Brahman and Monotheism

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

thank you.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

thank you

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

I absolutely agree. I think its far less how I try to define God, and a lot more about how I treat other human beings.

 

[Valjean]

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.

Physics demonstrates the illusory nature of waking-state reality. Look closely enough and commonsense begins to break down and it becomes clear that reality is not as it appears. Contradictions appear, the impossible happens and you begin to realize that there's a lot going on that your five senses aren't registering.

The dream seems real while you're dreaming it -- as long as you don't look too closely.

 

[wizanda]

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

Brahman in the Bhagavad Gita is unknowable, unmanifest, it is in a place beyond quantum physics; thus this is panentheism - The Source is beyond the manifestation.

The Source in Hindu thought manifest the Avatars, Brahma meaning Creator, Vishnu the Sustainer, and Shiva the Refresher, as different aspects of the One Source interacting with mankind; thus this is pantheism - The beings inside the manifestation, create the reality.

In Deuteronomy 32:7-9 El Elyon (Source Most High) is above Yahavah (Lord of Creation), and the Divine Council, as to each was given a nation.

David declares the Source above Yahavah in the Psalms 18:13 + Psalms 21:7 + Psalms 50:14 + Psalms 78:35 + Psalms 92:1.

The Quran tried to rectify that people should only worship the Source (Allah), and not the Divine Beings manifest from it.

Can you explain how pantheism differs from monism?

Pantheism is understanding that everything in the manifest reality is the same as its creators; in Hindu texts this is carefully layered to make sure people understand there is the Source (panentheism), and then the Divine Beings that interact (pantheism).

Monism is that all the reality is made of the same essence, and the Source is part of this same energy we are thinking within, that we call consciousness; yet it is all dynamic code, like the Matrix idea.

In Advaita Vedanta (Monism past the Vedas) we are Neo realizing we always were the CPU, as it is all One.

Dvaita Vedanta (Dualism past the Vedas) argues that the CPU is higher in concept than us, and therefore we have dualism, as we are in a lower materialistic state.

Buddha, Yeshua, Lao Tzu, Krishna, etc, taught a form of Nirvana (0neness): which is that when we're in a Selfless state like the Source, we become like Neo in the Matrix.

In my opinion.

 

[Baroodi]

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.

Believing in one God while acknowledging other gods is not true monotheism. Ideal monotheism is to believe in only one God and at the same time not believing in any other. Not even that, a monotheistic believer should not attribute any of the divine characters to any other thing whatsoever.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Believing in one God while acknowledging other gods is not true monotheism. Ideal monotheism is to believe in only one God and at the same time not believing in any other. Not even that, a monotheistic believer should not attribute any of the divine characters to any other thing whatsoever.

If you believe that these other gods are only masks of the one God, then essentially you only believe in ONE God. That's monotheism.

 

[TravisJC]

As a Saivite Hindu, it can be oversimplified by saying that Lord Shiva is the supreme being and all other gods/goddesses are manifestations of Him. I would consider monotheism the correct term when presenting my beliefs to other, but other Hindus may not.

Not even that, a monotheistic believer should not attribute any of the divine characters to any other thing whatsoever.

So here's where things can get complicated, because I believe that Lord Shiva is the supreme; however, acknowledge other gods/goddesses like Parvati, Ganesha, Durga, etc. Many gods/goddesses may do what you may say are 'godly' things but all are just the different 'arms' of Lord Shiva.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Believing in one God while acknowledging other gods is not true monotheism. Ideal monotheism is to believe in only one God and at the same time not believing in any other. Not even that, a monotheistic believer should not attribute any of the divine characters to any other thing whatsoever.

Well, Hinduism does not work that way. See here: Power of Lord Shiva
One can even be an atheist and a Hindu. I am a strong atheist and a staunch Hindu.

 

[wizanda]

Well, Hinduism does not work that way. See here: Power of Lord Shiva

Liberal Hinduism in modern times allows anything; yet if we apply Dharmic principles to exegesis: then Avatars are not gods, they are Divine Beings (Elohim), and the Source of reality (Brahman, El Elyon, Allah, Ahura Mazda) is all that should be worshipped.

When we define worship in metaphysical science (Bhakti Yoga): the Source is where we all come from, it is like a CPU manifesting reality; thus connecting to images in the Matrix, isn't pure Dharmic principles.

Shiva is an aspect of the One Source (Brahman), meaning the Refresher... If a practitioner doesn't recognize that Shiva doesn't actually exist, as it has form, and the Source is beyond form, and personal ID, this isn't fully understanding advanced Dharmic principles...

Which is where Yeshua, Buddha, Lao Tzu, and Krishna, tried to rectify the lack of understanding in the Dharma (The Way).
[GALLERY=media, 7679][/GALLERY]

In my opinion.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well, you are the mahdi, the returning Jesus, on a mission from God / Allah, how can I refute what you say?

 

[Vinayaka]

As a Saivite Hindu, it can be oversimplified by saying that Lord Shiva is the supreme being and all other gods/goddesses are manifestations of Him. I would consider monotheism the correct term when presenting my beliefs to other, but other Hindus may not.



So here's where things can get complicated, because I believe that Lord Shiva is the supreme; however, acknowledge other gods/goddesses like Parvati, Ganesha, Durga, etc. Many gods/goddesses may do what you may say are 'godly' things but all are just the different 'arms' of Lord Shiva.

I call it henotheism.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

As a Saivite Hindu, it can be oversimplified by saying that Lord Shiva is the supreme being and all other gods/goddesses are manifestations of Him. I would consider monotheism the correct term when presenting my beliefs to other, but other Hindus may not.

I'd like to hear more about this.

 

[Aupmanyav]

As a Saivite Hindu, it can be oversimplified by saying that Lord Shiva is the supreme being and all other gods/goddesses are manifestations of Him. I would consider monotheism the correct term when presenting my beliefs to other, but other Hindus may not.

I don't think so. With the umpteen views in Hinduism, it will indeed be over-simplification. Even Shaivas may differ with this. There are Shaiva Monists, i.e., 'I am Shiva, I am the eternal'*, and Shaiva polytheists who gladly recognize other Gods, even as equals (Vishnu and his avataras). But sure, you are entitled to your views, which is quite popular in Hinduism.

* A famous poem by the first Sankaracharya says just that:
"na me dveşarāgau na me lobhamohau, mado naiva me naiva mātsarya bhāvaḥ;
na dharmo na cārtho na kāmo na mokşaḥ, cidānanda rūpaḥ śivo'ham śivo'ham."
I have no hatred or dislike, nor greed, nor attachment, nor haughtiness, nor feelings of jealousy. I have no duty (dharma), nor any money, nor any desire (kāma), nor even liberation (mokṣa). I am indeed, the the form of eternal bliss, I am Shiva (the auspicious), I am Shva (the eternal).
Atma Shatkam - Wikipedia (Six verses to enlightenment, 3rd verse)

 

[atanu]

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.

May you please tell me/us the fundamental/essential characteristics of the monotheism and it’s God, as you understand so that a contrast or comparison can be made?

I understand that monotheistic religions, if not as diverse as Hinduism, still are diverse and the idea of God is not the same for all followers.

In the Vedas, as encapsulated in Vedanta, ‘the pure awareness’ that knows objects, feelings, and sensations but that no second can know, is the Immutable, called Brahman. We had a thread on this earlier.

Brahman defined in Taittiriya Upanishad

One may just see the following video that deals with the subject comprehensively. If one sits through the whole video patiently the concept of Brahman will be clear.

I am also sharing a video of David Bentley Hart who defines God experience as Being-Consciousness-Bliss. I note that on critical examination or through actual experience all will converge to the concept that the Highest-Immutable, by whatever term we call it, is intrinsically of the nature of Truth-Consciousness-Bliss.

Be patient. Thanks.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

May you please tell me/us the fundamental/essential characteristics of the monotheism and it’s God, as you understand so that a contrast or comparison can be made?

Monotheism: the belief in one God. Since we can't really define God (how can the finite fathom the infinite?) other terms such as "Source" or "Creator" or "Great Spirit" are just as good. My Chinese friends tell me that Tao can be thought of as God.

 

[atanu]

Monotheism: the belief in one God. Since we can't really define God (how can the finite fathom the infinite?) other terms such as "Source" or "Creator" or "Great Spirit" are just as good. My Chinese friends tell me that Tao can be thought of as God.

Shalom, Indigo. Namaste.

I believe that answers to questions of the OP may be found in the first video I linked above.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Now what is absolute space and absolute time? I thought it was all relative.

What are absolute space and and absolute time? Check out the first video that atanu posted

@ about 11:03. " 'Brahman' means ... 'the vast' ". Brahman is anantam, unlimited. Absolute space is Brahman's "house" and absolute time is Brahman's "clock", unless of course you choose to speak like so many others who say space and time have boundaries, stretch, contract, curl, and move, in which case you'll be talking like the multitude of Abrahamics who think their God does magic tricks and exists inside and outside of space and time.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Neither time nor space is linear. Tell me, how it was at the moment universe began? Quoting Nasadiya Sukta, RigVeda:

"THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.
What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?
Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.
That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.
Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.
All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit."
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

The origin of Abraham may be A-Brahman