Can anyone point me to explanations for how Hinduism reconciles pure monotheism as exemplified in these selections of the Vedas with adhering to worshiping of multiple types of deities? If they are aware there is just a single deity Ishwar("Brahman") what do they need all the other beliefs for?

Yajurveda 40.1:
This entire world is embedded within and managed by the One and Only One Ishwar. Never dare do any injustice or desire riches through unjust means. Instead follow the righteous path and enjoy His bliss. After all He alone is source of all bliss!

Rigveda 10.48.1

Ishwar alone is omnipresent and manager of entire universe. He alone provides victory and eternal cause of world. All souls should look up only to Him in same manner as children look up to their Father. He alone provides for our sustenance and bliss.

Rigveda 10.48.5

Ishwar enlightens the entire world. He alone is undefeated and undying. He alone is the creator of the world. All souls should seek bliss through seeking knowledge and acting thereupon. They should never shun the friendship of Ishwar.

Rigveda 10.49.1

Ishwar alone provides true knowledge to truth seekers. He alone is promoter of knowledge and motivates virtuous people into noble actions to seek bliss. He alone is the creator and manager of the world. Hence never worship anyone else except one and only Ishwar.

Yajurveda 13.4

There is one and only One Creator and Maintainer of the entire world. He alone is sustaining the earth, sky and other heavenly bodies. He is Bliss Himself! He alone deserves to be worshiped by us.

Atharvaveda 13.4.16-21

He is neither two, nor three, nor four, nor five, nor six, nor seven, nor eight, nor nine, nor ten. He is, on contrary, One and Only One. There is no Ishwar except Him. All Devtas reside within Him and are controlled by him. So He alone should be worshiped, none else.

Atharvaveda 10.7.38

Ishwar alone is greatest and worth being worshiped. He is the source of all knowledge and activities.

Yajurveda 32.11

Ishwar resides at each point in universe. No space is devoid of Him. He is self-sustaining and does not need help of any agent, angel, prophet or incarnation to perform His duties. The soul which is able to realize this One and only One Ishwar achieves Him and enjoys unconditional ultimate bliss or Moksha.

[Ishwar means God in Hindi]

Years ago in 1975, I alighted from a train in Southern India and noticed two or three Indian women worshipping a statue of the Virgin Mary.

I thought all the deities were aspects of the Brahman.

duvduv wrote:Can anyone point me to explanations for how Hinduism reconciles pure monotheism as exemplified in these selections of the Vedas with adhering to worshiping of multiple types of deities? If they are aware there is just a single deity Ishwar("Brahman") what do they need all the other beliefs for?

At a guess, the same way Christians do vis a vis the triune god: mental gymnastics.

I believe that hindus recognize an entire hierarchy of gods, with the big boss "God" at the apex of the hierarchy. Anyhow, that is more or less what hindu friends have said.

Alan B wrote:Years ago in 1975, I alighted from a train in Southern India and noticed two or three Indian women worshipping a statue of the Virgin Mary.

It wouldn't be surprising, as there are many Christians in India.

They wore the red mark on their foreheads which I believe is Hindu and not Christian...

I spoke to a Hindu chappy about this year's ago. Apparently all these other little gods are manifestations of the One god - in his view. Given how diverse Hinduism seems to be; other Hindus may disagree.

I looked into Hinduism once. Rationally, the concept of monotheism allows for no 'little Gods' at all. Just delusional ideas of other Gods. Thus, fuck Hinduism.

That's an incorrect application of the concept "rationally".

No, it's not, since the rational conception of monotheism prohibits the inclusion of 'many Gods' by default.

Yes, so if "Hinduism" subscribed to your concept of "monotheism" then there'd be a consequence.

It doesn't. That's why it's not rationality to conclude "fuck Hinduism".

Thommo wrote:Yes, so if "Hinduism" subscribed to your concept of "monotheism" then there'd be a consequence.

It doesn't. That's why it's not rationality to conclude "fuck Hinduism".

You seem to be under the misconception that rationality can be defined by any fuckwit who cares to define it thus. Whereas any cnut with an ounce of a brain would know that reason speaks for herself. Good night.

Cnut? Cashew nut! Corn nut? Other?

RS

jamest wrote:

Thommo wrote:Yes, so if "Hinduism" subscribed to your concept of "monotheism" then there'd be a consequence.

It doesn't. That's why it's not rationality to conclude "fuck Hinduism".

You seem to be under the misconception that rationality can be defined by any fuckwit who cares to define it thus.

No, he doesn't. You, however...

jamest wrote:No, it's not, since the rational conception of monotheism prohibits the inclusion of 'many Gods' by default.

The Father, The Son, The Holy Ghost, All The Angels & Saints.