Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 368381" data-attributes="member: 3146">Not exactly. My understanding of Brahman is that ultimately, the divine really doesn't have a personality and that in fact, the lack of individuality, passion, and personality is considered the highest good. Nirvana, as I understand it, is supposed to be escaping the cycle of illusion and reincarnation and merging with the impassive design--the death of personality if you will.As far as I understand it, Hinduism is neither monotheistic (despite the fact that all of the gods are ultimately incarnations or manifestations of the universal divine nature) of nor polytheistic (despite the fact that it has millions of gods for people to worship) but rather pantheistic.As such, it wouldn't make any sense to talk about the alignment, personalities, or desires of the divine nature (god even seems like too personal a term). Is that wishy washy? Not exactly--it doesn't present an image of god's personality but it's fairly clear on what it is actually presenting as a portrait of reality.That kind of a model would certainly grant Rashak Mani what he's looking for in a religion that could have both good and evil priests (just as both Bhudda and the Thuggee cult came from Hindu backgrounds) but it certainly wouldn't be a monotheistic world like he asked for in the beginning.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Elder-Basilisk, post: 368381, member: 3146"] Not exactly. My understanding of Brahman is that ultimately, the divine really doesn't have a personality and that in fact, the lack of individuality, passion, and personality is considered the highest good. Nirvana, as I understand it, is supposed to be escaping the cycle of illusion and reincarnation and merging with the impassive design--the death of personality if you will. As far as I understand it, Hinduism is neither monotheistic (despite the fact that all of the gods are ultimately incarnations or manifestations of the universal divine nature) of nor polytheistic (despite the fact that it has millions of gods for people to worship) but rather pantheistic. As such, it wouldn't make any sense to talk about the alignment, personalities, or desires of the divine nature (god even seems like too personal a term). Is that wishy washy? Not exactly--it doesn't present an image of god's personality but it's fairly clear on what it is actually presenting as a portrait of reality. That kind of a model would certainly grant Rashak Mani what he's looking for in a religion that could have both good and evil priests (just as both Bhudda and the Thuggee cult came from Hindu backgrounds) but it certainly wouldn't be a monotheistic world like he asked for in the beginning. [/QUOTE]

Verification