Hindu Monotheism

[duvduv]

Mostly, probably, I guess, yeah.

Could you or anyone else be more specific in all this. Because if it is so, and if Hindus do not believe that an idol of stone has any power, etc. then it is very significant spiritually in regards to the ability of people to invoke (or meditate) on something that orients them only to the One Supreme Deity.
In the case of the Torah a person achieves a certain "devekut" (attachment) to God when performing a commandment because by fulfilling that commandment he is subsuming his will to the Divine Will in the world of "action" ("bakhti"). People at very high levels of spiritually could actually experience this attachment and annulment of the EGO. Indeed, the annulment of the ego through performance of the commandments is discussed very extensively in Hassidic and Kabbalistic literature. Ironically, performance of commandments does not depend on a person's ability to achieve this "Samadhi" but is an obligation. So that even the very simple unlettered person who does not experience anything is at least fulfilling the divine will.

 

[duvduv]

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.

I honestly do not have any agenda. Simply to exchange ideas and to understand others' ideas and ways of thinking for seriously. I honestly have no idea of whether anything discussed by Maimonides is even relevant in our days. Especially where people focus only on the Supreme God of Creation despite what an outsider may consider superficially not to be monotheism.

 

[Kirran]

Could you or anyone else be more specific in all this. Because if it is so, and if Hindus do not believe that an idol of stone has any power, etc. then it is very significant spiritually in regards to the ability of people to invoke (or meditate) on something that orients them only to the One Supreme Deity.
In the case of the Torah a person achieves a certain "devekut" (attachment) to God when performing a commandment because by fulfilling that commandment he is subsuming his will to the Divine Will in the world of "action" ("bakhti"). People at very high levels of spiritually could actually experience this attachment and annulment of the EGO. Indeed, the annulment of the ego through performance of the commandments is discussed very extensively in Hassidic and Kabbalistic literature. Ironically, performance of commandments does not depend on a person's ability to achieve this "Samadhi" but is an obligation. So that even the very simple unlettered person who does not experience anything is at least fulfilling the divine will.

No, they can't be specific, because you're trying to get someone to speak for all Hinduism, which can't be done in any honesty.

And that's good stuff man.

 

[duvduv]

Thanks, Kirran. I'd be interested in how you or others look at these things from a Hindu viewpoint.
As Jews we are familiar with divine commandments reflecting the divinely revealed will. But in the case of Hindus how does a Hindu feel he is "obligated" in a set of observances to fulfill the divine will (Dharma)? And how would any particular person know if his sensibilities fit better with worship of God as Vishnu or Shiva, Ganesha, Rama, Krishna, etc. and not the other? Are there any set of criteria that Hindus are taught to follow?

 

[LuisDantas]

And how would any particular person know if his sensibilities fit better with worship of God as Vishnu or Shiva, Ganesha, Rama, Krishna, etc. and not the other? Are there any set of criteria that Hindus are taught to follow?

I am not a Hindu, but if I may present my understanding of this matter for a moment: it seems to me that it is a combination of learning from the immediate social environment and finding a personal affinity to some aspect of the sacred.

To the best of my understanding, Hindus tend not to worry too much about whether other people have different conceptions of how the sacred manifests. That may involve many Devas, or just one, or even none. It seems to me to be a factor of the adherent's vocations far more than of any objective or cosmic truth. And that is all right, IMO.

I tend to feel that it is not too unlike acceptance of the variety of preferences for forms of art. Just because a certain form is valid for some people it does not have to follow that other, alternate forms are not valid as well. There is no need to choose, and certainly no need to choose with exclusion.

I don't think of that as idolatry or even necessarily polytheism, because IMO it takes a certain set of perceptions to make idolatry possible.

 

[duvduv]

I have been fascinated by what I am reading about the various Hindu traditions on wiki. It's my opinion that any thought that Hindu traditions are not monotheistic is totally wrong, and in some respects may be stronger monotheistic traditions than trinitarian Christianity, even if people might interpret Christianity as a form of Vishnaism with an avatar called Jesus. He's not just an avatar according to the Christians. He's part of a co-equal triune God (which even Christians admit they don't understand), even while evoking his father many times in the New Testament as a separate being.

I do have trouble with the concept of an avatar in general because on the one hand all existence contains God, but on the other hand the teaching assumes a special incarnation beyond that of the rest of mankind with divine attributes of the Supreme Creator. Apparently Shivaism and Smartism don't have to deal with this issue.

However, I have to take back the assertion that Hinduism is not monotheistic, even if as claimed the names of the deity were carried over from primitive polytheism from long long ago. It isn't polytheistic. Vishnu is the Supreme God in one aspect, and in other aspect he is called Shiva. Not really that big a deal.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.?

You won't get a clear reply from Hindus. If you say 'there are hundred Gods and Goddesses', Hindus would say 'yes'. If you say 'there is just one God', then also Hindus would say 'yes'. You can't pin down Hindus.

I'd be interested in how a Hindu would understand this.

Hindus would not leave idol worship. And those who leave idol worship, IMHO, should not be considered as Hindu. If we have a hundred Gods and Goddesses, then they would sit side-by-side happily, if we have one God, then we would have a huge idol of the same. We consider the Idol useful for focus.

 

[duvduv]

I found this very interesting video below that clarifies the nature of Hindu monotheism based on the Vedas. The description of Narayana is almost identical to the concepts in kabbalah and hassidism.
(The unique difference in Judaism is God's involvement in history starting with Genesis.).
youtube.com/watch?v=fg0Y57gMcl0

 

[Aupmanyav]

Because if it is so, and if Hindus do not believe that an idol of stone has any power, etc. then it is very significant spiritually in regards to the ability of people to invoke (or meditate) on something that orients them only to the One Supreme Deity.

Yes, we believe that the idol has power - worshiping it affects one's psychology in the way we think it is essential. We will extract power from the idol of whichever God or Goddess we worship at that time. Students may worship to an idol of Saraswati, the Goddess of learning and a wrestler may worship an idol of Hanuman, a God of bodily strength, a woman with a family may worship Mother Goddess in her various forms for safety and prosperity of her husband and children.

But in the case of Hindus how does a Hindu feel he is "obligated" in a set of observances to fulfill the divine will (Dharma)? Are there any set of criteria that Hindus are taught to follow?

'Dharma' is fulfillment of one's familial, social and national responsibilities and engaging in actions which do not harm others. Beyond that, there is no 'dharma' instructions. What you eat, how you dress, which God or Goddess you worship is not 'Dharma', these are optional and not obligatory. Fast or not to fast, worship twice a day or not, or even to believe in existence of God/Gods/Goddesses is optional and not obligatory. We have a saying:

Paropakaram punyaya, papaya para peedanam.
(To help others is merit, to harm others is sin)
That in a nut-shell is Hinduism.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I have been fascinated by what I am reading about the various Hindu traditions on wiki. It's my opinion that any thought that Hindu traditions are not monotheistic is totally wrong, and in some respects may be stronger monotheistic traditions than trinitarian Christianity, even if people might interpret Christianity as a form of Vishnaism with an avatar called Jesus.

duvduv, do not compare Hinduism with Abrahamic faiths. That is the cardinal mistake that you are making. You have your ways, we have ours. Beyond the many Gods and one God, we have the philosophy of non-duality, the unity of each and everything in the universe - humans, animals, vegetation and even inanimate substances (I am a follower of that philosophy). If all things in the universe arise from the same entity (not a God, not a power, something like substance, physical energy in the modern sense with which the universe started at the time of Big-Bang), that leaves no place for Gods or a Supreme. That is 'Advaita', that too is Hinduism and a very valid stance.

 

[LuisDantas]

@duvduv , it seems to me that it is indeed difficult (and misleading) to attempt to pin down Hindus as "truly being" monotheistic, just as it is innacurate to describe them as polytheistic.

It may well be more accurate to say that the distinction between monotheism, polytheism and the other alternatives is not as meaningful in Hinduism as it would be from an Abrahamic perspective.

 

[duvduv]

The overall website dharmacentral.com is very interesting indeed. He points to how in the Vedas Shiva is subservient to Vishnu who is Narayana, the supreme creator. And describes Shaktiism. But the similarity of the ideas of Narayana to Kabbalah is striking.

 

[duvduv]

How do Hindus distinguish between Vishnu and Krishna if it is the same person (i.e. in the Bhagavad Gita)? And since the system states that all creating carries divinity, which is omnipresent, how can there be an avatar?

 

[Jainarayan]

And Krishna is God. At least to those who are Vaishnavas, if I'm not mistaken.

You are correct.

 

[Jainarayan]

if in Hinduism Vishnu is called the Destroyer in relation to Shiva and Brahma. I thought Brahma was the single God as well.

That's totally skewed.

Vishnu is the preserver... of order, the orderly workings of the universe, of righteousness. He does not destroy anything. Shiva the "Destroyer" is more properly called the Dissolutioner. He does not wantonly or randomly destroy. He destroys, dissolves, sweeps away the old and worn out to make way for new creation. Think of old stars going supernova and blasting their elements out in to space to create new planets and new life. That is Lord Shiva's handiwork. He also destroys the ego if one seeks him out to do that. Brahmā is the non-immortal creator god, no Brahman, the only thing that really exists and the "ground of all being".

 

[Jainarayan]

then why wouldn't everyone worship the supreme God exclusively

We do. At least for Vaishnavas, in the Bhagavad Gita, Sri Krishna says that ultimately all prayers go to him, because he is the Supreme Lord. All the others are simply different appearances of him. Shaivas and Shaktas, devotees of Shiva and Shakti/Devi (Goddess) probably say the same thing. Shaivas, for example say Shiva is all and in all. There are many verses and hymns that say similar. There is one in particular ekam sat viprah bahudha vadanti, "One Truth the wise know by many names" (Rig Veda 10.164.46).

 

[Jainarayan]

When I, and many others go to different temples, where the main shrine is to a different God, the vibration is definitely different. This is not a scholarly thing but an inner feeling. Murugan temples feel different than Siva temples, than Amman temples, etc.

You just hit on something you probably remember I've been wrestling with for a few years now. With your kind permission (note to non-Hindus... see how polite we are? ) I'd like to use this as the basis for a thread in the Hinduism DIR.

 

[Jainarayan]

then why not simply appeal to the one infinite God without form?

Because as Sri Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita (12.5), because humans are sensory beings and need to see, feel, touch, it is very difficult to spiritually advance trying to focus on the unmanifested or formless. Hence the use of statues or images, or a mental image. It gives focus. If one sees God in the form of a man-lion (as I do), or a powerfully built human with a monkey's face (as I do) or as a young man playing a flute (as I do) or as ... (as I do) so much the better to focus on that attribute of God at the time I need it.

 

[Jainarayan]

Because if it is so, and if Hindus do not believe that an idol of stone has any power

You were already told that the "idol" has no power of its own, it's a conduit. Like a telephone... the phone has no power to speak on its own, it is a conduit for communication. Our brass or other metal, or stone idols are no different than that phone.

 

[Vinayaka]

You just hit on something you probably remember I've been wrestling with for a few years now. With your kind permission (note to non-Hindus... see how polite we are? ) I'd like to use this as the basis for a thread in the Hinduism DIR.

If I remember right, you look like a wrestler, no?
No you can't. Not possible.