Do Hindus really believe in more than one god?
- Thread starter Samd Ghost
- Start date
there are INFINITE GODS...
these gods are all parts of ONE GOD..
and this one god is so much beyond understanding that it can only be nothing...
so you can also say that there is NO GOD (everything is illusion/nothing)
all these 3 are true.
the real trinity of nothing: nothing, infinity and one
(0/infinity=1)
these gods are all parts of ONE GOD..
and this one god is so much beyond understanding that it can only be nothing...
so you can also say that there is NO GOD (everything is illusion/nothing)
all these 3 are true.
the real trinity of nothing: nothing, infinity and one
(0/infinity=1)
according to Hinduism, god is EVERYTHING (at the same time when it's nothing and only 1), so we are also "god".
but god is just a word. empty word. like any other word. nothing.
Yorda listen to me I am The God....From now on I tell you what to do! Go and do good deeds forever as long as you live! This are my wishes.
There is very little you can say (if anything) is true "according to Hinduism".
Hinduism, once you get past all the different sectarian schools of belief, still allows for VAST personal interpretation.
The best you can do is say, "according to many Hindus" or "according to (this or that) school of Hinduism" or "the Vedas says this..."
Not much is applicable to all Hunduism.
Krishna existed...
Ummmm...
The Vedas are true...
Ummmm...
...
The Gita is important (not even that it is "true" or "historically accurate", just that it is important)...
IceAgeCivilizations:
You're worse than black supremascist revisionist history.
Vishnu = Fish nu = Global flood?
Puh-lease.
But as noted, Brahman is the Upanishadic name of God. Brahman is contrasted with Atman, the Soul, which is held to be substantially the same as Brahman. Hence the goal of Hinduism is to merge Atman with Brahman, to attain moksha (release). To in essence, submerge into the greater totality of God.
You're worse than black supremascist revisionist history.
Vishnu = Fish nu = Global flood?
Puh-lease.
But as noted, Brahman is the Upanishadic name of God. Brahman is contrasted with Atman, the Soul, which is held to be substantially the same as Brahman. Hence the goal of Hinduism is to merge Atman with Brahman, to attain moksha (release). To in essence, submerge into the greater totality of God.
Last edited:
Well firstly there really is no such thing as "Hinduism"....but someone can be Hindu and be atheistic, agnostic, pantheistic, monotheistic, and polytheistic.....
Brahm or Brahman did not really mean an impersonal form of God to the Hindus it was just a term for the absolute, reality itself....
God is everything, yet not everything, he is the origin of everything, the absolute truth, the basis of all, and therefore nothing can exist without him, so he is everything, but he himself is not everything, because he himself is unchanging, unborn, eternal, etc...like a gold necklace is gold but gold itself is not a necklace
The devas or Gods of Hinduism aren't really all a part of one thing, that would be incorrect to say, its more like reality cannot exist without God....
The highest things in Hinduism differ according to the sects it could be Brahm, Ishvar, Vishnu, Narayana, Para-atman, or Shiva
Brahm or Brahman did not really mean an impersonal form of God to the Hindus it was just a term for the absolute, reality itself....
God is everything, yet not everything, he is the origin of everything, the absolute truth, the basis of all, and therefore nothing can exist without him, so he is everything, but he himself is not everything, because he himself is unchanging, unborn, eternal, etc...like a gold necklace is gold but gold itself is not a necklace
The devas or Gods of Hinduism aren't really all a part of one thing, that would be incorrect to say, its more like reality cannot exist without God....
The highest things in Hinduism differ according to the sects it could be Brahm, Ishvar, Vishnu, Narayana, Para-atman, or Shiva
Princie, Vishnu was the fish who guided Manu's vessel, and Manu was accompanied by the seven rishis, just like Noah had seven people with him, and Manu had three sons, Sharma (Shem), Charma (Ham), and Iapeti (Japheth), so if you can't see that Manu is Noah, then I've got some oceanfront property in Mongolia for you.
IceAgeCivilizations:
Vishnu is a God who has taken 8 avatars. He is not simply a fish that helped Manu.
Also, it is far more likely that Noah is Vishnu. Considering the Jews took the story from the Babylonians, which were influenced by Indo-Europeans (and influenced Indo-Europeans) around them.
Vishnu is a God who has taken 8 avatars. He is not simply a fish that helped Manu.
Also, it is far more likely that Noah is Vishnu. Considering the Jews took the story from the Babylonians, which were influenced by Indo-Europeans (and influenced Indo-Europeans) around them.
How do you know the line of the Jews supposedly took the story from the Babylonians? Remember, Sharma (Shem), Charma (Ham), Iapeti (Japheth), and Manu (Noah) all survived the Deluge, so the lines of the Hindus, the Bablyonians, and the Jews all learned the story, and bastardizations of it, from the same group of people, the survivors of the Deluge.
IceAgeCivilizations:
The Jews came from Babylon (Abraham).
The Babylonians had an older flood story (we have the tablets).
The Jews took pagan deities to make their monotheistic God.
The Jews came from Babylon (Abraham).
The Babylonians had an older flood story (we have the tablets).
The Jews took pagan deities to make their monotheistic God.
You're wrong - given that the Sumerian flood story predates the biblical one by over a millennia and a half, (1,500 years).
You can see the massive influence Sumerian stories have had in the bible.. The Garden of Eden, (from Sumerian E-din meaning house of purity), was in Sumeria, (as shown in the bible), Abraham - the very founder of the jews - was Sumerian etc etc..
yeah... you can't say "according to christianity" either.
every 2 billion christians interpret the bible differently.
so there is not just one christianity, there are 2 billion.
The stories were learned from Sharma, Charma, Iapeti, and Manu, some renditions were truer than others.
No they were not.
These people were not historical.
These people were not historical.
Yes, there are approximately 30,000 different Protestant Christian sects.
I'm not sure what your point is.
It would be wrong to say, "Christians believe this way" about a lot of things in Christianity too, which is why I try not to say that.
There are quite a few things in common among Christian sects.
However, saying "According to MANY Christians...", "Accoring to Southern Baptist beliefs..." or "The New Testament says..."
The same as if you are talking about Hinduism.
That said, Hinduism leaves a lot more open to personal interpretation than Christianity in general without the necessity to form distinct seperate sects.
If you choose to believe Mara was real, yet Hanuman was just a fable, that's just fine.
If you choose to believe that Jesus was real, yet the Apostles were just fables, you have to form your own sect of Christianity.
I suspect the difference comes partly from Christianity having the Roman Catholic megalith behind it making "rules" to rebel and protest against.