B
billcu1
Guest
How much does modern hinduism use the Upanishads?
- Status
P
Philomath
Guest
A lot but the Upanishads themselves are drawn from the Vedas.
C
Contarini
Guest
“Panentheism” is actually defined in a number of ways–a case can be made that St. Thomas Aquinas and most traditional Christian theologians were panentheistic. Whether panentheism has to involve an “impersonal” God is questionable, as is the term “impersonal” itself, which, again, can mean a lot of things. Christians do not, after all, believe that God is a Person, since we believe he is three Persons
The thing to bear in mind with Hinduism is that it has followed a completely different trajectory and the “big questions” have been asked independently of the way they’ve been asked in our own cultural tradition. It looks as if maybe ancient Greco-Roman religions were heading toward something like Hinduism (at least the Neo-Platonists sound very much like Indian philosophers at times, though that may have been because of direct influence). In both cultures, how philosophers thought about God and how the “common people” did were very different, but in Hinduism as it developed the two were much more interrelated, I think. The chasm between philosophers and “hoi polloi” in the Greco-Roman world was perhaps one of the reasons Christianity “won.”
The big difference I see between Hinduism and the “Abrahamic” traditions is that it has no conception of idolatry. There are forms of worship that are “lower”–addressed to “impure” gods for purely material ends. But they aren’t seen as being bad in the way we see idolatry as bad. So the polytheism/monotheism distinction (which is fundamentally about worship) doesn’t make any sense in terms of Hinduism, I think.
I could go on, but that’s enough of my ranting for now
Edwin
The thing to bear in mind with Hinduism is that it has followed a completely different trajectory and the “big questions” have been asked independently of the way they’ve been asked in our own cultural tradition. It looks as if maybe ancient Greco-Roman religions were heading toward something like Hinduism (at least the Neo-Platonists sound very much like Indian philosophers at times, though that may have been because of direct influence). In both cultures, how philosophers thought about God and how the “common people” did were very different, but in Hinduism as it developed the two were much more interrelated, I think. The chasm between philosophers and “hoi polloi” in the Greco-Roman world was perhaps one of the reasons Christianity “won.”
The big difference I see between Hinduism and the “Abrahamic” traditions is that it has no conception of idolatry. There are forms of worship that are “lower”–addressed to “impure” gods for purely material ends. But they aren’t seen as being bad in the way we see idolatry as bad. So the polytheism/monotheism distinction (which is fundamentally about worship) doesn’t make any sense in terms of Hinduism, I think.
I could go on, but that’s enough of my ranting for now
Edwin
B
billcu1
Guest
Well all these different religions look different on the outside. The God of Noah from the beginning of this creation is the God we all worship. These beliefs all come from him and his sons anyway. People of different races and classes need different teachings though. If you look a hinduism your going to find similar stories about a flood just with a different spin. I hope I’m clear. We all come from the same loins.“Panentheism” is actually defined in a number of ways–a case can be made that St. Thomas Aquinas and most traditional Christian theologians were panentheistic. Whether panentheism has to involve an “impersonal” God is questionable, as is the term “impersonal” itself, which, again, can mean a lot of things. Christians do not, after all, believe that God is a Person, since we believe he is three Persons
The thing to bear in mind with Hinduism is that it has followed a completely different trajectory and the “big questions” have been asked independently of the way they’ve been asked in our own cultural tradition. It looks as if maybe ancient Greco-Roman religions were heading toward something like Hinduism (at least the Neo-Platonists sound very much like Indian philosophers at times, though that may have been because of direct influence). In both cultures, how philosophers thought about God and how the “common people” did were very different, but in Hinduism as it developed the two were much more interrelated, I think. The chasm between philosophers and “hoi polloi” in the Greco-Roman world was perhaps one of the reasons Christianity “won.”
The big difference I see between Hinduism and the “Abrahamic” traditions is that it has no conception of idolatry. There are forms of worship that are “lower”–addressed to “impure” gods for purely material ends. But they aren’t seen as being bad in the way we see idolatry as bad. So the polytheism/monotheism distinction (which is fundamentally about worship) doesn’t make any sense in terms of Hinduism, I think.
I could go on, but that’s enough of my ranting for now
Edwin
J
jimkhong
Guest
I think it depends on which Hindu you talk to. In my country, there are lots of Hindus with whom we interact a lot.
If you talk to the less educated Hindus, they tend to talk of God in terms of the various gods (‘dewa’) that they have - Siva, Kali, etc.
The more educated Hindus tend to refer to God in their everyday language like we would - a person who oversee their lives and guide it, irrespective of the many manifestations (Siva, Kali, etc) God may have.
If you talk to the less educated Hindus, they tend to talk of God in terms of the various gods (‘dewa’) that they have - Siva, Kali, etc.
The more educated Hindus tend to refer to God in their everyday language like we would - a person who oversee their lives and guide it, irrespective of the many manifestations (Siva, Kali, etc) God may have.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
…might “henotheism” be a better word than “monotheism” here?
G
Gloria_de_G
Guest
Here is a post about Hinduism versus Christianity, Catholicism.
**forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=837017&page=2
**
see at post #28
May be you will be interest to see where Hinduism stands with respect to Christianity, and how it is nonsense to even mention a word like Zen-Catholic, this is pure heresy if anything.
In the love of God,
Gloria
.
V
Viewer
Guest
Both would work fine
There are Hindus that believe all deities to be only “faces” or “aspects” of one supreme deity (often female when I’ve come across it in writing) but others who view them as individuals who would as readily accept the existence of Anubis as Vishnu.Gloria…Your post was very interesting and thought provoking but I’m not entirely sure how it applies to me, I don’t worship any Hindu deities or Ashera
N
nmgauss
Guest
Where is the distinction made between Brah’man (pronounced BRAHman ) and Brahman’ (pronounced BrahMAN)? Also, Brahmins enter the picure somewhere.
P
Philomath
Guest
There’s no such thing as “Brah’man”( as spelled with an apostrophe) I think you may be confusing the creator God Brahma with Brahman. Brahmins are Hindu priests.
N
nmgauss
Guest
There are no central authoritative figures in Hinduism who tell people what to believe. Thus there is no attempt at unity. There is tradition that varies from place to place. That is why it is difficult to pin down what exactly is Hinduism.
R
RPRPsych
Guest
This is quite correct. “Folk” Hinduism is often conceptualized in terms of local or village deities and polytheism, with temple worship framed accordingly. Among the more educated or priestly classes, there is a closer approach to monotheism.
J
jimkhong
Guest
Very true, that is why we can only speak of tendencies. The various strands of Hinduism can be so much more varied than Christianity. There are dewa with cults and there are those without. There are Hindu schools of thought with written scriptures and there are those who eschew them. Etc, etc, etc. Then, over lay on top of these strands, schools of thoughts and traditions, you need to ask whether you are talking about the Hindu scholar, the considered thoughts of educated Hindus, common ritual practices or mythologies & stories. Each of these permutations can give a different perspective to Hinduism for a person schooled in Western Catholic logic.
You see, Indian philosophy is radically different from the Aristotlean philosophy Westerners are exposed to and it is difficult to define Hinduism using the definitions and the spectrum used by Westerners. In that sense, Hinduism is both monotheistic and polytheistic, to answer the OP. I know it is a hedging kind of answer but it really depends on who you ask and which part of the religious aspect you are talking about: I think it is fair to say that there is no exact counter-part in Hinduism to Aquanian or Leonian theology that will explain the nature of deity to a Westerner. If anything, Hindu philosophy (I am avoiding using the term theology with its loaded meaning to Westerners) is closer to Orthodoxy, which do not try to define concepts too much.
I think there could be a distinction of Brahma as the cosmic conciousness and Brahma as a member of the Hindu Trinity (to use a Western term but highly misleading due to the different way of the three persons inter-relate to each other as well as the fact that there are more manifestation than just three). The former is gender neutral and the latter is masculine & can be worshiped (but strangely usually not).
The term ‘Brahman’ may be the adjective meaning ‘to do with Brahma’?
To add, Brahmin is also the highest caste in Hinduism. Sadly, many Indian Catholics do make caste distinction in the church and there are some churches in India that had pews reserved for Brahmins, a practice frowned upon by the hierarchy but hard to stamp out. Really, isn’t a Brahmin Catholic a contradiction in terms?
P
Philomath
Guest
Brahman and Brahma are two different things. Brahma is a member of the Hindu trinity which you’ve correctly stated. Brahman is the supreme reality from which Brahma was spawned out. The term ‘Brahman’ is not the adjective meaning 'to do with Brahma. The word Brahman comes from the Sanskrit verb root brh, meaning “to grow”. Etymologically, the term means “that which grows” (Brhati) and “which causes to grow” (Brhmayati).
J
jimkhong
Guest
Thanks for the correction. I am not very good with distinction of Sanskrit words - to an English-speaker, they all sound the same and I don’t think Romanised spelling gives justices to the little nuances (try it with Chinese and it is even worse
).
P
Philomath
Guest
It’s no problemThanks for the correction. I am not very good with distinction of Sanskrit words - to an English-speaker, they all sound the same and I don’t think Romanised spelling gives justices to the little nuances (try it with Chinese and it is even worse
C
Counterpoint
Guest
I would say that “SatChitAnanda” sounds like God.
J
jimkhong
Guest
Not exactly, the closest equivalent to the Catholic being called God is Brahma/Brahman (the former is similar to ‘God the Father’ and the latter as in ‘God Creator’. Please note that there is no exact equivalent for the terminology and I suggest we do not even try. You have to understand Hinduism based on its own construct and not based on Catholic ones.
SatChitAnanda (there are variations in the Romanised spelling) is the description of the experience of Brahman. It comprises three separate words: Sat, Chit and Ananda, which roughly translate as what openmind77 mentioned, existence, consciousness, and bliss respectively.
Some schools of thought hold that SatChitAnanda can be encountered/used/controlled during yoga. It is definitely not God.
C
Contarini
Guest
But as you say below, SatChitAnanda is a way of describing Brahman.
Brahma and Brahman are radically different, and Brahma has only superficial similarities with the orthodox understanding of God.
I note that you say “the Catholic being called God,” which is a terribly inaccurate description of the orthodox understanding of God in the first place. In Catholic teaching, God isn’t a being, and certainly not “a Catholic being.”
Brahma is born and dies, over and over again. Brahma is not worshiped much. In developed forms of Hinduism, he’s fairly unimportant, really, although it seems as though he was once much more important.
That particular understanding isn’t, sure. But SatChitAnanda describes pretty well what Christians understand the basic characteristics of God to be, and some would even say that the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity maps pretty well onto this concept (particularly the “Western” model of the Trinity as opposed to the “social Trinity” model). Certainly it’s a better analogy than the superficially appealing analogy between the Trinity and “Trimurti” (Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva).
Edwin
C
Counterpoint
Guest
Catholicism actually identifies God with existence or being itself (ipsum esse) as well as with the absolute truth (“sat” is typically translated as “truth” or “being”).
“God is the only being whose essence is existence itself.” - St. Thomas Aquinas
“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life.” - John 14:6
The Christian would describe (and experience) God as “love” rather than “bliss.” (This sounds like a distinction without a difference. The divine attributes are actually all one and the same.) Of course, this presupposes consciousness.
“He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.” - 1 John 4:8
God is “the unchanging reality amidst and beyond the world.”
God “cannot be exactly defined” (ineffable).
Para Brahman is definitely God.
In New Testament terms, the lower self or ego is the “carnal” or “natural” self and the higher or true self is the “spiritual” self or “Christ.”
- Status