Hinduism influenced by Abrahamic faiths?

[Mahatma Gandhi]

Namaste,

From Vedic times, there were many, many gods in India, none of them supreme or the one true god. Some of them worshiped Shiva, others Vishnu, and so on. Even gods like agni and vayu were worshiped. Point is, Hindus never even considered the idea that one god among them could be supreme.

But all this suddenly changed, and soon we had Vaishnavites claiming Vishnu to be supreme, and Shaivas claiming Shiva to be supreme. Is this because of the monotheistic idea prevalent in the Abrahamic faiths? Is contact with Christianity and Islam help Hindus reconsider their polytheistic views?

Your insights?

 

[Jacksnyte]

Namaste,

From Vedic times, there were many, many gods in India, none of them supreme or the one true god. Some of them worshiped Shiva, others Vishnu, and so on. Even gods like agni and vayu were worshiped. Point is, Hindus never even considered the idea that one god among them could be supreme.

But all this suddenly changed, and soon we had Vaishnavites claiming Vishnu to be supreme, and Shaivas claiming Shiva to be supreme. Is this because of the monotheistic idea prevalent in the Abrahamic faiths? Is contact with Christianity and Islam help Hindus reconsider their polytheistic views?

Your insights?

Possibly. Another take on this could be humans propensity for dividing up into smaller ideological groups over extended periods of time.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Namaste,

From Vedic times, there were many, many gods in India, none of them supreme or the one true god. Some of them worshiped Shiva, others Vishnu, and so on. Even gods like agni and vayu were worshiped. Point is, Hindus never even considered the idea that one god among them could be supreme.

But all this suddenly changed, and soon we had Vaishnavites claiming Vishnu to be supreme, and Shaivas claiming Shiva to be supreme. Is this because of the monotheistic idea prevalent in the Abrahamic faiths? Is contact with Christianity and Islam help Hindus reconsider their polytheistic views?

Your insights?

My insight is I think you are not a Hindu.

Rig Veda Samhita 1.164.46 says

"ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti agnim yamam matariswanam ahuh" meaning Truth is one, but the learned refer to it in different names like agni, yama, matariswan. So all the Gods are one.

The Vedas teaches both Monism and Monotheism. This predates the Abrahamic faiths. The early scriptures in the Old Testament also talk about different Gods.

“You shall have no other gods before me."
Exodus 20:3

And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”
Genesis 3:22

I do not believe that this means the Genesis or Exodus teaches Polytheism. Sometimes it takes some study to understand a different religion.

 

[Gaura Priya]

Some feel that the Abrahamic religions actually originally was polytheistic, and then evolved towards henotheism, until it reached complete monotheism.

One can see the development from the anthropomorphic conceptions of God in Judaism to the conception of God through Eir attributes and qualities in the Baha'i Faith.

Still the Upanishads revere Ishvara and the Unmanifested Absolute.

And somehow I'm suspecting that you're really not a Hindu... too bad you can't be like a bhuta, lol.

 

[bhaktajan]

From Vedic times,
Your insights?

Vedic times = pre-western history. All time after that is the modern epoch known as the kali-yuga era [last of four time cycles].

There were many, many gods in India, none of them supreme or the one true god.
Your insights?

All Vedic Gods live within our same material universe ---we are all ensconced here together. Vedic Gods are all the sons of the First born person in the Universe, namely, Brahma. Such parental lineages are those known as the Devas [demi-gods]. The best name is Demigod because they do not control nor create the cosmos, nor the mysterious reason for life and consciousness beings. The Vedic Demigods are all progeny of Brahma who was born atop the Lotus flower that sprung from Maha-Vishnu's navel. [Maha-Vishnu is a plenary expansion of the one almighty God in Heaven's external energy known as "Material-Energy"].

We are spirit souls in this material world, that eminates from Mahavishnu's breathing, which was then, by Mahavishnu's glance, impregnated with conscious souls seeking to lord-over-all-they-survey ---that first person/progenitor/engineer/demigod of all things "Passionate/Creative", aka, Lord Brahma, the Grandfather of all the Demigods incharge of the supervision of all cosmic-management departments. Just as Lord Brahma, all Demigods are born and will pass and be replaced by candidates fit for the position. This cycle is always going on within the material cosmos.

The supreme God is svayambhu-bhagavan known commonly as Krishna.
The supreme God Krishna lives outside MahaVishnu's sleeping breaths.
The supreme God Krishna lives in the spiritual Sky.
The spiritual Sky is the self-luminous "Vyoma" [Sky/Void] that eminates from Krishna's bodily luster.
Krishna's bodily luster is known as Brahma-Jyoti.
Brahma-Jyoti = effulegence of Brahma ~{my coining: 'brahma-shine'}
Brahma = spirit energy aka s spirit soul.

 

[bhaktajan]

The Supreme God manifests two energies:
a] Spiritual Conscious Energy [The kingdom of God along with Free-willed Individual Spirit-Souls]
&
b] Material Energy [8 aggregates: Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligenc, Ego]

Material energy = Created/maintained/destroyed [aka, the 'tri-gunas' ---Goodness/Passion/Ignorance]

Spiritual energy = Eternal blissfull inter-personal pastimes in God's personal extended entourage [aka, the 'Sat-Chitta-Ananda' ---Eternality/Consciousness/Bliss].
Yes, a "jealous God" indicates an absolute exclusivity ---hence the concept that God-Almighty is an Absolute Transcendent Personality of Godhead without a second.

God-Almighty indicates an absolutely unique individual Personality all His own without botheration of Material-Energy.
Material-Energy allow for the "Spirit-souls" to seek domination of their environs during eons of "Passing-Time" where the 'cycle of samsara' mercifully repeats & accomidates the multitudes of "Eaters-Sleepers-Defenders-Copulators (Spirit-souls-in-the-material-world)" ad-infinitum.

But outside/beyond the confines of the material-world, in the Spiritual Sky with the Spirital Planets where eternal time exists ---spirit-souls live by a different economic model of currency ---Love of God.

The supreme God is enjoying Hisown Transcendent pastimes as Self-born Autocrat; The supreme God is absolute and thus can be known ---yet all knowledge is gained directly from a teacher to student relationship.

So the Vedas states.

Some of them worshiped Shiva, others Vishnu, and so on.
Your insights?

Each is the remnents of local traditions due to pastimes that occurred from antiquity that survives to this day.
Just like Assyrians from Iran are not muslims.
So local customs are centered around ancient local occurances that pertained to different personlities of the Devas.

Even gods like agni and vayu were worshiped.
Your insights?

Agni & Vayu are "Job-Titles" --such demigod posts are maintained by Persons in charge of different departments of universal management. Worship paid to the Demigods is always for material boons.
It is like paying rent to the rent-collection agent rather than directly to the landlord's front door.

Point is, Hindus never even considered the idea that one god among them could be supreme.
Your insights?

I do not know any such thing. Hindus do know all about the Supreme God.
Just like local speech Dialects are due to hemetically sealed areas or Old Maharajas or Sahib's demarcation lines ---so also, the centralisation of Indias 64 years of independence will still bring an evermore clarification to what theirown scripture says.

But all this suddenly changed, and soon we had Vaishnavites claiming Vishnu to be supreme, and Shaivas claiming Shiva to be supreme.
Your insights?

I do not know any such thing.
The Supreme personality of Godhead Bhagavan Sri Krishna ---expands the spirit realm of creation via his eternal consort Srimati Radharani and then into his Brother Balarama [hence the Mahavishnu expansions et al].

A name for this Brother Balarama is Shankara.

Shiva is the most exhaulted Vaishnava.
No Vaishnava denies nor shuns Shiva.
IMHO, a Shivite that denies & shuns is actually in impersonalist who concludes. philosophically, that God has no form, as is adhered to in the Suyavadi Schools of Hindu metaphysics.

Is this because of the monotheistic idea prevalent in the Abrahamic faiths?
Your insights?

I do not know any such thing. There is no such influence IMO.
The influence, since WWII is the other way around IMO.
The Monotheism is India's Metaphysical traditions has finally arrived in the west ---without the corrupting effects of translations or viceroys with ulterior motives.

Is contact with Christianity and Islam help Hindus reconsider their polytheistic views?
Your insights?

Christianity & Islam are too busy to learn anything until they take rests between confligrations IMO.

 

[Breathe]

Rig Veda 1.164.46.


Surely any Hindu should know this.

 

[Jacksnyte]

The Supreme God manifests two energies:
a] Spiritual Conscious Energy [The kingdom of God along with Free-willed Individual Spirit-Souls]
&
b] Material Energy [8 aggregates: Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligenc, Ego]

Material energy = Created/maintained/destroyed [aka, the 'tri-gunas' ---Goodness/Passion/Ignorance]

Spiritual energy = Eternal blissfull inter-personal pastimes in God's personal extended entourage [aka, the 'Sat-Chitta-Ananda' ---Eternality/Consciousness/Bliss].
Yes, a "jealous God" indicates an absolute exclusivity ---hence the concept that God-Almighty is an Absolute Transcendent Personality of Godhead without a second.

God-Almighty indicates an absolutely unique individual Personality all His own without botheration of Material-Energy.
Material-Energy allow for the "Spirit-souls" to seek domination of their environs during eons of "Passing-Time" where the 'cycle of samsara' mercifully repeats & accomidates the multitudes of "Eaters-Sleepers-Defenders-Copulators (Spirit-souls-in-the-material-world)" ad-infinitum.

But outside/beyond the confines of the material-world, in the Spiritual Sky with the Spirital Planets where eternal time exists ---spirit-souls live by a different economic model of currency ---Love of God.

The supreme God is enjoying Hisown Transcendent pastimes as Self-born Autocrat; The supreme God is absolute and thus can be known ---yet all knowledge is gained directly from a teacher to student relationship.

So the Vedas states.


Each is the remnents of local traditions due to pastimes that occurred from antiquity that survives to this day.
Just like Assyrians from Iran are not muslims.
So local customs are centered around ancient local occurances that pertained to different personlities of the Devas.


Agni & Vayu are "Job-Titles" --such demigod posts are maintained by Persons in charge of different departments of universal management. Worship paid to the Demigods is always for material boons.
It is like paying rent to the rent-collection agent rather than directly to the landlord's front door.


I do not know any such thing. Hindus do know all about the Supreme God.
Just like local speech Dialects are due to hemetically sealed areas or Old Maharajas or Sahib's demarcation lines ---so also, the centralisation of Indias 64 years of independence will still bring an evermore clarification to what theirown scripture says.


I do not know any such thing.
The Supreme personality of Godhead Bhagavan Sri Krishna ---expands the spirit realm of creation via his eternal consort Srimati Radharani and then into his Brother Balarama [hence the Mahavishnu expansions et al].

A name for this Brother Balarama is Shankara.

Shiva is the most exhaulted Vaishnava.
No Vaishnava denies nor shuns Shiva.
IMHO, a Shivite that denies & shuns is actually in impersonalist who concludes. philosophically, that God has no form, as is adhered to in the Suyavadi Schools of Hindu metaphysics.


I do not know any such thing. There is no such influence IMO.
The influence, since WWII is the other way around IMO.
The Monotheism is India's Metaphysical traditions has finally arrived in the west ---without the corrupting effects of translations or viceroys with ulterior motives.


Christianity & Islam are too busy to learn anything until they take rests between confligrations IMO.

And here, you have the ISKON take on things, basically. I have known Vaishnavas who aren't quite as rigid in their cosmogony, but they are not necessarily part of the Hare Krishna movement, either. Which is the more correct? I would say they are both as correct as is needed by the individual practitioner. Same mountain, slightly different paths to the top.
(This person's post is confusing with my response added, as it has adopted my characteristically bolded blue font!)

 

[bhaktajan]

My insight is I think you are not a Hindu.

Rig Veda Samhita 1.164.46 says

"ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti agnim yamam matariswanam ahuh" meaning Truth is one, but the learned refer to it in different names like agni, yama, matariswan. So all the Gods are one.

A special term allies here:
"ekatvam anupasyatah" ---from "Sri Isopanisad" verse 7.

ekatvam--oneness in quality;
anupasyatah--of one who sees through authority, or one who sees constantly like that.​

 

[Riverwolf]

Namaste,

From Vedic times, there were many, many gods in India, none of them supreme or the one true god. Some of them worshiped Shiva, others Vishnu, and so on. Even gods like agni and vayu were worshiped. Point is, Hindus never even considered the idea that one god among them could be supreme.

Completely wrong. Besides the fact that Vishnu and Shiva worship was actually not that widespread back then(there are VERY few hymns to either of them in the Vedas; the Rig Veda has only five hymns to Rudra, and one of them is also a hymn to Soma), Indra was, in fact, the Supreme King of the Gods.

The Nasadiya (from the Rig Veda) speaks of "the One who sits in the highest heaven". This One is not named, but it does indicate that there was a sense of a "Supreme" back then.

I've also heard that Varuna was at one point worshiped as the Supreme, All-Pervading God.

For someone who claims to be Hindu, you don't really seem to know that much about it. This is all very basic information that ANYONE can find on a very rudimentary study of Hinduism.

 

[bhaktajan]

And here, you have the ISKCON take on things, basically. I have known Vaishnavas who aren't quite as rigid in their cosmogony, but they are not necessarily part of the Hare Krishna movement, either. Which is the more correct? I would say they are both as correct as is needed by the individual practitioner. Same mountain, slightly different paths to the top.
(This person's post is confusing with my response added, as it has adopted my characteristically bolded blue font!)

"As is needed by the individual practitioner."

This is the wrong approach. The coorect approch is know what iot says in the Scriptures of Orthodox Hindus such as ISKCON.

Orthodox Hindus must the absolute need to broadcast "Who is Krishna"
"Who is Krishna" is the purpose of the Vedas ---it says so in the Vedas ---that is what differentiates an Orthodox versus a non-Orthodox student of the Vedas.

An Orthodox Hindu student of the Vedas always quotes the mother-source of their knowledge, namely "What does it say in the Bhagavad-Gita"? This is the correct approach.

I know what the Society for Krishna Conscousness propagates ---it is in the Bhagavad-Gita etc etc etc ---it is in the Mahabharata etc etc etc. ---it is in the Puranas etc etc etc. ---it is in the compilation of the Vedas by Vyasadeva etc etc etc. ---it is in the Bhahma-samhita-Gita etc etc etc.

It is even in the Lord's Prayer by Gesu Cristo.

Krishna Conscousness is the ultimate platform of Hindu Mystisism --- it is said thusly by Krishna in the Bhagavad-Gita.

BTW, the conclusion of Yoga austerities and mystic penances is for the self-realisation of "Persona" aka the individual seeker's soul.

God is a Persona ---that is the apex of spiritual Mysteries that is embodied by Krishna.
Religion is a Persona seeking the supreme Personality of Godhead. This is the verdict of the Vedas and Vedanta.

 

[Jacksnyte]

Completely wrong. Besides the fact that Vishnu and Shiva worship was actually not that widespread back then(there are VERY few hymns to either of them in the Vedas; the Rig Veda has only five hymns to Rudra, and one of them is also a hymn to Soma), Indra was, in fact, the Supreme King of the Gods.

The Nasadiya (from the Rig Veda) speaks of "the One who sits in the highest heaven". This One is not named, but it does indicate that there was a sense of a "Supreme" back then.

I've also heard that Varuna was at one point worshiped as the Supreme, All-Pervading God.

For someone who claims to be Hindu, you don't really seem to know that much about it. This is all very basic information that ANYONE can find on a very rudimentary study of Hinduism.

The problem, here in the west, is that well-researched information on Hinduism is a little harder to find than info on the Abrahamic faiths. The most readily available sources for most people in North America is through ISKON, and a couple of other groups. I think it makes it harder for your average American to get an un-skewed view of Hinduism due to the fact that ISKON (as the most well-known)is a rather fundamentalist evangelical sect that bases the majority of it's take on Hinduism on the writings of Bhaktivedanta. I have no problem with ISKON, I just think that other views should be made as visible to westerners for a more balanced idea to be grasped.

 

[Riverwolf]

The problem, here in the west, is that well-researched information on Hinduism is a little harder to find than info on the Abrahamic faiths. The most readily available sources for most people in North America is through ISKON, and a couple of other groups. I think it makes it harder for your average American to get an un-skewed view of Hinduism due to the fact that ISKON (as the most well-known)is a rather fundamentalist evangelical sect that bases the majority of it's take on Hinduism on the writings of Bhaktivedanta. I have no problem with ISKON, I just think that other views should be made as visible to westerners for a more balanced idea to be grasped.

I managed to find quite a few books on Hinduism in my county's library system that weren't by ISKCON. On the other hand, my college's library ONLY has books about ISKCON (well, it has ONE book on Tantra ).

Thing is, the literature of Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami is also readily available from what I've seen; there's a copy of Dancing With Siva in nearly every one of my local libraries.

 

[Jacksnyte]

"As is needed by the individual practitioner."

This is the wrong approach. The coorect approch is know what iot says in the Scriptures of Orthodox Hindus such as ISKCON.

Orthodox Hindus must the absolute need to broadcast "Who is Krishna"
"Who is Krishna" is the purpose of the Vedas ---it says so in the Vedas ---that is what differentiates an Orthodox versus a non-Orthodox student of the Vedas.

An Orthodox Hindu student of the Vedas always quotes the mother-source of their knowledge, namely "What does it say in the Bhagavad-Gita"? This is the correct approach.

I know what the Society for Krishna Conscousness propagates ---it is in the Bhagavad-Gita etc etc etc ---it is in the Mahabharata etc etc etc. ---it is in the Puranas etc etc etc. ---it is in the compilation of the Vedas by Vyasadeva etc etc etc. ---it is in the Bhahma-samhita-Gita etc etc etc.

It is even in the Lord's Prayer by Gesu Cristo.

Krishna Conscousness is the ultimate platform of Hindu Mystisism --- it is said thusly by Krishna in the Bhagavad-Gita.

BTW, the conclusion of Yoga austerities and mystic penances is for the self-realisation of "Persona" aka the individual seeker's soul.

God is a Persona ---that is the apex of spiritual Mysteries that is embodied by Krishna.
Religion is a Persona seeking the supreme Personality of Godhead. This is the verdict of the Vedas and Vedanta.

Ah but , the problem here is that there are orthodox Vaishnavas, orthodox Shaivites, orthodox Smrtas, etc. My only issue with ISKON is the "one-true-wayism" that is prevalent, and is extremely similar in approach to the "one-true-wayism" of evangelical fundamentalist Christians. It shows a distinct rigidity in thinking. A study of the Rig Veda will show that original orthodoxy was quite a bit different than that espoused by most "orthodox" sects of Hinduism today.

 

[bhaktajan]

The most readily available sources for most people in North America is through ISKON, and a couple of other groups. I think it makes it harder for your average American to get an un-skewed view of Hinduism due to the fact that ISKCON (as the most well-known) is a rather fundamentalist evangelical sect

All poor baby. What about AP & UP updates of all things maya?

Upon what authority do you say "ISKCON Skews" ---that is a direct 180 degree mis-statement.

ISKCON's (aka, The Hare Krishna Mantra Chanting Hindus) are orthodox fundamentalist evangelical representatives of UN-SKEWED direct translations.

Did you know this fact:
"Translations CANNOT be copywrighted"!
A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami's Translations CANNOT be copywrighted ---because, a court of law accepts "Translations" as ipso facto renderings of one language to another as-it-is.

So A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami's Translation of Bhagavad-gita is entitled:
Bhagavad-gita as-it-is.

This was a direct academic chasticement of all those that would translate the Bhagavd-gita in any way, other than for an authentically authoritative scholarly stewardship's sake.

I have risen through the ranks of novice to well-read ---it took me only several hundreds of thousands of births, so far. ISKCON is trying to aide others in translations that save the time of long winded detours of samsara.

Godspeed, said the Hare Krishna yogi,
Bhaktajan

 

[bhaktajan]

Originally Posted by Jacksnyte
Ah but , the problem here is that there are orthodox Vaishnavas, orthodox Shaivites, orthodox Smrtas, etc. My only issue with ISKON is the "one-true-wayism" that is prevalent,

"I feel you pain" ---Ex-impeeched US President Bill Clinton

 

[bhaktajan]

A study of the Rig Veda will show that original orthodoxy was quite a bit different than that espoused by most "orthodox" sects of Hinduism today.

Any one nearby, that can hear my voice, a "Study of the Rg Veda" student?

"espoused by most "orthodox" sects of Hinduism today"

In contrast with what?
Exclusive expensive non-orthodox sects of Hinduism just off Broadway & Canal?

 

[Gaura Priya]

Ah but , the problem here is that there are orthodox Vaishnavas, orthodox Shaivites, orthodox Smrtas, etc. My only issue with ISKON is the "one-true-wayism" that is prevalent, and is extremely similar in approach to the "one-true-wayism" of evangelical fundamentalist Christians. It shows a distinct rigidity in thinking. A study of the Rig Veda will show that original orthodoxy was quite a bit different than that espoused by most "orthodox" sects of Hinduism today.

But the thing is, Vaishnavism has ALWAYS been that way.

ISKCON is only a speck of Vaishnava Dharma under the Gaudiya lineage. After all, Pushtimargis and Nimbarkis and Swaminarayanis and Sri Vaishnavas display the same orthodoxy in different ways; Vaishnavism has always believed in itself as the original Dharma and the Supreme Dharma, and all the other religions such as Shaktism and Shaivism, as recent developments.

So as much as I do not like ISKCON's way, it still represents a significant portion of the Vaishnava religion.

 

[Jacksnyte]

"I feel you pain" ---Ex-impeeched US President Bill Clinton

I am not making a statement on the validity of ISKON here, I am saying ISKON is skewed toward a Vaishnava take on things. Although the Bhagavad Gita is the most popular of Hindu scriptures, it is not the only authoritative scripture. there are other and earlier scriptures that are just as valid, and approach Hinduism differently. The Vedas include a much more varied approach than what is presented through ISKON. What I am saying is that for someone to make a more informed decision about their spiritual practice, one must first have more information from as many authoritative sources as possible. From all that I have seen, ISKON only represents one type of Hinduism; an admittedly rich and beautiful type of Hinduism, but only one type out of many.

 

[bhaktajan]

iginally Posted by Royal Falcon: Vaishnavism has always believed in itself as the original Dharma and the Supreme Dharma, and all the other religions such as Shaktism and Shaivism, as recent developments

Ravana was a devotee of Shiva ---while he kidnaped and fought Rama. This occured long long ago.

The Adaityas & Daitya children of Kasyapa, one of the major the projenitors of the cosmos worshipped differently due to what their different plans were inregards to staying within the Maya-prakriti samsara cycle of Material life in the Material Cosmos.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Regarding the Vedic mission-statement:
The complete picture is drawn.
The complete orientation is delineated.
The complete revelation an open-book.
None-the-less lust and desire and foolish lose still roams in the back of our minds.
None-the-less the mystery of life lingers and leaves us with all the mundane obligations that fill our days.
None-the-less doubts re-surface with new twists of logic.

The complete pursuit of Yoga's Final Conclusion is the very prime matter of ones own "Survival Instinct".
Our own individual "Survival Instinct" is what drives us to know un-equvically, "What is the final Consclusion of Vedic Knowledge".

That final Consclusion of Vedic Knowledge is a Person. That person is Krishna. This lesson is transcendental all on its own merit.

To broadcast Krishna's name fame form personality paraphenalia entourage and pastimes [as pers bonefide scriptures' contents] is, on its own merit, a process of Bhakti-yoga.