What God in each major ancient civilization is closest to the one supreme God?

[Rakovsky]

SUMER

Despite the claims of adherents of the theory of highly advanced (by modern standards) ancient civilizations, there does not seem to be artifacts from Sumer of such amazing quality as we have with the pyramids of Egypt or the megalithic blocks of Puma Punku. Instead, "Ancient Advanced Civilization" (or "Ancient Astronaut) theories revolve around the myths of Annunaki ruling Mesopotamia. In the Ancient Astronaut theories, the Annunaki are humanoid ETs who introduce knowledge to humankind. Under this theory, some propose that the ETs were reptoid or otherwise non-humans.

One relevant observation is that there appear to be reptoid sculptures of gods from the Ubaidan period, if not later. The Sumerians were preceded in their rule of the Euphrates by the Ubaidan civilization and culture. The Sumerians believed that An, the god of the heavens, was created out of the primordial waters, Nammu.She is sometimes portrayed in a reptoid or serpentlike form. This sculpture below may refer to the goddess Nammu.

But despite the theory of Ancient Astronauts, it seems rather more likely to me that the Annunaki were simply Sumerian theological legends and myths. In other words, the Annunaki in reality are the mythological gods, who are called Annunaki based on their lineage from the god An.

By the way, there is a user custom made campaign for Age of Empires called "A Short History of Lost Sumeria" that involves Sumerian mythology, and portrays the idea that the Annunaki were ETs.

Below is more research that I found on the questions in the OP:

Sumer's civilization began about 3500 BC with their writing and lasted until about 1940 BC. It was located in the lower region of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers in Mesopotamia. It has not been established what their ethnicity or language group was, although it is commonly not considered a semitic language.

Euphrates and Tigris rivers

It is hard to pin down an explicit instance of Sumerian technology more advanced than what we have now. The strongest evidence for such theories seem to me to be "coincidences" between Sumerian art and culture and what we find in far away cultures' artifacts that appear to reflect such technology. One example of coincidences are the elongated skulls found in pre-Sumerian Ubaidian statues that recall elongated skulls found in Peru or Egypt. There are major Andes city sites dated from 3000-2000 BC. There is a claim of a Magna Fuente bowl from Bolivia with Sumerian writing, but it's commonly considered a hoax. I've read about connections in symbolism between statues, "h" symbols, or baskets found at Easter Island, Sumer, Gobekli Tepe, and the Americas, particularly Puma Punku.

For more, see: http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1049944,1050014#msg-1050014

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. and that an A-bomb was dropped near one of their cities.

Rakovsky, A-bombs and vimanas are myths. Only chauvinist Hindus take them to be true. For others they are entertaining stories. I belong to Jodhpur. There is no radioactivity around in Jodhpur and no birth-defects. People of Jodhpur are generally healthier than the people in surrounding regions. We thank the quality of drinking water in Jodhpur for this, deep wells, other nearby regions are troubled by intestinal infections.

Just as Vishnu and Krishna have their worshipers, Shiva and Mother Goddess also have their worshipers. None can claim exclusivity in Hinduism. Brahman is a different ball game altogether. Since all that exists is Brahman, even you and I are Brahman and none other. Same goes for all living and non-living things. Trinity is a Vaishnava concept. For worshipers of Shiva and Mother goddess, they alone create, sustain and destroy.

BTW, 'Paratma' is not the correct word, it is 'Paramatma' (param+atma), param is the final, atma is soul, therefore, the supreme soul, the source of all souls. 26 AD is a bit amusing. Hindus generally do not talk of less than million, billion or trillion years.

However, I thank you for taking interest in Hindu religion. The information that you have provided is interesting, correct in many ways but at the same time incorrect in many ways. That is quite understandable. Regards.

India
I can't rival Aup on India!

 

[Aupmanyav]

Ritual observance in Hinduism includes animal sacrifice in some forms of Hinduism like Shaktism (worship of Shakti, the mother goddess), as well as meditation or prayer. .. Om may also resemble the meaning of "Amen" in Judaism. .. (This website says that the city of Harappa lacked them) .. Many adherents believe that the idol's deity inhabits the physical idol itself directly, .. Flags are a symbol for a deity's presence at a location, ..

Yes, we still have animal sacrifice at many places, although it is declining. RigVeda, our oldest book does not contain the word 'OM', probably it is indigenous, where as RigVeda was brought in by Aryans from Central Asia. True, it is close to 'Amen', though the meaning is different. In Judaism, 'Amen' (I think) means 'so be it'. We have a similar saying 'Tathastu'. 'Om', OTH, represents the totality, Brahman. Probably, the Harappans were fire-worshiping Aryans and did not need temples.

Hindus still have the thousands of cave temples and continue to worship the stone formations in them. After consecration of an idol, it is taken to be the deity him/herself. It has to be treated like a living person, woken up in the morning to the lilting tune of an oboe, bathed, dressed and feted with the best food thrice or five times a day. Then allowed to sleep in the night at the appointed hours. The routine is followed very strictly. It is a matter of belief and increases devotion and its effect on devotees.
https://www.google.co.in/search?q="...KEwipuvL52P7MAhVJqo8KHU_9ANkQ_AUIBigB&dpr=1.1

 

[Rakovsky]

Rakovsky, A-bombs and vimanas are myths. Only chauvinist Hindus take them to be true. For others they are entertaining stories. I belong to Jodhpur. There is no radioactivity around in Jodhpur and no birth-defects. People of Jodhpur are generally healthier than the people in surrounding regions. We thank the quality of drinking water in Jodhpur for this, deep wells, other nearby regions are troubled by intestinal infections.

Just as Vishnu and Krishna have their worshipers, Shiva and Mother Goddess also have their worshipers. None can claim exclusivity in Hinduism. Brahman is a different ball game altogether. Since all that exists is Brahman, even you and I are Brahman and none other. Same goes for all living and non-living things. Trinity is a Vaishnava concept. For worshipers of Shiva and Mother goddess, they alone create, sustain and destroy.

BTW, 'Paratma' is not the correct word, it is 'Paramatma' (param+atma), param is the final, atma is soul, therefore, the supreme soul, the source of all souls. 26 AD is a bit amusing. Hindus generally do not talk of less than million, billion or trillion years.

However, I thank you for taking interest in Hindu religion. The information that you have provided is interesting, correct in many ways but at the same time incorrect in many ways. That is quite understandable. Regards.

Hello, Aup.
I would need to make a serious study of the A bomb question to have a strong opinion on it, because I read lots of claims of serious evidence, but it sounds rather fantastical.
I agree about the vimanas and am very skeptical. I am pleased to hear of your areas good health.

I agree with your next paragraph, except I am very skeptical about saying trimurti IS a vishnu concept AND NOT a Shiva concept, because Trimurti has both Vishnu and Shiva, while I think some Vishnu worship does not involve Trimurti often.

My main question to you is what I put in Bold in the message about Hinduism, ie whether its theism has a pantheistic difference in relation to physical matter than the Biblical religion does.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am very skeptical about saying trimurti IS a vishnu concept AND NOT a Shiva concept, because Trimurti has both Vishnu and Shiva, while I think some Vishnu worship does not involve Trimurti often.

My main question to you is what I put in Bold in the message about Hinduism, ie whether its theism has a pantheistic difference in relation to physical matter than the Biblical religion does.

It was a neat Vaishnava trick to make Shiva incharge of destruction and make him have 'tamasic' attributes (ignorance and lazyness, basically not good). A part of the trinity but not the good one, while Vishnu remains the sustainer, protector. Shiva worshipers do not like it. And trinity makes the Mother Goddesses just the spouses of the three Gods, sort of strips them of their own power. The Shakti/Mother Goddess worshipers do not like that.

As for your main question, both the views exist in Hinduism. Brahman as the sole constituent of all things in the universe and personal Gods and Goddesses in their various forms. The former is known as 'Nirguna' (the controller without attributes, forms), the latter is known as 'Saguna' (controller with attributes, form, etc.). Both the views are considered valid, the choice being with the individual.

 

[Rakovsky]

It was a neat Vaishnava trick to make Shiva incharge of destruction and make him have 'tamasic' attributes (ignorance and lazyness, basically not good). A part of the trinity but not the good one, while Vishnu remains the sustainer, protector. Shiva worshipers do not like it. And trinity makes the Mother Goddesses just the spouses of the three Gods, sort of strips them of their own power. The Shakti/Mother Goddess worshipers do not like that.

What is the concept of Shiva such that he is not a destroyer?

As for your main question, both the views exist in Hinduism. Brahman as the sole constituent of all things in the universe and personal Gods and Goddesses in their various forms. The former is known as 'Nirguna' (the controller without attributes, forms), the latter is known as 'Saguna' (controller with attributes, form, etc.). Both the views are considered valid, the choice being with the individual.

"Advaita Vedanta - Nirguna Brahman. Nirguna Brahman (Devanagari निर्गुण ब्रह्मन्, nirguṇa brahman), Brahman without form or qualities, is Para Brahman, the highest Brahman." Para Brahman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can you please write more about the answer to my question in bold previously, about the relationship of God to the physical matter of the universe in Hinduism and in Judaism? If you like, I can reword it.

I am aware that there is a concept of Nirguna (formless) Brahman, which is Para Brahman, the highest reality. I am also aware of Saguna:
"In the Saguna aspect, God appears in a human form making it easier for us to come closer. There have been divine incarnations in every age to show people the path to Nirguna God." (http://www.chakras.net/yoga-principles/21-nirguna-and-saguna)

However, when I talk about param atma and about Svayam Bhagavan / Ishvara, I don't necessarily mean God or Brahman/reality in the form of a human (Saguna), as the "incarnated" Krishna is occasionally depicted.

Rather, when I use the terms underlined above, I mean the "soul" and "person" of Brahman, regardless of whether it incarnated or took human form and even outside of that taking of form.

So my question is once we do conceive of Svayam Bhagavan, what is his relationship to physical matter, regardless of any specific incarnated humanoid states?

 

[Rakovsky]

Here is a picture of the Creator god Brahma:

Indus Valley
Another deity is Brahma (above), the male form of the neuter word Brahman. Brahma is the creator deity. One theory is that Brahman the ultimate reality was personified and deified by Hindus to make it into a Creator god, Brahma. The etymology of Brahman is to grow, expand, make strong, make firm.

Note that Brahman (reality) is different than Brahma (the Creator god), but the latter word is linguistically the masculine form of the former word, which is neuter, an "it".

Also, we discussed worship in Hinduism. Yoga commonly involves meditation and breathing exercizes. It is interesting that the Hindu word for meditation is Dhyana. In Russian, Dyhanie is breathing.

Some Yoga practitioners have developed certain forms of yoga that they imbue with religious meaning related to God. One of the meditation sayings is "Aham Brahmm Asmi", meaning "I am Brahman". The purpose is to identify oneself as united with reality or as part of it. Another Hindu mantra, or repeated saying, is "Om tat sat", meaning "He that is", referring to God.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Om_Tat_Sat

Here is a song of Om Tat Sat without skipping in the music:
http://www.listentoyoutube.com/down...s28XI&file=Hari Om tat Sat - Moola Mantra.mp3

Do you understand the lyrics? It sounds like a nice song.

One form of Yoga is "Ishvara Yoga".

Yoga Sutras of Patanjali

Niyama
The second component of Patanjali's Yoga path is called niyama, which includes virtuous habits, behaviors and observances (the "dos").[32][33] Sadhana Pada Verse 32 lists the niyamas as:[34]

1. Śauca: purity, clearness of mind, speech and body[35]
2. Santoṣa: contentment, acceptance of others, acceptance of one's circumstances as they are in order to get past or change them, optimism for self[36]
3. Tapas: persistence, perseverance, austerity[37][38]
4. Svādhyāya: study of Vedas (see Sabda in epistemology section), study of self, self-reflection, introspection of self's thoughts, speeches and actions[38][39]
5. Īśvarapraṇidhāna: contemplation of the Ishvara (God/Supreme Being, Brahman, True Self, Unchanging Reality)
   
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga_Sutras_of_Patanjali

1. 
   

In Yoga Sutra 1.23, Patanjali gives us a sure-fire way to reach the state of yoga. It is a practice called ishvara pranidhana. Ishvara is a Sanskrit word that can be translated to mean supreme, or personal, God. Pranidhana means to dedicate, devote, or surrender. The practice of Ishvara Pranidhana therefore means that if we are able to completely surrender our individual ego identities to God (our own higher self) we will attain the identity of God. If we can dedicate our lives to serving the God that dwells within all other beings, human and non-human alike, we will move beyond all feelings of separateness.

http://jivamuktiyoga.com/teachings/focus-of-the-month/p/ishvara-pranidhana-power-surrender

The Bhagavata Purana sees yoga as a form of "bhakti" or devotion.

The philosophy of the Bhagavata is a mixture of Vedanta terminology, Samkhyan metaphysics and devotionalized Yoga praxis. (...) The tenth book promotes Krishna as the highest absolute personal aspect of godhead – the personality behind the term Ishvara and the ultimate aspect of Brahman.
— Edwin Bryant, Krishna: A Sourcebook​

The Bhagavata Purana describes all steps of the Yoga practice, characterizes Yoga as Bhakti, states Sharma, with the most important aspect of the Yoga asserted to be the spiritual goal.[90] The text dedicates numerous chapters to it, in various books. The 10th chapter of Book 11 begins with a declaration that Siddhi results from concentrating one's mind on Bhagavan Krishna, which thus resonates but substitutes the concept of "personal god" in Yogasutras of Patanjali, yet also contrasts with Patanjali's view where Siddhi is considered powerful but an obstacle to Samadhi and towards the goal of Self-knowledge, inner peace and moksha.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavata_Purana#Yoga

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It depends how you draw the line on 'Closest to the one supreme God'.
So, is monotheism the determinant, or is it more around having an original and supreme being, regardless of the number of divinities recognised and worshipped, for example.
Whilst reserving the right to change my answer based on little more than whim, I voted Egypt, specifically for the monotheistic cult built around Aten.

Since it was state-sponsored, this became widespread, but there seems little reason to believe in much true belief (at least of the exclusive/monotheistic variety), beyond perhaps the Pharoah himself, and a few others. Some scholars have argued that this was as much about promoting a societal heirarchy where the Pharoah replaced priests as the key intermediary between the people and the God(s). I haven't read enough to have an opinion on that, but it's possible that the entire religion was political in inception. It's happened before.
(I'm looking at you, Church of England...ahem...)

 

[Aupmanyav]

What is the concept of Shiva such that he is not a destroyer?

In 'Nirguna' form he is everything that exists in the universe. This is the belief of various 'Shaiva Siddhantas' (to cut out the variations). In 'Saguna' form, he is all, creator, sustainer and the one who re-absorbs the universe in himself (not the destroyer).

".. about the relationship of God to the physical matter of the universe in Hinduism ..":
In 'Shaiva Siddhantas', he is all the material of the universe without any exception. All things are forms of 'Swayam Bhagawan' Shiva. For 'Saguna' Shiva worshiper, all the material of the universe is willed into existence by Shiva. It is not necessary for a 'Saguna' deity to appear as a human.
I would not know about the belief in Judaism.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Here is a picture of the Creator god Brahma.
Note that Brahman (reality) is different than Brahma (the Creator god), but the latter word is linguistically the masculine form of the former word, which is neuter, an "it".
Yoga commonly involves meditation and breathing exercizes. It is interesting that the Hindu word for meditation is Dhyana. In Russian, Dyhanie is breathing.
Some Yoga practitioners have developed certain forms of yoga that they imbue with religious meaning related to God.
Here is a song of Om Tat Sat without skipping in the music.
One form of Yoga is "Ishvara Yoga".
The Bhagavata Purana sees yoga as a form of "bhakti" or devotion.

Don't be surprised by linguistic similarities of Russian and Sanskrit. Perhaps the Aryans came to India from their original homeland in sub-Arctic regions by traversing the plains east of Urals. Many Indo-European civilizations flourished in that region in different periods. There have been archaeological finds in Minusinsk in Krasnoyarsk and Arkaim in Chelyabinsk. For more details you can check this: https://www.google.co.in/webhp?sour...F-8#newwindow=1&q=Aryan+settlements+in+russia

Hinduism accepts Brahma as a part of trinity, as creator and also as the writer of fate. But his role has become secondary to the trinity of Vishnu, Shiva and Shakti (Mother Goddess). He does things at the best of one of the three. There are very few temples for Brahma in India. "Aham Brahmasi' is part of the 'Advaita' (non-dual philosophy. 'Advaita' does not say 'Om Tat Sat' (That is Truth', because it indicates a duality (Dvaita) - 'that'. In 'Advaita', there is no 'that' but only 'this'.

Yoga, breathing exercises and meditation are ways to clear the mind of 'mental noise', so that a person could think very intensely. These days many who claim to be Yoga gurus wander all over the earth. I am not enamored of these new-wave yoga gurus and their supposed new ways. They are in it for money. Ishwar Yoga also is one of such schemes. These schemes are not meant for India and they do not sell here.

Bhagawat Purana is a honored scripture in Hinduism but we must realize that it is a Vaishnava book and not wholly applicable to worshipers of Shiva and Mother Goddess. They have their different Purnas like Shiva Purana, Skanda Purana, Devi Purana, etc.

 

[Rakovsky]

In 'Nirguna' form he is everything that exists in the universe. This is the belief of various 'Shaiva Siddhantas' (to cut out the variations). In 'Saguna' form, he is all, creator, sustainer and the one who re-absorbs the universe in himself (not the destroyer).

".. about the relationship of God to the physical matter of the universe in Hinduism ..":
In 'Shaiva Siddhantas', he is all the material of the universe without any exception. All things are forms of 'Swayam Bhagawan' Shiva. For 'Saguna' Shiva worshiper, all the material of the universe is willed into existence by Shiva. It is not necessary for a 'Saguna' deity to appear as a human.
I would not know about the belief in Judaism.

Hello, Aup.
I suppose we could look at how Shiva is portrayed in the Vedas differently than other gods.

It sounds like you are saying that the physical matter of Creation directly composes Bhagavan.

 

[Rakovsky]

Aup,

It sounds like the Dualist or Dvaita schools of Hinduism teach that God/Bhagavan, individual souls and matter are all separate. In contrast, the nondualist or advantage schools teach that they are united. Do I have that right?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvaita

If so, it seems that Advaita teaches pantheism whereby reality, including physical matter, directly composes God. Do I have that right?

I suppose that the Vedas have both dualistic and nondualist passages?

The Abrahamic religions as well as those of the ancient Greeks I think are Dvaita or dualist, meaning that matter and people's souls are distinct from God and do not directly compose Him, even though God's spirit pervades everything, and even though people can unite with God in Christianity.

 

[Rakovsky]

Don't be surprised by linguistic similarities of Russian and Sanskrit. Perhaps the Aryans came to India from their original homeland in sub-Arctic regions by traversing the plains east of Urals. Many Indo-European civilizations flourished in that region in different periods. There have been archaeological finds in Minusinsk in Krasnoyarsk and Arkaim in Chelyabinsk. For more details you can check this: https://www.google.co.in/webhp?sour...F-8#newwindow=1&q=Aryan+settlements+in+russia

Hinduism accepts Brahma as a part of trinity, as creator and also as the writer of fate. But his role has become secondary to the trinity of Vishnu, Shiva and Shakti (Mother Goddess). He does things at the best of one of the three. There are very few temples for Brahma in India. "Aham Brahmasi' is part of the 'Advaita' (non-dual philosophy. 'Advaita' does not say 'Om Tat Sat' (That is Truth', because it indicates a duality (Dvaita) - 'that'. In 'Advaita', there is no 'that' but only 'this'.

Yoga, breathing exercises and meditation are ways to clear the mind of 'mental noise', so that a person could think very intensely. These days many who claim to be Yoga gurus wander all over the earth. I am not enamored of these new-wave yoga gurus and their supposed new ways. They are in it for money. Ishwar Yoga also is one of such schemes. These schemes are not meant for India and they do not sell here.

Patanjali was from about 400 AD and wrote about yoga as a form of devotion or surrendering to Ishvara, called Ishvara Pranidhana.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I suppose we could look at how Shiva is portrayed in the Vedas differently than other gods.
It sounds like you are saying that the physical matter of Creation directly composes Bhagavan.

Rakovsky, friend, it takes some time to understand Hinduism.

For example, one needs to understand that Vedas are not the whole of Hinduism. There is much more in Hinduism. Hinduism is a story of mingling of two religious streams, the Aryan and the indigenous. Just three of the deities commonly worshiped in Hinduism are from Vedas - Vishnu, Saraswati and Rudra (that too in form of Shiva). Shiva, Durga, Rama, Krishna etc. are not even mentioned in Vedas. This is because Vedas belong to Aryans. They were migrants to India. Not all of their Gods and Goddesses were able to maintain their importance in India. Aryan God Rudra was assimilated in indigenous God Shiva. On the other hand, many indigenous regional Gods - Rama, Krishna, the man-lion avatar, Nrisimha, etc. - got assimilated in the Aryan God Vishnu and made him even more important than he ever was in the Vedas. All other Aryan Gods were not rejected, but they faced a decline.

As for your second statement, it is not that physical matter composes the Gods in Hinduism. It is the other way round. 1. Either the Gods will physical matter to appear or 2. all that exists in the universe is taken as Brahman. The former is the normal theist scheme, but the latter is the non-dual 'advaita' scheme. In advaita, you, me, animals, vegetation, non-living things are all none other than Brahman. Brahman is the underlying reality of all that exists in the universe.

What exactly a Hindu will believe is left to him. He/She is under no theological fetters. For example, I am a 'advaitist' (believer in non-duality) and a strong atheist.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It sounds like the Dualist or Dvaita schools of Hinduism teach that God/Bhagavan, individual souls and matter are all separate. In contrast, the nondualist or advantage schools teach that they are united. Do I have that right?

If so, it seems that Advaita teaches pantheism whereby reality, including physical matter, directly composes God. Do I have that right?

I suppose that the Vedas have both dualistic and nondualist passages?

The Abrahamic religions as well as those of the ancient Greeks I think are Dvaita or dualist, meaning that matter and people's souls are distinct from God and do not directly compose Him, even though God's spirit pervades everything, and even though people can unite with God in Christianity.

Yes, you are absolutely right about Dvaita and Advaita (it is not 'advantage' as mentioned by you).

You second statment is not correct. As I said in the previous post it is the other way round. What we perceive is not what it looks like but is Brahman itself. It is like atoms making all things in the universe. Replace atoms by Brahman in the sentence. Yes, Vedas have both kind of views. in 'advaita', there is no question of uniting because it is never considered that anything is separated. Greek philosophers were smart. I am sure, some Greek philosopher must have hit a Brahman like idea.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Patanjali was from about 400 AD and wrote about yoga as a form of devotion or surrendering to Ishvara, called Ishvara Pranidhana.

There is no certainty about Patnajali's date. And what Patanjali wrote was not an invention by him, but a compilation of earlier philosophies and techniques. Indian ascetics were engaged in meditation long before 400 AD.
"Michele Desmarais summarizes a wide variety of dates assigned to Yogasutra, ranging from 500 BCE to 3rd century CE, noting that there is a paucity of evidence for any certainty." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga_Sutras_of_Patanjali#Dating

 

[Rakovsky]

Yes, you are absolutely right about Dvaita and Advaita (it is not 'advantage' as mentioned by you).

I wrote Advaita but the mobile phone switched it to Advantage as a spelling correction.
sorry. It's frustrating and happens alot.

 

[Rakovsky]

Rakovsky, friend, it takes some time to understand Hinduism.

For example, one needs to understand that Vedas are not the whole of Hinduism. There is much more in Hinduism. Hinduism is a story of mingling of two religious streams, the Aryan and the indigenous. Just three of the deities commonly worshiped in Hinduism are from Vedas - Vishnu, Saraswati and Rudra (that too in form of Shiva). Shiva, Durga, Rama, Krishna etc. are not even mentioned in Vedas. This is because Vedas belong to Aryans. They were migrants to India. Not all of their Gods and Goddesses were able to maintain their importance in India. Aryan God Rudra was assimilated in indigenous God Shiva. On the other hand, many indigenous regional Gods - Rama, Krishna, the man-lion avatar, Nrisimha, etc. - got assimilated in the Aryan God Vishnu and made him even more important than he ever was in the Vedas. All other Aryan Gods were not rejected, but they faced a decline.

As for your second statement, it is not that physical matter composes the Gods in Hinduism. It is the other way round. 1. Either the Gods will physical matter to appear or 2. all that exists in the universe is taken as Brahman. The former is the normal theist scheme, but the latter is the non-dual 'advaita' scheme. In advaita, you, me, animals, vegetation, non-living things are all none other than Brahman. Brahman is the underlying reality of all that exists in the universe.

What exactly a Hindu will believe is left to him. He/She is under no theological fetters. For example, I am a 'advaitist' (believer in non-duality) and a strong atheist.

The concept of Brahman, reality, itself does not compel dualism or nondualism. However, the concept of Bhagavan seems to lead to a question of which is correct. Namely, is the person of Bhagavan separate at all from Brahma/ reality, and what is their relation?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I wrote Advaita but the mobile phone switched it to Advantage as a spelling correction.
sorry. It's frustrating and happens alot.

Haha, happens, but spellchecking is good.

The concept of Brahman, reality, itself does not compel dualism or nondualism. However, the concept of Bhagavan seems to lead to a question of which is correct. Namely, is the person of Bhagavan separate at all from Brahma/ reality, and what is their relation?

Bascially Brahman is non-dual and Bhagawan is dual. But Hinduism has created all kinds of shades between the two extremes, so that nobody feels uncomfortable.

 

[Rakovsky]

Haha, happens, but spellchecking is good. Bascially Brahman is non-dual and Bhagawan is dual. But Hinduism has created all kinds of shades between the two extremes, so that nobody feels uncomfortable.

I think Brahman is important as a concept in both nodualist and dualist schools, and that the same is probably true of Bhagavan as well.

In the video I posted earlier, the Hindu teacher proposed that Brahman and Bhagavan were like a mountain. From far away, it looks like Brahman, but close up it is Bhagavan, he said. It seems to me that to equate Bhagavan and Brahman in this way reflects Advaita, right?

Also, is this person an Advaita Hindu:

Advaita Acarya said: "...Kist as Bhagavan's power is infinite and divine, so the power of Brahma's name is eternally perfect. ... The touchstone of the Name is Krshna, Svayam Bhagavan."

SOURCE:The Fading Light of Advaita Acarya: Three Hagiographies By Rebecca J. Manring