Is it multipie "powers" they believe in or multiple "gods" in the real sense?
If it's "powers" it would be more logical to me.

Today, a Hindu can be polytheistic (more than one god), monotheistic (one god), pantheistic (god and the universe are one), agnostic (unsure if god exists), or atheistic (no god) and still claim to be Hindu. (qouting from http://www.indiangods.com/) (time to google search: 4.2 seconds)

Talk about a "big tent!"

All HIndu schools believe in deities. Most Hindu schools, however, affirm only one God, that is, a supreme omnipotent being.

given that the word "hindu" is defined according to the body of work called the vedas, all such assertions of hinduism have to be asserted through the vedas - unfortunately hinduism has recently (past 500-1000 years) taken the path of an orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy - in other words the issue with hinduism inrecent years has changed from being defined by philosophicak conclusions on the basis of authoratative books, to that of merely doing teh ritual "right" - that is the issue has now moved to not being an assertion on who or what is the most worshippable, but more along reagardless of what temple you go to, make sure you offer incense "like this, a ghee lamp like that, pay or obeisances here, put your flowers there and put your donation here" and thus leave the temple withthe assurance that everything is fully correct and proper

given that the word "hindu" is defined according to the body of work called the vedas, all such assertions of hinduism have to be asserted through the vedas - unfortunately hinduism has recently (past 500-1000 years) taken the path of an orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy - in other words the issue with hinduism inrecent years has changed from being defined by philosophicak conclusions on the basis of authoratative books, to that of merely doing teh ritual "right" - that is the issue has now moved to not being an assertion on who or what is the most worshippable, but more along reagardless of what temple you go to, make sure you offer incense "like this, a ghee lamp like that, pay or obeisances here, put your flowers there and put your donation here" and thus leave the temple withthe assurance that everything is fully correct and proper

lol well Indians do love a ritual!

Prince James, who is the Hindu's "supreme omnipotent being?"

Vishnu/Shiva in Vaishnavism, Shaivism.

Prince James, who is the Hindu's "supreme omnipotent being?"

Brahman

Brahman (Devanagari: ब्रह्म, Tamil: ப்ரம்மம் ) is the concept of the Godhead found in Hinduism. Brahman is the unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all things in this universe. Though its nature is transpersonal it is sometimes considered anthropomorphically as Isvara, the Supreme Lord.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

Also see this:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=58358

In Gensis 10, Seba was a son of Cush (Hindu Kush), as was Rama (Rama Empire Pakistan), and Sheba was a son of Rama, so there seems to be a connection to the god ("demigod") Siva, more ancestor worship apparently.

Vishnu (fish nu) was of course associated with Manu, the hero of the Deluge.

they all look like part of an image induced by a hallicunagen/drug.

As told to me BY a hindu...Vishnu is it. All the other gods are his various manifestations.

"Brahman" seems to be a description of scope of omnipotence rather than an entity.

Is it multipie "powers" they believe in or multiple "gods" in the real sense?
If it's "powers" it would be more logical to me.

Why would that be more logical?

Is it the concept of multiple Gods equal in power that bothers you?
What about the belief that there are/were demi-gods and other beings with “supernatural” powers?
Let’s say that there was only one Supreme God and view that god through the Trinitarian lens.
One aspect of this God is the Creator.
One aspect is the Organizer.
One aspect is the Destroyer.

The rest of the lesser gods, think of as Nephilim (Genesis 6).
They are all mortal.
They have human flaws and weaknesses.
They also, however, have supernatural powers.

Please clarify what about that is difficult for you to grasp and see as a logical possibility?

As told to me BY a hindu...Vishnu is it. All the other gods are his various manifestations.

"Brahman" seems to be a description of scope of omnipotence rather than an entity.

It's not quite that simple.
It depends...

If a particular Hindu is a Vaishnava, then yes, Vishnu is
Other hindu traditions believe other ideas.
Smarta or Advaitas believe in the Trimurti idea that Vishnu is one aspect of the Supreme God along with Brahma and Shiva.

As Rama and Shiva were great grandsons of Noah (Manu), and Vishnu appears to be the Spirit possessed by Manu, the ancient Hindus had the idea that the lead survivor of the Deluge worshipped the creator God.

As Rama and Shiva were great grandsons of Noah (Manu), and Vishnu appears to be the Spirit possessed by Manu, the ancient Hindus had the idea that the lead survivor of the Deluge worshipped the creator God.

Oh yeah, Yehweh is Shiva, Holy spirit is MahaVishnu & Christ is Krishna.

Is it multipie "powers" they believe in or multiple "gods" in the real sense?
If it's "powers" it would be more logical to me.

Who cares when your post count is going up, right?

Is it multipie "powers" they believe in or multiple "gods" in the real sense?
If it's "powers" it would be more logical to me.

Its samcd, not samd. You always make that mistake.;)

Its samcd, not samd. You always make that mistake.;)

perhaps its on purpose. personal affection using a unique signature.

perhaps its on purpose. personal affection using a unique signature.

how wise you are draqon!

I never thought of it that way.:)

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)

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)


There are no Gods. We are all that there is.

There are no Gods. We are all that there is.

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.

according to Hinduism, god is EVERYTHING (at the same time when it's nothing and only 1), so we are also god.

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.

according to Hinduism...
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.

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

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.

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.

lol well Indians do love a ritual!

it could be worse - I just ate 6 gulabs from the deity
:D

it could be worse - I just ate 6 gulabs from the deity
:D

Now I'm hungry!:p

Now I'm hungry!:p
Indians certainly believe in offering more than one preperation
;)

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p42/lightgigantic/0820beleive20it20they20are20more20t.jpg

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.

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..

There is very little you can say (if anything) is true "according to Hinduism".

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.

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.

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.

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.


its not clear how you establish that nothing can be determined as "true" according to hinduism or religion in general. It seems all you require for a truth to be degenerated is that it competes in an atmosphere with false truths.

For instance, before medical practice got standardized and instituitionalized in the west, did the plethora of magical tonic peddlers make the practice of medicine totally untruthful, or was it merely that proper medical practice was difficult to encounter due to so many baseless assertions?

its not clear how you establish that nothing can be determined as "true" according to hinduism or religion in general. It seems all you require for a truth to be degenerated is that it competes in an atmosphere with false truths.

I think you missed my point.
What I was saying was that starting a sentence with, "According to Hinduism..." is most often a fallacy, because Hinduism is so wide open to personal interpretation.
For example, saying that Vishnu is the Supreme God and manifestation of Brahma, is not true, because not all Hindu believe that to be teh truth, and Hinduism doesn't have any steadfast rule that states such.

I think you missed my point.
What I was saying was that starting a sentence with, "According to Hinduism..." is most often a fallacy, because Hinduism is so wide open to personal interpretation.
For example, saying that Vishnu is the Supreme God and manifestation of Brahma, is not true, because not all Hindu believe that to be teh truth, and Hinduism doesn't have any steadfast rule that states such.
then it raises the question, "who can speak for hinduism", which is kind of an oxymoron, because the word "hindu" doesn't even appear in any vedic literature (being introduced as a somewhat derrogatory term by the muslim invaders, referring to the people who lived over the sindu river) - in other words the very word hindu is not a religious one but a geographical/cultural one

then it raises the question, "who can speak for hinduism", which is kind of an oxymoron, because the word "hindu" doesn't even appear in any vedic literature (being introduced as a somewhat derrogatory term by the muslim invaders, referring to the people who lived over the sindu river) - in other words the very word hindu is not a religious one but a geographical/cultural one

So Hindus are kind of like Jews, but with our own country?

So Hindus are kind of like Jews, but with our own country?

I don't think so - its more like a conglomerate that has lost its variety due to an array of politics and weak orthodoxy - for instance the people who did the most to destroy "hindu" culture, were the indians themselves when they got independence and there was a big political puch for a "unified people" ... so "hinduism" was the square peg that was crammed in the circular hole for this purpose

then it raises the question, "who can speak for hinduism"...

Exactly!
That's the point.