Is Hindu monotheism incompatible with Abrahamic monotheism?

[SalixIncendium]

Part of the trouble with this discussion, as some folks have already mentioned, is that different Abrahamics and different Hindus have different views of what God/Brahman is amongst themselves. So that complicates things from the outset. Therefore, my comments won't apply to any and every view encompassed under these traditions.

However, I would humbly submit that I think there are similarities between the concepts, broadly speaking, that run more than skin deep. Both the Abrahamic and Hindu God are generally regarded as both transcendent and immanent (pervading the universe and also transcending beyond it). In both traditions God is regarded as the Ultimate Reality which is at the foundation of all that exists - indeed, one can regard God as Reality/Being itself.

Additionally, although both traditions often ascribe attributes to God, those are not seen as fundamental features of God but rather anthropomorphic or analogical ways of enabling us to understand God; at root, in both traditions God is beyond description. This has led, in both traditions, to a fascinating method of attempting to describe God by what he is not (sometimes called apophatic theology or the Via Negativa).

While there are those Abrahamics that do take this view of God, this is certainly not what all Abrahamic religions teach. I speak from personal experience.

There was nothing in my years as a Catholic that came close to suggesting that God was anything other than transcendent, so transcendent, in fact, that He required an intermediary just to confess sins.

I was raised to believe that God was creator, ruler, and judge. There was no part of me that was divine. I think this alone is the biggest difference I find in my experiences in both paradigms.

So while there are some (I mentioned this in my first post in this thread) Abrahamics that take such a view of God as mentioned in your post, the vast majority do not, and there is plenty of evidence of that in this very forum.

 

[1213]

...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. ...

I agree that God of Abraham cares of humans. But, I think it is not correct to say He is hungry for worship, because:

The God who made the world and all things in it, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, doesn't dwell in temples made with hands, neither is he served by men's hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself gives to all life and breath, and all things.
Acts 17:24-25

I also think it is wrong to say He is emotionally driven. Jealous has two meanings, other is envy, which I don’t think God does. Other meaning is possessive, God does not want to lose what is His and I think that is not emotion, nor bad, I think it is loving, because it shows God cares of people and don’t want bad things to happen to them. I think it is also good to know, Bible tells God is spirit that can dwell in many humans.

God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
John 4:24

But if the Spirit of him who raised up Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised up Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
Romans 8:11

I think that means God is not like physical being. But, the God of Abraham certainly is not devoid of any character, qualities, or attributes. Such thing is actually nothing. If there is no attributes, it is nothing and means nothing.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I think that means God is not like physical being. But, the God of Abraham certainly is not devoid of any character, qualities, or attributes. Such thing is actually nothing. If there is no attributes, it is nothing and means nothing.

Devoid of thought, emotion, desire, or attachment, what qualities does pure consciousness or pure awareness have? Is this being "nothing?" Does it mean "nothing?"

 

[Left Coast]

While there are those Abrahamics that do take this view of God, this is certainly not what all Abrahamic religions teach. I speak from personal experience.

There was nothing in my years as a Catholic that came close to suggesting that God was anything other than transcendent, so transcendent, in fact, that He required an intermediary just to confess sins.

I was raised to believe that God was creator, ruler, and judge. There was no part of me that was divine. I think this alone is the biggest difference I find in my experiences in both paradigms.

So while there are some (I mentioned this in my first post in this thread) Abrahamics that take such a view of God as mentioned in your post, the vast majority do not, and there is plenty of evidence of that in this very forum.

I too was Catholic, so I think I have some personal experience to draw upon here as well. I think part of the difference you note is more in emphasis than in actual teaching. Within Abrahamic traditions, there is no doubt heavy emphasis placed on God's trancendence - His greatness, His creative power, His Lordship over all things, His "otherness" from all other things.

That said, the immanence of God is also a mainstream element of the teaching on God from these traditions:

For example, from the New Testament:

"The God who made the world and everything in it, he who is Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by human hands, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mortals life and breath and all things. From one ancestor he made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, so that they would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him—though indeed he is not far from each one of us. For ‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said,

‘For we too are his offspring.’"
Acts 17:24-28

"There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all." Ephesians 4:6

"In that renewal there is no longer Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and free; but Christ is all and in all!"
Colossians 3:11

Here's good ol' Tommy Aquinas, the most influential Catholic theologian of the last 1000 years, on God's omnipresence:

SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The existence of God in things (Prima Pars, Q. 8)

I do think a difference between the traditions is that within Hinduism, Atman is Brahman. In the Abrahamic traditions, one's soul can be united with God in one sense, and God is ever-present and within and through all things (and humans in particular are considered to be made "in God's image); yet simultaneously God is not considered identical with creation. An Abrahamic would not say she is God. She would more likely say God is within her (and/or all things).

 

[atanu]

I don't believe there such a thing as Hinduism monotheism. Some Hinduism may believe in a main God who they worship, but usually also worship other Gods on specific days. For instance most Vaishnavites (Vishnu or Krishna worshipers) will also celebrate Shivaratri (day for Shiva).. And all Hindus worship Ganesh. There are no real monotheists (although some may call themselves that).

I don't think we are saying the same thing. I don't think there are many Hindus (if any) in India who think Laxmi or Durga or Ganesh are 'demi-gods'.. All three are Gods in their own right with powers of their own. Vaisnavites may just believe that Vishnu is the Supreme one among them. You may be interesting in reading this web page on Hindu Gods - Hindu Gods and Goddesses

BTW you seem a bit defensive (if not ashamed) about being called a polytheist - I don't blame you - there is a lot of pressure in today's world to profess to be a 'monotheist' - it almost seems scientific to say there is only One God, and who doesn't want to be 'scientific'.?

Also, an Advaitin even the strict type, is not a monotheist. Only a believer in a single Personal God is a monotheist and Advaitin do not believe in a Personal God.

Please refer to your first post that garnered a lot of praise. You said ‘There is no such thing as Hinduism monotheism.....’.

Such sweeping generalisations are usually not correct.

There are Hindus who consider themselves as monotheists. I had linked a WIKI page to show that.

I have only a few points to make and then I will like to withdraw from this particular discussion.

I believe that you are coming from a fixed idea of Abrahamic monotheism and I agree that compared to that yardstick monotheism in Hinduism is likely to be different.

Second. Hinduism is layered, spanning from a strict dualism to a strick monism. Due to Shankaracharya’s influence, the Hinduism currently is advaitic and in practice follows SMARTA tradition.

Similar layering of belief/understanding can be found in Abrahamic religions too — although in the Abrahamic religions, the dualism predominates.

Yet, I had linked a video of a Jesuit scholar (Bentley Hart) who defines God exactly as Vedantins do — in terms of ‘Being-Consciousness-Bliss’.

So, in my opinion, it is not correct to generalise about Hinduism in sweeping terms. There are many shades. Hinduism has done remarkably well to keep violence away while dealing with these conceptual differences. It is my personal opinion that in this too Shankaracharya’s syncretic influence has helped.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I too was Catholic, so I think I have some personal experience to draw upon here as well. I think part of the difference you note is more in emphasis than in actual teaching. Within Abrahamic traditions, there is no doubt heavy emphasis placed on God's trancendence - His greatness, His creative power, His Lordship over all things, His "otherness" from all other things.

That said, the immanence of God is also a mainstream element of the teaching on God from these traditions:

For example, from the New Testament:

"The God who made the world and everything in it, he who is Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by human hands, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mortals life and breath and all things. From one ancestor he made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, so that they would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him—though indeed he is not far from each one of us. For ‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said,

‘For we too are his offspring.’"
Acts 17:24-28

"There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all." Ephesians 4:6

"In that renewal there is no longer Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and free; but Christ is all and in all!"
Colossians 3:11

Here's good ol' Tommy Aquinas, the most influential Catholic theologian of the last 1000 years, on God's omnipresence:

SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The existence of God in things (Prima Pars, Q. 8)

I do think a difference between the traditions is that within Hinduism, Atman is Brahman. In the Abrahamic traditions, one's soul can be united with God in one sense, and God is ever-present and within and through all things (and humans in particular are considered to be made "in God's image); yet simultaneously God is not considered identical with creation. An Abrahamic would not say she is God. She would more likely say God is within her (and/or all things).

I'm not saying the immanence of God doesn't exist in scripture, but as you well know, readers of the Bible interpret things in many different ways. Of the many Christians I know, the majority would say that He is transcendent.

It would be interesting to see a poll of Abrahamics to determine if the "mainstream" considers God equally immanent and transcendent.

 

[Left Coast]

I'm not saying the immanence of God doesn't exist in scripture, but as you well know, readers of the Bible interpret things in many different ways. Of the many Christians I know, the majority would say that He is transcendent.

It would be interesting to see a poll of Abrahamics to determine if the "mainstream" considers God equally immanent and transcendent.

It would be more interesting, IMO, to see a poll of which Christians have actually read the entire Bible and know what their churches teach about the nature of God.

 

[1213]

Devoid of thought, emotion, desire, or attachment, what qualities does pure consciousness or pure awareness have? Is this being "nothing?" Does it mean "nothing?"

If something has no attributes, you can’t define it in any way and so it becomes nothing, there is nothing you can say about it, because there is nothing that describes it.

 

[SalixIncendium]

If something has no attributes, you can’t define it in any way and so it becomes nothing, there is nothing you can say about it, because there is nothing that describes it.

Precisely!

 

[atanu]

I'm not saying the immanence of God doesn't exist in scripture, but as you well know, readers of the Bible interpret things in many different ways. Of the many Christians I know, the majority would say that He is transcendent.

It would be interesting to see a poll of Abrahamics to determine if the "mainstream" considers God equally immanent and transcendent.

This poll will be interesting and quantity in a meaningful way.

 

[soulsurvivor]

Please refer to your first post that garnered a lot of praise. You said ‘There is no such thing as Hinduism monotheism.....’.

Such sweeping generalisations are usually not correct.

There are Hindus who consider themselves as monotheists. I had linked a WIKI page to show that.

I have only a few points to make and then I will like to withdraw from this particular discussion.

I believe that you are coming from a fixed idea of Abrahamic monotheism and I agree that compared to that yardstick monotheism in Hinduism is likely to be different.

Second. Hinduism is layered, spanning from a strict dualism to a strick monism. Due to Shankaracharya’s influence, the Hinduism currently is advaitic and in practice follows SMARTA tradition.

Similar layering of belief/understanding can be found in Abrahamic religions too — although in the Abrahamic religions, the dualism predominates.

Yet, I had linked a video of a Jesuit scholar (Bentley Hart) who defines God exactly as Vedantins do — in terms of ‘Being-Consciousness-Bliss’.

So, in my opinion, it is not correct to generalise about Hinduism in sweeping terms. There are many shades. Hinduism has done remarkably well to keep violence away while dealing with these conceptual differences. It is my personal opinion that in this too Shankaracharya’s syncretic influence has helped.

Sounds about right! As you say, Hindus in India currently believe in and worship five individual, separate Gods, but they are also at the same time Monotheists who don't believe in any personal God at all!

 

[metis]

Hindus in India currently believe in and worship five individual, separate Gods, but they are also at the same time Monotheists who don't believe in any personal God at all!

Their beliefs tend to vary a great deal, but I'll let @atanu elaborate on that.

 

[atanu]

Sounds about right! As you say, Hindus in India currently believe in and worship five individual, separate Gods, but they are also at the same time Monotheists who don't believe in any personal God at all!

Allow me to point out that Vaisnavas or Shaivas (the shrautikas) do not believe in and worship five individual separate Gods. For them either Vishnu or Shiva represent the Supreme Saguna Brahman-Ishwara without a second. Similarly those who worship Ishwara as Goddess, they worship Devi-Durga as the one without a second.

For 'smartists', on the other hand, the Nirguna Brahman is the one without a second. Smarta tradition allows worship of brahman in any of five forms in five different shrines: Shiva, Vishnau, Durga, Ganesha, and Surya (sun).

Probably, Shankaracharya whom the smartists follow helped to unify the five main streams. Otherwise Hindus could also witness intense violent antagonisms such as we witness between, for example, the Sunnis and the Shias.
...

 

[Martin]

Anyway, the "No" vote won, so that's settled the matter.

 

[soulsurvivor]

Allow me to point out that Vaisnavas or Shaivas (the shrautikas) do not believe in and worship five individual separate Gods.

As far as I know everyone invokes and worships Ganesh at the start of every puja (even inside a Shiva or a Vishnu temple). But perhaps you have observed a different type of puja.

 

[atanu]

As far as I know everyone invokes and worships Ganesh at the start of every puja (even inside a Shiva or a Vishnu temple). But perhaps you have observed a different type of puja.

Sure. If you wish to see a view of a distant falcon, you may wish to wash your eyes.

For Shaiva shrautikas or for Vaishnava shrautikas, Ganesha is that power of the Supreme that removes obstacles -- but Ganesha is not the Supreme Brahman. For smartas, on the other hand, Ganesha could be invoked as the Supreme and/or as a deity for removal of obstacles.

You need to understand this. All that we have is/are Brahman -- yet Brahman is not many. Our sensual and locomotor systems are all presided over by deities that are under control pf Mind, which is under control of Jivatma (Soul), which is under control of the Atman -- which is without a second. One may pray to the deity of the eyes for a specific purpose ....

...

 

[Vinayaka]

As far as I know everyone invokes and worships Ganesh at the start of every puja (even inside a Shiva or a Vishnu temple). But perhaps you have observed a different type of puja.

Shaivism is henotheistic. The main 'lesser Gods' out here in normal life, are Ganesha, Murugan, and Shakti (usually as Thurga Amman, Amman, or Rajarajeshwari). But Siva is God. I can't speak for Vaishnavas.

I view Ganesha and Murugan as Gods in their own right, emanated from Siva for particular purposes. Amman is a bit different, more like Manifested Siva.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

Is Hindu monotheism compatible with Abrahamic monotheism or are they so fundamentally different as to be incompatible?

Greeting Adrian, by the grace of Mods and Admin., I am back. Missed you and my other respondents.
Even belief in reincarnation or transference of karmas over different births is not essential in Hinduism. I remain a Hindu even without them.

Krishna is never a monotheistic God since either a Hindu can be a total atheist like me or will believe in all other Gods as well while giving the pride of place to one according to his preference (for a huge number of Hindus Shiva or the Mother Goddess Durga/Adi Shakti would be that, and not just Krishna). That is Henotheism and Kenotheism. Pantheism and Panentheism are also acceptable in Hinduism.
Arya Samaj is like neo-paganism which tries to resurrect Indo-Aryan deities pushed to secondary positions by main-line Hinduism.
It is debatable if ultimate reality and truth (nothing metaphysical there), Brahman, can be compared to a God since Brahman is never a personal God.

The main difference between Hinduism and Abrahamic religions is that Hinduism does not have any intermediaries (messengers and messages) from God. The rules of conduct (Dharma) are considered eternal (Sanatan) and unlike Abrahamic religions do not ever require a revision.

For 'smartists', ..

Hey Atanu, greetings. Use the correct word - 'Smarta' and not 'smartists'.
Similarly 'Shaivists', 'Shaktist' or 'Vaishnavist' is not correct, they should be termed as 'Shaivas', 'Shaktas' and 'Vaishnavas'.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I view Ganesha and Murugan as Gods in their own right, emanated from Siva for particular purposes. Amman is a bit different, more like Manifested Siva.

Murugan / Kartikeya / Skanda was added to the 'Smarta' pantheon. Shanmata - Wikipedia

 

[Dawnofhope]

Greeting Adrian, by the grace of Mods and Admin., I am back. Missed you and my other respondents.
Even belief in reincarnation or transference of karmas over different births is not essential in Hinduism. I remain a Hindu even without them.

Krishna is never a monotheistic God since either a Hindu can be a total atheist like me or will believe in all other Gods as well while giving the pride of place to one according to his preference (for a huge number of Hindus Shiva or the Mother Goddess Durga/Adi Shakti would be that, and not just Krishna). That is Henotheism and Kenotheism. Pantheism and Panentheism are also acceptable in Hinduism.
Arya Samaj is like neo-paganism which tries to resurrect Indo-Aryan deities pushed to secondary positions by main-line Hinduism.
It is debatable if ultimate reality and truth (nothing metaphysical there), Brahman, can be compared to a God since Brahman is never a personal God.

The main difference between Hinduism and Abrahamic religions is that Hinduism does not have any intermediaries (messengers and messages) from God. The rules of conduct (Dharma) are considered eternal (Sanatan) and unlike Abrahamic religions do not ever require a revision.l'.

Hey Aup, good to see you back. I’ve missed seeing you around.

The existence or otherwise of reincarnation is seperate from the question of theism. Reincarnation doesn’t necessarily imply polytheism though the association may be there for those unfamiliar with the diversity of Hindu belief and many non-Hindu theologies that incorporates reincarnation. Reincarnation is not an essential belief in Hinduism and you are a good example of a Hindu that rejects reincarnation.

Some Vaishnava would see Vishnu as being the only God. How Vishnu and the God of Abraham are different or the same is certainly the core question being considered. There are parallels between Vaishnava viewing Krishna as Vishnu incarnate and Christians believing Christ is God incarnate.

Pantheism certainly appears incompatible with Abrahamic monotheism. Christianity and Islam have lesser celestial beings that either support or oppose God’s purpose. God has different names and attributes. Shiva, Brahma and Vishnu may be different forms, faces or aspects of the same celestial being. They make up the trimurti. The Holy Spirit, Christ and Father are seen as one yet seperate within the triune Christian God.

Once again, good to see you back.