Hindu Monotheism

[LuisDantas]

It may be disorienting at first, but the plain fact is that agreeing on "how many" deities are "real" is a big deal from an Abrahamic perspective. Not nearly so much in Hinduism (or for that matter Buddhism).

No amount of sincere disconfort will ever make it a big deal. The teachings simply do not rely on that point, which is ultimately a very personal matter with no clear significance.

 

[ajay0]

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.

I am sorry to hear about this.

I recall a sweet Jewish proverb in this regard, ' God could not be everywhere and hence He made mothers.'

Orthodox Hindu society had also similarly trampled upon women in the past through denying education and study of the Vedas, and widow burnings and forbidding of widow remarriage.

I used to find it idioitic and double standards that the widower did not have to burn himself in his wife's funeral pyre, whereas the wife had to be burned to death in her husband's funeral pyre.

Same goes for remarriage where the widower could marry multiple times while the widow could not.

Sects like Swami Dayanand Saraswati's Arya Samaj , Rajaram Mohan Roy's Brahmo Samaj and Dada Lekhraj's Prajapita Brahmakumaris have broken the shackles which tied down the oppressed underprivileged classes of Hindu society and empowered women in the process.

Orthodox sections of society have bitterly and angrily resisted them in the past and still do so for their selfish interests in the name of tradition, but these reformatory sects have emerged triumphant in the end, setting a valuable example to everyone.

As Victor Hugo stated, " No force on earth can stop an idea whose time has come".

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

This is very insightful. I recall reading an article which depicted statistics that women administrators on an average turned out to be better administrators than men, and solved much of the basic practical issues in their constituencies compared to the men.

Also women drivers are considered safer and less accident prone than men.

If religions were also led by women, the present destructive trend of organised religions indulging in conflicts with each other might come to an end as well.

 

[duvduv]

Then I have to assume that Dayanand Saraswati either interpreted "deities" some other way or dismissed the mention of them as accretions to the Vedas. I would have to go back and see what he says about it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Then I have to assume that Dayanand Saraswati either interpreted "deities" some other way or dismissed the mention of them as accretions to the Vedas. I would have to go back and see what he says about it.

Do you think that it is at all possible that he simply saw the exact form of theistic perception as a personal matter with little doctrinary significance?

 

[von bek]

The Rig Veda speaks of multiple deities. You can interpret them as all being manifestations of One, but that is an interpretation. A plain reading of the text gives a polytheistic worldview. I am a Shakta, I worship Maa Kali as Supreme. I view the Vedas as coming ultimately from Her, and through the Vedas we see Her offering praises to diverse manifestations of Her Shakti. (Her energy, Her indwelling power that makes all actions possible.)

Am I a monotheist or a polytheist? It all depends on what particular angle I am looking at the issue from. It isn't an either/or sort of thing in my view. Others will differ in opinion.

 

[Marcion]

It may be disorienting at first, but the plain fact is that agreeing on "how many" deities are "real" is a big deal from an Abrahamic perspective. Not nearly so much in Hinduism (or for that matter Buddhism).

No amount of sincere disconfort will ever make it a big deal. The teachings simply do not rely on that point, which is ultimately a very personal matter with no clear significance.

That depends on who you are and how you allow modern rational ways of thinking to play a part in your spiritual path.
I for myself could never believe in the Krishna of ISKCON but I have no problems with the Krishna of Sarkar nor could I ever believe in a God Rama who is (mostly?) mythical or a Jesus Christ who was moulded by early christians.
I don't suppose that it really matters spiritually how you imagine such deities, but if the more modern viewpoint hadn't existed then I would not have had any interest in e.g. Krishna or Jesus because of the conflict with my way of thinking.

Hinduism as a whole isn't going to change very much in the short term, but as people get more and more rationally educated these things are going to matter in the future.

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you think that it is proper for Dharmi to feel a need to consider modern knowledge and its impact on our beliefs, @Marcion ?

Do you think that there may be an actual religious duty to do just that?

Also, is the Sarkar that you mention Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar?

 

[Marcion]

I think the choice of how you see the universe and your own place in it is not part of your "religious duty" but should always be a free choice.
People do not tend to pick or stay in paths that conflict with their natural way of thinking.
Yes, I meant P.R. Sarkar. He wrote two books (rather they are I think compilations of a series of his talks) on Lord Shiva and Lord Krishna that I read and made me start loving these two great Sadguru's. I had earlier read books of ISKCON about Krishna but those did not have that same effect, these sounded too much surreal to me.

Many people in the West are losing their religion because they cannot harmonize christianity with their modern view of the world.
Yoga and Buddhism are sometimes chosen as alternatives because they are less irrational and can blend well with a more rational world view.

 

[Jainarayan]

So worship of any of the gods or goddesses is essentially worship of Brahman alone, though there may be a particular aspect of existence as represented by that god or goddess which the devotee wishes to worship.

Yes, and Sri Krishna points this out.

Whatever celestial form a devotee seeks to worship with faith, I steady the faith of such a devotee in that form.
Endowed with faith, the devotee worships a particular celestial god and obtains the objects of desire. But in reality I alone arrange these benefits. 7.21-22

Those who are devotees of other gods and who worship them with faith actually worship only Me, O son of Kunti, but they do so in a wrong way. 9.23

It sounds contradictory but it's not. To worship another deity as that deity and not as Brahman is the wrong way he speaks of. Because he is Brahman all prayers and requests/blessings go to and are granted by him, respectively. It's OK to worship the deities, but one must acknowledge they are actually worshiping Krishna, who is Brahman.

 

[Jainarayan]

Luis, you'd make a good Hindu, lol.

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

And we know there's enough room at the table of Hinduism for seating non-theists and atheists.

 

[Jainarayan]

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.)

Aren't converts the worst!? Ah marrone! (it's kind of like oy vey! in Italian ).

 

[Jainarayan]

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.

Now you're gonna make pull out the big artillery to underscore your point... the story of Narayana, Narada and the jar of oil. Oh noes! Another one of Jainarayan's stories!

Tl;dr... It's Vishnu at his you've-been-chastised-but-you-don't-know-you've-been-chastised-because-he-did-it-so-gently best.

 

[von bek]

Am I a monotheist or a polytheist? It all depends on what particular angle I am looking at the issue from. It isn't an either/or sort of thing in my view. Others will differ in opinion.

To elaborate a little more on this point, my devotions center on Maa Kali and the Mahavidyas. The Mahavidya, which includes Kali Herself, are ten manifestations of MahaKali. They are One because all are Kali. They are also many because each of the Mahavidyas have distinct powers, forms, and blessings. Maa Chinnamasta is not the same as Maa Tara, but They are both expressions of MahaKali, each is equally Supreme to my mind.

 

[Jainarayan]

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.

Not unlike what Akhenaten did in Egypt by promoting the Aten as the one true God, forbidding worship of the other deities. That lasted until his body wasn't even wrapped. The backlash was so great that his cartouche was chiseled away from every stele in Egypt.

Christian missionaries invaded Europe and forced the people to toss aside their Gods to worship, as the Heathens called him, Hvit Krist (White Christ in Old Norse). Iceland held out the longest until about 1,000 AD because they were so isolated.

 

[Jainarayan]

No worries!

He wrote devotional stuff for Shiva as well, I think maybe other aspects also.

He wrote Bhaja Govindam too. He was rather prolific for being so young.

 

[Marcion]

Thank you very much for your reply. However I am a bit confused. If everyone knows that Ishwar is the one God as the God of the Bible, then what is the need for the rest? I am a religious Jew and I see great similarities in those Vedas with the Torah. But we have no concept of Deva demigods. There is only the one person to worship. Why isn't it the same for Hindus? And why is someone like Krishna necessary? Moses was a holy man who spoke to God, but he was only a man, and God is infinity.

My denomination believes that God as the infinite Subjectivity sent special manifestions in human form from the sphere between His unmanifested realm and His manifested realm (as Taraka Brahma) at certain difficult key points in human history in order to guide the humanity into a new (more dharmic) direction by giving the human society a tremendous blow.
One of these manifestions was Lord Shiva a little over 7000 years ago and the next one was a little over 3500 years ago in the form of Lord Krishna.

So the infinite Subjectivity (God) at the centre of the universe guides His created beings on many different planets in a personal form when the need arises because of the stagnation of dharma, the only true goal in human life (and for evolved life forms in general).
The manifestations are treated as God, but their outward appearance is not who they really are.

I think these forms of Taraka Brahma were sent to India because India is culturally a kind of navel point of the world, many types of human culture mixed in India and it was culturally much more developed than the rest of the world was. But it is said of Lord Shiva that He also visited places far away from India.

 

[Marcion]

Not unlike what Akhenaten did in Egypt by promoting the Aten as the one true God, forbidding worship of the other deities. That lasted until his body wasn't even wrapped. The backlash was so great that his cartouche was chiseled away from every stele in Egypt.

Christian missionaries invaded Europe and forced the people to toss aside their Gods to worship, as the Heathens called him, Hvit Krist (White Christ in Old Norse). Iceland held out the longest until about 1,000 AD because they were so isolated.

I find it tragic that European spirituality was never linked directly to India. The original teachings of Jesus are quite universal (I feel tantric) but for some mysterious reason christianity took a more exoteric turn and became xenophobic and sectarian which is why they surpressed the religious cults of new converts.
Some festivals of the old religion somehow survived in christian form such as the celebrations around the birthday of Saint Nicholas ("Wodan" with his long grey beard riding over the roofs of houses on his white horse rewarding the good) and Black Peter ("Ariman", perhaps comparable to the demons in the Ramayana, come to punish the wicked) but were in their new form only meant for the minds of children, so no longer seriously believed in.

 

[Jainarayan]

I find it quite tragic that European spirituality was never linked directly to India. The original teachings of Jesus are quite universal (I feel tantric) but for some mysterious reason christianity took a more exoteric turn and became xenophobic and sectarian which is why they surpressed the religious cults of new converts.
Some festivals of the old religion somehow survived in christian form such as the celebrations around the birthday of Saint Nicholas ("Wodan") and Black Peter ("Ariman", perhaps comparable to the demons in the Ramayana) but were in their new form only meant for the minds of children, so no longer seriously believed in.

Agreed. Especially considering that Indian and European belief systems are [drumroll]... both Indo-European! Granted they diverged millennia ago but they are related.

I maintain that Jesus’s story is lifted almost word for word, or at the very least, idea for idea from Krishna’s 1,000 years earlier:

1. God born to a human mother in a prison cell or a cave.
2. Evil king trying to kill said God-child.
3. Said God-child secreted away by his father.
4. One incarnation of God is a cowherd, the other is a shepherd (metaphorically).
5. Both willingly accepted death at the hands of others to fulfill a prophecy when their earthly work was done.
6. One pierced by an iron arrowhead, the other by iron nails.
7. A lot of what Jesus said, especially in the Sermon on the Mount, echoes the Bhagavad Gita.
7. After their deaths both ascended with their physical forms to their heavenly realms.

I don’t think Jesus ever went to India, rather India went to him via the Silk Roads and Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean trade routes. If that’s the case though they may seem like a stretch, I think it’s entirely plausible that over centuries the story of one would morph into the other. Of course there would be some differences over all that time.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Hinduism as a whole isn't going to change very much in the short term, but as people get more and more rationally educated these things are going to matter in the future.

When people are rationally educated, then perhaps they will become atheists like me and abandon their insistence on the Great One God. That is what is happening in the Western world. Theism is in constant decline. And that is one reason why the evangelists have to look for people who are not educated, because they only could be converted.

Decline of believers in Christianity: decline of believers in Christianity - Google Search

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, I meant P.R. Sarkar.

Since you mentioned P. R. Sarkar, I think it is necessary for me to inform generally about him. Here are some links about him and his organization:
Cable: 1975WELLIN03395_b
Abha Light Foundation: Funded through Violent Cult.

If that is not enough, more can be searched on the internet.