One God theology --- where did it originate

[VitalOne]

You're clearly wrong.

The pop Hinduism being sold to the westerners by a few 'sects' (e.g. ISCKON) do show Hinduism as monotheist, and try to proselytise Christian style. But it is against the spirit of Hinduism or other great ancient spiritual traditions.

Monotheism is not exactly the same as saying there is one god with several forms (all of 33 million gods and goddesses). And there is no scope for nature worshipping in a monotheistic religion.

Monotheism is a negative term, that is responsible for the downfall of spirituality and the rise of religion (especially as a socio-political phenomen)

Hinduism is very accomodative of new ideas and sects, in fact there is no controlling 'church' or authority, and this means that anyone can represent Hinduism or start a sect claiming to represent Hinduism. Using this many sects have opened shops in the west that try to gain converts by projecting Hinduism in a typical Christian style. The main objective is money and power that comes with it.

No, you're clearly wrong, really really wrong.

Hinduism is monotheistic, monotheistic meaning by definition "The doctrine or belief that there is only one God".....How is it against the spirit of Hinduism to be monotheistic? That is all that Hinduism teaches, there is only one (narayana).

Fools translate the term "devas" to mean God, when it does not. They think Krishna is a God, Hanuman is a God, Shiva is a God, etc...however it is not like that at all if you read the actual Hindu scriptures.

You are also wrong in saying that Hinduism says there is one God with many forms. It does not say that, it says there is one separate, independant, "God" (narayana), that only exists.

"All states of being--be they of goodness, passion or ignorance--are manifested by My energy. I am, in one sense, everything--but I am independent. I am not under the modes of this material nature." - (BG 7.12)

Ofcourse, Hinduism does say that God is everything, but you incorrectly state it as if all the "33 million" devas are the forms of God, making it seem as if everything else is not a form of God. In Hinduism, everything is a form of God, from the 5 senses, thought, to a rock, to the sky, to the devas, to stage of deep sleep, yet "God" is not everything.

Krishna explains it like this:
"Gold alone is present before its manufacture into gold products, the gold alone remains after the products’ destruction, and the gold alone is the essential reality while it is being utilized under various designations. Similarly, I alone exist before the creation of this universe, after its destruction and during its maintenance" - (SB 11.28.19)

That explains how "God" is everything, yet separate from everything.

If anyone reads Hindu scriptures, they'll find them to be monotheistic in nature, virtually EVERY Hindu scripture supports the stance that there is only one. For instance, if someone even reads the Puranas, you'll find many of them state that you should worship only one deity. However, almost NO ONE actually reads the scriptures.

There are many anti-polytheistic verses in Hinduism, for instance Krishna states:
"Men of small intelligence worship the devas, and their fruits are limited and temporary. Those who worship the devas go to the planets of the devas, but My devotees ultimately reach My supreme planet." - (BG 7.23)

You are right that the concept of God is different in Hinduism. In Hinduism, "God" is described as the supersoul, the absolute truth, the origin of existence, "all that is", etc...Krishna states that there are an infinite number of ways to describe God.

I do not know what you're talking about how people market Hinduism as monotheistic, no marketing is neccessary, just read the Hindu Scriptures and find out yourself.......

"Hinduism" is an incorrect term, depending on which scripture you read, it may support atheism, monotheism, polytheism, or even pantheism.

The bottom line, Hinduism has the earliest teachings of monotheism (preceding Judeo-Christianity), therefore monotheism originated in Hinduism...right?

 

[duendy]

While, what you're saying is not really wrong --- the 'karma' thing may be abused to manipulate people (the lack of an authoritative power, is a great relief though!), poverty in itself is not bad.

me))))))hmmm, but i very much see the karma doctrine AS an authoratative power. in rthis case claiming theuniverse is some kind of machine that dishes out punismehnts and rewards.

I think you can't really love nature if you hate poverty. Because wealth and especially luxury comes from exploiting and harming nature. As long as man is 'poor' he will keep his connection with the nature.

me)))))))no i dont believe this. why ashould anyone be expected to love poverty, which means 'lack'. pverty is a CURSE. it destroys one's being. it is causwed by peoplee exploiting others.
however i am NOT wishing for everyone to be middle class, with a SUV in te drive----all that crap. not at all. there is term i love which is abundance. thismeans that when we realize how wondrful this Earth is is when we can live abundantly. grow the food we want, live intelligently with Nature. for me that isn't poverty

Such a vast human population cannot be afforded a rich life for all, without ruining forests for agriculture, polluting the air with factories and vehicles, and so on and so forth. The Karma thing does help psychologically --- whether it is true or not to deal with or to accept one's fate. But not before doing your bit --- that is also Karma --- i.e. your action in this birth to change your situation. What the philosophy says is do your bit (present Karma) and leave it at that. Don't get attached to the results, because you have no control over them. They say your past karma will determine your results. It helps not to fight with your fate psychologically, when you can't control it. I've tried it myself.

me)))))))no sorry Buddha1. i have no trust in such belief. why should i when it an justify inequality. why should theperson in poverty not want to NOT be exploited?? all tis karma belief does is in-timid-ate theporr into accepting the shitty end of te stick, like Christianity des in its turn wit its so-called glorification of poverty, in SOME...interpretations. thewse ae all social controllingpropagandas to make teporr accept their exploitation

But, I think the idea of being punished for things committed in the past life does seem absurd and unfair.

well tat is central to te karmic doctrtine, which is also why i throw it out

 

[duendy]

I believe men can become god like through an exceptionally spiritualistic and exemplary life. That was part of the idea of deity worship, when exemplary figures were turned into gods.

me))))))))sorry, i have to challenge you here too. i find the idea men can become gods abhorrent and dangerous theory. reallymit fits in the eugenics---ie., the idea that some people are superior t others. i just wont hafve some inflated pereson claiming to me they are near OR god. NOT. i will let them haveit if they do....hehe

As far as Hinduism is concerned --- it's base is nature and deity worship (paganism) but it has gone through a lot of changes and influences over all these years (after all its the oldest living spiritual/ religious system). Most, but not all of the latter influences have been for the worse.

me))))))))it is interesting to note Hinduism forbids psychedelic experimentation---tho admitedly some Shiva cults smoke Bhang, but enerally psyhedelic mushrooms are demonized.
Also -as you pointed out-the base of Hinduism is patriarchal belief structure, much based on the Adviata Vednta which claims Nature is an 'illusion/Maya' and 'a 'seductress/delusion'--so clearly again we see tis FEAR of Nature. which aint a good thing at all

Around the same time that Christianity was taking birth to manipulate spirituality and people's faith in worship/ god, Hinduism too underwent important changes that were meant to control people (including their sexuality). There were several negative things that happened (including the caste system). But the good thing was that there was no Church like authority, and the basic structure remained that of a pagan religion. Thus it remained a flowing and changing system, that allowed people to learn and change according to new influences and information. Which means that if you have new idea or want to rejuvenate the spiritual (or social) system, you still have the power, as an individual to do it --- if you are capable and gifted that is.

me)))))))yes ---te last part of your sentence being the operative tems. IF.....you happen to be a 'guru' with a 'pure births lineage'. ctually the authoritarianism is tese little pyramids of guru at top and followers beneath!

Afterall, Buddha did come from Hinduism. He had the gift and power to change this world for the better.

me))))))and did it/has it happened...???

There have been several negative influences from Christianity and Islam, but the potential remains for a true spiritual leader to rejuvenate the system.

'
i feel we simply cannotdepend on leaders no more. all that is a scam. te idea we are children in need of 'leaders'

 

[duendy]

Cause and effect.

me)))))))yes. like i said. you eat too much you get fat. that we know. but from there te karma doctrine justifies someone living in poverty thru birth and someone living in luxury via birth. this is a massive extrapolation from natural cause n effect. it is social controlling propaganda, it cannot be proven neither!

I can only judge myself. My life is 100% suffering and it will be so until I die. Karma is not punishment or reward, it's teaching.

me)))))))so you've been told. look, of course we can learn from life changes. sure. but to justify oppression by this hogwash is another thing entirely. can you not see it is propaganda. they can come an rape you and claim thats yer karma!!!

But in the end, life and karma is "unfair". I didn't choose to exist, yet I exist. It's not my fault. It's not Hitler's fault that he was like he was, yet he will receive bad karma for it. There are no evil humans, there are only ignorant humans.

me))))again....like te mental illness myth, tis karmic 'exolanation absolves te individual of reponsibility. like as in 'oh i didn't know whati was doing' and 'it is my karma'


Karma exists because of attachment to things. It's because of our mind. When we learn to do things without attachment, when we live in the present moment, we will not receive karma anymore.

me)))))))ohhh i'e heard this time n agin. has it happened fo you??...las i said. karma really just means 'doing'--ie., action. are you telling me action can stop..??

But life is eternal. Buddha, Jesus, Moses, and many others attained "perfection", but for what good? Suffering still exists. What does it help that every human being on earth defeats suffering, it still exists on other planets, and life always comes back, it is impossible to destroy it.

me)))))your conundrum is your belief that there have been people who have been 'perfect'. i am NOT beliving this. itis false. there is no such thingas static perfection. you cannot have one-sided reality.

In the end, there might be no way out of here. It's possible that sin is never-ending and the only hope is "false" hope.

me)))pagin the one-wsided cage of thinking. why ONLY sin. sometimes ther e is 'sin' and then not. sometimes your bored then not. its the ROUNDof experiential potential which is lifedeahregeneration. your..pain/discofort is you wanting to escape from your very self which is Nature. how can you escape from your self??




Past lives have been proven many times by people who have remembered. Karma was taught by people who knew that it existed, but today it's no longer understood the same way.

me))))))))yu trust all that, i dont. it doesn't make sense to me to say 'i' had 'past life' for what i AM is me NOW. tis dynamic process



That is karma.

~ the gravestonewitch

that is your belief structure...which i have o say c7 doesn't seem to make yu very happy

 

[Buddha1]

me)))))))no i dont believe this. why ashould anyone be expected to love poverty, which means 'lack'. pverty is a CURSE. it destroys one's being. it is causwed by peoplee exploiting others.
however i am NOT wishing for everyone to be middle class, with a SUV in te drive----all that crap. not at all. there is term i love which is abundance. thismeans that when we realize how wondrful this Earth is is when we can live abundantly. grow the food we want, live intelligently with Nature. for me that isn't poverty

I have a special fondness for poor people. They have a charisma a zest for life missing in richer people.

I grew up in a family which had a long period of financial hardships (even though we were not poor) --- spanning my entire childhood and adolescence. But that made us really a close-knit family. I remember my 8 or 9 year old sister getting the goodies she got in school back in the house to share with everyone.

This closeness weakened as we got better off. With wealth we kept getting more and more individualistic and distanced from each other. But even today the closeness that we share with each other is more than other people of our social 'status' have. Amongst my siblings, I was the one who left the pursuit of wealth for the pursuit of knowledge. And I feel much closer to the others and to the basic family unit than the rest do.

When I went out to work in a small town --- closer to nature, I made friends with young men from the lower middle class. I cherished the closeness and warmth they had. I did not like the company of richer people, who thought it was odd that I would mix with the gentry, because they were vain, pretentious and 'sophisticated' --- something i don't appreciate.

We tend to think that humans should have a particular level of lifestyle, which is a misplaced concern. I remember when my mother saw a programme on discovery channel with naked and semi-clad people living in jungles, she was very concerned for them. She wondered why their governments don't help them. I tried to tell her that they were people living with nature. How I wish I could live like that --- one with the nature.

 

[Buddha1]

it is interesting to note Hinduism forbids psychedelic experimentation---tho admitedly some Shiva cults smoke Bhang, but enerally psyhedelic mushrooms are demonized.
Also -as you pointed out-the base of Hinduism is patriarchal belief structure, much based on the Adviata Vednta which claims Nature is an 'illusion/Maya' and 'a 'seductress/delusion'--so clearly again we see tis FEAR of Nature. which aint a good thing at all
'

Maya, does not refer to nature. Maya refers to the materialistic world. Leaving Maya infact means leaving the materialistic world, often including the society, and living like an ascetic together with the nature.

I don't think what you're saying amounts to a fear of nature --- neither in Buddhism nor in Hinduism.

The roots of Hinduism may actually go much earlier than the patriarchy came --- in paganism. In fact, to be frank I don't really gel with the word 'patriarchy'. It sounds biased against the man/ masculinity and has probably been invented by the feminists.

 

[Buddha1]

'
i feel we simply cannotdepend on leaders no more. all that is a scam. te idea we are children in need of 'leaders'

The average human being is so engrossed in his worldly affairs, in making both the ends meet, in raising his family, that he does not have the time to look after his or the humankind's larger interests or to seek spirituality or knowledge on his own. Humans (and I guess animals too) need leaders in various fields, including leaders who sacrifice their own personal needs to work for the humanity as a whole.

We are all born with our own special talents (like dinosaur was saying in a different thread). There is a very ancient saying in my society, which also acknowlegdged this. Some of us are born artists. Some born actors. Some born players. Some born businessmen. And some are gifted with the ability to be spiritual. If this person decides to sacrifice his personal life, in order to help the spiritually not so gifted benefit from spirituality, he would be known as a spiritual leader and I think is needed.

I'll have a better grasp of your position if I knew what psychedelic sacrament is all about!

 

[c7ityi_]

but from there te karma doctrine justifies someone living in poverty thru birth and someone living in luxury via birth. this is a massive extrapolation from natural cause n effect.

karma is true, but because people are material and personal, it has become "social controlling propaganda"

if we didn't think, it would do no harm.

me)))))))so you've been told.

no, i've not been told so, that's how i think it is.

me))))again....like te mental illness myth, tis karmic 'exolanation absolves te individual of reponsibility. like as in 'oh i didn't know whati was doing' and 'it is my karma'

That's what I said, the belief in karma creates karma. It makes so that people think they're not responsible for anything.

karma really just means 'doing'--ie., action. are you telling me action can stop..??

Yes, if there is no "doer", if there is no self. The death of the personal self is nirvana, isn't it?

there is no such thingas static perfection. you cannot have one-sided reality.

It isn't one-sided. It is like a coin. A coin appears to have two sides, yet it is still one wholeness, and only the whole is real, not the sides.

So, if we can't become perfect (nothing), what is your vision? What will humans evolve into? What is the goal? Will suffering never end? Is there no hope? We just have to endure the same shit every day?

how can you escape from your self??

Because I am non-existent.

it doesn't make sense to me to say 'i' had 'past life' for what i AM is me NOW. tis dynamic process

Of course, we don't usually remember our past lives since we get a new brain and body and stuff, but young children often remember. There is no past or future, there is only the presence, which is non-existent, because it has no duration. Everything exists now. There is only one self, but it clothes itself in many bodies.

The feeling of "I am" will never stop... so I can never die. We are the same being, all of us. Not just humans, everything. It's all "me"

that is your belief structure...which i have o say c7 doesn't seem to make yu very happy

What I believe has nothing to do with my happiness. I don't believe things to make me happy, I believe them if they're true! I know that "nothing" can make me happy. Non-existence is paradise.

 

[Buddha1]

well tat is central to te karmic doctrtine, which is also why i throw it out

Well, eventhough I am not quite comfortable with the idea of being punished for a crime committed in the past life, or even to be rewarded for some good done in the past life, I do believe that people can take birth again after they die --- i.e. the concept of reincarnation.

I myself am supposed to have known about my past birth and used to talk about it till I was about 2 1/2 years old. I remember one such 'flash' where I'm telling my aunt about how I drowned in the water and and came up again (in this birth).

One of my aunt (another one) says that I actually remembered a lot of details about my past life, and that I even remembered about my sons, my wife, my home address etc. She says, my father wrote these guys a letter and they confirmed it. According to my aunt, my father did not want to pursue this so he did not pursue it further. I am supposed to have forgotten everything about this as I grew older.

My father absolutely denies this, so does my mother. My aunt had told me not to tell my father as he did not want me to know. I don't know who to believe.

 

[Anomalous]

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=51990