Hindu Monotheism

[LuisDantas]

I understood that, but the messiah is not only relevant for the individual but for mankind as a whole. Because it seems that Buddhism and even Hinduism do not provide what Judaism and Christianity and Islam do, a form of hope for the future of all of mankind, regardless of whether they are actually working on attaining personal enlightenment.

Excuse me?

Edited to add: regarding Buddhism, you may want to read a bit about the Boddhisattva's Vow and the Primal Vow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhisattva_vow

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primal_Vow

 

[Jainarayan]

No, I meant the communication of ideas and understanding of concepts. But I am fascinated by the idea of how potentially things in Hinduism could be so badly communicated because of ambiguities in Sanskrit that you describe.

Not only badly communicated, but interpreted in a way to fulfill the translator's or interpreter's agenda. Take for example J. Robert Oppenheimer's famous quote about the Trinity atom bomb test. He taught himself Sanskrit and read the Gita in the original Sanskrit. When he saw the test he said I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita; Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and, to impress him, takes on his multi-armed form and says, 'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.'

But the original verse does not say that. It says
sri-bhagavan uvaca
kālo 'smi loka-ksaya-krt pravrddho
lokan samahartum iha pravrttah
rte 'pi tvam na bhavisyanti sarve
ye 'vasthitah pratyanikesu yodhah

The Blessed Lord said:
Time I am, destroyer of the worlds, and I have come to engage all people. With the exception of you [the prince and his army], all the soldiers here on both sides will be slain.

Kālo 'smi is a grammatical construction from asmi ("I am") kāla ('time"). In Sanskrit the word death is mrtyuḥ. Not to mention that 'become' is an entirely different verb. So you see the translation is light years different. Sri Krishna (Sri Bhagavan) is saying that because he is Time itself; no one or nothing can escape his passing, especially because it's their time to die. He's not at all suggesting that he's come to destroy by any power other than that of time passing.

So the point is that if someone did not know much more about this verse or who Krishna is or why he said that, or take the quote at face value (as I did at first) they might think he's no better than Genghis Khan or Attila the Hun in his conquering and destructive rampage. That's how translations can cause problems. Now, did Oppenheimer do that deliberately? I really don't know. However, it did play into his growing opposition to developing the bomb. Hindu texts had been widespread scholarly pursuits and well-respected, so it may have carried some weight.

But Oppenheimer's intentions are speculation on my part except for the translation. What Oppenheimer translated the verse to is definitely not what the original Sanskrit is, especially in the context of Krishna's conversation with Arjuna (the warrior prince).

 

[duvduv]

Not only badly communicated, but interpreted in a way to fulfill the translator's or interpreter's agenda. Take for example J. Robert Oppenheimer's famous quote about the Trinity atom bomb test. He taught himself Sanskrit and read the Gita in the original Sanskrit. When he saw the test he said I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita; Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and, to impress him, takes on his multi-armed form and says, 'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.'

But the original verse does not say that. It says
sri-bhagavan uvaca
kālo 'smi loka-ksaya-krt pravrddho
lokan samahartum iha pravrttah
rte 'pi tvam na bhavisyanti sarve
ye 'vasthitah pratyanikesu yodhah

The Blessed Lord said:
Time I am, destroyer of the worlds, and I have come to engage all people. With the exception of you [the prince and his army], all the soldiers here on both sides will be slain.

Kālo 'smi is a grammatical construction from asmi ("I am") kāla ('time"). In Sanskrit the word death is mrtyuḥ. Not to mention that 'become' is an entirely different verb. So you see the translation is light years different. Sri Krishna (Sri Bhagavan) is saying that because he is Time itself; no one or nothing can escape his passing, especially because it's their time to die. He's not at all suggesting that he's come to destroy by any power other than that of time passing.

So the point is that if someone did not know much more about this verse or who Krishna is or why he said that, or take the quote at face value (as I did at first) they might think he's no better than Genghis Khan or Attila the Hun in his conquering and destructive rampage. That's how translations can cause problems. Now, did Oppenheimer do that deliberately? I really don't know. However, it did play into his growing opposition to developing the bomb. Hindu texts had been widespread scholarly pursuits and well-respected, so it may have carried some weight.

But Oppenheimer's intentions are speculation on my part except for the translation. What Oppenheimer translated the verse to is definitely not what the original Sanskrit is, especially in the context of Krishna's conversation with Arjuna (the warrior prince).

More than just interesting here, that's for sure. To get everything upside down. I would assume Sanskrit scholars in India could straighten this all out. Interesting also about the word for death, since in Europe the word can be muerte, mort, morte, and in Russian smyert. While in Hebrew it's mahvet and in Arabic maoot.

 

[duvduv]

Excuse me?

Edited to add: regarding Buddhism, you may want to read a bit about the Boddhisattva's Vow and the Primal Vow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhisattva_vow

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primal_Vow

Yes, you're right at least for Mahayana Buddhism. No reason then to exclude divinity in all this, although the west does it out of hand. I have a feeling that Gautama, if he existed, was a very "religious" person......

 

[duvduv]

Yeah, seems solid enough. Ekam sat again....

@duvduv what country are you in? Just come with me to temple for a few days, that'll sort this out way easier than any amount of discussion!

What would happen, Kirran, if a Hindu wanted simply to bypass all the cultural and inherited accretions and become a devotee of God as Narayana/Brahman/Brahma to the exclusion of all else (even if those names had been inherited from the primitive cultures preceding the Vedas)??

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, you're right at least for Mahayana Buddhism. No reason then to exclude divinity in all this, although the west does it out of hand. I have a feeling that Gautama, if he existed, was a very "religious" person......

IMO, to exclude divinity is simply to accept one's lack of affinity for the idea.

It does not have any significant consequence - nor should it.

And sure, the Tathagata was very religious, as evidenced by his dedication to the awareness and spread of Dharma.

Why did you put the word between quotation marks?

 

[Jainarayan]

Interesting also about the word for death, since in Europe the word can be muerte, mort, morte, and in Russian smyert. While in Hebrew it's mahvet and in Arabic maoot.

It makes sense that Sanskrit is somewhat similar to languages of Europe. Sanskrit is an Indo-European language in the Indo-Iranian branch. It is sort of an aunt language to Latin, Greek, Proto-Slavic, Proto-Germanic, etc. Those words for death went through regular sound and morphology changes from their root. They are true cognates and have a common root from Proto-Indo-European.

Hebrew and Arabic may be coincidental because there is no demonstrable connection between Afro-Asiatic (Semitic languages) and IE languages.

 

[sayak83]

Jainarayan, are you saying that the various Indian peoples have simply tried to adapt the ancient primitive religions to the later teachings of the Vedas so that in essence they all agree on certain common ideas and values gleaned from the Vedas and other teachings but have maintained the ancient primitive god names as a method of communication of Vedism?

I guess that would make sense to me, which would explain why today you say Hindus simply refer to worshiping God within all of the rituals and activities associated with various names and deities. This would also mean that essentially someone worshiping and praying to Vishnu, or Krishna, or Shiva, or Govinda, or whatever name are actually simply doing the same thing underneath it all.....ultimately seeking integration (moksha/nirvana) with the Ultimate God (i.e, whatever he is called, Narayana/Rama/Brahma/Brahman/Shiva/Vishnu/Krishna).

This understanding (if more or less accurate) would go a long way to understanding the language communicated by Hindus with non-Hindus who usually cannot make sense out of the religious language used and quoted. So take the case of the Bhagavad Gita. It doesn't really matter whether the Supreme Deity is called Krishna etc., but what matters is the philosophical/theological teaching being transmitted.

Then, how do we make sense of all the primitive storylines of the deities that are always discussed and recounted by Hindu teachings? How does one get through the metaphors and allegories to what is behind all of it??

Well, you are somewhat correct. But I would see that , rather than the Vedas, it was the Upanisadic seers, the sramanas (ascetics), and the bhakti saints who together forged the synthesis that you have identified here.

The Puranic mythologies were also ways to transmit these teachings in more attractive narrative forms to ordinary people, and ways to make God accessible to humans.

 

[sayak83]

I think it is in the Book of the Zohar where it says that the place of God's greatness is the place of his utter smallness. In the place of his pride there you shall find his humility.
But the most intriguing thing distinguishing the Jewish ideas of the divine is that the Supreme God becomes involved in direct involvement in historical events over a long period of time starting with Adam, then Noah, Abraham and then to Moses all the way to the prophets many many centuries later. And then of course there is the idea of particularist covenant with the Jews at Sinai and with the circumcision. I wonder how Hindu theology in general would look at that kind of picture.

No idea. Hindu theology is usually not that much bothered with non-Indic religions.

 

[Jedster]

No idea. Hindu theology is usually not that much bothered with non-Indic religions.

What about this: (from https://www.yogapedia.com/definition/8501/nirguna-bhakti)
@sayak83 @duvduv

Definition - What does Nirguna Bhakti mean?


Nirguna bhakti is devotion to and worship of the Divine as formless. The term comes from the Sanskrit, nir, a prefix meaning “without”; guna, meaning “qualities” or “properties,” and bhakti, which means “devotion” or “faithfulness.”

Some scholars describe nirguna bhakti as the highest form of bhakti. It is devotion that lacks any desire for personal gain and is not motivated by any of the three gunas – sattva (purity, harmony, goodness), rajas(passion, driven, egoistic) and tamas (negative, disorder, lethargy).


Yogapedia explains Nirguna Bhakti
Depending on the tradition or school of Hinduism, bhakti is categorized in many ways, often as pairs of opposites. Nirguna bhakti is an unconditional devotion to God in an unmanifested form. Its opposite is saguna bhakti, which is worship of and devotion to a manifested deity who takes the form of an idol, an image or an incarnation.

Saguna bhakti is easier to comprehend because the ishta devata, or personal god, is worshiped in a recognizable form. Nirguna bhakti, on the other hand, is devotion to the Absolute -- the divine energy that is the universe and the highest consciousness. The ultimate goal is union with this divine energy.

 

[sayak83]

What about this: (from https://www.yogapedia.com/definition/8501/nirguna-bhakti)
@sayak83 @duvduv

Definition - What does Nirguna Bhakti mean?


Nirguna bhakti is devotion to and worship of the Divine as formless. The term comes from the Sanskrit, nir, a prefix meaning “without”; guna, meaning “qualities” or “properties,” and bhakti, which means “devotion” or “faithfulness.”

Some scholars describe nirguna bhakti as the highest form of bhakti. It is devotion that lacks any desire for personal gain and is not motivated by any of the three gunas – sattva (purity, harmony, goodness), rajas(passion, driven, egoistic) and tamas (negative, disorder, lethargy).


Yogapedia explains Nirguna Bhakti
Depending on the tradition or school of Hinduism, bhakti is categorized in many ways, often as pairs of opposites. Nirguna bhakti is an unconditional devotion to God in an unmanifested form. Its opposite is saguna bhakti, which is worship of and devotion to a manifested deity who takes the form of an idol, an image or an incarnation.

Saguna bhakti is easier to comprehend because the ishta devata, or personal god, is worshiped in a recognizable form. Nirguna bhakti, on the other hand, is devotion to the Absolute -- the divine energy that is the universe and the highest consciousness. The ultimate goal is union with this divine energy.

This is a reasonably good summary of the two paths of devotion.

 

[duvduv]

IMO, to exclude divinity is simply to accept one's lack of affinity for the idea.

It does not have any significant consequence - nor should it.

And sure, the Tathagata was very religious, as evidenced by his dedication to the awareness and spread of Dharma.

Why did you put the word between quotation marks?

Because might dispute thet Buddha had any connection to religion....

 

[Kirran]

What would happen, Kirran, if a Hindu wanted simply to bypass all the cultural and inherited accretions and become a devotee of God as Narayana/Brahman/Brahma to the exclusion of all else (even if those names had been inherited from the primitive cultures preceding the Vedas)??

A human being cannot operate outside a cultural framework of some kind.

I don't accept the assumption r.e. primitive cultures etc.

But there ARE people who are devotees just of Narayana (aka Vishnu) or who dedicate themselves to realisation of formless Brahman. I don't know if anybody is a Brahma devotee.

 

[LuisDantas]

Because might dispute thet Buddha had any connection to religion....

I don't.

 

[duvduv]

A human being cannot operate outside a cultural framework of some kind.

I don't accept the assumption r.e. primitive cultures etc.

But there ARE people who are devotees just of Narayana (aka Vishnu) or who dedicate themselves to realisation of formless Brahman. I don't know if anybody is a Brahma devotee.

Would there be a problem bypassing all the carryovers of multiple deities and myths even if he connected it to Buddhism or Vedantic philosophy?

 

[LuisDantas]

Why attempt to go against the grain of the natural tendencies of many people?

 

[Kirran]

Would there be a problem bypassing all the carryovers of multiple deities and myths even if he connected it to Buddhism or Vedantic philosophy?

Probably not. Whatever works for an individual.

 

[duvduv]

Why attempt to go against the grain of the natural tendencies of many people?

Only because there may be people who would like to bypass everything. What should they do?

 

[LuisDantas]

Only because there may be people who would like to bypass everything. What should they do?

They are certainly free to do so. At least, I can't think of any reason why anyone would try to stop them.

 

[von bek]

Because might dispute thet Buddha had any connection to religion....

Religion does not equal belief in God, and I say that as a believer in Her.