features to it just to talk about it. This we call Saguna Brahman or Brahman-with-attributes. Some, with a theistic bent, go so far as to personify it, calling is Ishwara and thus making a deity of it.

Important things to understand in most Hindu philosophy are the concepts of levels of reality and illusion (maya).
The most obvious example of the former is dreaming. A dream is a state of conscious, generated by the dreamer, associated with a particular, narrow level of reality. Dreams are a reality for the dreamer, but on waking, their illusory nature is immediately revealed. They're subjectively real only.

Likewise waking-state is another subjective reality, who's illusory nature, (maya) is revealed if we wake into yet another, expanded reality.
Dreams within dreams.

The contradictions and absurdities of a dream are obvious from a waking state, but can't be comprehended whilst within the dream, nor can the reality of waking-state be perceived from the contracted consciousness of the dream.
Likewise, from the expanded realities posited by Hindu philosophy, perceived from what we'd call "mystical states," the contradictions of our Newtonian reality are apparent, even if they're not perceptible from within waking-state 'dream'.

 

[Terry Sampson]

His "name" is "MAN".

Still with the "MAN" thing, eh?

 

[Valjean]

I am into Advaita Vedanta philosophy.

Here is the difference. The monotheism of Abrahamic religions is dualistic; meaning God and creation are two....We are not God

In Advaita Vedanta Hindu the philosophy is non-dualistic meaning God and creation are not-two. We are God. (The goal is to realize our Godness/Oneness)

Exactly. Ultimately, in fact, the goal would be to transcend even god.

 

[Aupmanyav]

For one thing, I really only asked for replies from those Hindus which believed what I described.

Yeah, Brahman has been explained to you on the first page by those who are not Hindus and you wanted an answer from a Hindu. I am a Hindu, though an atheist.
Brahman is visualized in Hinduism in many ways.
1. As a God separate from his creations (that is monotheism, dvaita, dualism);
2. as different but still the same (qualified sameness, there are a whole lot of views of this kind which you can find here: Vedanta - Wikipedia) and
3. one in which Brahman is not considered a God but the entity which constitutes everything in the universe. Substrate of all things but still not a God. This is not monotheism. For the chagrin of many Hindus, I follow this philosophy.

I looked up monism, and among other things, it said, "The doctrine that only one supreme being exists."

You are not missing anything, but that is not the correct definition of Monism. If there are living beings on earth and a Supreme Being, the bearded one, in the Sky, then these will constitute two things. How can that be termed as Monism? Monism means the existence of just one entity and no other.
It is late here. Expect more tomorrow.

 

[ManSinha]

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.

@Saint Frankenstein
Have you come across the story of Rama, Hanuman and the god of death?

 

[Terry Sampson]

Expect more tomorrow.

Holding my breath.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

@Saint Frankenstein
Have you come across the story of Rama, Hanuman and the god of death?

I don't think so. A summary, if you feel like it?

 

[wizanda]

Brahman is said to be a blissful experience, not a wrathful deity.

At Mahapralaya everything will be refreshed with Holy Quantum Fire, this is called 'Judgement Day' or 'the Day of the Lord' in Abrahamic religions.

In the Bhavagad Gita it is stated Skanda, and in the Kalki Purana, that Kalki will come to wash the realm in Fire at the end of the Age of Limitation (Kali Yuga), before we move into an Age of Enlightenment (Satya Yuga).

In Revelation the 25th Elder from Heaven is the Lord of Lords, and King of Kings i.e Lord of Creation (Brahma/Yahavah) returning as Lord of Earth.

Understanding that the Source of our reality (El Elyon) is in a state of Constant Bliss (Sat Chit Ananda), is prophesied for those worthy of the age to come (Isaiah 35:10, Isaiah 51:11) i.e. when we reach the state of enlightenment to see that Brahman is One, and therefore religion is One in different languages (Revelation 10:11), it brings peace within.

In my opinion.

 

[ClimbingTheLadder]

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

I disagree, Monotheism becomes Polytheism if it tries to deny Monism. Monotheism is inherently Monism. God is the absolute and the only thing that truly exists, according to the Abrahamic tradition. Hindus share the same basic view here.


I draw a very sharp distinction between MONOtheism and monoPOLYtheism.
The former speaks of the immutable ground of all reality and the katter speaks of some kind of entity that happens to be 'the only one' (which is a pointless idea which has nothing to do with the abrahamic tradition).
In the Abrahamic tradition though, the only 'entities' out there are Angels (and Jinns to in Islam). The first three commandments in Exodus and Deuteronomy are very very explicit about what God really is. If you think you can describe it through any positive description, then it is default not-God.
As is the foundational doctrine of Tawhid in Islam (the indifferentiated Oneness of God which pervades all things and has no similitude to any created thing, which is beyond all forms but which constitutes that very ground of reality), supported by endless Quranic emphasis on God being not a thing, being, entity etc.

A very important ayah in the Qur'an is as follows:
"Therefore do not give likenesses to Allah; surely Allah knows and you do not know."
(Surah 16:74)

Also, as Ali Ibn Abi Talib (son-in-law of Muhammad) states in an authoritative sermon:

He is One but not by the first in counting, is Creator but not through activity or labour, is Hearer but not by means of any physical organ, is Looker but not by a stretching of eyelids, is Witness but not by nearness, is Distinct but not by measurement of distance, is Manifest but not by seeing and is Hidden but not by subtlety (of body). He is Distinct from things because He overpowers them and exercises might over them, while things are distinct from Him because of their subjugation to Him and their turning towards Him.
He who describes Him limits Him. He who limits Him numbers Him. He who numbers Him rejects His eternity. He who said "how" sought a description for Him. He who said "where" bounded him. He is the Knower even though there be nothing to be known. He is the Sustainer even though there be nothing to be sustained. He is the Powerful even though there be nothing to be overpowered.

 

[ClimbingTheLadder]

Even Christianity, despite it's heavy idolatry (I mean Protestants too, just because they rejected Catholicism means nothing), their texts themselves still imply Monism.

In the evolved Christology presented by both Paul and the Johannines, we see constant fractal-references. Various symbols are used such as: Jesus is the head of the body which is the church, we are the church and the tradition is passed through apostolic sucession.
There are metaphors like God being the tree, Jesus being the branch and we being the leaves.

Etc, there are a lot lot more of this stuff in the New Testament people don't even think about.

 

[wizanda]

If we explain the differences between monism (Advaita), and dualism (Dvaita) in Hindu thought about Brahman, it then clarifies the essential natures of the God Most High (El Elyon) in the Bible.

Even defining the Source (Brahman) as ultimately a place for the God Most High, places it over there, and us here (dualism)...

Whereas 'there is no in-between', everything is all quantum physics (monism).

How can we point at any one thing, and say that is the Source, as it all is manifest from its own position of quantum physics; the Source quantifies our reality, yet everything is made of the same consciousness energy, thus we are the reality, we are within.

Buddha challenged that by calling it Brahman, it created an anthropomorphized idol; therefore Buddha in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra referred to Source as 'the Universal Mind'.

This is where we can see the Source (Brahman) as a 'Central Processor' at a logical state of Zeroness (Nirvana).

Everything is Code of the Matrix, and we're all a part of Brahman's consciousness.

Lao Tzu explains if we call the Source names, we create a name association; so we are better to not have names for it, and follow the many deities people define, it is better to understand the mathematics of reality around us, and see the wisdoms to recognize the logic from the Source, which he calls the Dao - which is nameless, as it means "The Way".

In my opinion.

 

[ManSinha]

I don't think so. A summary, if you feel like it?

Sure - and thank you for the interest

As you may know - Rama or Ramachandra of Ayodhya is regarded as an avatar of Lord Vishnu
Among his foremost devotees is the monkey god Hanuman - who could be taken to be a clone of Martian Manhunter in terms of powers - closest way I can put it - suffice it to say Hanuman is regarded as extremely powerful and immortal and utterly devoted to his lord.
When it was Rama's time to depart the earth - death came for him - but with Hanuman standing guard 24/7 - could not get close - so he tried to ask for help from the lord - went to Rama in a dream and explained the stalemate
The next day Rama "accidentally" drops his ring in a "crevice" in the palace and calls Hanuman to get it back
Hanuman reduces himself in size (remember super powers) and goes through the crevice except - this is no ordinary crevice - he lands outside of time in the realm of the snake god who watches the Leela (the play of the Universe) as an observer. When the snake god is asked by Hanuman if he has seen Rama's ring come through - the former points to a pile of rings and says - "it fell there as it does every time - take your pick"
That is the realization for Hanuman that time is cyclic - and in every cycle - certain events repeat themselves
Hanuman hurries back but death has already has his chance and comes to the lord to take him back from the human world

Source (among others)

 

[ManSinha]

God is the absolute and the only thing that truly exists, according to the Abrahamic tradition. Hindus share the same basic view here.

I am not sure that is entirely true

I have seen individuals from the Jewish faith as well as Baha'i faith on here speak about God as an "other" - outside of this world - but definitively an external being

Also with certain branches of Hindu philosophy you have Dvaita - or duality - which again separates God as an external entity

The concept of all-one is IMO a core concept of Advaita - which is one of the lines of Hindu philosophy and belief. See post #46 from @Aupmanyav above.

 

[ClimbingTheLadder]

I am not sure that is entirely true

I have seen individuals from the Jewish faith as well as Baha'i faith on here speak about God as an "other" - outside of this world - but definitively an external being

Also with certain branches of Hindu philosophy you have Dvaita - or duality - which again separates God as an external entity

Yes and I'm sure you'd also know that these things are not exclusive, they're relational. Of course, in order to relate to God we can only describe it relationally as an other but it's actuality can never be anything except for a unity which encompasses everything.

As Surah 41:54 of the Qur'an states: "Unquestionably, they are in doubt about the meeting with their Lord. Unquestionably He encompasses all things"

As far as traditional Abrahamic metaphysics and theology are concerned, anything less than absolute is not God, but potentially an idol of one's mind.
Hindu views typically tend to compensate for this by embracing intermediary images as a way of breaking that barrier in the opposite way (seeing how Hinduism tends to alleviate oneself from self-identification), the heavy tendency towards monasticism of different forms in the Abrahamic tradition tend to lead towards the same realizations except for being through a different means.

Nonetheless, God, Theophany and Prophets are three different things. Theophany can never be "god-itself" anymore than everything in existence is God-itself. Resolution of inherrent paradox is the only solution to things of this magnitude.
Anyway, as the Qur'an says (Surah 57:3): هُوَ ٱلۡأَوَّلُ وَٱلۡأٓخِرُ وَٱلظَّـٰهِرُ وَٱلۡبَاطِنُۖ وَهُوَ بِكُلِّ شَيۡءٍ عَلِيمٌ (He is the First and the Last, the Outward and the Inward, and He is to all things the Knower).
As the book of Isaiah (48:12) states: "Listen to Me, O Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am He—I am the first, And I am the last as well."
As St John of Patmos' Apocalypse (1:8, etc) states: "I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Interstingly, just like one of the previous Quranic verses I posted in the post you replied to, we find this also in Isaiah (46:5):
"To whom can you compare Me Or declare Me similar? To whom can you liken Me, So that we seem comparable?"


Mainstream religion (I mean the laymen) have a tendency to just take these verses are sentiment, rather than the true ontological statements they are. To not consider them central parts of the puzzle of understanding what these texts actually say about God would be foolish. Fundamentally, whilst there is the concept of Prophethood in the Abrahamic traditions, their view of God doesn't differ much from the Upanishads. Both are useful in their different ways. Personally I believe that Abrahamics can help Dharmics out a lot, and that Dharmics can help Abrahamics out a lot.

Anyway....

 

[Aupmanyav]

It just does an eternal cycle of manifesting the cosmos, sustaining the cosmos for a while and then dissolving it, over and over.

Or perhaps it does nothing of the sort. Only that we perceive it that way.

Holding my breath.

Haha, I Am back.

 

[ManSinha]

The singular problem I personally have with the Abrahamic faiths is the prescription of law governing every aspect of life from personal things such as prayer to dress codes and charging of interest. As at least I have seen even laws passed decades ago in a "secular" society get outdated as time passes. While the exhortation to be personally good, pray and help one's fellow beings is great - the prescriptive nature of the Abrahamic scripture (including the Christian and Baha'i tendency to proselytize) and of course we have to only look at the history of India from the time of the Afghan Durrani's and Ghazni to Aurangzeb (who I believe was a Sunni muslim) to see what excesses a fanatical person in power will go to. Now an enlightened person like yourself may say that he was not following the guidelines of the book and the prophet - the fact remains that he used the book and passages therein to do what he did including the sanctioned murder of two innocent kids among others.

 

[ClimbingTheLadder]

@ManSinha I should also add that "’ehyeh ’ăšer ’ehyeh", or "I am That I am) (Exodus 3:14) remains something that layman/mainstream Jews and Christians are generally confused about. They may profess ideas about why YHWH addressed Moses with that as his most sacred name (yes, more than the name YHWH) but it's meaning is quite obvious if one realizes that the name itself is an encapsulation of God.
There are interestingly a lot of similar mantras/formulas in Hindu tradition such as "Tat Tvam Asi". Even if we decided it was all coincidental, it's an unlikely coincidence.
YHWH (or more accurately, the theophany) tells Moses to address the Iraelites with this name. It speaks volumes, also one of the most powerful chapters of the book of Exodus, IMHO.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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

Yeah @sun rise is a knowlegdeable member. Strict Advaita of the kind that Gaudapada, who lived prior to the great 8th Century Hindu philosopher, the first Sankaracharya, professed - and is professed in Kashmir Shavism of Abhinavagupta (c. 950 – 1016 CE) is:

Unequivocal Absolute Non-duality

All humans, all animals, all vegetation, all non-living things are none other than Brahman. The idea is supported by many Upanishads. They said:
'Ayamatma Brahma' (This self is Brahman), 'Aham Brahmasmi' (I am Brahman), 'Tat twam asi' (That is what you are), 'So Aham' (That am I), 'Sarvam khalu idam Brahma' (All things here are Brahman), 'Brahma ekam, dwiteeyo nasti' (Brahman is one, there is no second), etc. It excludes nothing.

In strict Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is visualized as eternal, form-less, change-less, uninvolved (in the affairs of the world), etc. Its existence (in Advaita, Brahman is always addressed as 'it', it is gender-less) alone is the sufficient cause of what all we perceive, and what we perceive is only an illusion, 'maya'.
Since I myself am Brahman, so no question of there being a God separate from me which requires submission and worship. That makes me an atheist.

In Advaita, Brahman is not taken as a God who can part the sea or can move the mountains. Since Brahman is uninvolved, it does nothing of that kind. Actually it does not do anything other than just existing (and perhaps, at times, it does not even do that) - goes into its non-existent phase. After all, existence and non-existence is what we perceive. Why should Brahman be bound by that?