Hindu Monotheism

[duvduv]

There are many writings in which the different gods “worship” each other. Rāma, who is Vishnu, prays to Shiva for help in his (Rāma’s) quest to rescue his wife Sita (incarnation of Lakshmi, Vishnu’s wife).

When Shiva loses his mind and damn near destroys the universe in grief over the loss of his wife Sati, the gods pray to Vishnu to intervene and try to calm Shiva down.

When Vishnu goes on a rampage as Nsrasimha after accomplishing his task, the gods pray to Shiva out of fear of the now out-of-control Vishnu.

The gods pray to Maa Parvati and give her all their weapons in a horrific battle against a wily demon. Badda-bing badda-boom, Maa Parvati transforms into Maa Durga and starts to kick demon butt.

It’s not that any one god, goddess is any more supreme or superior than another. They are all forms of God. These are stories that aim to teach us that everything is interconnected and all things rely on each other.

And btw, Shiva and Vishnu, not only being flip sides of one God (called Harihara), are by another story, brothers-in-law. These are not necessarily literal, but teaching stories.

Forgive me for being a bit confused in all this. The description I find here in Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narayana indicates that Brahma and Narayana and Vishnu are the same thing, the ultimate supreme creator of everything.

On the other hand, in this video he explains that Shiva relates to the individual's soul being of Atman. www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg0Y57gMcl0
and that in the Vedas this was understood as "lower" than the universal Brahman that is Vishnu, and were not therefore the same thing in terms of spiritually attainment.

Beyond that, I wonder if the kinds of mythical stories you describe, which sound so simplistic merely were creative story renderings of philosophical/religious concepts that were extremely difficult to describe, and therefore are best described in a simplistic story form.

 

[von bek]

Dharmacentral.com gives a Vaishnava perspective on Hinduism. As a Shakta I obviously disagree with their perspective on both Shaktism and Shaivism. As has been said many times in this thread, Hinduism encompasses several diverse religious traditions.

 

[duvduv]

Dharmacentral.com gives a Vaishnava perspective on Hinduism. As a Shakta I obviously disagree with their perspective on both Shaktism and Shaivism. As has been said many times in this thread, Hinduism encompasses several diverse religious traditions.

I am sorry I am not familiar enough yet with all the distinctions, however the video argues that the usual view about Shiva and Shakti is in fact a misunderstanding of the Vedas themselves. That is specifically the point I was thinking about, i.e. meaning that the highest focus is Brahma/Vishnu/Narayana.

 

[von bek]

I am sorry I am not familiar enough yet with all the distinctions, however the video argues that the usual view about Shiva and Shakti is in fact a misunderstanding of the Vedas themselves.

And that is a Vaishnava view.

 

[sayak83]

I am sorry I am not familiar enough yet with all the distinctions, however the video argues that the usual view about Shiva and Shakti is in fact a misunderstanding of the Vedas themselves. That is specifically the point I was thinking about, i.e. meaning that the highest focus is Brahma/Vishnu/Narayana.

That is a Vaishnava view and mostly rhetorical. Different sects often follow different gods, and some of their scholars often try to establish its god's primacy over others. Most Hindus don't pay attention to such stuff. Its kind of pointless argumentation that is a waste of scrolls really.

 

[Jainarayan]

Forgive me for being a bit confused in all this. The description I find here in Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narayana indicates that Brahma and Narayana and Vishnu are the same thing, the ultimate supreme creator of everything.

On the other hand, in this video he explains that Shiva relates to the individual's soul being of Atman. www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg0Y57gMcl0
and that in the Vedas this was understood as "lower" than the universal Brahman that is Vishnu, and were not therefore the same thing in terms of spiritually attainment.

Keep in mind that to each of the sects, their view of God is the supreme one... for Vaishnavas it's Vishnu, or Krishna or Narayana, or any of his multitude of avatara; for Shaivas, Shiva is supreme; for Shaktas the Mother Goddess (Devi/Shakti) is supreme. And for people like me with ocpd who like nice neat packages, the combined forms of Shiva and Vishnu (known as Harihara) and Tridevi (Durga, Lakshmi, Saraswati) all together make up the Godhead. You can see that in my signature at the bottom of my posts. The person of Krishna is the focus of my worship, because as he says, it's difficult for embodied beings to focus on the unmanifested Supreme.

Btw, it's Brahman (bruh-muhn), not Brahmā (bruh-maah). Big difference. Brahman is the ultimate reality, the only thing that exists. Brahmā is a non-immortal god. At the end of every cycle of the universe he dissolves (I don't like the word 'dies') and is then reborn.

So to a Vaishnava Vishnu = Narayana = Brahman; to a Shaiva Shiva = Brahman; to a Shakta Shakti/Devi in any of her forms (Durga, Lakshmi, Saraswati, Radha, Sita, Kali, Parvati) = Brahman; to others Hanuman or Ganesha or Murugan or Surya or ... = Brahman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Hinduism

Beyond that, I wonder if the kinds of mythical stories you describe, which sound so simplistic merely were creative story renderings of philosophical/religious concepts that were extremely difficult to describe, and therefore are best described in a simplistic story form.

Booyah! In other words, yes. I for one don't consider them entirely historical or literal, but rather, metaphorical or allegorical. Do I believe some events and persons were real? Yes, most likely. There is historical evidence that the events in the Mahābhārata were real. If that's the case, at least some of the characters, including Krishna must have been real persons, or divinities. Even the most outlandish stories and legends are inspired by something or someone. Beyond that if one believes as I do that this world is all non-real, then what we think of as mythological is just as real on another plane as we are. It's all pretty mystical and metaphysical. Which is exactly what drew me to Hinduism.

 

[Jainarayan]

Most Hindus don't pay attention to such stuff. Its kind of pointless argumentation that is a waste of scrolls really.

Truth. Most Hindus in my experience go to temple and pray, do a puja at home and pray. I rarely hear anyone in temple refer to the gods by name, it's almost always "God" no matter whom the person is referring to. I think that sums up RV 10.164.46 pretty well, and is in everyday practice and belief. And believe you me, our temple has a cast of thousands, deities that is. Well maybe not thousands, but pretty close. Going clockwise around the temple, the way we namaskar to the deities:

1. Guruvayurappan (huge sanctum), presiding deity (for anyone who doesn't know, Guruvayurappan is Vishnu as he appeared to Devaki and Vasudeva when he took birth as Krishna, sort of a "young Vishnu" but in his 4-armed form.
2. Small lingam and Nandi for water abhishekam
3. Kalabhairava
4. Navagraha
5. Kannika Parameshwari
6. Tridevi (Durga, Lakshmi, Saraswati
7. Maa Gayatri
8. Nataraja
9. Ayyappa Swami
10. Sri Ganesha
11. Sri Shiva (huge sanctum)
12. Chandikeswara
13. Kamākshi Devi
14. Sri Subramaniya w/ Valli & Devasena
15. Sri Rāma Parivar
16. Radha-Krishna
17. Maa Lakshmi
18. Venkateshwara/Sri Balaji (huge sanctum)
19. Sri Andal (Lakshmi incarnation)
20. Satyanarayana Swami
21. Srinivasa and Shiva
22. Sri Hanuman
23. Srinivasa (has a different name, southern), and LakshmiNarasimha
24. Garuda

I'm sure I forgot someone. But the point is that few if any people refer to any deity by individual name, as many as there are, unless it is specifically to indicate a puja, abhishekam, archana, etc. God is one w/ 330 million names.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

"duvduv",

Namaste,

I know this response is not for me, but i would like to provide my perspective on it.

......But of course this was deemed a grave sin and it was destroyed when Moses returned.

See the difference is that in Hindu Dharmah, the worship of a Murti (image, statues, representation ect) is never considered as Papam (sin), there are no comparable Myth of Moses and the Golden calf in Hinduism where someone destroys the Murti of a Avatar/Devi/Devta ect. and commands that every one worships without in one way.

The idea of Idol worship being a Sin (Papam) is as far as i know not in Hindu Dharmah, at least not in the Shastras that i have come across.

Dhanyavad

 

[duvduv]

I have to digest these last several postings and will respond after my digestion. ;-)

 

[Kirran]

You can't understand the whole thing in total. Why don't you pick a couple individual traditions or teachers and understand them individually, then zoom out?

 

[duvduv]

Truth. Most Hindus in my experience go to temple and pray, do a puja at home and pray. I rarely hear anyone in temple refer to the gods by name, it's almost always "God" no matter whom the person is referring to. I think that sums up RV 10.164.46 pretty well, and is in everyday practice and belief. And believe you me, our temple has a cast of thousands, deities that is. Well maybe not thousands, but pretty close. Going clockwise around the temple, the way we namaskar to the deities[..........]
I'm sure I forgot someone. But the point is that few if any people refer to any deity by individual name, as many as there are, unless it is specifically to indicate a puja, abhishekam, archana, etc. God is one w/ 330 million names.

I cannot imagine how the ordinary Hindu can relate to all of this as part of his religion, or what it even means. In Kabbalah we know that God has 72 names including those based on permutations of the 4 letter name whose root meaning is "Being." But we only relate to calling him Hashem ["the Name"] rather than to any of his sacred names including the main one used in the Torah YHVH. In other words it gets easier, rather than harder (and most people don't relate to Kabbalah anyway).

 

[duvduv]

I am still not clear conceptually on this. If the omnipresent Brahman fills all of creation, then essentially all people are avatars, and what is the relationship between Brahman and Brahma? If the Supreme God (Narayana) has the conscious personality, then how can he be "personal" and “impersonal” as Brahman simultaneously?

 

[Jainarayan]

I cannot imagine how the ordinary Hindu can relate to all of this as part of his religion, or what it even means.

We don't and can't. Hinduism is not monolithic in that we have one overriding, overarching doctrine. There's simply no comparison to Abrahamism. There are regions in India where a particular deity is completely unknown. Someone from Gujarat or Maharastra may not know who Murugan aka Subramaniya is, but they know him as Kartikeya. A northerner may not know who Guruvayurappan or Sri Balaji is, but in the south he's a form of Vishnu. And that's all perfectly OK. It's not insult to God if someone doesn't know him by the name and form someone else does. The name Hinduism is even a misnomer. It's an umbrella term for what may be hundreds of individual regional practices. They are united by certain underlying beliefs. Even then one is free to pick and choose.

 

[Jainarayan]

I am still not clear conceptually on this. If the omnipresent Brahman fills all of creation, then essentially all people are avatars,

Yes, we are all manifestations of Brahman, because Brahman is the only thing that exists.

and what is the relationship between Brahman and Brahma?

The same relationship between Brahman and me; Brahman and you; Brahman and the human form of Vishnu as Krishna, or his anthrpotheriomorphic form as Narasimha, lit. the man-lion; Brahma is a manifestation of Brahman to fulfill a purpose. The confusion is in the similarity of their names and a grammatical quirk of Sanskrit.

If the Supreme God (Narayana) has the conscious personality, then how can he be "personal" and “impersonal” as Brahman simultaneously?

Brahman has two modes: nirguna Brahman (without attributes) and saguna Brahman (with attributes). It is the saguna form that manifests itself as Narayana, Shiva, Devi, you, me, your housecat. We tend to think of saguna Brahman as manifesting only as Ishvara, the Lord, God. That is the personal aspect. This article is a bit of a brain-buster, but it's pretty good. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

 

[LuisDantas]

You can't understand the whole thing in total. Why don't you pick a couple individual traditions or teachers and understand them individually, then zoom out?

It seems to me that there may be an expectation that there must be a single or a very few very specific, very coherent teachings that use comparably specific names and descriptions of the Sacred at the exclusion of others.

As if somehow there must be a True way that therefore made other Hindu paths false, or at least misguided, simply because there are different names, views, practices and goals.

 

[Jainarayan]

where someone destroys the Murti of a Avatar/Devi/Devta

That would be the sin imo... destroying it. Creating it is an act of devotion.

 

[LuisDantas]

I cannot imagine how the ordinary Hindu can relate to all of this as part of his religion, or what it even means. In Kabbalah we know that God has 72 names including those based on permutations of the 4 letter name whose root meaning is "Being." But we only relate to calling him Hashem ["the Name"] rather than to any of his sacred names including the main one used in the Torah YHVH. In other words it gets easier, rather than harder (and most people don't relate to Kabbalah anyway).

I find it interesting that you mention it getting easier.

If I may be so bold, allow me to suggest that religious practice may be (for some people at least) based in the relationship between practicioner and the sacred.

That relationship is unavoidably shaped to a significant extent by the history, possibilities and vocation of the practicioner himself, regardless of any ultimate mysteries and truths of greater significance.

To a very significant extent, religious practice involves finding one's optimal place in the extensive field of religious possibilities. Some people will respond better to certain attitudes, names, symbols and forms than to others.

That is not a problem, just a reality to be dealt with.

 

[duvduv]

Very interesting observations everybody. I should note that in fact Kabbalah teaches philosophically that God is beyond all attributes as we understand them, BUT he expresses traits comprehensible to mankind (mercy, judgment, etc.) Indeed, the tree of kabbalah shows expansive traits on the right and restrictive traits on the left (i.e. Mercy versus Judgement, Wisdom versus Understanding).

 

[duvduv]

We don't and can't. Hinduism is not monolithic in that we have one overriding, overarching doctrine. There's simply no comparison to Abrahamism. There are regions in India where a particular deity is completely unknown. Someone from Gujarat or Maharastra may not know who Murugan aka Subramaniya is, but they know him as Kartikeya. A northerner may not know who Guruvayurappan or Sri Balaji is, but in the south he's a form of Vishnu. And that's all perfectly OK. It's not insult to God if someone doesn't know him by the name and form someone else does. The name Hinduism is even a misnomer. It's an umbrella term for what may be hundreds of individual regional practices. They are united by certain underlying beliefs. Even then one is free to pick and choose.

How did so many different regional forms develop? Do Hindus considered themselves as different or as similar as Catholics versus Lutherans versus Baptists versus Methodists etc. with a certain degree of underlying commonality??

 

[Jainarayan]

How did so many different regional forms develop?

Hinduism is extremely ancient. Some people say it goes back to almost 10,000 years ago. It probably grew out of regional or tribal beliefs, becoming somewhat united with some common beliefs. There is no single founder of Hinduism as there is in Judaism, Christianity or Islam. Or even Buddhism or Taoism. Couple all that with the huge landmass of India, the variety of people and languages and you can get all kinds of beliefs popping up.

Do Hindus considered themselves as different or as similar as Catholics versus Lutherans versus Baptists versus Methodists etc. with a certain degree of underlying commonality??

I daresay most Hindus don't even think of it they just go about their daily lives and beliefs.Though there is some sectarian bigotry, e.g. Shiva is greater than Vishnu; no, Shiva is Vishnu's devotee; you're wrong, the Mother Goddess is the greatest; and so on. Most Hindus I know don't even refer to God by a particular name in conversation. They just say "God".