Is Hindu monotheism incompatible with Abrahamic monotheism?

[Dawnofhope]

Obviously not. But likewise, should we accept that Abrahamics and Hindus believe in the same "God", based on monotheistic misconceptions?
Should we ignore the fact that Hinduism is a Dharmic tradition, and not an Abrahamic tradition?

I agree with you on both points here, though we have clearly reached different conclusions. If we were to examine Christianity and Hinduism, both religions have emerged from completely seperate geographical locations and cultures. The roots of both religions are obscured as a natural product of history. We have no written records for either religion that could be reliably dated beyond three thousand years ago. What we do have makes clear there has been no references to the other’s religion. The Tanakh and NT don’t mention Hinduism and the Vedas and other Hindu texts don’t mention the Judeo-Christian religions. In summary two religions that have emerged in relative isolation from the other.

Buddhism emerged from ‘Hindu’ India about two and a half thousand years ago. Once again the Buddhist scriptures make no mention of Judaism.
Much later Islam emerges based on Judaism and Christianity though from a culture that is essentially polytheistic. The Quran makes no direct reference to the Dharmic Faiths. The first major contact is through Islam’s expansion into the Indian subcontinent. Christian missionaries would have been on the scene much earlier though would have made relatively little impact in contrast to contact with the European colonial powers from the end of the fifteenth century.

Islam certainly profoundly shaped not only the course of Indian history but the development of religion with a relatively large minority of Muslims in India and the emergence of new religions such as Sikhism that sought to reconcile both Hinduism and Islam. The relative success of Sikhism is an indication that the two traditions can be incorporated under the umbrella of one faith.

Long story short it is not surprising there are very different concepts and even paradigms between the Abrahamic and Dharmic Faiths. However despite their contrasting features, there are significant similarities such as moral principles, practice as well as theistism. So rather than basing our conclusions on ‘misconceptions’ I’m wanting to consider the actual concepts and in the process better understand both Abrahamic and Dharmic Faiths.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[Martin]

I agree with you on both points here, though we have clearly reached different conclusions. If we were to examine Christianity and Hinduism, both religions have emerged from completely seperate geographical locations and cultures. The roots of both religions are obscured as a natural product of history. We have no written records for either religion that could be reliably dated beyond three thousand years ago. What we do have makes clear there has been no references to the other’s religion. The Tanakh and NT don’t mention Hinduism and the Vedas and other Hindu texts don’t mention the Judeo-Christian religions. In summary two religions that have emerged in relative isolation from the other.

Buddhism emerged from ‘Hindu’ India about two and a half thousand years ago. Once again the Buddhist scriptures make no mention of Judaism.
Much later Islam emerges based on Judaism and Christianity though from a culture that is essentially polytheistic. The Quran makes no direct reference to the Dharmic Faiths. The first major contact is through Islam’s expansion into the Indian subcontinent. Christian missionaries would have been on the scene much earlier though would have made relatively little impact in contrast to contact with the European colonial powers from the end of the fifteenth century.

Islam certainly profoundly shaped not only the course of Indian history but the development of religion with a relatively large minority of Muslims in India and the emergence of new religions such as Sikhism that sought to reconcile both Hinduism and Islam. The relative success of Sikhism is an indication that the two traditions can be incorporated under the umbrella of one faith.

Long story short it is not surprising there are very different concepts and even paradigms between the Abrahamic and Dharmic Faiths. However despite their contrasting features, there are significant similarities such as moral principles, practice as well as theistism. So rather than basing our conclusions on ‘misconceptions’ I’m wanting to consider the actual concepts and in the process better understand both Abrahamic and Dharmic Faiths.

Hope that makes sense.

It does.
Though "No" has still won in the poll.

 

[Jainarayan]

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,

We have a Cecile B. DeMille epic’s cast of thousands.

 

[Left Coast]

If you really want to understand, then you'd need to practice deeply in both traditions for a number of years.

Another point of agreement between both traditions!

 

[Vinayaka]

However despite their contrasting features, there are significant similarities such as moral principles, practice as well as theistism.

Moral principles are also common to atheists. I don't know what theistism is. If this is the only similarity you can come up with, it isn't much. Many of the differences are at the very core of each faith. The nature of God, karma, reincarnation, not being the chosen people, non-proselytising, are core concepts in dharmic faiths, not some fringe ideas. Even moral principles vary somewhat, like to what degree ahimsa is applied. "Thou shalt not kill' for 40% of dharmics means 'any animal' whereas in Abrahamism it generally only applies to humans.

However, I've seen projection from both sides in this debate, leading me to actually think that neither side can be understood fully without practice of it.

Very different paradigms.

 

[Dawnofhope]

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).

Thanks for joining us. I agree with all the points you have made so clearly.

 

[Vinayaka]

Another point of agreement between both traditions!

Not really. Many folks here are saying they don't need to practice the other religion to get it. All they have to do is read a book about it, written by the adherents of their own religion. A Hindu, for example, might ask his Hindu friend who's had interaction with Christians, about Christianity.

 

[Martin]

Moral principles are also common to atheists. I don't know what theistism is. If this is the only similarity you can come up with, it isn't much. Many of the differences are at the very core of each faith. The nature of God, karma, reincarnation, not being the chosen people, non-proselytising, are core concepts in dharmic faiths, not some fringe ideas. Even moral principles vary somewhat, like to what degree ahimsa is applied. "Thou shalt not kill' for 40% of dharmics means 'any animal' whereas in Abrahamism it generally only applies to humans.

However, I've seen projection from both sides in this debate, leading me to actually think that neither side can be understood fully without practice of it.

Very different paradigms.

I still don't understand why anyone would want such different paradigms to be the same. Some sort of misguided new-age perenialism?

 

[Left Coast]

Not really. Many folks here are saying they don't need to practice the other religion to get it. All they have to do is read a book about it, written by the adherents of their own religion. A Hindu, for example, might ask his Hindu friend who's had interaction with Christians, about Christianity.

I was referring to folks from both traditions who believe that one needs to practice "deeply" (to use Meerkat's verbage) and for many years in order to understand the tradition thoroughly. No doubt many people from all different worldviews have shallow understandings of topics they have no personal experience with.

 

[Vinayaka]

I still don't understand why anyone would want such different paradigms to be the same. Some sort of misguided new-age perenialism?

It's puzzling for sure. What's wrong with diversity? But then I dislike it when automakers copy each other. In that case it's about sales.
In religion it may well be about sales to some degree as well. "You don't need to convert! We've got the same thing in our religion."

I've met non-Hindus that were shocked that the temple had no pews. I'm sure there are Hindus who've gone to churches for a wedding and spent five minutes looking for a place to put their shoes. These are examples of the overwhelming disconnect that the other side can have.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Moral principles are also common to atheists. I don't know what theistism is. If this is the only similarity you can come up with, it isn't much. Many of the differences are at the very core of each faith. The nature of God, karma, reincarnation, not being the chosen people, non-proselytising, are core concepts in dharmic faiths, not some fringe ideas. Even moral principles vary somewhat, like to what degree ahimsa is applied. "Thou shalt not kill' for 40% of dharmics means 'any animal' whereas in Abrahamism it generally only applies to humans.

However, I've seen projection from both sides in this debate, leading me to actually think that neither side can be understood fully without practice of it.

Very different paradigms.

"Theistism" is a neologism that arose this morning due inattention on my part. I meant theism

In regards theism the qualities of transcendence and immanence are common to the Abrahamics. As you have noted pure monotheism may not exist within Hinduism though different monotheistic sects have been mentioned by at least three Hindu posters thus far. Within Abrahamic traditions, Judaism and Islam are more purely monotheistic, whereas Christianity has been criticised as being polytheistic on account of having a triune God and the Baha'i Faith has been criticised for allegedly deifying historic religious founders with the concept 'Manifestations of God'. The principle of a Deity being literally incarnated into human form is common to Christianity and Vaishnava. Krishna is Vishnu incarnate and Jesus is God incarnate.

Moral principles underlie any civilisation. Atheists in our respective countries live in a post-Christian civilisation so Western atheist morals are influenced by Christianity among many other influences. Although atheism is an openly recognised part of Hinduism, this is natural because Hinduism is so strongly tied to cultural identity, not just religion.

The law of cause and effect (karma) appears universal. In Hinduism it can be strongly associated with reincarnation. However not all Hindus believe in reincarnation, while reincarnation is an important stream of thought among adherents of Judaism.

The concept of being 'the chosen people' is part of the Jewish narrative and to a lesser extent for Christians when referring to the story of the Jews in the Hebrew Bible. It is not part of Islam.

Proselytizing is just as much a human nature and communication problem as it is about religion. Plenty of Hindus proselytize and plenty of Abrahamics don't. Being avoidant and reclusive in regards communication is just as problematic as proselytizing IMHO.

Not all Hindus are vegetarian and many Abrahamics are. Respect and reverence for the natural world is an important part of faith for many Abrahamics as for Hindus.

Bias and projection is part of the human condition whether we are atheistic, Hindu or Abrahamic. It is there whether we practice our religion or don't. However it is possible to understand to some extent a religion, even if we don't practice it. So for some, this thread may be a futile intellectual exercise. It isn't for me at all and clearly for quite a few others who have contributed to this thread.

Practitioners of Abrahamic and Dharmic Faiths do have very different paradigms. However we don't live in parallel universes. Santana Dharma exists or doesn't whether we live in India or a Western country.

 

[atanu]

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.

yes. I agree.

 

[Clara Tea]

Obviously not. But likewise, should we accept that Abrahamics and Hindus believe in the same "God", based on monotheistic misconceptions?
Should we ignore the fact that Hinduism is a Dharmic tradition, and not an Abrahamic tradition?

If it is a misconception that the Christian and Jewish God is the same, how did the Christian religion come from the Jewish religion. It seems to me that the God of the Jews would absolutely have to be the same as the God of the Christians.

 

[Vinayaka]

"Theistism" is a neologism that arose this morning due inattention on my part. I meant theism

In regards theism the qualities of transcendence and immanence are common to the Abrahamics. As you have noted pure monotheism may not exist within Hinduism though different monotheistic sects have been mentioned by at least three Hindu posters thus far. Within Abrahamic traditions, Judaism and Islam are more purely monotheistic, whereas Christianity has been criticised as being polytheistic on account of having a triune God and the Baha'i Faith has been criticised for allegedly deifying historic religious founders with the concept 'Manifestations of God'. The principle of a Deity being literally incarnated into human form is common to Christianity and Vaishnava. Krishna is Vishnu incarnate and Jesus is God incarnate.

Moral principles underlie any civilisation. Atheists in our respective countries live in a post-Christian civilisation so Western atheist morals are influenced by Christianity among many other influences. Although atheism is an openly recognised part of Hinduism, this is natural because Hinduism is so strongly tied to cultural identity, not just religion.

The law of cause and effect (karma) appears universal. In Hinduism it can be strongly associated with reincarnation. However not all Hindus believe in reincarnation, while reincarnation is an important stream of thought among adherents of Judaism.

The concept of being 'the chosen people' is part of the Jewish narrative and to a lesser extent for Christians when referring to the story of the Jews in the Hebrew Bible. It is not part of Islam.

Proselytizing is just as much a human nature and communication problem as it is about religion. Plenty of Hindus proselytize and plenty of Abrahamics don't. Being avoidant and reclusive in regards communication is just as problematic as proselytizing IMHO.

Not all Hindus are vegetarian and many Abrahamics are. Respect and reverence for the natural world is an important part of faith for many Abrahamics as for Hindus.

Bias and projection is part of the human condition whether we are atheistic, Hindu or Abrahamic. It is there whether we practice our religion or don't. However it is possible to understand to some extent a religion, even if we don't practice it. So for some, this thread may be a futile intellectual exercise. It isn't for me at all and clearly for quite a few others who have contributed to this thread.

Practitioners of Abrahamic and Dharmic Faiths do have very different paradigms. However we don't live in parallel universes. Santana Dharma exists or doesn't whether we live in India or a Western country.

Yes, there is certainly some overlap.

 

[atanu]

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.

Whatever you may prefer to call the Hindu system, the underpinning is the ‘Truth is one’, and it is not polytheism. Some may call it henotheism but I do not agree. We are not selecting one God from a set of many. Some are choosing a form as per predilection and preference all the time knowing that the Reality is not two.

Madhava Vaisnavas believe Lord Vishnu is the only God same as Brahman. Others are Demi gods. Demi gods do not mean separate powers. No. It is like one body with different organs for different functions. You cannot really worship a part.

Advaitins too do not believe in many gods. For advaitins Brahman is without partition sat-chit-ananda.

So, this certainly is not polytheism and although some call it henotheism, in my opinion, the Rig Vedic Sukta I cited does not support henotheism.

The Truth is one. (Whatever ‘ism’ you may choose to call it).

...
Had a nice discussion with you. Arguments in the realm of the Word never get resolved. So let us agree to disagree. We both may be saying the same.

The Wikipedia article on the subject, in my opinion, is a good summary.

Hindu views on monotheism - Wikipedia

 

[Dawnofhope]

I considered your responses thoughtful and moved beyond parroting religious propaganda so wanted to respond.

Assuming that there is only one God, we have a choice.

It is an assumption you are making but one that we both agree on. There could be no God or gods or many gods. I’m a monotheist.

We may either believe that the only true God made his presence known to a select tiny region of the world, or God made his presence to virtually everyone. (Of course there is room to believe that only some got God's messages).

That’s an important consideration. The religion that emerged from the Indian subcontinent and the religion that started with Abraham, makes no reference to each other. So the valid question arises as to whether the same God communicated with Abraham’s ancestors AND the Indians.

It is therefore possible that many religions around the world have the word of God. But, that word seems to vary from place to place.

It is important to realise that although God may be the same His message will need to be adapted to each culture when communicating. Any genuine student of the Tanakh, New Testament or Quran realises the importance of historical and cultural context. Consider who vastly different the Hebrew Bible is with the New Testament and we already appreciate how the message has dramatically changed and been adapted between Moses and Christ.

Remember that God created the Tower of Babel. That was when he changed everyone's languages and spread them throughout the world so that they could not understand each other.

I do not see this story as being a literal historical event. Do you?

Suppose that was a test by God. God might have been testing to see if we could overcome language barriers, overcome hatred of skin colors, overcome cultural differences, and accept other cultures as God's children (as apparently God does).

There’s a heck of a lot of cross cultural exchanges these days.

So, if we pass that test of God, perhaps the true words of God will come through as a melange of God's words from various cultures. In other words, perhaps just one area of the world might not have the full message of God, but the full message is only obtained by accepting that everyone has heard a part of God's messages.

That is certainly possible.

If this is true, we must learn as much as we can about all religions around the world, put aside our bigotry, put aside our egos that tend to think that our religion is the right religion and all others are heathen and wrong. Only then, could we piece together the total word of God given to all races and religions of the world.

That is what I believe, yes.

At that point, we should come together, all as God's children, in peace and harmony (which is likely God's greatest message to us).

Even if there are more than one God, we might learn about the other Gods.

Lets not allow our egos to stand in the way of God's words.

Sure.... why not?

 

[soulsurvivor]

Whatever you may prefer to call the Hindu system, the underpinning is the ‘Truth is one’, and it is not polytheism. Some may call it henotheism but I do not agree. We are not selecting one God from a set of many. Some are choosing a form as per predilection and preference all the time knowing that the Reality is not two.

Madhava Vaisnavas believe Lord Vishnu is the only God same as Brahman. Others are Demi gods. Demi gods do not mean separate powers. No. It is like one body with different organs for different functions. You cannot really worship a part.

Advaitins too do not believe in many gods. For advaitins Brahman is without partition sat-chit-ananda.

So, this certainly is not polytheism and although some call it henotheism, in my opinion, the Rig Vedic Sukta I cited does not support henotheism.

The Truth is one. (Whatever ‘ism’ you may choose to call it).

...
Had a nice discussion with you. Arguments in the realm of the Word never get resolved. So let us agree to disagree. We both may be saying the same.

The Wikipedia article on the subject, in my opinion, is a good summary.

Hindu views on monotheism - Wikipedia

I don't think we are saying the same thing. I don't think there are many Hindus (if any) in India who think Laxmi or Durga or Ganesh are 'demi-gods'.. All three are Gods in their own right with powers of their own. Vaisnavites may just believe that Vishnu is the Supreme one among them. You may be interesting in reading this web page on Hindu Gods - Hindu Gods and Goddesses

BTW you seem a bit defensive (if not ashamed) about being called a polytheist - I don't blame you - there is a lot of pressure in today's world to profess to be a 'monotheist' - it almost seems scientific to say there is only One God, and who doesn't want to be 'scientific'.?

Also, an Advaitin even the strict type, is not a monotheist. Only a believer in a single Personal God is a monotheist and Advaitin do not believe in a Personal God.

 

[Glaurung]

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.

Well, if I understand the Hare Krishna theology correctly they outright deny the divinity of the Devas who are not Krishna, thus making them monotheists. Monotheism does not necessitate the complete denial of the existence of non-divine supernatural entities. Albeit like the angels in the Abrahamic religions the other 'gods' in this system would have to be accepted as created and dependent upon God. That is to say the Devas are but creatures created and maintained in existence by the will of Krishna. Who, according to them, is the one and only God. (With a capital G).

 

[SomeRandom]

No we shouldn't. But many do, and that's exactly why they say 'all same, all same'.

Uhh, speaking as someone raised in syncretism.
We accept that the ultimate source overrides such human and ego driven narratives as “religious paradigms.” No one owns god but people do seem to sell that belief at a premium rate. Regardless of paradigm. We accept that there are texts that are antithetical to our vision of the “Truth.” But we also accept that that is just the teachings of a fallible man. Someone who could have been blinded by ego. I fully recognise that is just lame apologetics. But I reject the assertion that we just ignore such things. On the contrary, we try our best to explain phenomenon, even though you could argue they’re just excuses at the end of the day. And truth be told I’d likely agree with you.

 

[Martin]

Instead of trying to compare apples and oranges, why not just appreciate each fruit for what it is?
Generally, when somebody is enjoying an apple, they're not thinking about oranges.