Hindu Monotheism

[LuisDantas]

Yeah, then you'd go all sectarian and start claiming the Vaishnavites, the Saivites, etc. have nothing compared to those wonderful devotees of Maa. I can here it now ... ranting and raving, trying to tale me away from my Beloved Siva.

(Actually the Sri Lankans here are quite into Amman ... lots of Amman temples hither thither.)

Uh, I don't think I am very likely to go that way, Vinayaka...

I am rather fond of the diversity of forms for the Sacred in Hinduism. And I can hardly feel bothered if you have a greater affinity for Shiva than for some other Deva or aspect of the Sacred.

There is clearly no reason to choose sides. That would (hopefully) not change were I to become a Shakta, or a Vaishnava, or whatever.

 

[Kirran]

What do serious religious Hindus think about Dayanand Saraswati and his examinations of history and religion??

Most have no interest in the whole thing.

 

[Vinayaka]

Uh, I don't think I am very likely to go that way, Vinayaka...

I am rather fond of the diversity of forms for the Sacred in Hinduism. And I can hardly feel bothered if you have a greater affinity for Shiva than for some other Deva or aspect of the Sacred.

There is clearly no reason to choose sides. That would (hopefully) not change were I to become a Shakta, or a Vaishnava, or whatever.

Young man, I was joking.

 

[LuisDantas]

I know.

 

[ChanaR]

It seems to me that you will quickly come to understand the perspective of Hinduism.

I have a hard time fitting into boxes. I best fit into Judaism, and it is after all the religion of my people. And form is only form. I like loving a personal God. But at any rate, I am reminded of a story some Chinese friends told me that I think says something very profound:

The head disciple wrote on the wall:

Our body is the Bodhi tree,
And our mind is a bright mirror stand,
We diligently clean them all the time,
So that no dust collects. ​

The lowly cook who couldn't even write, asked someone to write for him in response:

There is no Bodhi Tree
And there isn't any bright mirror stand,
Because all is emptiness,
Where can the dust collect?
​

There is no Judaism either, or Hinduism. Meaningless, meaningless, says the Sage. Everything is utterly meaningless. Ecclesiastes 1:2

• 
  
  

 

[LuisDantas]

All the same, it is very much a good thing to attain the ability to understand what other people mean.

 

[von bek]

I have a hard time fitting into boxes. I best fit into Judaism, and it is after all the religion of my people. And form is only form. I like loving a personal God. But at any rate, I am reminded of a story some Chinese friends told me that I think says something very profound:

The head disciple wrote on the wall:

Our body is the Bodhi tree,
And our mind is a bright mirror stand,
We diligently clean them all the time,
So that no dust collects. ​

The lowly cook who couldn't even write, asked someone to write for him in response:

There is no Bodhi Tree
And there isn't any bright mirror stand,
Because all is emptiness,
Where can the dust collect? ​

• 
  

That is from the Platform Sutra. The text deals with the life and teachings of the Zen Patriarch Hui-neng.

 

[ChanaR]

That is from the Platform Sutra. The text deals with the life and teachings of the Zen Patriarch Hui-neng.

Too cool. Thanks

 

[duvduv]

Of course you disagree. That's what you came here to do. There is no such thing as Vedism, just as there is no such thing as Bibleism, Torahism, or Koranism.

I think you missed the point. First there are the Arya Samaj who accept as binding only the Vedas, and reject all the trappings of polytheism, statues, etc. There are probably other groups as well. Plus most Protestants would say that the same Catholic Church has corrupted the true original Christianity. So what's the problem? And who says the hadiths were all true? There is a sect of Koranist Muslims who reject the hadiths. So what's so terrible to claim that what is called Hinduism is a corrupt conglomeration of ancient polytheism and the true philosophy of Vedism? Adi Shankara probably thought so in his day.

 

[duvduv]

Too vast to know. Many, if not most Hindus, have never heard of Arya Samaj. Intersectarian studies don't interest us. Worshipping God, practising dharma does interest us. We're first and foremost an experiential religion.

But what is the hostility to an opinion that Hinduism is a corruption combining original Vedism with ancient primitive polytheism??

 

[LuisDantas]

I think you missed the point. First there are the Arya Samaj who accept as binding only the Vedas, and reject all the trappings of polytheism, statues, etc. There are probably other groups as well. Plus most Protestants would say that the same Catholic Church has corrupted the true original Christianity. So what's the problem? And who says the hadiths were all true? There is a sect of Koranist Muslims who reject the hadiths. So what's so terrible to claim that what is called Hinduism is a corrupt conglomeration of ancient polytheism and the true philosophy of Vedism? Adi Shankara probably thought so in his day.

It is you who are missing the point entirely, @duvduv

 

[Vinayaka]

But what is the hostility to an opinion that Hinduism is a corruption combining original Vedism with ancient primitive polytheism??

There is no hostility, just an understanding that people find stuff to support an already assumed view. This is natural, as any other view wreaks havoc on the subconscious mind, and all the comfort it brings.

 

[Vinayaka]

You tell us who you are willing to consider "serious religious Hindus" and we go on from there, how about that?

Excellent point. Very tough question. Is an illiterate elder who sings bhajans half her day not a serious religious Hindu? Most likely not, according to the OP.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What do serious religious Hindus think about Dayanand Saraswati and his examinations of history and religion??

It was important in his time to oppose the evangelists, but it is a contrived version.

Is Hinduism a corruption of Vedism??

Yes, modern Hindusim is way different from the Vedic religion. It is not a corruption, it is a natural development because of the assimilation. Sankara was very happy about how he found it. He established Advaita, four centers of pilgrimage, ten orders of monks and wrote a whole lot of beautiful poetry which satisfies all, the Vaishnavas, the Shaivas as well as the Shaktas.

But what is the hostility to an opinion that Hinduism is a corruption combining original Vedism with ancient primitive polytheism??

Original Vedic religion also had many Gods and Goddesses. It too was ancient primitive polytheism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigvedic_deities

 

[Aupmanyav]

That might well happen some day. It is no secret that I have Shaktism on high regard.

I never knew that.

There is no Judaism either, or Hinduism. Meaningless, meaningless, says the Sage. Everything is utterly meaningless. Ecclesiastes 1:2

If it is meaningless, then we have to find our own meanings.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

What do serious religious Hindus think about Dayanand Saraswati and his examinations of history and religion??

Namaste,

I've read translations of Satyarth Prakash, and RigvedaBhashaBhumika of Maharishi Dayananda Saraswati. to me his opinions are best understood in the context of the time that he was in and his experience that lead him to have his views.

To my mind (and from my limited understanding) he was against Murti Puja because he saw a logical problem with it, his experience as a young child with the rat running around the shiva Lingam eating the prasad, is apparently what lead him away from worshipping Murti, but he never rejected the Concept of Shiva and was more a expounder of Nirguna Brahman and Shiva as one of the many names of Brahman.

He was against the SayanaAcharya interpretations of the "Devtas", in the Samhita texts, as he did not consider that all the Devtas must be interpreted as Gods, but each Devta must be interpreted in the context of the Sukta.

He was against the caste system, but taught Varna/Ashrama Dharmah, and also quoted from the Manu Smriti and considered only a few Manu verses as authentic.

He did not consider that the Mantras as being the word of some God, he mentions that the Mantras are the inspiration/realisation of the Rishis.

His works are about how to self rule, how to have a society that is Vadic, how to teach children, and what is the best way to govern India by Indians. He was vary patriotic, and felt he should push the "Hindu", population into more a Vedic lifestyle, or what he considered as Vedic, in order to dispel the suffering that the masses were enduring at that time.

Theologically he would be a Dvaitan, and did not accept the concept of Maya. He accepted 3 eternal principals of existence, Atman, Paratman and Prakriti.

He always justifies his arguments with Shastra (Hindu texts) such as Vedas, Darshan Shastra, Upanishads, Brahmanas, Ayurveda, Upavedas, Vedangas, Panini ect, but fevered Sankya-Yoga Darshan most therefore he does not bring anything new to Hinduism but highlights what is already there in his own way for his own time.

His criticism of the Bible and Koran are way ahead of its time.

His Sanskrit translations are based on Nirukta and Panini grammar, so they too have shastric backing.

I have great respect for Him.

Dhanyavad

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. the strict monotheists have argued that the Vedas themselves are strictly monotheistic.

That does not surprise me. Strict monotheists would term Vedas as monotheistic. Polytheists would term Vedas as polytheistic and athiest would term Vedas as atheistic. My atheism originates from 'Nasaidya Sukta' (generally known as the Hindu Creation Hymn) in RigVeda. Written at least 3,000 years ago, it is probably the oldest unequivocal atheist declaration on record:

अर्वाग देवा अस्य विसर्जनेनाथा को वेद यताबभूव ll
arvāg devā asya visarjanenāthā ko veda yatābabhūva ll
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10129.htm

And Dayanand Sarwaswati and Vivekananda are to be asked whether they did seek to change or reinterpret the Vedas from how they were interpreted for thousands of years, and if so, how can that be done?

It cannot be done because the 99% of the RigVedic hymns are addressed to one God or the other. You will have to dump the whole of RigVeda or resort to falsehood. What would you prefer?

Then how do you understand the views of Swami Vivekananda and Dayanand Saraswati for instance about religion and the Vedas?

They had their views. Other people have their views. Where is the problem? Swami Dayanand was a devotee of Lord Shiva and Vivekananda was great devotee of the Mother Goddess Durga. Why is it necessary that other people must follow their views? They were not like prophets of Abrahamic religions - 'dispatched by the Almighty God'. Hindus are very individualistic, they are not impressed by names.

I would like to see what a Hindu would say about your comments on the origins of the Vedas and the religion of the first Vedic believers. On the other hand, there are arguments that those who had the Vedas were INDIGENOUS to the Indian subcontinent rather than outside invaders, about which nothing is written in ancient Indian texts.

Aryan Migration Theory or Out of India Theory are but theories. Scholarly view (historians and archaeologists) favors the Migration model while the Chauvinistic view favors the Out of India view. Both have their adherents.

What I have been wondering about is how Hindus viewed the nature of ancient theology of the Egyptians, Romans and Greeks inasmuch as they had multiple deities. Insofar as the Bible is concerned, I'd be interested in how Vedic Hindus view the nature of the covenantal world of the Old Testament and the relationship between the Supreme Deity and the descendants of the one man, Abraham.

We are least concerned with the Egyptians, Sumerians, Greeks, Romans. The less I talk about the Abrahamic religions the better. They don't even have the finesse of the model that they copied, i.e., Zoroastrianism.

I have been asking Hindus why so many Hindus require the multiple deity system if all their orientation is to the single Supreme God whether named Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu, Krishna, etc.

Wrong premise. the Majority Hindu orientation is not towards a single God but innumerable Gods and Goddesses. Even individual villages may have individual Gods or Goddesses, and there are some Five Hundred Thousand of them.

 

[Kirran]

I think you missed the point. First there are the Arya Samaj who accept as binding only the Vedas, and reject all the trappings of polytheism, statues, etc. There are probably other groups as well. Plus most Protestants would say that the same Catholic Church has corrupted the true original Christianity. So what's the problem? And who says the hadiths were all true? There is a sect of Koranist Muslims who reject the hadiths. So what's so terrible to claim that what is called Hinduism is a corrupt conglomeration of ancient polytheism and the true philosophy of Vedism? Adi Shankara probably thought so in his day.

Shankara wrote some extraordinary devotional poetry to various aspects, including Lalita Tripurasundari.f

 

[Aupmanyav]

Read it online yourself. It's there, especially chapters7, 11 and 12. There is in his view a stark distinction between the Veda religion and what is called Hinduism.

'Satyartha Prakash' is one of the worst books that I have ever read.

duvduv, I have meticulously answered all your posts. If there be more questions, I am ready for them and waiting.

 

[Marcion]

So what's so terrible to claim that what is called Hinduism is a corrupt conglomeration of ancient polytheism and the true philosophy of Vedism? Adi Shankara probably thought so in his day.

It sounds to me too much like trying to project a protestant christian way of thinking on so-called 'hinduism'. Hinduism is not a religion that was fixed into a limited set of dogma's during a few clerical meetings so you cannot make such sweeping statements if you want to say anything meaningful.

When christianity was adopted in Europe, the people were expected to break away from their polytheistic way of thinking and they more or less did so over a relative short period of time. In India this break never happened in the same way, the development was much more organic and fluid and old sacred texts were never discarded as they were in Europe.

Nevertheless the polarisaton between a vedic way of thinking and a tantric way of thinking has always been there in India and is still there. But that is quite different from what you are trying to say.