What if History is Richer than Belief?

Originally Posted by Seawolf

Currents of monism or monotheism emerge in Vedic India earlier, with e.g. the Nasadiya Sukta. In the Indo-Iranian tradition, the Rigveda exhibits notions of monism, in particular in the comparatively late tenth book, also dated to the early Iron Age, e.g. in the Nasadiya sukta --from wikipedia

Interesting. I'll have to read more about that. I do wish to mention though, monism and monotheism are different. There's a subtle distinction between monotheism, per YHWH and Brahman. Brahman is not a deity proper, simply the end and all of existence: monism. Whereas YHWH is an Independent, conscious being that creates the world. Many monistic views that develop in a polytheistic culture, such as Vedic India, or Imperial Rome keep polytheological language. Proclus is a good example. He proposed a singular unity of reality that was dependent upon the multiplicity of divinity. In other words, the monad, or oneness can only exist because of the separations from it, which he identified with the gods of his culture. Many scholars, especially during the childhood of anthropology tried to gloss the "paganness" of ancient and contemporary polytheistic cultures over, since they saw anything other than monotheism to be primitive or a degradation of natural religious behavior, which in their reasoning tended to be monotheism that would decline into superstitious idolatry (= anything non-monotheistic).

Oops. A bit of a tangent I do like pontificating upon this weighty matter. Maybe a bit too much.

[Seawolf]

Originally Posted by Animus27

Interesting. I'll have to read more about that. I do wish to mention though, monism and monotheism are different. There's a subtle distinction between monotheism, per YHWH and Brahman. Brahman is not a deity proper, simply the end and all of existence: monism. Whereas YHWH is an Independent, conscious being that creates the world. Many monistic views that develop in a polytheistic culture, such as Vedic India, or Imperial Rome keep polytheological language. Proclus is a good example. He proposed a singular unity of reality that was dependent upon the multiplicity of divinity. In other words, the monad, or oneness can only exist because of the separations from it, which he identified with the gods of his culture. Many scholars, especially during the childhood of anthropology tried to gloss the "paganness" of ancient and contemporary polytheistic cultures over, since they saw anything other than monotheism to be primitive or a degradation of natural religious behavior, which in their reasoning tended to be monotheism that would decline into superstitious idolatry (= anything non-monotheistic).

Oops. A bit of a tangent I do like pontificating upon this weighty matter. Maybe a bit too much.

Thanks for the clarification on monism and monotheism.

Here's an interesting section of an old book by a New Zealand history researcher. He traces tendency to monotheism in Polynesia and India.

http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/schol...y1-d11-d3.html

[Amilius777]

Nice work and research Animus! Really an eye opener.

I do know that at one time in Egypt there was Akhenaten the Pharaoh who brought monotheism into Egypt. He declared himself "Son of God" and such. A lot of people think he was enlightened for doing this. He may have been but sounds like Egyptian ego-complex all over again.

I think if you read the Vedas carefully you tend to get a "polytheistic" feel but in their "ultimate reality" they believe in One Being.

They technically say the same thing when they say - Brahman- Ground of all Being, and YHWH- "I AM THAT I AM". It basically the same Spirit.

I think organized religions have been mischievous in their attempt to discredit other religions.

But to be honest I hate monism. I think the idea of being an abstract energy or part of a "one" energy is heinous. I think this idea was meant to mean- "Oneness with God". In the highest state which is called- Absolute Superconsciousness, or oneness with God there isn't a lack of awareness. In fact there is an infinite awareness for the individual no longer stuck in a form or body. The Saints of all religions are in this state. Your individuality expands into the Individualism of God's consciousness.

Originally Posted by Seawolf

Thanks for the clarification on monism and monotheism.

Here's an interesting section of an old book by a New Zealand history researcher. He traces tendency to monotheism in Polynesia and India.

http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/schol...y1-d11-d3.html

Fascinating read. Thanks Seawolf

Originally Posted by Amilius777

Nice work and research Animus! Really an eye opener.

I thank you kindly brother

I do know that at one time in Egypt there was Akhenaten the Pharaoh who brought monotheism into Egypt. He declared himself "Son of God" and such. A lot of people think he was enlightened for doing this. He may have been but sounds like Egyptian ego-complex all over again.

Akhenaten is a strange figure, that is for sure. His reform only lasted during his rule and they tried to erase him from history. But it is interesting to note that his reign would've been a few decades away from the life of Moses (depending what sort of date you want to go for). There's been a lot of interest in a possible connection between the Egyptian anomaly and the God revealed by Moses. Although, I personally don't think it's wise to force a connection between them both, but it's still fun to think about.

I think if you read the Vedas carefully you tend to get a "polytheistic" feel but in their "ultimate reality" they believe in One Being.

They technically say the same thing when they say - Brahman- Ground of all Being, and YHWH- "I AM THAT I AM". It basically the same Spirit.

This is where I disagree, but I see where you're coming from. In Abrahamic religions God is a mysterious creator that is unknowable normally, but he was kind enough to give us the Bible/Qur'an to help us understand what he wants for us and the world. Brahman, unlike YHWH is totally impersonal. Brahman is beyond all concepts of nothingness or thingness, theism, atheism, etc. If a world burns away, he doesn't cry out in grief (metaphorically of course), or feel anything. Since all that happens is ultimately illusionary and thus no cause for him to feel righteous anger or sadness or even gladness. On the other hand, YHWH does care. He is intimately concerned about his creatures and wants to keep them from harming each other. A more practical parallel would be a deva like Shiva or Vishnu in Shaivism or Vaishnavism - where each respective god is seen as the ultimate being that represents the Brahman. But unlike Brahman, they feel for humans and personally help them reach Moksha.

I think organized religions have been mischievous in their attempt to discredit other religions.

It is frustrating. But it is also natural. Humans don't like competition when it comes to truth claims

But to be honest I hate monism. I think the idea of being an abstract energy or part of a "one" energy is heinous. I think this idea was meant to mean- "Oneness with God". In the highest state which is called- Absolute Superconsciousness, or oneness with God there isn't a lack of awareness. In fact there is an infinite awareness for the individual no longer stuck in a form or body. The Saints of all religions are in this state. Your individuality expands into the Individualism of God's consciousness.

I think your definition of monism is a little different from mine. Many Hindu religions have a strong monistic tendency. The Bhagavad Gita states that the atman and Brahman are identical, a form of monism. The One being talked about in abstract terms doesn't necessarily entail that there is a lack of awareness. Just not the sort of awareness we're used to. If you become one with oneness, if you assume a singular foundation to reality that we can join to, would you perceive yourself as being at one? Or would your perception change so radically that the I no longer exists, so there's no point to awareness for it?

Damn, that's a little complicated. Hopefully it makes some sense, heh.

Originally Posted by Amilius777

I too believe in the metaphysical act of Christ's shedding of blood Baile.

In fact growing up Catholic unlike other denominations has it's positivies. It is more opened to the mystical and metaphysical.

I believe the ritual religions or sacramental religions: Wicca, Catholicism, and Hinduism are pretty much the earliest forms of religion. Religion is not to be a set of rules and dogma but a ritual and sacrament.

I follow this religion as a sacramental lifestyle. The same as a Neo-pagan or Wiccan would observe their holy days and rituals in conjunct with Nature. Same with me.

If you read some Joseph Campbell you'll see there were many many religions before Catholicism and even Hindu. The garden of eden story is even traced back to an ancient group somewhere in Africa.

But I agree with you about some of the metaphysical aspects of early Xianity.
I just watched a documentary called The God Who Wasn't There and the author, a former born again minister, was explaining about the only written records of the Christ material from 30 AD to at least 70 AD was from Paul, who considered the resurrection to have taken place in a metaphysical realm. Not as an actual physical event. Then when the gospels were written it was changed.


It looks like around 8 B.C. the Hebrews had a polytheistic thing going on with Yahweh and Asherah. The mother goddess.

Originally Posted by joelr

It looks like around 8 B.C. the Hebrews had a polytheistic thing going on with Yahweh and Asherah. The mother goddess.

Asherah being present in the Temple was more like 600 BCE.