Hindu Monotheism

[Kirran]

Who knows whether there is a unity or multiplicity? I may believe in 'unity', but that denies Gods. Others may say what they believe is 'unity' plus a God. All these are but our different views. Even belief in one God is a superstition. If you want to do away with superstition, then do not accept existence of God till you get solid proof. Perhaps the core figures are yet to understand the truth, and might be unknowingly misleading us. Who made them core figures - the crowd that hangs around them?

Buddha said: Do not go upon the consideration "The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū),
nor upon another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya*)"- Kalama Sutta
* Bhabba-rūpatāya - Bhavya Rūpyatā (looking good/impressive, revered by so many, so what he/she says must be true).

Absolutely, yes.

But this is us getting into a tangent, Aup

 

[Vinayaka]

These are all the hindu reform organisations as given on Wikipedia:

Hindu reform movements - Wikipedia

All World Gayatri Pariwar
Ananda Marga
Arya Samaj
Ayyavazhi
BAPS
Brahma Kumaris
Brahmo Samaj
Chinmaya Mission
Divine Light Society
ISKCON
Parisada Hindu Dharma
Prarthana Samaj
Ramakrishna Mission
Sathya Sai Organization
School of Economic Science
Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana
Sri Aurobindo Ashram
Swadhyay Parivar (Swadhyay Movement)
Swaminarayan Sampraday
Tilak Mission
Transcendental Meditation movement
Yogoda Satsanga Society of India (YSS)

Perhaps I will start a separate topic to briefly compare their characteristics and ideas.

These groups are incredibly diverse, and reform is a catch-all word. So to look at it deeper, we have to ask which aspect(s) of Hinduism is each group trying to reform?

 

[Vinayaka]

What I disagree with is the insistence that by worshipping different forms one is denying the unity of the sacred in favour of superstition etc. The core figures of Hindu traditions, including in the modern era, centre themselves in oneness.

Sorry, I'm with Aup on this. Advaita isn't the only version of Hinduism. In Saiva Siddhantha, for example, the school I belong to is monistic, yes, but 90% of Saiva Siddhanta is pluralist, believing in 3 eternal realities.

 

[Kirran]

Sorry, I'm with Aup on this. Advaita isn't the only version of Hinduism. In Saiva Siddhantha, for example, the school I belong to is monistic, yes, but 90% of Saiva Siddhanta is pluralist, believing in 3 eternal realities.

I don't use oneness to mean Advaita though. Remember that every form of Vedanta aside from dvaita is in some sense "monistic". Every teacher spoke in those terms. Advaita Vedanta is one philosophy with its own historical circumstances etc, but teachers expounding oneness exist both within and without it. In Tantra, and in most of Vedanta, and in much of Bhakti, and among the Sant Mats and the Lingayats and so on, it's about oneness with the divine.

Sure, there's people who deny that stuff. I don't disagree with that, it's obvious.

But what I was actually pointing to was that by worshipping or engaging with different forms one was either a) by definition not about that unity or b) somehow unable to be socially reformist.

 

[Vinayaka]

I don't use oneness to mean Advaita though. Remember that every form of Vedanta aside from dvaita is in some sense "monistic". Every teacher spoke in those terms. Advaita Vedanta is one philosophy with its own historical circumstances etc, but teachers expounding oneness exist both within and without it. In Tantra, and in most of Vedanta, and in much of Bhakti, and among the Sant Mats and the Lingayats and so on, it's about oneness with the divine.

Sure, there's people who deny that stuff. I don't disagree with that, it's obvious.

But what I was actually pointing to was that by worshipping or engaging with different forms one was either a) by definition not about that unity or b) somehow unable to be socially reformist.

Oneness is a mostly meaningless term to me, as nobody can agree as to how to use it, and this is a perfect example. Far too vague for me to draw anything from it.

 

[Kirran]

Oneness is a mostly meaningless term to me, as nobody can agree as to how to use it, and this is a perfect example. Far too vague for me to draw anything from it.

Yeah, language is semi-useful.

 

[Aupmanyav]

These groups are incredibly diverse, and reform is a catch-all word. So to look at it deeper, we have to ask which aspect(s) of Hinduism is each group trying to reform?

Or they are just angling for importance, money and what not (I will let it remain undefined).

 

[Kirran]

Or they are just angling for importance, money and what not (I will let it remain undefined).

People getting into ego-trips about social reform is very common, it seems.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. it's about oneness with the divine.

But what I was actually pointing to was that by worshiping or engaging with different forms one was either a) by definition not about that unity or b) somehow unable to be socially reformist.

If it is about oneness, then abandon divine. I am not divine, I am human. So divine must be something else. That destroys oneness and 'advaita'. So, what you term as divine is not divine. Oneness is something else.

Yeah, worshiping different forms is not oneness, but every is not keen, hungry or insistent for oneness as you seem to be. Society and its regulations, agreeing with that or disagreeing and trying to reform, and personal beliefs are two different things. Do you think that one has to be a Shaiva to try to reform society or one has to be a Shakta or Vaishnava; or that only monotheists can reform the society?

In conclusion: Leave belief to individuals and try to reform the society in whatever way one wants to. Gandhi was a Vaishnava, Tilak worshiped Ganesha. So what? Both were reformers.

People getting into ego-trips about social reform is very common, it seems.

In India, there is a lot more to Social Reform. All our political leaders call themselves and 'Social workers'. Nearly every Tom,Dick and Harry is a 'Social worker'. That is the stepping stone to power and money and more.

 

[LuisDantas]

Or they are just angling for importance, money and what not (I will let it remain undefined).

That probably happens often enough, but how should one call those movements if not reforms? Perhaps initiatives, revisions or changes?

There will be a need for some term that questions their validity, as well as an inclusive term that does not imply any judgement on religious and ethical validity.

 

[ajay0]

Ajay0, what do you think of Dayanand Saraswati's understanding of the changes in what has become known as Buddhism? It sounds as if his understanding of the original teachings (Nikaya) that were simply regularly Vedic?

I am familiar with Dayanand's teachings but not much knowledgeable about what he stated with respect to other religions. He did make his interpretations of other religions strictly on a vedic basis.

I have mentioned about the Prajapita Brahmakumaris , a Hindu monotheistic sect solely lead by women leaders, teachers and administrators and now I have mentioned about the Arya Samaj which championed women empowerment and brought about women priests and teachers as equals.

Don't you think it is high time Judaism also got rid of its prejudices with respect to women and start having female rabbis as well !

 

[ajay0]

I also would like to mention here that Charan Singh, a former Indian prime minister, was an Arya Samaji.

Arya Samaj still has a presence in India and especially abroad. This is because of its acceptance of inter-caste and inter-religious marriages which orthodox Hindus frown upon but is not increasingly becoming a charecterestic of Hindu families.

Many foreigners also could become Hindu easily through the Arya Samaj, but which was not possible through other Hindu sects which considered foreigners as Mleccha or impure due to prejudice and looked down upon them. If at all other Hindu sects are showing flexibility in this regard now, it is because of the example of the Arya Samaj.

Arya Samaj greatly liberalised, secularized and humanized Hindu and Indian society, bringing great relief to women and oppressed sections of society. The Dalits and untouchables could now chant vedas as equals and perform havans, whereas in earlier times, they would have been killed or tortured for it simply due to casteist prejudices.

Same too with women who were denied an equal status in orthodox Hindu society, prevented from study of Vedas and subjected to widow burnings and lack of education or remarriage.

They also helped to simplify religion and get rid of many meaningless rituals performed by the priests which devoured valuable money and resources of the common people that could have been channeled to education and healthcare leading to social, intellectual and economic progress.

Instead of idols of gold and silver, they taught people to worship Om as God and that a simple picture containing Om is enough for worship.

Because of this, the Arya Samajis have faced opposition from various quarters then and now, as all this rocked their privileged position in society.
Swami Dayanand Saraswati was subjected to opposition and persecution by vested interests and stoned as well in public debates by prejudiced people who rejected his thoughts with aversion.

However he persisted with determination and brought about great changes in Hindu and Indian society.

 

[von bek]

Sorry, I'm with Aup on this. Advaita isn't the only version of Hinduism. In Saiva Siddhantha, for example, the school I belong to is monistic, yes, but 90% of Saiva Siddhanta is pluralist, believing in 3 eternal realities.

From my studies and readings, a lot of Shakta ideas are a blend of Samkhya and Advaita. We can talk about Brahman all we want, but Purusha and Prakriti comprises all of our experiences. I don't see the world as unreal, I don't see Maya as unreal. Maa Kali is both static (as Brahman) and ever-changing (as Shakti), both are real.

I present the above not to dispute your ideas, but to further illustrate diversity of thought within Hinduism.

 

[Kirran]

From my studies and readings, a lot of Shakta ideas are a blend of Samkhya and Advaita. We can talk about Brahman all we want, but Purusha and Prakriti comprises all of our experiences. I don't see the world as unreal, I don't see Maya as unreal. Maa Kali is both static (as Brahman) and ever-changing (as Shakti), both are real.

I present the above not to dispute your ideas, but to further illustrate diversity of thought within Hinduism.

“When She is inactive neither creating, nor preserving, nor destroying, I call Her Brahman. When She performs all these activities I call Her Kali, I call Her Shakti. The Being is the same, only the names and forms are different!" (Courtesy: Sri Sri Ramakrishna Kathamirta, Section II)

 

[Aupmanyav]

That probably happens often enough, but how should one call those movements if not reforms? Perhaps initiatives, revisions or changes?

There will be a need for some term that questions their validity, as well as an inclusive term that does not imply any judgement on religious and ethical validity.

As Vinayak said 'social reform' is more of a catch phrase. Many of these are just personality cults - like Brahma Kumaris after their Dada Lekhraj and Swaminarayan after Sahajananda. Ananda Marg was sure a dangerous cult (Ananda Marga - Wikipedia). Can't do much (at the moment), let them be. It is a free world.

 

[duvduv]

I am familiar with Dayanand's teachings but not much knowledgeable about what he stated with respect to other religions. He did make his interpretations of other religions strictly on a vedic basis.

I have mentioned about the Prajapita Brahmakumaris , a Hindu monotheistic sect solely lead by women leaders, teachers and administrators and now I have mentioned about the Arya Samaj which championed women empowerment and brought about women priests and teachers as equals.

Don't you think it is high time Judaism also got rid of its prejudices with respect to women and start having female rabbis as well !

As a matter of fact the permissibility of women roles of authority under Talmudic Judaism is 100% permitted, and the religious establishment of this generation is engaged in a coverup using a mask they call "tradition" aside from strict legal provisions. In modern times a rabbi is a professional title only indicating successful mastery of a certain very LIMITED amount of Jewish legal studies. Personally I would prefer if religions were all led by women. The world would be a better place.

 

[duvduv]

I genuinely do not see why there would be a contradiction.

Also, it's a bit disrespectful that you still continue to plug this whole 'adherence to multiple gods' thing when several people have taken the time and consideration to explain to you that it's many forms of one divinity.

The Neo-Vedanta thing is just some label, everyone labelled as such is still a continuation of the ancient vedantic and yogic traditions of India. It is not a label with immense substance. What is important is that Swami Vivekananda, Swami Brahmananda, of course their gurus Sri Ramakrishna and Sarada Devi and many others in that same spiritual family all knew God, the Absolute. All were genuine jnanis, or knowers. Any theorising and labelling falls away in the face of that.

Yes, I am aware of that and those distinctions. But if the traditions of multiple deities was derived from sources unrelated to the Vedas then it would be "fair game" for criticism along with all the other features of Hinduism which have been challenged. I don't see it being disrespectful because I am not singling out anyone in particular, any particular tradition or belief. I am speaking in generalities.

 

[duvduv]

The way it blasts Abrahamic religions and falsely. Even as a Hindu I could not bear it. And his translation of RigVeda is bull.Not at the cost of falsehood contained in his translations and teachings. And, reforms and what a person should believe or not believe about God/Gods/Goddesses are two completely different things. Hindu temples do not require a tithe. It is your choice if you will give or not.As Kirran said, I too do not see any contradiction. Reforms OK but who is Dayanand to dictate that I should worship one God or many or none at all? As I said, Hindus are not impressed by names. We are too individualistic.

And declaration of reforms and their acceptance in the society are two different things. Arya Samajis still marry in their own castes, widows over 35 generally do not marry because it tears them from their adopted family, and dowry is expected, given and accepted. Sikh, Muslims and Christians too claim that they do not have caste differences, but in India they will generally marry in their own caste. Caste is such a tenacious thing. Inter-caste marriages, widow remarriage is happening in India in 'Sanatan' Hindu society too, but that is because of spread of education and meeting of people in colleges and in job environments. It so happens that all four daughters-in-laws in my (extended) family are from castes other than our own. Two love marriages and two chosen by us.

It is entirely possible that there is a great deal of inconsistency even in a movement like Arya Samaj. In my own tradition there is plenty of inconsistency and hypocrisy. I am very unhappy about mankind in general, my own coreligionists included. ;-(

 

[Aupmanyav]

But if the traditions of multiple deities was derived from sources unrelated to the Vedas then it would be "fair game" for criticism along with all the other features of Hinduism which have been challenged.

That is the problem (for you and not for us). Tradition of multiple deities is intrinsic to Vedas in general and to RigVeda, the first scripture of Hindus, in particular. Though just as atheism can be found in Vedas, monotheism also can be found. If you would present one verse for monotheism, we will present a hundred for polytheism. Thus it is not going to be 'fair game' ) for you.

Personally I would prefer if religions were all led by women. The world would be a better place.

Join Hinduism as a Shakta. Overflowing with love as Mother Durga and ever ready to help in difficulties as Mother Kali.

In my own tradition there is plenty of inconsistency and hypocrisy. I am very unhappy about mankind in general, my own coreligionists included. ;-(

That does not help in any way. It only spoils your day. Accept Dao, accept Ritam, the way of the world. Be happy. The world will go its own way.

 

[Kirran]

Yes, I am aware of that and those distinctions. But if the traditions of multiple deities was derived from sources unrelated to the Vedas then it would be "fair game" for criticism along with all the other features of Hinduism which have been challenged. I don't see it being disrespectful because I am not singling out anyone in particular, any particular tradition or belief. I am speaking in generalities.

Vedas are not the Torah of Hinduism. And the Vedas speak of lots of deities.