Hindu Monotheism

[duvduv]

I am, but I can't escape the logic of focusing on the Supreme God exclusively who is always accessible since he is everywhere....

 

[Kirran]

I am, but I can't escape the logic of focusing on the Supreme God exclusively who is always accessible since he is everywhere....

Logic is rather a mental construction. And in any case, what works for you doesn't necessarily work for others.

Logical arguments don't always work on the heart.

 

[duvduv]

So you mean that it isn't obvious that one should appeal to the power that is the greatest who can respond and does respond to mankind who he has created?

 

[duvduv]

Why not. In the Hindu perspective every entity is actually infinite, as its essence is Brahman. So, in the proper perspective, there are no finite entities at all.

But if this is true, Sayak83 ,then why not simply appeal to the one infinite God without form? Re At least he will not be forgotten among the multiplicity of names and personalities.

 

[Kirran]

So you mean that it isn't obvious that one should appeal to the power that is the greatest who can respond and does respond to mankind who he has created?

I mean your take isn't the be-all and end-all of spirituality.

You are theorising here. You are pronouncing.

But have you sat at the feet of someone who has attained holiness and who is associated with such a tradition? Have you worshipped Ganesha, Shiva or Lakshmi sincerely and regularly? Have you meditated upon names used in Hindu traditions, and looked to their source within yourself? If not, then it is of course reasonable that you would not understand that your opinions are not applicable.

 

[Vinayaka]

There are different perspectives on God existing on this planet, and the sooner WE ALL come to learn that, the more the people on this planet can live in harmony. Nobody has to understand the many other views, but they should at least tolerate them without a continuous barrage of attempts to convince others their way is the one and only correct way.

 

[Vinayaka]

So you mean that it isn't obvious that one should appeal to the power that is the greatest who can respond and does respond to mankind who he has created?

Lots of folks don't believe that so why would they be appealing to something they don't believe in?

 

[Kirran]

There's a line from the Vedas, @duvduv - Ekam sat, vipraha bahudha vadanti - Truth is One, the wise speak of it variously.

 

[sayak83]

But if this is true, Sayak83 ,then why not simply appeal to the one infinite God without form? Re At least he will not be forgotten among the multiplicity of names and personalities.

You somehow seem to believe that thinking of God as One and formless is somehow more fundamental that thinking as many and with multitude of forms. This is wrong. Brahman is both one and infinite, formless and of many forms... so neither of these are more fundamental than the other.

 

[Kirran]

Remember that one, creator, supreme etc are still concepts!

 

[duvduv]

I mean your take isn't the be-all and end-all of spirituality.

You are theorising here. You are pronouncing.

But have you sat at the feet of someone who has attained holiness and who is associated with such a tradition? Have you worshipped Ganesha, Shiva or Lakshmi sincerely and regularly? Have you meditated upon names used in Hindu traditions, and looked to their source within yourself? If not, then it is of course reasonable that you would not understand that your opinions are not applicable.

Well, I am no mystic. But I know that Jewish mystics have meditated on the arrangements of the four letters comprising the holy Name (Tetragrammaton) of God which have the meaning of the word "Being".Letters Yud Heh Vav Heh.

 

[Kirran]

Well, I am no mystic. But I know that Jewish mystics have meditated on the arrangements of the four letters comprising the holy Name (Tetragrammaton) of God which have the meaning of the word "Being".Letters Yud Heh Vav Heh.

Good stuff.

Mysticism is not some big deal. All it means is experiencing, rather than theorising.

 

[duvduv]

If I remember correctly, the person must be at a sufficientl pious level and learned in all areas of Jewish study to ensure correct focus on the arrangements of the letters. Otherwise there are risks involved, as was the case of Shabtai Zvi the false Messiah of the 17th century, who went off the deep end and misled many Jews.

 

[Vinayaka]

There's a line from the Vedas, @duvduv - Ekam sat, vipraha bahudha vadanti - Truth is One, the wise speak of it variously.

Or ,,, from some other traditions ... Truth is One, My Version

 

[Kirran]

If I remember correctly, the person must be at a sufficientl pious level and learned in all areas of Jewish study to ensure correct focus on the arrangements of the letters. Otherwise there are risks involved, as was the case of Shabtai Zvi the false Messiah of the 17th century, who went off the deep end and misled many Jews.

Fair enough. Maybe so. Just love God and pray if that works better.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Fair enough. Maybe so. Just love God and pray if that works better.

Aup. adds: if that works better for you, if it floats your boat. It is not necessary that every one would like to travel in that boat.

 

[duvduv]

Is it correct to say that many or most Indians focus on the one Supreme God even when they relate to a particular name such as Ganesha, Shiva, Vishnu, Krishna, etc.? Or even when relating to the alleged millions of divas? And if so, do people who worship one or the other relate easily to the others even if each God name represents a different aspect of the supreme God?

 

[Kirran]

Is it correct to say that many or most Indians focus on the one Supreme God even when they relate to a particular name such as Ganesha, Shiva, Vishnu, Krishna, etc.? Or even when relating to the alleged millions of divas? And if so, do people who worship one or the other relate easily to the others even if each God name represents a different aspect of the supreme God?

Mostly, probably, I guess, yeah.

 

[duvduv]

Judaism had some very specific descriptions of "idolatry" in ancient times from which Judaism was distinguished. I don't really know how or if it could even be applied to Hinduism at all, since the focus in those days was on the Canaanites, ancient Greeks and Romans. Maimonides says that the ancients who became involved in idolatry (i.e. worshiping the Baal, Moloch, etc.) had originally intended to worship God THROUGH those others , but eventually fell off track and began to think that individual gods they worshiped had INDEPENDENT sources of power and authority, and had to be placated, and so they forgot about the one true God of all. Here is a link that discusses this. I'd be interested in how a Hindu would understand this.
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912359/jewish/Avodat-Kochavim-Chapter-One.htm

 

[Kirran]

Judaism had some very specific descriptions of "idolatry" in ancient times from which Judaism was distinguished. I don't really know how or if it could even be applied to Hinduism at all, since the focus in those days was on the Canaanites, ancient Greeks and Romans. Maimonides says that the ancients who became involved in idolatry (i.e. worshiping the Baal, Moloch, etc.) had originally intended to worship God THROUGH those others , but eventually fell off track and began to think that individual gods they worshiped had INDEPENDENT sources of power and authority, and had to be placated, and so they forgot about the one true God of all. Here is a link that discusses this. I'd be interested in how a Hindu would understand this.
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/912359/jewish/Avodat-Kochavim-Chapter-One.htm

If you have an agenda to push here, please be clear about it.

If not, then Hindus would understand it variously! What you keep missing is that it's experiential. These practices work.