Talk:Hindu views on monotheism

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

Don't merge
Don't merge with Hinduism. Every time I write a section on this, it gets deleted. This should be a separate article like Karma in Hinduism.

Raj2004 12:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I question this comment Hindus all believe in one God but differ in their conceptions. as there are branches of Hindu Philosophy which apparantly do not believe in one god

Indeed, the Vedas are absolutely polytheistic.141.213.185.150 23:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * To say that the Vedas are polytheistic is to flaunt your ignorance and simple approach to life. Unlike Abrahamic scriptures which give absolutes, Hindu scriptures are a little more vague. All the other revealed scripture such as the Upanishads commentate on the Vedas and say that there is one supreme soul and that by worshiping the 33 Hindu Devatas, one is really worship the Supreme Inner Self that those souls are a part of (and that we are apart of) - the Inner Self that transcends all as the Supreme Almighty and that is immanent as the All-Pervading Supreme Force. Even the Vedas state this.
 * We call this Inner self Brahman ("Male"). Brahman (consciousness) is the potential form of Shakti ("Female"), or Divine Energy. Maya (divided into ignorant and intelligent) is the kinetic form of Shakti. All Hindu scriptures state this - they just simply give different names to Brahman and Shakti. Armyrifle 22:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What part of this does Raj not understand that there's a dispute here? Hinduism is NOT Polytheistic. They believe in one god which takes several different forms. That's very different from polytheism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.101.159.99 (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

ekam sad viprā bahudhā vadantya "Truth is One, but sages call it by many names." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.46.133 (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"However, according to the Bhagavad Gita (one of the most important Vaishnava scriptures) whatever form of God one worships it is in fact worship of Vishnu. "

Ehhhhhhh, no it doesnt!

In the Gita, nowhere does Krishna says he is a form of Vishnu- this was added by later Vaishnav texts. Krishna says "In Adityas I am Vishnu, in Rudras I am Shankar", showing he above both Vishnu & Shiva.

And the Gita isnt a "Vaishnav scripture"- it is the main book of Hindus, a summary of Vedas & Upanishads.

A possible NPOV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.105.216.254 (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC) The Gita isn't Vaishnava, but people can use the Gita to expound Vaishnava views or even Smarta views(take Adi Shankara's commentaries: 'Gita Bhashyas') just like no two people can experience the same thing in the exact same way you know...Domsta333 (talk) 03:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Technically Krishna Is Parabrahman In His Vishvarupa He Is Everything Including Allah Anu Brahman Odin Uranus Ra Yahweh Elohim Etc. Weeabo-kun2198 (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

What about the Atheistic branches of Hinduism
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)

Factual accuracy?
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.

Faro0485 (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Good idea to move it here, lots of OR and Essay style in this one, a better summary is needed. Wikidās ॐ 19:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

All fighting over One
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)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
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)

On the "Omnibenevolence" (or lack thereof) of the Deities I pray to
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)
 * The specific proposal seems very modest and reasonable to me; in the abscence of objections ✅. Klbrain (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Svabhiman already removed Murdoch. I added two additional WP:RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)

Monotheism is the belief in a single creator God who is almighty, omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent
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)


 * Go to a library! Please see WP:FORUM and WP:TPNO. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)