metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
But are you sure what the "destination" is?
With me, I've come to accept the journey as a way of life, thus a final "destination" I don't have to necessarily know.
Or, to put it another way, imo it is what it is.
-
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!
Is Hindu monotheism incompatible with Abrahamic monotheism?
- Thread starter Dawnofhope
- Start date
With me, I've come to accept the journey as a way of life, thus a final "destination" I don't have to necessarily know.
Or, to put it another way, imo it is what it is.
Martin
Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
No, I don't know what the destination is, that's what makes it interesting, I guess.
I'm very familiar with "it is what it is", I used to be a Buddhist. Got bored with that.
Before the advent of Nimbarkacharya's Hamsa sampradaya, his disciple Jaidev's GeetGovind and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's Gaudiya sampraday, Krishna stood alone in His Temple, as the BhAgwats worshipped Krishna . Period.
Here are a few modern day Temples where Krishna stands alone.
1. Krishna Temple Udupi -- Original Rukmini's worship vigraha
2. Guruvayoorappan: Guruvayurappan - Wikipedia
3. Parthasarthi Perumal Temple Chennai - Pandavs worshipped Krishna as Parthasarthi (He drove the chariot for Arjun)
4. Kari Krishna Perumal
5. ALL Vallabhacharya's PushTiMarg Haveli Mandirs - where Shri NathJi ia alone.
- Nathdwara in Rajasthan
- Every other Haveli in Vraj (80 kos radius Vrundavan Mathura GokuL), and the 284 baithaks - spots where the acharya travelled and meditated
- All other PushTiMargiya Havelis
- All BaaL KrishNa (Baby Krishna ) Temples - Navneet Krishna (Butter thief)
6. Badlapur (near Thane, Mumbai Maharashtra) Krishna mandir - followers of Late Mrs. LeelaTai Karve
7. Yogeshwar Krishna - Dada Bhagwan
8. Last but not the least: The heart of this poster. Well He is not alone - as WE are inseparably Two-in-One. Baby Krishna - take Him everywhere you go.
Last edited:
Even at our temple Sri Guruvayurappan Temple/Sri Krishnaji Mandir there is a shrine with Sri Radha-Krishna.
Venkateswara stands alone, in his shrine, always. So are you saying that in these temples, Vishnu, or Krishna is the only deity within the entire temple, or only within the entire shrine?
I reiterate that I posited Madhwa Dvaita example. Modern traditions are much mixed.
When Shiva is worshipped at ISCKON it is not as the Supreme One Lord (although a few Isckonites may not know the teaching of Prabhupada).
Similarly, when Madhava Vaishnavas worship Shiva or Gajanan, it is not to the Supreme Deity, equal to Brahman. You may study the following.
SRI Madhva Sangha
The Madhava Vaisnavas consider only Vishnu as the Supreme Deity, same as Brahman.
This form of monotheism is not same as the Abrahamic monotheism— no one disputes that —yet it is monotheism in the sense that there is only one God.
In advaita, Nirguna Brahman is one without a second and so is the Saguna Brahman. So, I do not see polytheism.
A poster had already reminded us of the most pivotal verse from a Rig Vedic Asiya Vamiya Sukta (Book 1): THE TRUTH IS ONE. SAGES CALL IT DIFFERENTLY.
That sums it, imo.
...
Last edited:
It is Henotheism.
Monotheism literally DENIES existence of other forms - which is absurd.
Shiva revered as the Highest VaishNav at ISKCON, and Vayu, Hanuman, Ganesh , Shiv puja at Madhva temples
is Henotheism
The Gods are aspects, forms or parts of Brahman, they are one in purpose and spirit, and They are my family although there is .. the One in the heart.
Last edited:
Well... they all want me to be on the altar nowadays alongside Him - by popular demand.
I try to be invisible but they beat me to it.
Apparently yours is a typical Temple that has Balaji and all others, but Guruvayur stands alone. So does Balaji though He goes out on procession with Shri & Bhu on either side,
Sirona
Hindu Wannabe
In response to your OP, I typed a little text for you. I can only speak of what I know, so I don’t know to what extent this is informative for you. My personal position is from ex-Catholic to Hindu (Gaudiya Vaishnava-related practice, philosophical belief in Advaita Vedanta).
1. Relationship of God and soul and a bit of Gaudiya Vaishnava history.
The main difference between Abrahamic religions and Hinduism is that in most schools in Hinduism the souls (atman) have a share in Brahman. How strong this share is depends on the philosophical schools. There’s a range from Atman = Brahman (Advaita Vedanta) to Dvaita (God and souls are eternally distinct). In Dvaita, God, the universe and the souls are real. In Avaita, only Brahman is real, the universe is unreal, and the soul erroneously considers itself distinct from Brahman. When the soul merges with Brahman, the difference between God and soul ceases. In Advaita, the drop of water (soul) merges into the ocean (Brahman) and becomes indistinguishable from it. Abrahamic monotheists criticize that the unity of Atman and Brahman leads to man "becoming like God".
The position of the Hare Krishnas and other Gaudiya Vaishnava in theory is a philosophical attempt harmonize Advaita and Dvaita, but is closer to Dvaita in practice. As Hindu culture mostly demands worship of the guru, this naturally is a part of Hare Krishna, but as for Gods, Hare Krishnas generally refuse to worship any god but Krishna, so they consider themself “monotheists”. I’d say Hare Krishna is “monotheist” in asmuch as the Catholic Church is. If you go for “soft monotheism”, with the Catholics you have Mary and the saints who intercede before God on behalf of the believers. In a similar way, Krishna is generally worshiped with his most beloved girlfriend Radha as a couple. Radha is not equal to God but she conveys Krishna’s grace. I suppose from a position of “pure” monotheism a Muslim or Baha’i likely has, both Catholicism and Hare Krishna would not fall under the “monotheistic” category.
As many Baha’i seem to like Islam, it may be interesting to you that Gaudiya Vaishnavism was one of the many reactions of Hinduism against Islamic conquerors in the 16th century. Likewise, in the 19th century, Gaudiya Vaishnavism began to promote its founder Chaitanya as a “Saviour of the East” in response to the colonial rule of Protestant Christians. I guess the “heathen” stigma must have been so powerful that even today, Hare Krishnas consider themselves distinct from Hinduism in general; they especially loathe Advaita Vedanta as well as “polytheism” (worship of any other than Chaitanya, the line of gurus after Chaitanya and Krishna). Chaitanya holds a special position, he is considered as a combined incarnation of Radha and Krishna in one person, so he probably holds the same position in Gaudiya Vaishnavism as Baha’ullah is does your religion.
2. DIFFERENCE: Yahweh and Jesus the only way / Krishna says in Bhagavad Gita that he is the highest God (Bhagavan), but he considers valid the worship to the other gods, or “demigods”, as the Hare Krishnas call them.
BIBLE:
I guess you already know this one: Exodus 20
2 I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 You shall have no other gods before me.
John 14:6
6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Bhagavad Gita 7.21
Whatever celestial form a devotee seeks to worship with faith, I steady the faith of such a devotee in that form.
Bhagavad Gita 7.22
Endowed with faith, the devotee worships a particular celestial god and obtains the objects of desire. But in reality, I alone arrange these benefits.
Bhagavad Gita 7.23
But the fruit gained by these people of small understanding is perishable. Those who worship the celestial gods go to the celestial abodes, while my devotees come to me.
(The point is that you have sort of a “karma account”. Once your good deeds are exhausted, you are thrown out of heaven and must take another birth, because the Bhagavad Gita considers the gifts of the “demigods” as temporary and inferior. When you come to Krishna, however, it’s different. You attain liberation and God for good. How exactly you relate to God differs according to the philosophies I explained before.
3. DIFFERENCE: Krishna doesn’t force believers or threaten them when they refuse to believe in him.
Exodus 20:4 You shall not make for yourself an imag ein the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.5You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God,punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,
BG 18:61
The Supreme Lord is situated in everyone’s heart, O Arjuna, and is directing the wanderings of all living entities, who are seated as on a machine, made of the material energy.
BG 18:62
O scion of Bharata, surrender unto Him utterly. By His grace you will attain transcendental peace and the supreme and eternal abode.
BG 18:63
Thus I have explained to you knowledge still more confidential. Deliberate on this fully, and then do what you wish to do.
BG 18:64
Because you are My very dear friend, I am speaking to you My supreme instruction, the most confidential knowledge of all. Hear this from Me, for it is for your benefit.
BG 18:65
Always think of Me, become My devotee, worship Me and offer your homage unto Me. Thus you will come to Me without fail. I promise you this because you are My very dear friend.
(In Hinduism, image worship is recommended, but not mandatory.)
I hope this makes some sense to you. I’ve never been overly interested in philosophy, but there’s certainly more to compare.
Last edited:
I meant within the shrine, although in the PushTi Marg Haveli Shri Nathji is the only vigraha.
Otherwise there is presence of YamunaDevi and the Guru - Vallabhacharya.
Yes, my Venkateshwara stands alone too, but goes out on procession with ShriDevi & BhuDevi on either side.
Sirona
Hindu Wannabe
@adrian009 As a side note, there are certainly Hindu groups including Jesus in their worship, as they want to please their Western audience, knowing that Jesus is considered as the epitome of love and compassion by many. I am only aware of two groups, Yogananda's Self Realization Fellowship and Vishwananda's Bhakti Marga, which I would consider both as Hindu in nature.
I agree but not quite. I wish to differ in a minor way. Let me explain.
Henotheism is:
- adherence to one particular god out of several, especially by a family, tribe, or other group.
- the doctrine or belief that there is only one God.
Truth is one, sages call it by various names. (Rig Veda Samhita 1.164. 46)
...
I personally go by the Rig Vedic one, whatever ‘theism’ one may like to call it, noting that many do not consider the Rig Vedic pointer to be a ‘theism’ (since it talks of ‘One Truth’).
...
Thank you. It's similar to Saivism. Murugan can stand alone, but can also stand with one or both of his two 'wives'. Nararaja can be alone or with Sivakami. Ganesha is more often depicted alone. On a personal note, I prefer any of them alone, as I get a stronger darshan that way ... just me and God. The lingam is always alone. At Thanjavur there is only lingam in the Big Temple, although there are separate shrines in the courtyard.
Yes, you are right, but by that note all or most Hindus in today's world are monotheists - we just pick the form of SaguNa Brahman (VishNu, Shiva, Devi, even Ganesh) or no form, and pretty much aligned on the Rig Veda "ekam sat..." while we make the other forms our family and that violates monotheism unless you are a monist.
Except for VaishNav, Veer-Shaiva etc. all other Hindus are ultimately advaitic and/or their experiences lead them to advaita.
Last edited:
Part of the trouble with this discussion, as some folks have already mentioned, is that different Abrahamics and different Hindus have different views of what God/Brahman is amongst themselves. So that complicates things from the outset. Therefore, my comments won't apply to any and every view encompassed under these traditions.
However, I would humbly submit that I think there are similarities between the concepts, broadly speaking, that run more than skin deep. Both the Abrahamic and Hindu God are generally regarded as both transcendent and immanent (pervading the universe and also transcending beyond it). In both traditions God is regarded as the Ultimate Reality which is at the foundation of all that exists - indeed, one can regard God as Reality/Being itself.
Additionally, although both traditions often ascribe attributes to God, those are not seen as fundamental features of God but rather anthropomorphic or analogical ways of enabling us to understand God; at root, in both traditions God is beyond description. This has led, in both traditions, to a fascinating method of attempting to describe God by what he is not (sometimes called apophatic theology or the Via Negativa).
However, I would humbly submit that I think there are similarities between the concepts, broadly speaking, that run more than skin deep. Both the Abrahamic and Hindu God are generally regarded as both transcendent and immanent (pervading the universe and also transcending beyond it). In both traditions God is regarded as the Ultimate Reality which is at the foundation of all that exists - indeed, one can regard God as Reality/Being itself.
Additionally, although both traditions often ascribe attributes to God, those are not seen as fundamental features of God but rather anthropomorphic or analogical ways of enabling us to understand God; at root, in both traditions God is beyond description. This has led, in both traditions, to a fascinating method of attempting to describe God by what he is not (sometimes called apophatic theology or the Via Negativa).
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
It can also be a Hindu perspective, which is from where I read it from a few decades ago.
Martin
Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
If you really want to understand, then you'd need to practice deeply in both traditions for a number of years. Though of course these are both are just general classifications for a wide range of individual sects.
Martin
Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
Reading and doing are quite different things.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
That was not my point, which was that there's a parallel between the two that is possible.
I don't think you understand the meaning of Monotheism. Monotheism does not mean believing in one supreme God and lots of lesser Gods. Monotheism means believing in One God and that there are no other Gods. If Vaishnavas believe is Shiva and Ganesh as Gods (even lesser ones) besides their own Supreme God, then they are not Monotheists.