Talk:Hindu views on monotheism

message: "Hinduism is totally a Monotheistic..."
Please!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.197 (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: American Teenspeak

message: Like Samkhya and Mimamsa?  They'd probably have a rejecting view of monotheism  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.53.86 (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the Atheistic branches of Hinduism 

message: Where is the talk section about the factual accuracy thing posted on this article?
Infact I'm moving a big chunk of the overview, as it doesn't seem to be an overview but more of a essay piece.
In the very first book of the Rig Veda, 1:164:46 states,
:
:Truth is One, but sages call upon God by many names.
The main theme and focus of the Upanishads is Brahman, a monad or universal substrate, which is the divine ground of all being. In contrast to Abrahamic concept of God as a transcendent-only entity and aloof from a one-time 6-day creation, the very basis of Hinduism is God as both transcendent and immanent. Monotheistic theology is an inherent part of Hinduism. Hinduism is not dry monotheism though, and is often characterized as monistic theism, panentheism, and transtheism by scholars, although often misunderstood as polytheism usually in the West for lack of understanding of the depth of philosophies. There are many forms of God, i.e., Vishnu, Shiva, or Devi which merely represent aspects or expansions of a single underlying divinity, Brahman (also see Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman).
Krishna says to Arjuna, To deliver the pious and to annihilate miscreants, as well as to reestablish principles of religion, I Myself appear, millennium after millennium. (Gita 4.8)
Thus a poignant argument ridiculing mundane Abrahamic monotheistic belief systems is that if an omnipotent God with infinite capabilities descends in various divine forms millennium after millennium, then it is childish to view the diverse descents as polytheism.
Krishna further says to Arjuna, I am all that is unmanifest and manifest. (Gita 9.19)
To Hindus, God is One. To say that there is only one God is to reduce God to a unit of measure. God is a Unity, not a unit. God is One, i.e. a Unity inclusive of all things, manifest and unmanifest. God is everything, God is in everything, and everything is in God only. The whole of creation is the body (the manifestation) which cannot be separated from God Who is Satcitananda - The Infinite Eternal Existence Bliss. God is not one as in enumeration, but the Infinite One as in the cause of all causes.
The Vedic pantheon comprises clans of anthropomorphic celestial deities as well as deified natural phenomena. The two classes of Vedic gods, Devas and Asuras are celestial gods, and not to be confused with Divine forms of God worshiped by the Hindus. Even in the Vedic period, monotheism was a given along with a panentheistic view in mind. As one scholar has said, "Hinduism includes both monism and monotheism. It is misleading to call Abrahamic religions as 'the monotheistic traditions' trying to imply that monotheism is absent in Eastern traditions". Vedanta includes many monotheistic schools with a strong emphasis on the pre-eminence of a Supreme Deity, while also accepting other forms of a personal God as divine descents, expansions, aspects, or incarnations of the Divine.
Heart of Hinduism: Vedanta and Mimamsa
Faro0485 (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual accuracy? 

message: I have taken aback by the dispute here, considering its theme - The One! Though I don't have ready solutions for any, I can suggest stepping within, deep in the stillness of our own hearts, it shall all be clear, whether All IS One or One is all.  
In the end, all concepts (of the Mind) are simply games, leelas of the divine, through his infiniteMaya, so sadhu Beware! 
I pick up a drop from the Ocean and in each I see the One! --Ekabhishek (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: All fighting over One

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: So, apparently your God is way, way more of a nice guy (after all, God just HAS to be a man) than the deities, whether a God or a Goddess, that I pray to each morning like my mother and father and their mothers and fathers before them. 
Now that that's out of the way, I propose the following change:
Original sentence:
The deities in Hinduism are not considered to be almighty, omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, and spirituality is considered to be seeking the ultimate truth that is possible by a number of paths.
My proposed revision:
The deities in Hinduism are not considered to be omnipotent or omniscient, and spirituality is considered to be seeking the ultimate truth that is possible by a number of paths.
Why remove the quip about my deities "apparent" (though not to me) inability to be "infinitely compassionate" like certain other figments of the imagination found outside India? Because of the citation used to assert this claim. The source of this pearl is "English Translations of Select Tracts, Published in India - Religious Texts", the work of one John Murdoch and published in 1861. The following excerpt (in fairness, the editor who included this citation also included the full excerpt):
 "We [monotheists] find by reason and revelation that God is omniscient, omnipotent, most holy, etc, but the Hindu deities possess none of those attributes. It is mentioned in their Shastras that their deities were all vanquished by the Asurs, while they fought in the heavens, and for fear of whom they left their abodes. This plainly shows that they are not omnipotent."
This excerpt is from that book's 17th chapter, entitled "Hindu Objections Refuted". The "objections", as Murdoch characterizes them, are reasoned and rational (or at least certainly no less so than made by Christian evangelists) protestations made by Hindus against their religion being villified by interlopers like Murdoch (the book was published four years after the First war of Indian Independence). But good ol' John can speak for himself, as he does in the very same chapter cited in the article:
"Since there are numerous Shastras and sects of religion, many of them were doubtless devised by some wicked men, like the forged notes; they are not given of God. Still, almost all people of different countries being deceived by Satan, receive them as true Shastras, because they say their forefathers have done likewise. Whether these are given of God or not, they do not think of it at all. In this respect the Hindus are to be blamed, because they do not even wish to examine those Shastras which have been considered by their ancestors as true." (Murdoch,  "English Translations of Select Tracts, Published in India - Religious Texts", p. 130)
In the above, "forged notes" refers to Murdoch's metaphor of the Hindu Shastras to an incident several years before, when vast sums of counterfeit East India currency entering the market with the resultant loss of confidence the population had in East India Company currency. Whether the note in their hands was "genuine" or not was immaterial. Obviously, Hinduism is counterfeit and what Mr. Murdoch practices is "the real deal". 
To sum it up: Perhaps, if we are sincere in our project to better understand and then convey Hindu views on monotheism (or anything else for that matter), we should resolve (Gods and Goddesses forbid!) that deferring to the poison of a 19th century anti-Hindu bigot may not be the most constructive avenue in our quest. Svabhiman (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The specific proposal seems very modest and reasonable to me; in the abscence of objections . Klbrain (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Svabhiman already removed Murdoch. I added two additional WP:RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Svabhiman. These scholars seem like blind men groping for an elephant. Let us attribute all such views instead of stating them as facts. Most Hindu gods are in fact omniscient and omnipotent. Some are not, by tradition. But there is always an effort to make them omniscient and omnipotent. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the "Omnibenevolence" (or lack thereof) of the Deities I pray to 

message: I can't access the sources to check them, but since when is omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence mandatory for monotheism?  Monotheism means belief that there is one god.  The rest is the common Western interpretation of their particular form of monetheism. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 09:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to a library! Please see WP:FORUM and WP:TPNO. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monotheism is the belief in a single creator God who is almighty, omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent