• 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

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
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.
And there's where I'm stumped the most, (and get the most flack from others).

I can describe "nothingness", i.e. what Newton had in mind when he spoke of "Absolute Space".
  • "Absolute Space" is a set (i.e. collection of things).
  • The things are elements of the set: dimension-less points, each of which does not have length, width, or depth. Each is nothing more than a "location", most simply and sufficiently identified using a three-dimensional Euclidean Space, each dimension of which is bidirectional.
    • The points do not move relative to each other.
    • There are an infinite number of them.
  • And Absolute Space is, as a whole, boundless.
  • I'm told that a "line" is a one-dimensional, geometric concept; a "plane" is a two-dimensional, geometric concept; and a "cube" is three-dimensional, geometric concept.
    • Some one-dimensional thing can be located in a geometric line in Absolute Space and disappear from the line it was in, but it would still be somewhere in Absolute Space.
    • Some two-dimensional thing can be located in a geometric plane in Absolute Space and disappear from the plane it was in, but it would still be somewhere in Absolute Space.
    • Because I cannot visualize or imagine a four-dimensional, geometrical concept, I cannot imagine or visualize where a point-mass, or anything larger, might go to if someone tried to tell me that "it's outside of Absolute Space". The notion that anything, including Brahman or any subset of Brahman, or Ein Sof or any subset of Ein Sof, exists outside of Absolute Space eludes me completely.
Likewise, I can describe "eternity", i.e. what Newton may have had in mind when he spoke of "Absolute Time".
  • "Absolute Time" is a set. The elements of this set are dimensionless instants, each of which does not have duration. Each is nothing more than a "location", most simply and sufficiently identified using a one-dimensional, one-directional Time-line that has no beginning or end. Absolute Time is, as whole, infinite and eternal. The notion that anything, including Brahman or any subset of Brahman, or Ein Sof or any subset of Ein Sof, exists outside of Absolute Time eludes me completely.
Elsewhere, I posted some of my babbling:
I agree wholeheartedly. But ... I once was acquainted with an agnostic atheist (now dead) who described the smallest particle to me as a point of mass, i.e. a concrete thing that has no length, width, or thickness, and yet is something and is not nothing. He called it an "atom", using the Greek word that the ancients called it. [The Greek word "atom" means "indivisible] The same man told me that he believed that there are an infinite number of these atoms moving in and through boundless Space. He said more, much of which I could not comprehend. According to the man, atoms move at the same, constant speed through space, but in curved paths, because--since they have mass--the forces associated with each atom prevent it from moving in a perfectly straight line through Space.

Now, imagine a boundless (infinite) and eternal cosmos filled with an infinite number of point-masses in motion, if you can.

And tell me, if you can, what is "a spirit"? Some Christians believe God is a spirit who can exist outside of Space and Time. I say that's nonsense. Space--by my definition--is boundless/infinite and Time--by my definition--has no beginning or end. But when I try to tell them that, they cannot give me a definition of Space and Time that makes sense, and then insist that God can be inside of Space and Time and outside of Space and Time. And it's clear to me that the space and time that they have in mind are subsets, i.e. portions, of the Space and Time that I say exist. Muslims and Baha'i, are ready and willing to say: "Nobody knows what God is" or "God is what His attributes say He is". But it's as useless, if not more so, to discuss the matter with them as it is to discuss the matter with Christians. Only some of the Jews and some of the Hindu have given the matter any thought, but I haven't discussed the matter with either of them.

I say, God is Spirit, infinite/boundless, eternal, and substantial: i.e. something, not nothing like Space. And the only something that I can think of has mass.

I have since read that mass and energy are not the same. But I am still stuck on the following subject-matter. I think of it as "The Spirit-Body Problem" [my twist on "The Mind-Body Problem].
  • Essentially, The Mind-Body Problem goes something like this:
    • Proposition 1. The mind is a nonphysical thing.
    • Proposition 2. The body is a physical thing.
    • Proposition 3. The mind and the body interact.
    • Proposition 4. Physical and nonphysical things cannot interact.
  • Whether or not those four propositions are true, that's the "core" of the Mind-Body Problem as I've received it.
  • Now, I turn to my twist on that problem: The Spirit-Body Problem.
  • Either the propositions of the Spirit-Body Problem are:
    • Proposition 1: The Spirit is a nonphysical thing.
    • Proposition 2. The Body is a physical thing.
    • Proposition 3. The Spirit and the Body interact.
    • Proposition 4. Physical and nonphysical things cannot interact.
  • Or the propositions of the Spirit-Body Problem are:
    • Proposition 1. The Spirit is a physical thing.
    • Proposition 2. The Body is a physical thing.
    • Proposition 3. The Spirit and the Body interact.
    • Proposition 4. Physical things can and do interact.
Personally, I believe the last four propositions, and don't encounter the same problems that folks in general, and fellow Christians encounter who believe the second set of propositions. For me, both Spirit and Body occupy Absolute Space and Absolute Time. Whether Spirit is "flowing energy" or "moving mass", it's physical, IMO.
 
Last edited:

ManSinha

Well-Known Member
Proposition 4. Physical and nonphysical things cannot interact.

Well - @Terry Sampson - your thoughts are non-physical are they not? And so are our emotions - yes you can certainly tell me that with PET-CT and advanced MRI we can see changes in the brain as we experience happiness vs sadness - but for the most part they are intangible - take romantic love for instance - it is itself intangible per se and yet boy does it interact with the physical - so the twain does meet - at least at times

There are many quotes that I have run into in many scriptures including the Quran and my own as well as the Gita among others - which indicate that the Divine is outside the understanding of the human with his/her essentially five senses to grasp reality as we (mostly) see and experience it.

That is one reason, I believe, both Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu are represented as having human forms with some additions - weapons, immortality and various other super powers - because as you pointed out - it is hard for common folk like me, to concentrate on, and pray to a formless entity - we kinda have to "dumb it down" so to speak

If interested I can refer you to a poem composed by the 10th Master where he tries to describe the indescribable using 950 different attributes and at the end says that it represents but a fraction of the truth Jaap - goes from pages 1-34
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
The idea that all is illusion? That's stumbling block. .. Certainly I don't think that objective reality is the way we experience it -- science is very clear about that.
Why should that be a stumbling block? After all, what science says is that if you push a pin in your finger tip, no atom touches any other, though you experience pain and blood oozes out.

And what are humans (or for that matter any living being generally). Product of two factories. One factory produces one item every month for about 35 years, of which just about 10 or 20 at the maximum are used. The other is a mad factory, it produces, trillions upon trillions of its product for 50 years of which just about 10 or 20 at the maximum are used. The first factory takes one of the millions of one batch and nurtures it. At the end of the life-time of that product, all the trillions of atoms of that product are dispersed, they form new associations, none really dies. That is the cycle of life and we pride on our individual existence (I am a human) which is so very temporary. We are nothing but a collection of atoms, of energy, of Brahman.
It just does an eternal cycle of manifesting the cosmos, sustaining the cosmos for a while and then dissolving it, over and over.
That is illusion, 'maya', Frank. It does not do anything of the kind, it just exists (and as I said, perhaps does not, at times). :D
I like this poem of Rumi's:
His message is only heard in silence.
Rumi was not an Advaitist. :)
 
Last edited:

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
Well - @Terry Sampson - your thoughts are non-physical are they not? And so are our emotions - yes you can certainly tell me that with PET-CT and advanced MRI we can see changes in the brain as we experience happiness vs sadness - but for the most part they are intangible - take romantic love for instance - it is itself intangible per se and yet boy does it interact with the physical - so the twain does meet - at least at times
Ahhh, you're talking about matters that pertain to the Mind-Body Problem, aren't you? If so, then I'd walk with you down that road, but we may want to do that in a separate thread. Whaddya say?
 

ajay0

Well-Known Member
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.


This is very aptly put. :)


Great indeed are the devas who have sprung out of Brahman.
Atharva Veda



All the 330 million gods and goddesses are considered the diverse manifestations of the One unitary Brahman.


The Shivalingam is considered the greatest of the gods and goddesses and the Panchakshari Mantra Om Namah Shivaya is considered as the greatest mantra as well. The Shivalingam is also the only deity in Hinduism who is non-anthropomorphic and considered synonymous with light.

The Avatars Parashurama, Rama,Krishna themselves worshipped the Shivalingam.


Jyotirlingam is also an another name for the Shivalingam, with 'Jyoti' meaning light. The Yajur Veda, Shiva Puranas, Swami Vivekananda,the ancient Kashi Vishwanath temple have also referred to the Shivalingam as representing God as a pillar of light.

I had created a thread discussing the correlation between God and light in various world religions....


Interesting correlation between God and light in major world religions...


The Prajapita Brahmakumaris is a monotheistic Dharmic sect which worships God Shiva as an incorporeal point of light and consider Him the same as Jehovah, Allah and Ahura Mazda of the other monotheistic religions.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
At Mahapralaya everything will be refreshed with Holy Quantum Fire, this is called 'Judgement Day' or 'the Day of the Lord' in Abrahamic religions.
O Wise Wizanda, and others of Abrahamic religions, you are confusing the issue by interjecting views which do not belong to Advaita. Why don't you allow the advaitists to speak for themselves?
.. latter 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).
It sure is a pointless idea as far as Islam goes, but it is not that where Advaitists are concerned. We do not belong to the Abrahamic tradition. Torah, Bible or Quran are not our holy books.
Buddha challenged that by calling it Brahman, it created an anthropomorphized idol;
Buddha talked about the God Brahma and not about Brahman.
.. and He is to all things the Knower.
In case of Brahman, there are no things other than it for it to know. What will it know when it is itself all that exists. Islam by meaning of the word, is submission; if I am myself Brahman, then to whom do I submit? I believe that Genghis, Timur, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam, Gaddafi, Osama and Caliph Ibrahim too, you and me, were/are none other than Brahman.

All differences exist only at the perceived level of reality. At the absolute level, Advaita does not allow any distinction whatsoever. Clearly, Islam and Advaita are different.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Or the propositions of the Spirit-Body Problem are:
Proposition 1. The Spirit is a physical thing.
Proposition 2. The Body is a physical thing.
Proposition 3. The Spirit and the Body interact.
Proposition 4. Physical things can and do interact.
Personally, I believe the last four propositions, ..
You are welcome to your beliefs. But what is physical and what is not? Take the example of a lump of Uraniaum 235 (35 pounds, I read) which changed into energy in the early atom bombs. What was physical changed into what was non-physical. Is light or heat physical?
 

ajay0

Well-Known Member
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.


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.


Both your stances are correct, and in order to understand better it is important to recognize the difference between the impersonal Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman of a personal nature.


Prajnanam Brahma. (Aitareya Upanishad 3.1.3) -- "Brahman is pure consciousness."



Brahman is pure consciousness as the Vedas point out.

Nirguna Brahman is pure consciousness of an impersonal nature, while God as Saguna Brahman and the jivatman or soul are pure consciousness of a personalised nature, with the Jivatman or soul in bondage due to karma. This bondage, when hacked off through spiritual exercises and meditation, results in the soul or jivatman being purified of karma and regaining its original state as pure consciousness. All the religious practices are designed to help the soul regain its
original state as pure consciousness.

Paramahamsa Yogananda also states in this regard, "The word 'God' means the manifested, transcendental Being beyond creation, but existing in relation to creation. Spirit existed before God. God is the Creator of the universe, but Spirit is the Creator of God."

Here Spirit stands for Nirguna Brahman, while God stands for Saguna Brahman.


In the yogic philosophy, the Shivalinga as Saguna Brahman is
considered the first form to arise when creation occurs, and also the last form before the dissolution of creation. In ancient India ,the Shiva Lingam only was worshipped as Saguna Brahman in Hindu temples, and idol worship started later on emulating anthropomorphic Jain and Buddhist idols in their temples.

The Shivalingam is considered as the greatest personification of Saguna Brahman, and was worshipped by the likes of the Avatars Parashurama, Rama and Krishna themselves.


An oval shaped stone is worshipped as a symbol of God or Shivalingam in Shaivite temples. The Vedas and Shaivite scriptures consider the Shivalingam to a be a cosmic pillar or point of light. Another name for the Shivalingam is Jyotirlingam with Jyoti meaning light.

The monotheistic God of Judaism, Islam and Zoroastrianism correlates with the Shivalingam in Hinduism, and this is also substantiated by the Dharmic monotheistic sect, the Prajapita Brahmakumaris.

8cc233_d59139ae74b248fe9a85129c2dfdb87d~mv2.jpg
 
Last edited:

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
Buddha talked about the God Brahma and not about Brahman.
This is where I specified the texts where it is clearest (Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra), so you can read it, not quote half the sentence.
O Wise Wizanda, and others of Abrahamic religions, you are confusing the issue by interjecting views which do not belong to Advaita.
I'm not Abrahamic, I fulfil Abrahamic and Dharmic prophecy as the final Divine Being at the End of Time; therefore you let me know where something I said about monism was not correct, as I've spent the last 10 years discussing it with my Dad.

Which is where I know many of the Advaita arguments, as he has been telling me Sanskrit terms for years of where it can be justified.

As a Divine Being who is said to have helped Code the Matrix, I accept both monism, and dualism at the same time, and can understand both existing; where to justify both, we just have to understand reality as layers of dimensional quantum physics Code.

In my opinion.
:innocent:
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
But what is physical and what is not?
Absolute Space and Absolute Time aren't, IMO.
What was physical changed into what was non-physical. Is light or heat physical?
My agnostic atheist teacher certainly said that light is physical, and so do I. I can't remember if my teacher went so far as to say that heat is. I'm inclined to say that it is. Neither Absolute Space nor Absolute Time are hot.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
I'm not Abrahamic, I fulfil Abrahamic and Dharmic prophecy as the final Divine Being at the End of Time; ..
Dont say 'final'. There is never a final in Abrahamic religions. I thought the last was Baqaollah of the Bahais or Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of the Ahmadiyyas. But no, here we have another who claims to be the final. :D
Neither Absolute Space nor Absolute Time are hot.
Now what is absolute space and absolute time? I thought it was all relative.
 
Last edited:

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
I thought the last was Baqaollah of the Bahais or Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of the Ahmadiyyas. But no, here we have another who claims to be the final.
Baha'u'llah wasn't an avatar, he has made a mess of theology in the Bible, and clearly wasn't Christ as he did not know the basic contradictions that were prophesied, like not to go after "I Am" statements or that Simon was called the Stumbling Stone (peter) as he would mislead people.

In the Parable of the Seed Sower, the seed that falls on Stony Ground is plural of petros (Matthew 13:18-23).

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be the Imam Mahdi, which according to the Quran was Muhammad who identified the false text had been added to the Bible, at its canonization as prophesied.

The Final Avatar has a specific name according to the texts (Revelation 19:12), and this is identifiable by Revelation 3:12, as a mixture of the names Zan/Zion (Psalms 146:10, Psalms 147:12, Isaiah 52:7), Sandalphon, and Sananda...

When we also see this is Skanda in the Bhagavad Gita, it isn't complex to see Zanda fits across many religions globally as One.

Just be aware I've been told before I was old enough to even remember, that I'm here before the Great Tribulation, and most people are about to die; I'm not here preaching follow me, I'm saying accept the Source of reality before your deaths, as recorded in all the world's religions.

In my opinion. :innocent:
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
Now what is absolute space and absolute time? I thought it was all relative.
All Absolute Motions are Relative Motions; not all Relative Motions are Absolute Motions. An Absolute Space and Absolute Time are essential to any theory that speaks of Absolute Motions.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
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)
What if the truth is more complicated, harder to grasp?

In quantum physics (I just know that someone better educated than I am is going to fix my analogy) you can have two particle spinning off out into space. But are they two particles? What one does, the other does simultaneously. I can't understand that. It *looks* like one thing is in two places at the same time. But is that what is happening?

There are many things that are just beyond our understanding. I for one am willing to say, okay, sure it looks like dualistic and monistic are irreconcilable. But, you know, maybe that's just our limited human minds not being able to grasp the truth yet.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Brahman is visualized in Hinduism in many ways.
1. As a God separate from his creations (that is monotheism, dvaita, dualism);
Can you offer more detail about this?
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
I am not understanding what you are saying here.
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.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.
Well saying that Brahman is that entity that is the universe would be pantheism, would it not? Can you explain how pantheism differs from monism? And if you DO use the word "entity" how can you call yourself an atheist, since "entity" implies sentience.

By the way, the whole idea of God being a bearded man in the sky is really overused by non-theists. These kind of images are anthropomorphisms only; they are not literal. Sure you have your Mormons, and occasional monotheists, who do embrace the idea of God having some sort of body. But monotheists in general kind of know that this isn't the reality. Jews in particular are actually opposed to the sort of imagery of God being the old man with the beard. It just goes a little too far for our tastes. Although our scriptures have their fair share of anthropomorphisms, we make sure we teach that God has no form.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
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?
thanks :)
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
What if the truth is more complicated, harder to grasp?

In quantum physics (I just know that someone better educated than I am is going to fix my analogy) you can have two particle spinning off out into space. But are they two particles? What one does, the other does simultaneously. I can't understand that. It *looks* like one thing is in two places at the same time. But is that what is happening?

There are many things that are just beyond our understanding. I for one am willing to say, okay, sure it looks like dualistic and monistic are irreconcilable. But, you know, maybe that's just our limited human minds not being able to grasp the truth yet.
The more I learn about reality the farther my jaw drops.

For many reasons I have come to believe the monistic view is one step in understanding beyond the dualistic view. Rough analogy is like going from Newtonian mechanics to Einsteinian understanding.

Fortunately for us, I don't feel our understanding and position on this mind bending stuff is particularly important. It seems the quality of our love, hearts and minds are all we really need to worry about and the universe has our back.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
What one does, the other does simultaneously.
There are many things that are just beyond our understanding.
Energy acts like waves or particles at different times. It is neither a wave nor a particle. The problem you mention is an easy one and has been understood.
That also is true. For me, it is the problem of existence vs non-existence. But there are many other problems which science is trying to tackle. The beginning of universe and that of life also is not clearly understood. Science is working on that.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Can you offer more detail about this?

I am not understanding what you are saying here.

Well saying that Brahman is that entity that is the universe would be pantheism, would it not?

By the way, the whole idea of God being a bearded man in the sky is really overused by non-theists.
Sure. Here: Dvaita Vedanta - Wikipedia (Teacher: Madhvacharya)
Actually the majority of Hindus believe in Gods and Goddesses. That all is duality or multiplicity.

Other shades of Hindu philosophy between the two extremes, Dvaita (Duality) and Advaita (Non-duality):
Vishishtadvaita Darshan - established by Ramanujacharya (1017-1137 CE)
Bhedabhed (or Dvaitadvait) Darshan - established by Nimbarkacharya
Shuddhadvait Darshan - established by Vallabhacharya (1479-1531 CE)
Achintyabhedabhed Darshan - established by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (1486-1534 CE) - Hare-Krishnas

It will be pantheism if we say all things in the universe are God. We are not saying that. We are saying that neither Brahman nor things in the universe are God.

That was said in a tongue-in-cheek way. I do understand that it is not like that.
 
Last edited:
Top