Is Hindu monotheism incompatible with Abrahamic monotheism?

[Martin]

Of course. Its Chandogya Upanishad 6:2:1

My Wordsworth Classics translation has this for 6:2:1:
"In the beginning, there was that only which, being alone, is one only, without a second. Others say in the beginning there was that only which is non-being, one only, without a second; and from that which is not, that which is was born."

 

[Marcion]

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?

Since Hinduism is not a religion and the Abrahamic religions are unified on the subject of monotheism in name only, I don't see the point of trying to compare those two groups in this way.

The motivation no doubt has to do with Bahai theorizing about the so-called unity of (certain) religions and the dis-unity compared to others, but such theorizing is too superficial to have much significance especially when it comes to such an elusive concept as God.
If you want to demonstrate the relative unity or disunity of different traditions, it is much more useful to look at practices rather than theoretical aspects on a metaphysical level.

 

[firedragon]

My Wordsworth Classics translation has this for 6:2:1:
"In the beginning, there was that only which, being alone, is one only, without a second. Others say in the beginning there was that only which is non-being, one only, without a second; and from that which is not, that which is was born."

Alright. So please explain your position that its oranges and apples. I am only looking for your ideas, yet through scripture.

Thanks in advance.

 

[ajay0]

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?

There are Hindu monotheistic sects like the Kabir Panthis, Brahmo Samaj, Arya Samaj, Lingayats, Prajapita Brahmakumaris who all worship an incorporeal monotheistic God.

The Prajapita Brahmakumaris considers Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad as past prophets of God and they state the same with respect to the avatars Parashurama, Rama and Krishna.

I consider the Abrahamic faiths compatible to some extent with Hindu monotheism. However there is no version of an angry and jealous God in Hindu monotheism. I find a sweet and loving God instead.

In Hindu monotheism, women are empowered to priests, and you can find this in the Arya Samaj and especially the Prajapita Brahmakumaris. This is unthinkable in the Abrahamic faiths even now where women are excluded from the top leadership and decisionmaking councils.

I remember reading of a muslim woman who was issued death threats by terrorists after becoming the first female Imam to lead the Friday prayer.

Kerala Muslim Woman Faces Death Threats After Becoming First Female Imam To Lead Friday Prayer

Recently the Pope had affirmed again that catholic women cannot be priests, and priestdom will continue to be a male privilege. So we will still not get to see a female Pope in the near future.

Ordination of women and the Catholic Church - Wikipedia

Pope Formalizes Women’s Roles, but Priesthood Stays Out of Reach

This is not the case in the Prajapita Brahmakumaris which has female leadership at the highest levels. So I would say that Abrahamic faiths are not compatible with Hindu monotheism at present. Perhaps it may become compatible after a few centuries or milleniums leading to gradual change in attitudes and mindset.

 

[Martin]

Alright. So please explain your position that its oranges and apples. I am only looking for your ideas, yet through scripture.

Thanks in advance.

The discussion of being and non-being doesn't sound much like Genesis in the Old Testament. Completely different language, and meaning.
I still don't understand why you would want or need them to be the same.

 

[firedragon]

Brahmo Samaj

Thats the one I was looking for.

@adrian009

This is the group that follows the guy I spoke of in the previous post. I thought I shall state it hear before I forget later.

 

[firedragon]

The discussion of being and non-being doesn't sound much like Genesis in the Old Testament. Completely different language, and meaning.
I still don't understand why you would want or need them to be the same.

Did I say that "I want it to be the SAME"? I thought you are capable of having a decent conversation and that's why I asked you to give your reasons for your "apples and oranges" analogy. Yet it seems like you are just looking to argue or maybe even demean someone for some benefit.

Anyway, I will cut and paste a post I made in this thread.

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.

If you want any references it is no problem.

Do some googling for "ekkam Ividvityam". I think got the transliteration right. You will find a little more.

Also read, Bhagavad Geetha, chapter 10, text 3, and also Svethasvatara Upanishad chapter four, verse 20.

Rather than trying to insult people or assuming they "WANT" this or that, just naturally engage with them. Its better. Since you claimed they are as different as Apples and Oranges, I am only asking you for your explanation with references to the scripture. I dont want to say Hinduism and Christianity are the "SAME", which is absolutely stupid.

Try.

 

[firedragon]

The discussion of being and non-being doesn't sound much like Genesis in the Old Testament. Completely different language, and meaning.
I still don't understand why you would want or need them to be the same.

And the discussion is not about "being and non0being" which is irrelevant, the discussion is the topic of the thread. And the verse is explained in my post above. Read a bit. I thought you were hindu so that's why I read out the Sanskrit. But if you like, read the post.

Dvi means two, or second. Eka means one. Ekam Ividvityam means One, there is nothing like him or another or a second.

God is one. The message is monotheism. Thats the whole point.

Be a little patient, and try to understand what people say so that we can all learn something from each other.

Peace.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Since Hinduism is not a religion and the Abrahamic religions are unified on the subject of monotheism in name only, I don't see the point of trying to compare those two groups in this way.

The motivation no doubt has to do with Bahai theorizing about the so-called unity of (certain) religions and the dis-unity compared to others, but such theorizing is too superficial to have much significance especially when it comes to such an elusive concept as God.
If you want to demonstrate the relative unity or disunity of different traditions, it is much more useful to look at practices rather than theoretical aspects on a metaphysical level.

The purpose of this thread is to compare and contrast metaphysical concepts as they relate to monotheism within Hinduism and the Abrahamic Faiths. Its an area of interest to many of us. Hinduism is considered a religion but most scholars with expertise in the subject. It is clearly different from religions such as Buddhism, Christianity and Islam where there is a clearly identified founder. However, Hinduism is clearly a religion nonetheless. There is a spectrum of beliefs with both Hinduism and the Abrahamic Faiths. The Abrahamic Faiths are predominately monotheistic with considerable variation under this umbrella term. Hinduism is clearly much more diverse in regards theistic views, but certainly includes monotheism. My knowledge in this key area of comparative religion is lacking so I’m here to learn. How these two broad sets of faiths (Hinduism and Abrahamics) approach their practice is another topic altogether.

 

[SalixIncendium]

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.

I do not view both Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman as aspects of the same Brahman. There is only Nirguna Brahman in Paramartika. Saguna Brahman exists as an appearance of Nirguna Brahman only in Vyavaharika to facilitate human understanding of Nirguna Brahman and their true nature as that being.

You have also misunderstood "attributes" where you probably thought the word attributes refer to the "Guna" in hinduism. Absolutely not.

Guna is Sanskrit word which is commonly translated to mean quality, peculiarity, attribute, or property. I'm unclear what you mean by saying I have misunderstood "attributes." Please expand on this.

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.

I'm not invalidating this view, but in Advaita Vedanta, Brahman, Atman, Purusa, and Prajapati are identical and same. Inferiority/superiority are appearances affected by Maya.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Thanks. I probably shouldn’t need to ask but which Sai Baba?

Sai Baba of Shirdi - Wikipedia

Sathya Sai Baba - Wikipedia

Is Kali your deity?

Kali - Wikipedia

As you may appreciate my knowledge and experience of Hinduism is limited but it is reassuring to hear some degree of compatibility is expressed from two Dharmic practitioners so far along with two who would see no compatibility. I’m good with the validity of either perspective. Some streams of Abrahamic and Hindu thought are clearly mutually exclusive.

As well as being Baha’i I would identify as being more on the liberal spectrum of Christianity. Baha’is consider the origins of Hinduism as being Divine and would share the view of some Vaishnava with both Krishna and Buddha being Avatars of Vishnu.

My perception of some Hindus is intense antipathy towards Abrahamic Faiths despite the live and let live attitude though appreciate the long and troubled history stemming from Islamic and Christian colonialism.

I agree with your perception of the destructiveness of proselytising Christians trying to save Hindus.

Thanks for dropping by.

Hi Adrian.

I do not think we will find the exact same equivalent to Abrahamic monotheism in Hinduism, however, there are certain segments of some sects of Hindu belief which have similar elements.

1. The belief in Avatars of Vishnu such as Krishna, (Vaishnavism) which would be the equivalent of Prophets or Manifestations of God in Abrahamic Faiths.

2. Vishnu, as with God, intervenes in history by sending Avatars from time to time to renew religion, as the Abrahamic God sends Prophets to educate and warn mankind.

3. Belief in a Holy Book - Bhagavad-Gita

 

[Martin]

And the discussion is not about "being and non0being" which is irrelevant, the discussion is the topic of the thread. And the verse is explained in my post above. Read a bit. I thought you were hindu so that's why I read out the Sanskrit. But if you like, read the post.

Dvi means two, or second. Eka means one. Ekam Ividvityam means One, there is nothing like him or another or a second.

God is one. The message is monotheism. Thats the whole point.

Be a little patient, and try to understand what people say so that we can all learn something from each other.

Peace.

"One without a second" refers to Brahman, and not to the Abrahamic God. You need to look at these terms in their own context, rather than framing them in the language of a completely different religion.

 

[Vinayaka]

"One without a second" refers to Brahman, and not to the Abrahamic God. You need to look at these terms in their own context, rather than framing them in the language of a completely different religion.

Excellent points.

And some are back to not understanding the difference between monism, and monotheism, which has happened several times in this thread. Monism is not monotheism.

 

[SomeRandom]

Excellent points.

And some are back to not understanding the difference between monism, and monotheism, which has happened several times in this thread. Monism is not monotheism.

Out of curiosity, what is the difference? Because I fear if I Google it, I will be given a rather “Western” (read Abrahamic) definition. I usually err on the side of caution when dealing with theological concepts. If that makes sense at all?

 

[Vinayaka]

Out of curiosity, what is the difference? Because I fear if I Google it, I will be given a rather “Western” (read Abrahamic) definition. I usually err on the side of caution when dealing with theological concepts. If that makes sense at all?

Monism is that all is a one reality, or Brahman. There was a time on this forum when there was a debate about whether or not Brahman was God. Some (a declared atheist, amongst others) were adamantly saying that it wasn't.

Monotheism is theism, or that there is God, and ONLY one God. Even the so-called monotheistic schools of Hinduism have other Gods. Gaudiya Vaishnavism, for example, in some variations, call Siva a demi-God, (still a God) and they actively worship Hanuman, although whether or not He's a God varies by school. Some call Him Krishna's ultimate devotee. In Sri Vaishnava temples, Ganesha is at the entrance.

And you're absolutely right that western indologists conflated the two idea, hence the confusion, that is evident in this tread, and won't go away any time soon.

Personally, I'm a monist, and most certainly not a monotheist.

 

[SomeRandom]

Monism is that all is a one reality, or Brahman. There was a time on this forum when there was a debate about whether or not Brahman was God. Some (a declared atheist, amongst others) were adamantly saying that it wasn't.

Monotheism is theism, or that there is God, and ONLY one God. Even the so-called monotheistic schools of Hinduism have other Gods. Gaudiya Vaishnavism, for example, in some variations, call Siva a demi-God, (still a God) and they actively worship Hanuman, although whether or not He's a God varies by school. Some call Him Krishna's ultimate devotee. In Sri Vaishnava temples, Ganesha is at the entrance.

And you're absolutely right that western indologists conflated the two idea, hence the confusion, that is evident in this tread, and won't go away any time soon.

Personally, I'm a monist, and most certainly not a monotheist.

Oh I see.
I think this is a rather big translation hurdle for me. Because if I understand the concepts, I was raised under monism. The ultimate goal is to realise the “one reality.” The all encompassing entity that is Brahman. To realise Brahman in everything and everyone.
But my friends around me seemed to speak of the “one true god.” Which my brain auto translated to the “One” just out of habit, I suppose.

I guess that is why they are baffled whenever I or my mother just casually adopts a Christian practice (usually out of respect due to attending a ritual or just finding merit in something) and not have it really bother my sense of my own spiritual path. Because to me it’s never really seperate things.
One ocean many rivers, kind of deal, I guess.

Though maybe I have misunderstood the concepts

 

[firedragon]

"One without a second" refers to Brahman, and not to the Abrahamic God. You need to look at these terms in their own context, rather than framing them in the language of a completely different religion.

Of course it refers to Brahman. Thats the whole point.

I think you are not intending to have a decent conversation, so its absurd discussing. Have a great day.

 

[atanu]

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.

Your answer is balanced. You do note two sides of this issue. I am tempted to ask.

Would you also agree that there are great differences in conception of God in Madhavacarya’s dvaita and Shankaracharya’s advaita?

I am asking this question to @Vinayaka too.

Spoiler: Gaudpaada’s Mandukya Karika on dvaita advaita relationship

From Mandukya Karika

Dvaitinah, the dualists - who follow the views of Kapila, Kanada, Buddha, Arhat,1 and others; nis- citah, are firmly rooted; svasiddhanta-vyavasthasu, in the methodologies leading to their own conclusions. Thinking, `The supreme Reality is this alone, and not any other', they remain affiliated to those points of view, and finding anyone opposed to them, they become hateful of him. Thus being swayed by likes and dislikes, consequent on the adherence to their own conclusions, parasparam virudhyante, they stand arrayed against one another. As one is not at conflict with one's own hands and feet, so also, just because of non-difference from all, ayam, this, this Vedic view of ours consisting in seeing the same Self in everyone; na viru- dhyate, is not opposed; taih, to them, who are mutually at conflict. Thus the idea sought to be conveyed is that the perfect view consists in realizing the Self as one, for this is not subject to the drawbacks of love and hatred.

 

[firedragon]

I do not view both Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman as aspects of the same Brahman. There is only Nirguna Brahman in Paramartika. Saguna Brahman exists as an appearance of Nirguna Brahman only in Vyavaharika to facilitate human understanding of Nirguna Brahman and their true nature as that being.

Okay. Thats how "you do not view". Thanks for that. Just that I dont see that in post Vedic doctrine. But I suppose everyone has their prerogative to follow what they think.

This is not my view that I state because I am not qualified in the least to make "my view". I am just stating the post-vedic view. Maybe this image I attach will be better than me saying things. Anyway, I explained that the duality of Brahman has so many aspects, this way and that way. You have taken Nirguna as your primary or highest aspect.

Guna is Sanskrit word which is commonly translated to mean quality, peculiarity, attribute, or property. I'm unclear what you mean by saying I have misunderstood "attributes." Please expand on this.

Sure. You said that the Abrahamic God has attributes and Nirguna Brahman does not and that was your whole thesis that they are absolutely different. Guna is a neutral word that means as you said, and I stated the same thing I think. Like Smell. It could have no smell, bad smell, and good smell. Attributes of the so called "Abrahamic God" that you have equated that to are more like "addresses". How you address God or think of God. Not that he has attributes. Imposing attributes like you said upon God is anthropomorphism. This attributes of God or what you address is not Guna as in understood in Sanskrit. Guna could have Aguna as well. It also could have Suguna, Viguna, etc etc. Even contemplating these human attributes to God is considered Anthropomorphism.

If you wish to use this word Guna on the Abrahamic God, it is impossible really because the aspect of Guna doesnt exist whatsoever.

Yet. What do you mean by "attributes" of the Abrahamic God. Please explain. I would like to understand what you have in mind.

 

[atanu]

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?

In my opinion.

In conception of God there can be ‘unbridgeable’ difference (majority?) or ‘no difference at all’ (minority). This diversity is as natural as the diversity of nature itself and we are just part of nature.

But I like to share this video often wherein David Bentley explains the Highest as the Existence-Consciousness-Bliss — the very definition of Brahman in Vedanta.

...