premjan

The reason these two conceptions of God/religion don't mix because the latter is inclusive and pantheist in principle and the other is exclusive and monotheist in principle. They are opposed ideologically. From the viewpoint of Abrahamism, Hinduism looks like philosophy or mythopoetry. From the viewpoint of Hinduism, Abrahamism looks like stubborn fanaticism (belief for the sake of belief rather than faith).

Moreover Hinduism is humanist in comparison to Abrahamism. Although the Vedic scriptures are supposed to be divine / above human authority, godmanhood (principally worship of Krishna / Bhagavad Gita / the epics) has superseded the authority of the Vedas in the modern day. Moreover the Vedas are not as explicit as the Old Testament and New Testament in their statements. The poetic sensibility is greater than the literality, as I understand it. It is of course a matter of degree and the pendulum could conceivably swing back too.

victorialis

If you view Shankara as a monist (and I see what you mean by this), it's interesting that he was able successfully to take a monist approach to a body of doctrine which is, as you've said, pantheistic and inclusive in principle.

Maybe this was possible and effective because (as you pointed out) a Renaissance was due to occur. There was a cultural willingness to see the one in the many and the many in the one.

premjan

monism is actually a philosopher's God, so is compatible with both polytheism and monotheism. in the case of polytheism, all gods merge into one, and in the case of monotheism, all is derived from the base essence called God. So I should actually say Shankara and Spinoza are opposites in this respect.

It appears to me that monism on its own cannot unite polytheism and monotheism fully, since monotheism is based on a legal construction of God and monism is mathematical/philosophical. In other words the legalists always win whenever they press their case.

Monotheism proceeds from law and belief, while pantheism proceeds from faith and philosophy.

victorialis

"In other words the legalists always win whenever they press their case."



In this context, what does it mean, to win?

premjan

if you make something legally binding (e.g. belief in God), then it becomes a condition of existence. E.g. you shall have no God before me (else I shall smite you).

Philosophy and faith both begin with human existence so they cannot deny such a commandment.

victorialis

Only for those who conflate existence and law. This is never a majority large enough to successfully obscure the distinction between the two.

Those who take the attitude of the example you've cited --
-- are conflating themselves with God. It is not God, but they, who do the smiting. Those who do not conflate themselves with God are happy to point out this error to their brethren.

And thus does orthodoxy begin to break down.

premjan

the ten commandments are law (or perhaps we should say contract) to judaic believers and most christians. perhaps if God were to promise only rewards for good behavior and not punishments for bad behavior, all would be much easier to resolve from the hindu viewpoint.

in any case, the claim for universality and exclusivity by christians and muslims (of course both cannot be universal as well as exclusive. I would suspect that christianity is exclusive, but islam would however accept christian beliefs as well as its own) would cause hindus to seriously evaluate those gods, since hinduism is pantheist and tries to be inclusive. in trying to include an exclusive God, it gives up its own character and becomes just a pantheist branch of (say) christianity since this is a little less of a stretch.

of course if you are a hindu, it is difficult to view christianity as other than reform judaism with a dash of paganism.

victorialis

Hinduism seems to be quite flexible. What about the nastika (non-Vedic) schools? Carvaka denies the existence of a god in the first place: instead of a One God, carvaka proposes No-God. Buddhism is concerned primarily with enlightenment and compassion; the nature of divinity (one/many/none) is not central to it.

What you've said about the ten commandments is accurate for those believers as a group. What they each do as individuals is another matter.

Without punishment for bad behaviour, there would be no purpose for law. There would be only being.

Universality and exclusivity are supposed to serve as compelling arguments.

They fail to compel everyone. In this we are fortunate.

premjan

materialism is supposed to be the oldest school of Indian philosophy and the closest to the "objective" truth.

this is of course aligned with Buddhist thought quite nicely. There is also Jainism.

What makes Hinduism flexible in modern times is probably the revelation of Krishna (else it would lack coherence entirely). This revelation is not purely philosophical somehow and the SriVaishnavas still consider themselves the purest of all Hindus. Hinduism hangs together because of Vaishnavism (Rama and Krishna). So the rebuilding of the Ram temple is important.

victorialis

Surely Vaishnavism resides in those who welcome it, and in the SriVaishnavas themselves, and not in a building.

But it is true that the existence of a dedicated building could help some individuals to focus upon the principles involved.

It could also turn into a kind of crutch: it could mislead some into thinking that the doctrine resides exclusively in the Temple itself.