Is Hindu monotheism incompatible with Abrahamic monotheism?

[Dawnofhope]

In my experiences, based on interpretations of the character of these beings by the followers of their paradigms, they are fundamentally different and incompatible, at least from my perspective, being born into an Abrahamic religion, Catholicism, and ending up in a dharmic one, Hinduism.

On the Abrahamic side, you have an emotionally driven god, driven by jealousy, hungry for worship, sometimes loving, sometimes wrathful, and heavily involved in human affairs. On the Hindu side, at least from this Vedantic's perspective, you have Nirguna Brahman, a supreme principle that is pure being, formless, devoid of any character, qualities, or attributes. Yes, Nirguna Brahman takes form as Saguna Brahman, but it also takes form as everything else perceived in transactional reality.

There are Abrahamics that probably won't like my view, but given that the Abrahamic God has qualities, attributes, and in the view of many religions in the Abrahamic paradigm, form, if there is any correlation at all between Nirguna Brahman and the Abrahamic God, He would be an appearance in Nirguna Brahman and none other than Saguna Brahman. And I stress "if."

Then again, there are Abrahamic mystics that do not view the Abrahamic God as mainstream Abrahamic religions do, and their perspective of the Abrahamic God is quite similar to that of the Hindu perception of Nirguna Brahman. I think we have at least a few here on this forum. One for certain.

Thanks Salix,

I started with Christianity (Presbyterian) and have been a Baha’i for over 30 years. So from one Abrahamic Faith to another. My version of Christianity is compatible with being a Baha’i so I’m reconciled with the Faith I grew up with. Along the journey I explored atheism, Hinduism, Buddhism and different versions of Christianity.

It is clear that some Christian theologies are completely dismissive of the validity any other religion let alone Hinduism and some Hindu theistic concepts do not fit any Abrahamic theologies I’m aware of. Patheism is probably incompatible for example and from my limited understanding the Advaita school of Vedanta with its non-dualistic view of Brahman would contradict most Abrahamic views of monotheism.

A Baha’i concept of God describes God as an Unknowable essence, exalted above any human concept or anthropomorphism. Biblical literalism can be highly problematic including leading to a distorted concept of God.

 

[Dawnofhope]

IMO:

There is 1 God addressed by many different people attributing different Names and Forms to the same 1 God. For me Hinduism is about 1 God.

Agreed

In Hinduism they have Duality (Dvaita) and Non-Duality (Advaita). Gradual, by practising sadhana (spiritual exercises), you see more and more unity in all the diversity, as you go from Duality to Non-Duality. Children start revering their parents as God, later on the Guru is God. This process continues until one is Self Realized. All steps are valuable. Revering parents and Guru as God, develops humbleness and devotion and makes sure you don't fall in the trap of Spiritual Ego. Ego is not easy to overcome, but obviously Spiritual Ego is near to impossible to overcome.

That is an interesting perspective and I suspect a very Dharmic approach as opposed to Abrahamic. Abrahamic Faiths are quite dualistic seeing a clear distinction between God and His Creation. However Im wary of emphasising this distinction too much. Having love for God, people and all of God’s creation is more important. The practice of a moral life too is of greater practical significance than having the most correct theistic conception.

When children read the stories about all the Gods, and see the pictures, they naturally might think there are many Gods in India. But later on, the Guru will explain that there are many different Names/Forms attributed to the same God. It's a gradual process. So, probably there are many in India who believe in many Gods, because there are many children in India. But, for sure there are also many who believe in 1 God.

That’s good to know.

The key is Love (for God), and surrender to God. Whatever path you choose, God will guide you till the end.

Agreed

The following lines explained this gradual process of awareness well for me:
1) I am in the Light
2) The Light is in me
3) I am the Light

There is certainly merit in this philosophy. However if we were to declare ourselves to be God, that would be highly problematic for most Abrahamics. I suspect not so much for Dharmic practitioners.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Hinduism incorporates diverse views on the concept of God. Different traditions of Hinduism have different theistic views, and these views have been described by scholars as polytheism, monotheism, henotheism, panentheism, pantheism, monism, agnostic, humanism, atheism or Nontheism.

Monotheism is the belief in a single creator God and the lack of belief in any other Creator. Hinduism is not a monolithic faith and different sects may or may not posit or require such a belief. Religion is considered a personal belief in Hinduism and followers are free to choose the different interpretations within the framework of Karma and reincarnation.

Many forms of Hinduism believe in a monotheistic God, such as Krishna followers, Vedanta, Arya samaj, Samkhya school of Vedas etc, Many traditions within Hinduism share the Vedic idea of a metaphysical ultimate reality and truth called Brahman instead.

(Adapted from Hindu views on monotheism - Wikipedia)

There is much that could be said about monotheism within Abrahamic and Hindu religions. What concepts do they share and where do they differ? Is Hindu monotheism compatible with Abrahamic monotheism or are they so fundamentally different as to be incompatible?

At its logical conclusion, Brahman is not a morality-giver (it's not even a being) and non-dual paths can lead to nihilism on various levels, whereas the Abrahamic deity is generally viewed as imposing a set morality on humanity. So I definitely don't believe they're the same.

In my experience:
Abrahamic god - transcend reality and overcome it
Brahman - dissolve into the void

 

[stvdv]

There is certainly merit in this philosophy. However if we were to declare ourselves to be God, that would be highly problematic for most Abrahamics. I suspect not so much for Dharmic practitioners.

To declare "I am God" is highly problematic for Dharmic practitioners too

You have 2 options:
1) You are not Self Realized, so you should not declare "I am God"
2) You are Self Realized, there is no "I" left to declare "I am God"
@stvdvRF

 

[firedragon]

Hinduism incorporates diverse views on the concept of God. Different traditions of Hinduism have different theistic views, and these views have been described by scholars as polytheism, monotheism, henotheism, panentheism, pantheism, monism, agnostic, humanism, atheism or Nontheism.

Monotheism is the belief in a single creator God and the lack of belief in any other Creator. Hinduism is not a monolithic faith and different sects may or may not posit or require such a belief. Religion is considered a personal belief in Hinduism and followers are free to choose the different interpretations within the framework of Karma and reincarnation.

Many forms of Hinduism believe in a monotheistic God, such as Krishna followers, Vedanta, Arya samaj, Samkhya school of Vedas etc, Many traditions within Hinduism share the Vedic idea of a metaphysical ultimate reality and truth called Brahman instead.

(Adapted from Hindu views on monotheism - Wikipedia)

There is much that could be said about monotheism within Abrahamic and Hindu religions. What concepts do they share and where do they differ? Is Hindu monotheism compatible with Abrahamic monotheism or are they so fundamentally different as to be incompatible?

Without treading into other theologies let me clear something from the Islamic theology.

You have misunderstood "monotheism". If you read the Qur'an, it will explain what monotheism is vividly. It is the believe that there is only "one deity". Nothing else is divine. Money, Children, or your own Havah/ego/wishful-thinking are specifically mentioned in the Qur'an as deities that you are not to believe in.

It is not just about a single creator God. There is nothing else in this whole universe that is divine. God is "the deity". God is "the divinity". This is the whole concept. Its not just a worshiping matter, it is also the understanding of what "divinity" is. Even your property could be divine for you, and is spoken of in the Qur'an.

Anyway, hinduism is an impossibility to sum up because it is way too vast and eclectic. There are many signs that it is a monotheistic faith in its core, but are also abundant with many polytheistic elements. Even the practice of monolatry still has roots of polytheism simply because one would accept the other God but not worship him showing loyalty to one.

Fundamental similarities, along with fundamental differences. But I am not very well read in the Hindu scripture, so its nice to hear learned thoughts. Nevertheless, I would like to state somethings.

There was a man called "Ram Mohan Roy" in India I think who lived in the 18th century and the early 19th century. He was a bit of a rebel who had problems with his parents due to his disbelieve in image worship and other acts he considered polytheism, and he tried to form a group who were "muwahhidheen" or "unitarian". Those who follow Wahid/Ahadh or oneness in the dheen or religion. He was a religious reformist who considered "hindu monotheism" as the one true path and the general practice of the time is "idolatry". He says that the Hindu scripture would seem to prescribe idol worship or image worship only for the weak minded. Of course people hated him, but his followers still exist. I cannot remember his movement but he is a significant figure, a fantastic scholar, and an activist who relentlessly fought for women's rights. The most important point to note is that his main argument was that the Hindu practices generally accepted are not scriptural.

Anyway as I have read, the Chandogya Upanishad says vividly that God has no Dvi, two, other, or equal, but "only one". Ekam evadvithyam. Also there is a passage in the Vedas, which one I could not remember off hand of course, that says they call him with many names but he is one but these "sages" have given many references.

Peace.

 

[stvdv]

That is an interesting perspective and I suspect a very Dharmic approach as opposed to Abrahamic. Abrahamic Faiths are quite dualistic seeing a clear distinction between God and His Creation. However Im wary of emphasising this distinction too much. Having love for God, people and all of God’s creation is more important. The practice of a moral life too is of greater practical significance than having the most correct theistic conception.

IMO:

Hinduism distinguishes 3 Paths (the analogies are my own, others may use different ones):
* Dvaita = Dualism: There is both "you" and "God" outside of "you"
* Vishishtadvaita = Qualified non-Dualism: There is both "you" and "God" inside of "you" (in your heart)
* Advaita = non-Dualism: There is "God" ("you" merged, so to speak, in "God")

In Christianity, I clearly see the first two, and the third one is also in Christianity, but like in Hinduism "the road is narrow, and only a few will reach the goal":
* The first one: if you open yourself to the outside world (Church/Temple), but you don't "feel" the Holy Spirit within
* The second one: if you open yourself to the inside world (pray/meditate) and are open to the Holy Spirit
* The third one: if....

However Im wary of emphasising this distinction too much. Having love for God, people and all of God’s creation is more important. The practice of a moral life too is of greater practical significance than having the most correct theistic conception.

In Hinduism it's not about "emphasizing this distinction" nor about "correct theistic conception", it's mainly about purifying your mind/body/emotions to improve/enhance "Love for God", leading to "Surrender to God", so that by "God's Grace" you reach your Goal. No need to know anything, and even needless to know which path you are at, enough to Love in the here and now.
But it's good to know the 3 paths, because if you are at the second stage you easily could develop arrogance when meeting someone who is at the first stage, but knowing there is a third stage, if you have a little common sense, you know that this arrogance is misplaced. And when you reach the third stage this problem will never occur
@stvdvRF

 

[Martin]

IMO:

Hinduism distinguishes 3 Paths (the analogies are my own, others may use different ones):
* Dvaita = Dualism: There is both "you" and "God" outside of "you"
* Vishishtadvaita = Qualified non-Dualism: There is both "you" and "God" inside of "you" (in your heart)
* Advaita = non-Dualism: There is "God" ("you" merged, so to speak, in "God")

I'm glad you put "God" rather than God, though I'd have preferred "Brahman".
It's important to avoid giving the impression that Brahman is somehow equivalent to the Abrahamic God.

 

[stvdv]

I'm glad you put "God" rather than God, though I'd have preferred "Brahman".
It's important to avoid giving the impression that Brahman is somehow equivalent to the Abrahamic God.

IF I meant Abrahamic God THEN I would write Abrahamic God

IF I meant Hindu God THEN I would just say God

Christians do NOT "own" God

Hindus also "use" God
@stvdvRF

 

[Martin]

IF I meant Abrahamic God THEN I would write Abrahamic God

IF I meant Hindu God THEN I am allowed to say God

Just like you. Christians don't "own" God

Hindus also use God

Many people here will associate "God" with the Abrahamic God, rather than with Hindu Brahman. So for the sake of clarity it is better to say "Brahman".
If you don't make this distinction then you are incorrectly assuming an equivalence.

 

[firedragon]

In my experiences, based on interpretations of the character of these beings by the followers of their paradigms, they are fundamentally different and incompatible, at least from my perspective, being born into an Abrahamic religion, Catholicism, and ending up in a dharmic one, Hinduism.

On the Abrahamic side, you have an emotionally driven god, driven by jealousy, hungry for worship, sometimes loving, sometimes wrathful, and heavily involved in human affairs. On the Hindu side, at least from this Vedantic's perspective, you have Nirguna Brahman, a supreme principle that is pure being, formless, devoid of any character, qualities, or attributes. Yes, Nirguna Brahman takes form as Saguna Brahman, but it also takes form as everything else perceived in transactional reality.

There are Abrahamics that probably won't like my view, but given that the Abrahamic God has qualities, attributes, and in the view of many religions in the Abrahamic paradigm, form, if there is any correlation at all between Nirguna Brahman and the Abrahamic God, He would be an appearance in Nirguna Brahman and none other than Saguna Brahman. And I stress "if."

Then again, there are Abrahamic mystics that do not view the Abrahamic God as mainstream Abrahamic religions do, and their perspective of the Abrahamic God is quite similar to that of the Hindu perception of Nirguna Brahman. I think we have at least a few here on this forum. One for certain.

Interesting point. But consider that you are not making a comparison of Brahman himself with this so called "Abrahamic God". You are only comparing only Nirguna, where is both Saguna and Nirguna are aspects of the same Brahman. This is an Upanishad's view of God where God has Moortha, and Amoortha, Marthya and Amartha, Sthitha and Yath etc etc which are all the existence of a God with absolutely opposites as his attributes or forms. You have also misunderstood "attributes" where you probably thought the word attributes refer to the "Guna" in hinduism. Absolutely not.

Yet also you should consider BrahmanAthman which has a lot of similarities with the Abrahamic God, no form, and given superiority over Purusa as the creator, and prajapati is also inferior to Purusa as another aspect.

Imagine this. If the Holy Trinity of Christianity is considered, and one person takes the "God the Son" as one comparison alone to the Hindu God, it is not a good comparison.

Of course there are many many conflicting aspects between the Abrahamic God and the Hindu God.

Cheers.

 

[Martin]

Interesting point. But consider that you are not making a comparison of Brahman himself with this so called "Abrahamic God". You are only comparing only Nirguna, where is both Saguna and Nirguna are aspects of the same Brahman. This is an Upanishad's view of God where God has Moortha, and Amoortha, Marthya and Amartha, Sthitha and Yath etc etc which are all the existence of a God with absolutely opposites as his attributes or forms. You have also misunderstood "attributes" where you probably thought the word attributes refer to the "Guna" in hinduism. Absolutely not.

Yet also you should consider BrahmanAthman which has a lot of similarities with the Abrahamic God, no form, and given superiority over Purusa as the creator, and prajapati is also inferior to Purusa as another aspect.

Imagine this. If the Holy Trinity of Christianity is considered, and one person takes the "God the Son" as one comparison alone to the Hindu God, it is not a good comparison.

Of course there are many many conflicting aspects between the Abrahamic God and the Hindu God.

Cheers.

Brahman/Atman doesn't have "a lot of similarities" with the Abrahamic God. Thus is just plain wrong, comparing apples with oranges.

 

[firedragon]

Brahman/Atman doesn't have "a lot of similarities" with the Abrahamic God. Thus is just plain wrong, comparing apples with oranges.

Why?

 

[stvdv]

Many people here will associate "God" with the Abrahamic God, rather than with Hindu Brahman. So for the sake of clarity it is better to say "Brahman".

I disagree completely

Those who associate God with ONLY Abrahamic Religions have the wrong view, which better is corrected, rather sooner than later

For the sake of the Truth, I better say God. Get rid of the erroneous Abrahamic's idea that the Name God belongs to Abrahamic Religions
@stvdvRF

 

[Martin]

Why?

Different religion. Different concept.

 

[firedragon]

Different religion. Different concept.

Please explain the different concepts. Also please cite what your ideas are based upon so that one could understand better. I mean which book or scripture.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Martin]

I disagree completely

Those who associate God with ONLY Abrahamic Religions have the wrong view, which better is corrected, rather sooner than later

For the sake of the Truth, I better say God. Get rid of the erroneous Abrahamic idea that the Name God belongs to Abrahamic Religions

That's a nice idea, but unless you live in India, then "God" invariably comes with all the Abrahamic baggage.
Using "Brahman" avoids this problem, and is more accurate.

 

[Martin]

Please explain the different concepts. Also please cite what your ideas are based upon so that one could understand better. I mean which book or scripture.

Thanks in advance.

Principal sources are The Old and New Testaments of the Bible, The Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita.

 

[firedragon]

I disagree completely

Those who associate God with ONLY Abrahamic Religions have the wrong view, which better is corrected, rather sooner than later

For the sake of the Truth, I better say God. Get rid of the erroneous Abrahamic idea that the Name God belongs to Abrahamic Religions

What Abrahamic idea thinks that "God" as a name belongs to Abrahamic Religions?

I would like to know where your concept comes from.

 

[firedragon]

Principal sources are The Old and New Testaments of the Bible, The Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita.

Okay. So the Upanishads, Chandogya Upanishad says Ekkam Evadvithiyyam. So please explain where you see the divide. Please explain.

 

[Martin]

Okay. So the Upanishads, Chandogya Upanishad says Ekkam Evadvithiyyam. So please explain where you see the divide. Please explain.

I'm happy to discuss individual texts, but you need to provide a proper reference. Which chapter and verse of the Chandogya Upanishad are you referring to here? Context is important.