Hindu deities=1 God?

Hinduism, at least within the Advaita school, has no God at all.

Whatsoever you consider God, your notion will have attributes, and is thus Seguna.

Truth within Hinduism is Nirguna, without attributes, and its realization is Nirvana.

Whatsoever appears in consciousness is going to cease, including Ishvara, the Lord.

What does not come and go cannot be called God.

It is the source and destination of all.

That is called Brahman.

Your own personality and sense of self, too, is appearing and will dissolve back into that.

Thus, all is ultimately that same Brahman.

Some schools disagree with this, they say Krishna or something else is permanent.

This is due to their own fear of death, of ceasing.

Yet, that fear itself appears and will subside.

Truth is so whether we want to believe it or not.
 
Depends on the advaitin. Some call Brahman God. Some don't. But yes, advaitins are atheisic to the idea of a personal dualistic God.
 
Senthil said:
Depends on the advaitin. Some call Brahman God. Some don't. But yes, advaitins are atheisic to the idea of a personal dualistic God.
Click to expand...

Sort of misleading, I think.

Some mean Brahman when they say God, but they still mean Nirguna Brahman.

The various "Gods" like Shiva and Vishnu are more like the Abrahamic angel.

In this school, Yahweh would still be Ishvara because he talks and has desires, while truth is called Ain Sof (as far as I know, I have not studied the Abrahamic line so much, there might be something still prior, idk)

Still, it is monistic rather than monotheistic... you are the form of That, rather than projecting one out there somewhere.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Still, again, all forms cease.

Some beings might live longer, but ultimately remain temporal.

Ishvara is Seguna Brahman, God with attributes.

Those attributes cannot be absolute...

What is a Creator prior to Creation, for instance?

Yet, that is your essential nature, too.
 
It depends, I think, on what YOU mean by "God".

For the Advaitin, any God that is worshiped is never seen as the absolute.

It is only an intermediary step to realization if the practitioner feels devotional.

There is no truth in this entity, except that it arises from Brahman too.
 
Thomas said:
LOL, same with us! Roman or Orthodox Catholicism is strictly monotheist, the doctrines, dogmas, etc., are, the Catechism is ... but some of the popular devotions to the saints look 'suspicious' and Marian devotions even mores ... it's a popular accusation!

And as Karl Rahner, the famous 20th century Catholic theologian once said, interrogate people about their understandings of the Trinity and you'll find tritheism!

It's no problem really ... the faithful are not expected to be theologians.
Click to expand...

In Hinduism, the Trinity is represented via Brahman (Father), Paramatma (Holy Spirit) and Bhagwan (Son).

It is certainly not a new notion, yet doesn't exist in Jewish thought.

This is actually why so many view Jesus as having ventured into India during his "lost years".

Father would then be the eternal absolute.
Holy Spirit is the whole of creation.
Son is the particular form that has realized its nature.

I think the Christians have failed to understand their own doctrine.

Logos is Dharma.

What has been done with this is simply stupid.
 
Francis Earl said:
In Hinduism, the Trinity is represented via Brahman (Father), Paramatma (Holy Spirit) and Bhagwan (Son).
Click to expand...
Hardly surprising, as being the Cause of All the Trinity will manifest Itself more or less discreetly in and through all authentic religious inquiry and expression. Creation is, after all, Trinity-shaped.

Francis Earl said:
It is certainly not a new notion, yet doesn't exist in Jewish thought.
Click to expand...
As said, you'll find triunes everywhere, but there is no expression of the Trinity in any Tradition that matches the doctrine in its precise metaphysic.

Francis Earl said:
This is actually why so many view Jesus as having ventured into India during his "lost years".
Click to expand...
Oh, that's just some old tosh. Check around and He's been all over, India, Tibet, England, America ... again, people fail to comprehend the esoteric meaning of the so-called 'lost years'. They weren't lost, they were doing what normal people do ...

Francis Earl said:
Father then be the eternal absolute.
Holy Spirit is the whole of creation.
Son is the particular form that has realized its nature.
Click to expand...
Doesn't correspond to the Trinity, I'm afraid. The 'whole of creation' is created... the Holy Spirit in Uncreated and is before creation, ditto for the Son. It's a common error to confuse the Divine and human natures of the Son.

Francis Earl said:
I think the Christians have failed to understand their own doctrine.
Click to expand...
Not so sure about that. I think the Sat-Cit-Ananda as a close correspondence between Christian and Hindu doctrine.
 
Thomas said:
As said, you'll find triunes everywhere, but there is no expression of the Trinity in any Tradition that matches the doctrine in its precise metaphysic.
Click to expand...

Please show me an example in the Torah.
 
Thomas said:
Not so sure about that. I think the Sat-Cit-Ananda as a close correspondence between Christian and Hindu doctrine.
Click to expand...

You understand that cit means consciousness, and that it corresponds to "the whole of creation"?

Ananda is essentially the Christian notion of serenity... while sat means truth and is without attribute - nirguna Brahman is the only reality.
 
Francis Earl said:
You understand that cit means consciousness, and that it corresponds to "the whole of creation"?

Ananda is essentially the Christian notion of serenity... while sat means truth and is without attribute - nirguna Brahman is the only reality.
Click to expand...
Yes ... I know ... that's why I said it ... a correspondence.

The point is, your interpretation of trinitarian doctrine is inadequate and in sometimes just wrong:
Francis Earl said:
Father would then be the eternal absolute.
Click to expand...
So is the Son. So is the Holy Spirit.

Francis Earl said:
Holy Spirit is the whole of creation.
Click to expand...
No, creation is created nature. The Holy Spirit is not a created nature.

Francis Earl said:
Son is the particular form that has realized its nature.
Click to expand...
Not according to the Councils, specifically Chalcedon.
 
The realized being recognizes there is nothing but the eternal absolute...

Yet, from this nirguna Brahman comes creation...

Now there is seguna Brahman, known as paramatma... the absolute has attributes.

Once it is realized in a particular form, it is Bhagwan.

Perhaps you prefer to think of it is Jesus rather than Son.

Jesus was born of Mary in time... you cannot say the body of this man was there from the beginning of time.

Yet, his Nature is one with God, perfectly good.
 
The flaw, for me, in the Abrahamic notion of God, is that a creator depends creation...

It is already secondary, it has attributes, it is "creator".

Even the Bhagwan recognizes they are not any form or attribute appearing.

Of course, the Kabbalah corrects this, calling it Ain Sof...

This does not even appear to be recognized in trinitarian doctrine.
 
Of course, John seems to suggest that the Son is creator...

We can then suggest Father is Nirguna Brahman/Ain Sof, while Son is Seguna Brahman.

Jesus would still be Bhagwan in his earthly form, while Holy Spirit is perhaps his eternal form.

In the Dharma schools, however, the forms are not important.

What is important is the formless nature underlying all forms...

That is called Nirguna.

The Bible says in various places "be perfect, then, even as your Father is perfect".

For me, this is calling us to realize this Nirguna Brahman...

This recognition is Nirvana.
 
Francis Earl said:
The realized being recognizes there is nothing but the eternal absolute...
Click to expand...
Yes,we know. There's a vast body of theology on the topic you seem unaware of.

Francis Earl said:
Jesus was born of Mary in time... you cannot say the body of this man was there from the beginning of time.
Click to expand...
We don't. Perhaps that's something else you're unaware of.

Francis Earl said:
Yet, his Nature is one with God, perfectly good.
Click to expand...
Because He is God, as anything that is a nature, is its nature.
 
Francis Earl said:
The flaw, for me, in the Abrahamic notion of God, is that a creator depends creation...
Click to expand...
Well your flaw is yours. What you assume is not what we believe, your understanding is defective on this point.

Francis Earl said:
This does not even appear to be recognized in trinitarian doctrine.
Click to expand...
Then I can only say, for someone who speaks on the matter, your grasp of the doctrine is very shallow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top