Abraham was Brahma or Rama?

[Jainarayan]

It has been suggested that Biblical Abraham was the same person as Hindu Brahma.

This **** again? It was "suggested" on Quora (I know, first mistake) by an idiot named Anna Haag, who claims to be an accomplished linguist.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

In my studies I have noticed that there isn't always an exact reconciliation between the Sanskrit and Hebrew scriptures, and a small change, such as a son becoming father is common. The Hebrew scriptures do acknowledge Rama having two sons, Sheba and Dedan, which strengthens the identification of this Rama with the Sanskrit text. However this is for geographical and historical correlation only, giving some acknowledgement that Rama existed, even if he is considered to be a man and not a god.



More than the names, it is the intent of the character that is important because each scripture is giving a completely different view on what is correct and incorrect.

In the Hebrew scriptures there is only one God, and all other beings are considered subordinate. Abram therefore submits to this God, but in doing so he also rejects the Vedic gods and teaching as his path of righteousness. This is noted specifically with the five yamas that are non-violence (ahimsa), not lying (satya), not stealing (asteya), chastity (brahmacharya), and non-possessiveness (aparigraha). When reading Genesis you will see Abram break each yama by his actions for which a justification is given.

For non-violence, we read how Abram seeks to attack and kill the four kings, however this is to recover his nephew Lot
For not lying we see the many instances where he calls Sarai his sister when she is also his wife, however this is so he won't be killed.
For not stealing we see Abram taking from the four kings the bounty they had stolen from Sodom and Gomorrah, and when asked by Sodom to return the people he declares he will "accept nothing", however he allows his allies to keep the bounty that was stolen
For chastity we see Abram having relations with Hagar out of marriage, however this is with the consent of his wife Sarai.
For non-possessiveness we see Abram being given land to take possession of, however this was from Gods direction.

Further reading Genesis and you can identify where Abram shows adherence to the ten niyamas, meaning not all teaching needed to be rejected, and some were agreed upon, within the context of the Hebrew scriptures. The question to ask is, what is similar and what is different between the stories of Abram and Brahma.

Let us examine the intent of Abraham and Ram. Both where proponents of one God. While in Bible, this is explicit in the Ramayan, there is a conversation between, I think the name is Jamali, a sage Jamali who advises Raam not to honor the words he has given to his father and instead go back and take over the kingdom of Ayodhya. But Ram does not agree and says that he has given his word and he will maintain to his word. More importantly in his childhood, Ram was given a long discourse by sage vasishta, which is known as yog vasishta in this this book running into many hundred pages sage vasishta has repeatedly pointed out the only thing that exists in Brahman and there is nothing other than Brahman. So, this matches entirely with one God. So, if you look at the intent, the intent of both Rama and Abraham was worship of one God.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

This **** again? It was "suggested" on Quora (I know, first mistake) by an idiot named Anna Haag, who claims to be an accomplished linguist.

The earliest suggestion that Abraham was Brahma in my knowledge was made by some missionaries. The names of which I do not know. Then author Gene Matlock made this suggestion in his numerous books but he does not go beyond the similarity of names.

 

[rocala]

The names of which I do not know. Then author Gene Matlock made this suggestion in his numerous books but he does not go beyond the similarity of names.

Would I be correct in saying that Gene Matlock is not much of a credible source?

 

[GoodAttention]

Let us examine the intent of Abraham and Ram. Both where proponents of one God.

Rama was aware he was an incarnation of Vishnu, and importantly he also prayed to and was a great devotee of Shiva, leading to a linga temple rising in Ramaeswaram. This is is complete contrast to Abraham, who would have denied Rama as Vishnu incarnate, and firmly opposed the linga idol and Shiva as divine. In this way he continues the animosity of Brahma against Shiva, but as a man who submits to the One God.

While in Bible, this is explicit in the Ramayan, there is a conversation between, I think the name is Jamali, a sage Jamali who advises Raam not to honor the words he has given to his father and instead go back and take over the kingdom of Ayodhya. But Ram does not agree and says that he has given his word and he will maintain to his word.

This only shows that Rama follows a morality of keeping an oath to honour his father and to not act in self-interest. In Judaism the making of oaths should be avoided, and we also see Abram acting in self-interest multiple times throughout Genesis.

More importantly in his childhood, Ram was given a long discourse by sage vasishta, which is known as yog vasishta in this this book running into many hundred pages sage vasishta has repeatedly pointed out the only thing that exists in Brahman and there is nothing other than Brahman. So, this matches entirely with one God. So, if you look at the intent, the intent of both Rama and Abraham was worship of one God.

The problem is, whilst a follower of the Vedic scriptures will say both Rama and Abraham worship One God, a follower of the Hebrew scripture will never agree with it. It is clear in Genesis that Abraham only worships the One God who is also without form or name (at that point in time). The existence of a temple with an idol to the diety Shiva as a symbol of Rama's devotion shows that, even if Rama's intent is to worship one God, or Brahman, this is incompatible with how Abraham shows his devotion, primarily to submission and fear of, his One God.

In fact Judaism makes determined efforts to reject the Sanskrit scriptures in general, and Shiva in particular. For example, in Vedic mythology Brahma the Creator God generates a consort Saraswati so that he can further the purpose of creation. However, he begins to lust after her intensely even when she tries to escape, growing a fifth head to catch her. Shiva becomes enraged that Brahma would lust after his own daughter and cuts off his fifth head as punishment.

I would argue that the covenent of circumcision, after God makes Abram into Abraham, is in testament to holding One God and supremacy without equal. As Shiva is represented by the linga, or phallus, the act of circumcision to purposefully remove the skin covering the head of the penis (foreskin) is a powerful symbol of conquering Shiva and rejecting the Sanskrit teachings, as well as being a physical and irreversible sign of submission to Abraham's God. Circumcision would be seen as a very committed act of devotion also when viewed through the lens of an outsider, particularly as it is performed when a baby boy is 8 days old.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The human beings are inter-related so the languages, please, right?

Yes, human beings are inter-related, but languages in the 200,000 years of human existence have changed so greatly that the commonality is lost because they were not able to communicate any further with each other. They went to different continents and got locked there. Even in Africa when some one accepts the 'Out of Africa theory', they will be far from each other if one tribe was in South Africa, the Other in Egypt and still another in Nigeria, and not communicating with one another.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Rama is mentioned as the son of Cush, along with his 3 brothers Seba/Shesha/Lakshmana, Sabtecah/Shatrughna, and Sabtah/Bharata. It is interesting to see the correlation when you explore the meanings of the names in Hebrew and Sanskrit, particularly the latter two. Nimrod corresponds with Rudra, whilst Havilah does not have any connection to Hindu scriptures but does explains the relationship between the Indus Valley and Egypt.

Abram is Brahma, or at least the Hebrew "idea" of him and what he represented.The connection between the two is symbolic as opposition to the Vedas, and there are many actions that Abram takes to show this. In this sense the name Abram is a cognate of Brahma, just as Adam/Adharm is the cognate of dharma.

Here in our books Kush is the son or Lord Rama. Perhaps Havila is Hanuman.
There is no action of Abraham which correlates with actions of Brahma in Hinduism.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In my studies I have noticed that there isn't always an exact reconciliation between the Sanskrit and Hebrew scriptures, and a small change, such as a son becoming father is common. The Hebrew scriptures do acknowledge Rama having two sons, Sheba and Dedan, which strengthens the identification of this Rama with the Sanskrit text. However this is for geographical and historical correlation only, giving some acknowledgement that Rama existed, even if he is considered to be a man and not a god.

"For non-violence, we read how Abram seeks to attack and kill the four kings, however this is to recover his nephew Lot
For not lying we see the many instances where he calls Sarai his sister when she is also his wife, however this is so he won't be killed.
For not stealing we see Abram taking from the four kings the bounty they had stolen from Sodom and Gomorrah, and when asked by Sodom to return the people he declares he will "accept nothing", however he allows his allies to keep the bounty that was stolen
For chastity we see Abram having relations with Hagar out of marriage, however this is with the consent of his wife Sarai.
For non-possessiveness we see Abram being given land to take possession of, however this was from Gods direction."

Rama is God and a myth. Sheba and Dedan are mentiooned as sons of Jokshan.
Very funny. A nice description of actions of Abraham. Do you think Hindus will accept such a person as their God?

 

[GoodAttention]

Here in our books Kush is the son or Lord Rama. Perhaps Havila is Hanuman.
There is no action of Abraham which correlates with actions of Brahma in Hinduism.

That is correct, Abram does not act in any wat to correlates with Brahma. On a superficial level Abrams marrying Sarai and Brahma marrying Saraswati could just be a coincidence or similarity in the names, and Sarai being considered Abrams sister whilst Saraswati being Brahma's daughter could also be a similarity or coincidence.

But there is one distinct characteristic where they are opposite, which is Abram is very respectful of Sarai, while Brahma lusts after Saraswati.

 

[GoodAttention]

Rama is God and a myth. Sheba and Dedan are mentiooned as sons of Jokshan.
Very funny. A nice description of actions of Abraham. Do you think Hindus will accept such a person as their God?

No, in fact I think Hindus of ancient times did the exact opposite, and were against those who wanted to solely worship Brahma or a Creator God to the point that Shiva is told to have destroyed all of Brahmas temples, and any sect devoted for Brahma having to move away from the Vaishnavites and Shivities (who were the ones destroying any Brahma temple). Hence why an only Brahma sect doesn't exist in India and never will.

Just as Hindus will never accept Muhammad as their God, neither will they Abraham.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Rama was aware he was an incarnation of Vishnu, and importantly he also prayed to and was a great devotee of Shiva, leading to a linga temple rising in Ramaeswaram. This is is complete contrast to Abraham, who would have denied Rama as Vishnu incarnate, and firmly opposed the linga idol and Shiva as divine. In this way he continues the animosity of Brahma against Shiva, but as a man who submits to the One God.

This only shows that Rama follows a morality of keeping an oath to honour his father and to not act in self-interest. In Judaism the making of oaths should be avoided, and we also see Abram acting in self-interest multiple times throughout Genesis.

The problem is, whilst a follower of the Vedic scriptures will say both Rama and Abraham worship One God, a follower of the Hebrew scripture will never agree with it. It is clear in Genesis that Abraham only worships the One God who is also without form or name (at that point in time). The existence of a temple with an idol to the diety Shiva as a symbol of Rama's devotion shows that, even if Rama's intent is to worship one God, or Brahman, this is incompatible with how Abraham shows his devotion, primarily to submission and fear of, his One God.

In fact Judaism makes determined efforts to reject the Sanskrit scriptures in general, and Shiva in particular. For example, in Vedic mythology Brahma the Creator God generates a consort Saraswati so that he can further the purpose of creation. However, he begins to lust after her intensely even when she tries to escape, growing a fifth head to catch her. Shiva becomes enraged that Brahma would lust after his own daughter and cuts off his fifth head as punishment.

I would argue that the covenent of circumcision, after God makes Abram into Abraham, is in testament to holding One God and supremacy without equal. As Shiva is represented by the linga, or phallus, the act of circumcision to purposefully remove the skin covering the head of the penis (foreskin) is a powerful symbol of conquering Shiva and rejecting the Sanskrit teachings, as well as being a physical and irreversible sign of submission to Abraham's God. Circumcision would be seen as a very committed act of devotion also when viewed through the lens of an outsider, particularly as it is performed when a baby boy is 8 days old.

Yes, these are stories of two very different people. Only fools will try to mix them up. In Hinduism, not just the Gods and Goddesses respect each other but the deities even respect the sages. And the sages could give curses to Gods for their mistakes.

Saraswati like Brahma is a deity in Hinduism and eternal in nature. Not all people take Saraswati to be the wife of Brahma, they take Brahmani to be his wife. Your information is mythologically and scientifically/astronomically incomplete. In Vedas, Brahma seems to be interested in one which is considered like his daughter, and that was Rohini, and not Saraswati.

Actually, for about 2,000 years, Vedic people considered the asterism of Orion (Mrigashiras) as Prajapati. The asterism of Rohini is next to it (Aldebaran). Due to precession of equinox, the sun started rising on the day of vernal equinox (The Aryan New Year's Day) not in Orion but towards Aldebaran. This was taken as Brahma/Prajapati's interest in Rohini, and incestous. That was the time that worship of Brahma was abandoned. At that time, stories that Aryan God Rudra cut one of the five heads of Brahma were created. From then on, asterism of Pleiades (Krittika) was considered as the beginning of the new year. This was somewhere around 2,500 BCE. The precession of equinox changes every 1,000 years by one asterism. Later, even the Pleiades New Year Day was changed to a Castor and Pollux (Ashwini) New Year's Day.

Circumscison is a useless violent act on such a boy (without his consent) at such a tender age (even in girls in some Muslim sects), it has no advantage or purpose. Such superstitious acts were OK a thousand year ago but should be abandoned in 21st Century.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But there is one distinct characteristic where they are opposite, which is Abram is very respectful of Sarai, while Brahma lusts after Saraswati.

Dear GoodAttention. I am a staunch Hindu but also a strong atheist. For me Brahma and Saraswati are myths, though Saraswati is a nice idea for learning and fine arts. Myths can make Gods do any kind of things. As I tried to explain, the story of Prajapati's lust is really an (regular) astronomical event, the equinox will continue to preceed in future. Actually, if Hindus were still using the asterisms for their religious calculations, we would have already changed to Piscium (Revati), the period of Castor and Pollux also is over. But now we use the Zodiacal system, so this change is not required.

 

[Aupmanyav]

No, in fact I think Hindus of ancient times did the exact opposite, and were against those who wanted to solely worship Brahma or a Creator God to the point that Shiva is told to have destroyed all of Brahmas temples, and any sect devoted for Brahma having to move away from the Vaishnavites and Shivities (who were the ones destroying any Brahma temple). Hence why an only Brahma sect doesn't exist in India and never will.

Just as Hindus will never accept Muhammad as their God, neither will they Abraham.

The incident of Prajapati's lust is from Vedas and from a time when Aryans were not even in India. They were in Central Asia. Brahma temples were hardly ever constructed in India, so no question of destruction of Brahma temples. For different sects of Hinduism the Gods/Goddess who ordered the creation of Universe are Shiva, Vishnu and Mother Goddess Durga. They are known respectively as Shaivas, Vaishnavas and Shaktas. The actual construction is attributed to Vishwakarma, the technician/the architect.

Yeah, attempt to mix up causes more problems than it solves. Let us delight in our own different ways. There is no need to make a kedgeree of religions.

 

[GoodAttention]

Yes, these are stories of two very different people. Only fools will try to mix them up. In Hinduism, not just the Gods and Goddesses respect each other but the deities even respect the sages. And the sages could give curses to Gods for their mistakes.

My intent is not to mix but to view stories in parallel, seeking similarities and also differences in the stories and hopefully the values that each scripture is trying to teach. The dynamic nature of Hinduism with the many entities is in complete contrast to the narrative in the Hebrew scriptures.

Saraswati like Brahma is a deity in Hinduism and eternal in nature. Not all people take Saraswati to be the wife of Brahma, they take Brahmani to be his wife. Your information is mythologically and scientifically/astronomically incomplete. In Vedas, Brahma seems to be interested in one which is considered like his daughter, and that was Rohini, and not Saraswati.

You are misunderstanding my intent. I am not looking for absolutes at all, but relative connectivity. Yes, Brahmani, Rohini, and Saraswati are all different names corresponding to some variance in beliefs which is more a reflection of the mythology in Hinduism itself. Nevertheless the core message is still being communicated or interpreted.

Actually, for about 2,000 years, Vedic people considered the asterism of Orion (Mrigashiras) as Prajapati. The asterism of Rohini is next to it (Aldebaran). Due to precession of equinox, the sun started rising on the day of vernal equinox (The Aryan New Year's Day) not in Orion but towards Aldebaran. This was taken as Brahma/Prajapati's interest in Rohini, and incestous. That was the time that worship of Brahma was abandoned. At that time, stories that Aryan God Rudra cut one of the five heads of Brahma were created. From then on, asterism of Pleiades (Krittika) was considered as the beginning of the new year. This was somewhere around 2,500 BCE. The precession of equinox changes every 1,000 years by one asterism. Later, even the Pleiades New Year Day was changed to a Castor and Pollux (Ashwini) New Year's Day.

That is very interesting! If the worship was abandoned because Brahma fell out of favour for most Hindus, then logically there could have been a very devoted minority who understood that a Creator God, who by definition should remains supreme over his creation which included the stars and constellations that he created and therefore were subordinate to him. So a group abandoned Brahma but another abandoned astrology.

Circumscison is a useless violent act on such a boy (without his consent) at such a tender age (even in girls in some Muslim sects), it has no advantage or purpose. Such superstitious acts were OK a thousand year ago but should be abandoned in 21st Century.

If Jewish men aren't complaining about it to want to make the change then why should they?

 

[GoodAttention]

The incident of Prajapati's lust is from Vedas and from a time when Aryans were not even in India. They were in Central Asia. Brahma temples were hardly ever constructed in India, so no question of destruction of Brahma temples. For different sects of Hinduism the Gods/Goddess who ordered the creation of Universe are Shiva, Vishnu and Mother Goddess Durga. They are known respectively as Shaivas, Vaishnavas and Shaktas. The actual construction is attributed to Vishwakarma, the technician/the architect.

I think you will have to agree that, historically, the consideration and worship of Brahma must have happened, given the equal position he has next to Vishnu and Shiva. Whilst the mythology says Shiva destroyed them, the truth is more as you say, where temples solely dedicated to Brahma were not built, and instead shrines would built in temples dedicated to other gods. There are scriptures dedicated to him, and many stories and mythologies that describe him as the source of all creation, but I am not saying exclusively.

However, this is the exact point of monotheism, where a Creator God can only exist without any equal.

Yeah, attempt to mix up causes more problems than it seolves. Let us delight in our own different ways. There is no need to make a kedgeree of religions.

Yes, as Swami Vivekanada said, "We believe not only in universal toleration, but we accept all religions as true. I am proud to belong to a nation which has sheltered the persecuted and the refugees of all religions and all nations of the earth."

He also said "There is no new religious idea preached anywhere which is not found in the Vedas".

 

[Aupmanyav]

My intent is not to mix but to view stories in parallel, seeking similarities and also differences in the stories and hopefully the values that each scripture is trying to teach. The dynamic nature of Hinduism with the many entities is in complete contrast to the narrative in the Hebrew scriptures.

You are misunderstanding my intent. I am not looking for absolutes at all, but relative connectivity. Yes, Brahmani, Rohini, and Saraswati are all different names corresponding to some variance in beliefs which is more a reflection of the mythology in Hinduism itself. Nevertheless the core message is still being communicated or interpreted.

That is very interesting! If the worship was abandoned because Brahma fell out of favour for most Hindus, then logically there could have been a very devoted minority who understood that a Creator God, who by definition should remains supreme over his creation which included the stars and constellations that he created and therefore were subordinate to him. So a group abandoned Brahma but another abandoned astrology.

If Jewish men aren't complaining about it to want to make the change then why should they?

I see that your intention is not that, but there are people who are trying to do this.
I understand that you are connectivity of which there is none. The two systems are very different thoughts. Where as Judaism was religion of one people and one God, Hinduism is a religion of a hundred peoples and a thousand Gods/Goddesses.
In Puranic Hinduism (i.e., the Hinduism that came up after interaction with Aryans), Brahma was not left out completely. He is still one of the Hindu trinity, and he is now the controller of fate (Vidhata). Hinduism incorporates all and never dismisses anything. Saraswati is never clearly mentioned as Brahmas consort. The problem of Rohini was for Aryans and not for Hindus.
The Puranic Rohini is one of the two wives of Krishna's father, Vasudeva; and her son, Balarama was elder to Krishna though born on the same night. Balarama is considered to be very powerful, for his weapon, he had the plow; though he was not as smart as Krishna.
There is no such group devoted to Brahma. He is just about accepted in Hinduism. He hardly have his idols in temples.
Jews are not concerned with Brahma. It is the Christians and Hare-Krishna Hindus who do that for the purpose of evangelism.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I think you will have to agree that, historically, the consideration and worship of Brahma must have happened, given the equal position he has next to Vishnu and Shiva. Whilst the mythology says Shiva destroyed them, the truth is more as you say, where temples solely dedicated to Brahma were not built, and instead shrines would built in temples dedicated to other gods. There are scriptures dedicated to him, and many stories and mythologies that describe him as the source of all creation, but I am not saying exclusively.

However, this is the exact point of monotheism, where a Creator God can only exist without any equal.

Yes, as Swami Vivekanada said, "We believe not only in universal toleration, but we accept all religions as true. I am proud to belong to a nation which has sheltered the persecuted and the refugees of all religions and all nations of the earth."
He also said "There is no new religious idea preached anywhere which is not found in the Vedas".

Brahma's importance has been replaced by the importance of Mother Goddess, Durga. Brahma is secondary to Vishnu, Shiva and Durga. She has a pan-Indian presence. Oh, we are good at creating stories and have thousands of them. As I said none of these Gods/Goddesses is supposed to have created the universe themselves, They ordered its creation and the work was done under the supervision of Vishvakarma (Vishva=Unicerse, karma=who did the work).
Vivekananda is popular among the elite in India and in West. The village hindus are not likely to know about him and much less to have read what he wrote. My belief is not the same as that of Vivekananda. Vivekananda and Aurobindo have no authority in Hinduism. The authority, if it exists, is with the heads of 13 monasteries, which are known as 'Akharas'.

Akhil Bharatiya Akhara Parishad - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

His second statement is correct. I checked about 'isms' in Wikipedia and could not find any which did not exist in Hinduism.

 

[GoodAttention]

I see that your intention is not that, but there are people who are trying to do this.
I understand that you are connectivity of which there is none. The two systems are very different thoughts. Where as Judaism was religion of one people and one God, Hinduism is a religion of a hundred peoples and a thousand Gods/Goddesses.
In Puranic Hinduism (i.e., the Hinduism that came up after interaction with Aryans), Brahma was not left out completely. He is still one of the Hindu trinity, and he is now the controller of fate (Vidhata). Hinduism incorporates all and never dismisses anything. Saraswati is never clearly mentioned as Brahmas consort. The problem of Rohini was for Aryans and not for Hindus.
The Puranic Rohini is one of the two wives of Krishna's father, Vasudeva; and her son, Balarama was elder to Krishna though born on the same night. Balarama is considered to be very powerful, for his weapon, he had the plow; though he was not as smart as Krishna.
There is no such group devoted to Brahma. He is just about accepted in Hinduism. He hardly have his idols in temples.
Jews are not concerned with Brahma. It is the Christians and Hare-Krishna Hindus who do that for the purpose of evangelism.

As much as we would like to consider ourselves as one humanity and interconnected, we will always be tribal animals in competition with each other, reluctant to share but always ready to take.

 

[GoodAttention]

Brahma's importance has been replaced by the importance of Mother Goddess, Durga. Brahma is secondary to Vishnu, Shiva and Durga. She has a pan-Indian presence. Oh, we are good at creating stories and have thousands of them. As I said none of these Gods/Goddesses is supposed to have created the universe themselves, They ordered its creation and the work was done under the supervision of Vishvakarma (Vishva=Unicerse, karma=who did the work).
Vivekananda is popular among the elite in India and in West. The village hindus are not likely to know about him and much less to have read what he wrote. My belief is not the same as that of Vivekananda. Vivekananda and Aurobindo have no authority in Hinduism. The authority exists with the heads of 13 monasteries, which are known as 'Akharas'.

Akhil Bharatiya Akhara Parishad - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

His second statement is correct. I checked about 'isms' in Wikipedia and could not find any which did not exist in Hinduism.

How many Hindus do you think these monasteries represent?

What authority do they have specifically?

 

[Aupmanyav]

As much as we would like to consider ourselves as one humanity and interconnected, we will always be tribal animals in competition with each other, reluctant to share but always ready to take.

No. Hinduism or Judaism do not try to take what does not belong to them. It is the later upstarts who do that.