My understanding is that the undifferentiated totality, whole, fullness, absolute, nothingness-pregnant-with-everything etc. is what is meant by Brahman. So long as "creation" (manifestation) exists, Brahman cannot be the whole - for then the whole would mean Brahman + creation. But since Brahman is at all times the whole, the word used to describe the "creator" in Hinduism is Ishwar. In Abrahamic religions also, by God is meant the creator. Brahman, therefore, refers to a state beyond the creator-created dichotomy. I think the Abrahamic religions do not go beyond the state of God to the state of Brahman that the Hindu mind has conceived. Because the world of experience is a dual world, we necessarily need to have the concept of God or Ishwar. But in the non-dual world (Advaita) beyond sensual experience, Brahman captures the idea.
My understanding is that the undifferentiated totality, whole, fullness, absolute, nothingness-pregnant-with-everything etc. is what is meant by Brahman. So long as "creation" (manifestation) exists, Brahman cannot be the whole - for then the whole would mean Brahman + creation. But since Brahman is at all times the whole, the word used to describe the "creator" in Hinduism is Ishwar. In Abrahamic religions also, by God is meant the creator. Brahman, therefore, refers to a state beyond the creator-created dichotomy. I think the Abrahamic religions do not go beyond the state of God to the state of Brahman that the Hindu mind has conceived. Because the world of experience is a dual world, we necessarily need to have the concept of God or Ishwar. But in the non-dual world (Advaita) beyond sensual experience, Brahman captures the idea.
The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad puts the idea of "neti, neti" (not this, not that). Anything one can perceive or imagine is not that attributeless Brahman.
There are Vaishnava Vedanta schools who consider Brahman to have a form. Obviously it is necessary for them to reinterpret neti, neti and they read it differently to align with their "Brahman has a form" doctrine.
You are correct. Some common people on the street have the ideas you talk about. I have yet to meet any Hindu (who studies and practice his faith) of any sect that is polytheistic (except for tribal folks).
I am fine with the dictionary definition: the doctrine of or belief in more than one god or in many gods.
1) A number of Hindus worship Ganesha, Laxmi and Saraswati - along with other Gods. I can tell you that hardly any of them think of all of them as the same God. And I am not talking about tribals.
2) The Dvaita school is clear that there is a permanent hierarchy of Gods. The differences are real and eternal. They are not tribals either.
3) Sringeri, the seat of Advaita, has Sharada, Ganapathi, Bhuvaneshwari, Nandi, etc - all in the same temple. Smartas who are mostly affiliated to the Shankara school of Advaita worship multple forms.
I am curious to see Hindus who worship a single God to the exclusion of all other Gods. I do not know any.
Back during the days of British Occupation, polytheism was frowned upon as it is very anti-semitic. They were called pagans and several of these cultures were systematically destroyed around the world. In their eagerness to please the Western audience, Indian religious writers of that time, tried to pass off Vedanta as the definitive Hinduism - monotheistic, with Brahman as its central tenet. However, that "Hindusim = Vedanta" portrayal is far from reality. It completely ignores the fact that Vedanta is a miniscule part of Hinduism and also ignores the Hindu style of worship which covers multiple Gods.
Polytheism is not inferior to Monotheism in any way - regardless of Western Sentiments. There is no shame in being polytheistic. Let us keep it honest and see things as they are.
I am fine with the dictionary definition: the doctrine of or belief in more than one god or in many gods.
1) A number of Hindus worship Ganesha, Laxmi and Saraswati - along with other Gods. I can tell you that hardly any of them think of all of them as the same God. And I am not talking about tribals.
2) The Dvaita school is clear that there is a permanent hierarchy of Gods. The differences are real and eternal. They are not tribals either.
3) Sringeri, the seat of Advaita, has Sharada, Ganapathi, Bhuvaneshwari, Nandi, etc - all in the same temple. Smartas who are mostly affiliated to the Shankara school of Advaita worship multple forms.
I am curious to see Hindus who worship a single God to the exclusion of all other Gods. I do not know any.
Back during the days of British Occupation, polytheism was frowned upon as it is very anti-semitic. They were called pagans and several of these cultures were systematically destroyed around the world. In their eagerness to please the Western audience, Indian religious writers of that time, tried to pass off Vedanta as the definitive Hinduism - monotheistic, with Brahman as its central tenet. However, that "Hindusim = Vedanta" portrayal is far from reality. It completely ignores the fact that Vedanta is a miniscule part of Hinduism and also ignores the Hindu style of worship which covers multiple Gods.
Polytheism is not inferior to Monotheism in any way - regardless of Western Sentiments. There is no shame in being polytheistic. Let us keep it honest and see things as they are.
None at all. Except there's a difference between belief and worship. I worship multiple gods; I believe literally in none. So am I a polyatheist?
Besides, there are more -theisms than poly and mono. Yes, there is polytheism in Hinduism, but I'd say more common is Henotheism: the belief in multiple gods, but having a Supreme God who is the primary mode of worship. Sri Subramuniyaswami speaks of God and Gods, but also says that Gods are all ultimately aspects of Siva, as we all are. This school of thought is called dvaitadvaita; a good marriage between dualism and non-dualism. I think if I literally believed in Gods, I'd fall under this mode of thinking: having a Supreme Reality that all things, including the Gods, are ultimately aspects of.
My understanding is that the undifferentiated totality, whole, fullness, absolute, nothingness-pregnant-with-everything etc. is what is meant by Brahman. So long as "creation" (manifestation) exists, Brahman cannot be the whole - for then the whole would mean Brahman + creation. But since Brahman is at all times the whole, the word used to describe the "creator" in Hinduism is Ishwar. In Abrahamic religions also, by God is meant the creator. Brahman, therefore, refers to a state beyond the creator-created dichotomy. I think the Abrahamic religions do not go beyond the state of God to the state of Brahman that the Hindu mind has conceived. Because the world of experience is a dual world, we necessarily need to have the concept of God or Ishwar. But in the non-dual world (Advaita) beyond sensual experience, Brahman captures the idea.
I think you described Ishwar and Brahman well. The part about the Abrahamic religions is also true to a point, but you can find the Impersonal God in writings like the Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (Christian text). The use of the word God in english is not limited to Abrahamic Theology. The One of Neoplatonism ( which for all intents and prepossess is almost the same Brahman of Hinduism ) has been traditionally translated "God". Emerson, Rudolf Steiner, and Carl Jung have also used the word "God" in the manor of a Neoplatonist. Pantheism holds that God is the universe and the universe is God. When Albert Einstein used the word God he used it as a Pantheist would.
So I would say the word God in English has many meanings.
Hinduism, although Hinduism is doctrinally dominated by monist or monotheist theology (Bhakti, Advaita). Historical Vedic polytheist ritualism survives as a very minor current in Hinduism, known as Shrauta. Polytheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I do not agree 100% with this but at least this source says that polytheism is a minor part of Hinduism.
1) A number of Hindus worship Ganesha, Laxmi and Saraswati - along with other Gods. I can tell you that hardly any of them think of all of them as the same God. And I am not talking about tribals.
The Dvaita school is Monotheistic it teaches that there is One God Vishnu. The other Gods are Demi Gods much like Angels in the Abrahamic faiths. This misunderstanding is due to the poor translation of the word Deva into english by the early European Sanskrit scholars.
You misunderstand the teachings of Madhva. When he is says the differences are real and eternal and holds up two fingers. This means there is a difference between us (creation) and the One Supreme God Vishnu. Creation and God are different.
3) Sringeri, the seat of Advaita, has Sharada, Ganapathi, Bhuvaneshwari, Nandi, etc - all in the same temple. Smartas who are mostly affiliated to the Shankara school of Advaita worship multple forms.
This is called the Panchadevata you can Worship the One God in the 5 different forms they are all the same, they are Saguna Brahman. Brahman with form you just pick the form. I find it odd that you define the Adviata Vedanta of Adi Sankara as polytheistic and not Monism.
Polytheism is not inferior to Monotheism in any way - regardless of Western Sentiments. There is no shame in being polytheistic. Let us keep it honest and see things as they are.
I do not have a problem with Polytheism or see it as Inferior to anything it is just not a good definition of Hinduism. I want the most accurate description possible, both Indian pundits and western scholars tend to believe that polytheism is not the best discription.
Just to be clear, I am not out to debate or anything. I am trying to illustrate that there is a huge differece between Hindusim as presented in literature vs. reality.
I see you agree that there multiple Gods in Hinduism and everyone worships multiple Gods.
The difference is, you see a common Brahman behind these Gods or (devatas) and most Hindus do not. When I say they do not, it does not mean they reject the concept. They see worship to these devatas as complete and do not have a need to follow up to find a common monist Brahman - though this is the picture one gets about reading general Hindu literature. Like I said earlier, the majority of Hindus have never heard of Brahman.
When the Hindu is worshipping Laxmi for wealth or visits Tirpupathi before a test, he is totally unconcerned about a Supreme God. He believes Tirupathi Venkatesh can help his interests and that is really all he is concerned about. And I just descibed almost all Hindus on the planet - Hindus who consider themselves religious. The set of Hindus who would go beyond this level are negligibly few - and that is my point. Hinduism as read in books is primarily Vedanta based and is far removed from real Hinduism as practiced by Hindus.
Iskcon does worship Subadra, Balarama, etc. When a Hindu visists an Iskcon temple, he is seeking blessings and prasadam - and that is all. Unlike the Hare Krishna, the typical Hindu is not interested in attaining Goloka or ending a birth cycle. 9/10 religious Hindus who visit Iskcon temples never heard of Goloka and would be bored if someone presented the topic to them.
I don't know if I am getting the point across, but I have to try. I suppose it would be easier to understand if one got to interact with people than read about their belief system.
Dear Kaisersose, I understand what you say. It is precisely because the mass of people would find it difficult to focus on higher concepts that idol worship was sanctioned by the highest minds themselves. It would seem to be a paradox that the greatest master of Advaita Adi Shankaracharya himself consecrated numerous temples with idols and set down all the rituals to follow. There is the truth and then there is the understanding of the truth. It is in the teaching of truth by those who have understood it that gradations occur. Albert Einstein spoke in higher mathematics to those at his level, for the rest of us not so endowed folks, he spoke in simple English, did he not? So even if we do not know the theory of relativity, relatively we know something, don't we?
Dear Kaisersose, I understand what you say. It is precisely because the mass of people would find it difficult to focus on higher concepts that idol worship was sanctioned by the highest minds themselves. It would seem to be a paradox that the greatest master of Advaita Adi Shankaracharya himself consecrated numerous temples with idols and set down all the rituals to follow. There is the truth and then there is the understanding of the truth. It is in the teaching of truth by those who have understood it that gradations occur. Albert Einstein spoke in higher mathematics to those at his level, for the rest of us not so endowed folks, he spoke in simple English, did he not? So even if we do not know the theory of relativity, relatively we know something, don't we?
Totally agree. And reaffirms something I said earlier.
We are in agreement that the Advaitin/Smarta is not interested in Shankara's Sutra-Bhashya - the text that is central to the Advaita doctrine. Hardly any Advaitin bothers to read this book. Shankara knew it would be this way and composed poems like Bhaja Govindam, Soundarya Lahari, etc. Today all the Advaitins I know take great pleasure in singing these poems, singing bhajans, performing homas and making regular trips to Sringeri. Maya, Moksha, Brahman, etc., are not of interest to them.
Same with most Vedanta traditions. A Madhva is a Madhva only if he is born into a Madhva family. Madhva wrote four commentaries on the Brahma-Sutra, but I can bet less than one hundred Madhva are aware of the fact and even among them, only a handful would have read at least part of these Bhashyas. The majority are content worshipping different Gods and following rituals and festivals.
The point is, the literati (Shankara, Madhva, Vivekananda) view of religion is far removed from that of the general public, including their followers. This raises the question - is Hinduism the religion as seem by writers who wrote about specific aspects of the religion or as practised by the masses?
To me, it is the latter. But in books and apparently on discussion forums, it appears to be the former.
Totally agree. And reaffirms something I said earlier.
We are in agreement that the Advaitin/Smarta is not interested in Shankara's Sutra-Bhashya - the text that is central to the Advaita doctrine. Hardly any Advaitin bothers to read this book. Shankara knew it would be this way and composed poems like Bhaja Govindam, Soundarya Lahari, etc. Today all the Advaitins I know take great pleasure in singing these poems, singing bhajans, performing homas and making regular trips to Sringeri. Maya, Moksha, Brahman, etc., are not of interest to them.
Same with most Vedanta traditions. A Madhva is a Madhva only if he is born into a Madhva family. Madhva wrote four commentaries on the Brahma-Sutra, but I can bet less than one hundred Madhva are aware of the fact and even among them, only a handful would have read at least part of these Bhashyas. The majority are content worshipping different Gods and following rituals and festivals.
The point is, the literati (Shankara, Madhva, Vivekananda) view of religion is far removed from that of the general public, including their followers. This raises the question - is Hinduism the religion as seem by writers who wrote about specific aspects of the religion or as practised by the masses?
To me, it is the latter. But in books and apparently on discussion forums, it appears to be the former.
There's no contradiction between what's in the books and what's practiced by the layman. After all, Scriptures are just guidelines. The heart and soul of Hinduism comes from the Sages.
I don't know if I am getting the point across, but I have to try. I suppose it would be easier to understand if one got to interact with people than read about their belief system.
You are probably right. I have been to villages in India and I have stayed in Ashrams and lived in Maths. It is always the very religious who seem to show interested in me. They are the ones who I stay at their homes or talk to them.
I would also like to add that being a westerner has it's advantages. You can mix with the poor and rich, high and low castes at will.
I think you could say that there is the Hinduism of the rarefied heights, from where the sages brought down Hinduism for the masses, which in common parlance is called popular Hinduism. The sages have also embedded popular Hinduism with ladders to reach the rarefied heights. Much of the masses might not use the ladder or may not even have spotted the ladder. But this does not mean that those at the level of popular Hinduism would not get the benefits Hinduism of the rarefied heights has to offer. Popular Hinduism is no less than Hinduism of the rarefied heights. Hinduism of the rarefied heights is nothing other than Jnana Yoga and popular Hinduism is nothing other than Bhakti Yoga. The masters have always maintained both lead to the same goal.
You might also say that the Vedas represent Hinduism of the rarefied heights and the epics (Mahabharat, Ramayana) represent popular Hinduism.
I believe that all of the gods and goddesses are personalised and aspects and roles of The One (who is absolutely everything), with features of them explained via anthropomorphism. Brahma is the aspect of creation, Vishnu of preservation, and Shiva of dissolution/destruction, Kali is the embodiment of time, Saraswati of knowledge and the arts, Lakshmi of prosperity and so on.
We have no need to, we have our own scriptures, which are probably older than the Bible but knowing for certain is tricky due to dating. The same could be asked: why do you not believe in the Vedas or Bhagavad Gita? Because you are not Hindu - why should you believe in them when they are not your path?
I would also like to ask why they are not obeying Deuteronomy 5:6-9?
6 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
7 "You shall have no other gods before [a] me.
8 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,
To answer why we don't follow this: we aren't Christians. We have no need to. This text is not relevant to my own spiritual path. It may be relevant for others, followers of Yahweh, but it is not so for me. If I wish to use icons, I may. If I do not wish to use them, I am free not to.
We do not "worship" the icons, but they are effectively similar to a telephone. I use them because they help me concentrate easier on the Divine manifestation. I find them spiritually powerful. I do not believe they are sentient, nor are they always important--but they help me in my path.
A commonly asked question is "What if you smashed the icon?" - what would happen? That person would have smashed an icon. It's disrespectful to do it, but those who do have in no way harmed the deity nor their validity as a deity nor the validity of the use of icons. I treat the icon in the way I would wish to do to God, so if someone smashes an icon, to me it says they would harm God, if they could, because of something they disagreed with.
To me, the deities are a bit like calling an organisation: you phone the relevant section for the relevant help - but all in all, it is still one Organisation.
Each has there own view of what a fulfilled life means to them. We have a concept of a Jivamukti or free while in the body. To walk though life full of love, free of suffering, that we are one with the whole cosmos. Seems like a very fulfilled life to me.
A fulfilled life is one spent in communion with God, whether this is through meditation, devotion, or by connection through love with those around us. Progressing on the journey in these ways provides immense fulfilment and joy. As we come closer to Realisation, we never feel fearful or alone, we only experience Bliss (love) and live completely in the moment.
Hinduism of the rarefied heights is nothing other than Jnana Yoga and popular Hinduism is nothing other than Bhakti Yoga. The masters have always maintained both lead to the same goal.
A yogi at the acme of any yoga - raja yoga, karma yoga, jnana yoga or bhakti yoga - would have reached the acme of all yogas. One's temperament at the beginning chooses for one the path one takes - if one is sentimental, one takes to bhakti yoga, if one is an activist, it is karma yoga, if one is rather studious, it is jnana yoga and if one is of the experimenting type one takes to the occultist raja yoga path. As they say, all the rivers lead to the ocean. By rarefied heights I did not mean at a qualitatively higher level than the others, but at a level that attracts relatively fewer persons. Maybe raja yoga is the rarest path.
