dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
Yes, Adi Shankara called it the "Mantra Upanishad".
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Monotheistic Hindus?
- Thread starter Quakerguy
- Start date
internationalist
Member
So you're saying Hindusims is an 'anything goes' religion, no authority, nothing decisive or final.
Why would you make this conclusion?
The Vedas are where you should, as a non-Hindu, be looking for information. 'Hinduism' is not a religion. It is a bunch of religions grouped into this category. So no, Hinduism is not an 'anything goes' religion. The specific authorities, specific beliefs and concepts etc. will differ with each religion.
Are you anti-Hindu? are you here to learn or only to challenge and defeat? It certainly seems that way.
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
There is no central governing authority in Hinduism. There are a wide variety of beliefs, ranging from dualism to nondualism, from meditation to devotion, and a wide variety of beliefs about god, such as pantheism, panentheism, henotheism, monotheism, and even atheism. Hinduism is about one's personal quest for enlightenment. Personal experience and reason play a good deal in Hinduism. And so does freedom to choose one's path for oneself.
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
And what Madhuri said.
He's a Christian Calvinist, and there's talk he could be a...troll.
And as you can see, he has posted a link to info about the Upanishad on the top of this page. It is one of the oldest Upanishads.
internationalist
Member
Because in Hinduism, no one seems to agree on whether there is one or multiple gods, whether one of them is supreme, if so, which one, and many other issues.
Madhuri explained it to you by saying Hindusim is really a group of religions. Your statement is like saying Abrahamics can't decide who their leader is, Christ, Muhammed, Moses, Bahalullah, Zarathustra, or some other.
Until you understand this,it'll never be clear.
Gaura Priya
IRL
Rigveda Samhita 1.164.46
"ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti agnim yamam matariswanam ahuh"
"Truth is one, but the learned refer to it in different names like agni, yama, matariswan."
Well, this is what happens when you don't read through a thread:
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
Atman
Member
Namaste Internationalist.
A little background research into the history of Hinduism will clearly show otherwise. Vaishnavism (monotheistic worship of Vishnu-Lakshmi), and Shaivism (admittedly some sects were more polytheistic in nature as some dualistic sects hold Ganesha and Murugan to be lesser expansions of Lord Shiva as opposed to equatable with Shiva) far predate the advent of Christianity and Islam in India. The idea that Vishnu or Shiva is supreme over the rest of the gods also far predates the introduction of Abrahamic philosophy to India. The Shiva Purana clearly maintains that Shiva is the supreme deity and Brahma and Vishnu are mere demigods (story of Vishnu and Brahma being unable to find the ends of the fiery Shiva Linga, and then worshiping Lord Shiva as he emerges from it). Likewise Vishnu Purana and Bhagavata Purana narrate that Brahma was born from the navel of Vishnu, and Shiva form the head of Brahma.
Hello Internationalist,
This is a nonsense. The Upanishads, many of which date long, long before Islam and Christianity (and some even Judaism), all espouse the view of one single supreme Being, Brahman. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, which is possibly the earliest of all the surviving Upanishads, is particularly persistent on this point; that there are not many gods, but one, and It is the reality behind all things. Another early Upanishad (400-200BCE), the Shvetashvatara Upanishad, is strongly Shaivite in tone (it identifies Shiva with the supreme Being). Earlier than this, still, we have texts already given like the passage from the Rig Veda, which clearly says that all of the 'gods' are the same entity, essentially, which is known in various ways. That is what the text says, it requires no philosophical torturing to make it say what it already clearly says.
Both of these suggestions are absurd (I would like to see which person contends Shankara is the author of the Gita). Firstly, if the Gita were written into the C.E, then we could expect to find within it references to Buddhism, but we find none at all. If Shankara wrote the text, we would certainly expect some reference to Buddhism, since he was an opponent of their doctrines. That aside, the likeliest (and most popular) given date for the text is before the advent of Buddhism, which puts it right back in time.
Your assertion that the text was not popular until Shankara's commentary on it is false; Shankara's own introduction to his commentary refutes you. He recounts in his introduction the "tradition" of the descent of Vishnu as Krishna and his conversation with Arjuna on the battlefield; the events which are the context of the Gita itself. Now, if this story was a tradition by the time Shankara commented upon it, then the Gita itself existed before Shankara's time, and your assertion is thrown out. And, indeed, Shankara says the Gita existed before him, and not only that, but there were commentators before him;
Now, not only is the story of the Mahabharata by this time a famous tradition, as is the text well known, but many people had taught the Gita and argued over what it meant. He says that there was a multiplicity of expositions, of commentaries and ideas about the text, to the point where they were extremely contradictory and in conflict with one another. This kind of conflict can only arise if a text has been in existence for a very long time, and several branches of thought have grown to the point where they are at variance with one another. So, far from your absurd suggestion that Shankara himself authored the text and it was unknown prior to his time, Shankara himself says that the Gita had existed for such a lengthy period that there is confusion amongst the people as to the meaning of the text, since so many diverging commentaries had already been given on it! Not only that, but the whole purpose of Shankara's commentary is to cut through this confusion of voices and establish the exact meaning of the text himself, for the benefit of the people.
It may be your prerogative to then suggest that Shankara was lying about the text's history, or that he was being modest about himself, but to me this would simply be avoiding the blatantly obvious, and I wouldn't take you seriously.
This is a nonsense. The Upanishads, many of which date long, long before Islam and Christianity (and some even Judaism), all espouse the view of one single supreme Being, Brahman. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, which is possibly the earliest of all the surviving Upanishads, is particularly persistent on this point; that there are not many gods, but one, and It is the reality behind all things. Another early Upanishad (400-200BCE), the Shvetashvatara Upanishad, is strongly Shaivite in tone (it identifies Shiva with the supreme Being). Earlier than this, still, we have texts already given like the passage from the Rig Veda, which clearly says that all of the 'gods' are the same entity, essentially, which is known in various ways. That is what the text says, it requires no philosophical torturing to make it say what it already clearly says.
Both of these suggestions are absurd (I would like to see which person contends Shankara is the author of the Gita). Firstly, if the Gita were written into the C.E, then we could expect to find within it references to Buddhism, but we find none at all. If Shankara wrote the text, we would certainly expect some reference to Buddhism, since he was an opponent of their doctrines. That aside, the likeliest (and most popular) given date for the text is before the advent of Buddhism, which puts it right back in time.
Your assertion that the text was not popular until Shankara's commentary on it is false; Shankara's own introduction to his commentary refutes you. He recounts in his introduction the "tradition" of the descent of Vishnu as Krishna and his conversation with Arjuna on the battlefield; the events which are the context of the Gita itself. Now, if this story was a tradition by the time Shankara commented upon it, then the Gita itself existed before Shankara's time, and your assertion is thrown out. And, indeed, Shankara says the Gita existed before him, and not only that, but there were commentators before him;
Now, not only is the story of the Mahabharata by this time a famous tradition, as is the text well known, but many people had taught the Gita and argued over what it meant. He says that there was a multiplicity of expositions, of commentaries and ideas about the text, to the point where they were extremely contradictory and in conflict with one another. This kind of conflict can only arise if a text has been in existence for a very long time, and several branches of thought have grown to the point where they are at variance with one another. So, far from your absurd suggestion that Shankara himself authored the text and it was unknown prior to his time, Shankara himself says that the Gita had existed for such a lengthy period that there is confusion amongst the people as to the meaning of the text, since so many diverging commentaries had already been given on it! Not only that, but the whole purpose of Shankara's commentary is to cut through this confusion of voices and establish the exact meaning of the text himself, for the benefit of the people.
It may be your prerogative to then suggest that Shankara was lying about the text's history, or that he was being modest about himself, but to me this would simply be avoiding the blatantly obvious, and I wouldn't take you seriously.
I wish I could remember which Upanishad I read this in, but there is a verse that mentions Brahman being the target, and the soul being the arrow. Clearly it refers to a one-on-one relationship of the soul to Brahman, and pre-dates Christianity.
K.Venugopal
Immobile Wanderer
This One God idea is not the ultimate in Hinduism, as every Hindu would know. The idea of God as a countable object or being separate from existence is probably the penultimate stage where man is still an idol worshiper. The ultimate is when there just is. This is what is indicated by the Hindu concept of Brahman, which still being a word, is probably not good enough. When even the concept of Brahman drops, then there is. But it must be clear that the word Brahman indicates a stage beyond what is indicated by God, particularly in Abrahamic religions, where the phenomenon, whatever it is, is separate from us, whatever we are.
Hello TouchedbytheLord,
Mundaka Upanishad. It also uses the analogy of gold (by knowing one thing, all else becomes known) and the rivers joining the ocean by losing name and form (identity with Brahman).
Thank you! :namaste