Abraham was Brahma or Rama?

[shunyadragon]

@GoodAttention
Ramayana

Ravana kidnapped Sita, how come?

Wait never mind. Look how close these two words are. Ramayana and Ravana?

Rama is Abram. (Ab) means father. So father Rama family.

Justifying one ancient mythology does not justify another,

I don't know why @shunyadragon thinks Abraham is A brahman - however looks that way, but there's a challenge - the letter H was placed in there way later.

I did not say I believed it. It is hypothetical. Though it is an interesting association regardless of the "H," There is most definitely an early linguistic association between the languages of the Middle East and India originating in Central Asia.

@Bharat Jhunjhunwala Ab means father.

I mistaken Brahman as the creator, but it's Brahma, look I'm getting all these names mixed up.

How come Ravana kidnapped Sita?

What is yana that's attached to word Rama?

What is the connection between Mandore and Ravana?

More ancient mythology does not justify the mythology of Genesis.

Linguistic relationships between regions is evidence of ancient migration and trade going back to the paleolithic.

 

[GoodAttention]

I mistaken Brahman as the creator, but it's Brahma, look I'm getting all these names mixed up.

It is not unheard of that words are used in such a way.

Look at the devas and asuras, which was "evil" and which was "good"?

Depends if you are asking a Vedanta or Zoroastrian, correct?

I consider Abram to be a cognate of Brama (Brahma), just as I consider Adam to be a cognate of Dama (Dharma).
It is all about context. IF you are of the Vedic belief systems and you are to read the Hebrew scriptures THIS is EXACTLY what you will see and comprehend.

How come Ravana kidnapped Sita?

What is yana that's attached to word Rama?

What is the connection between Mandore and Ravana?

No idea friend.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

I mistaken Brahman as the creator, but it's Brahma, look I'm getting all these names mixed up.

Brahman is the creator; he is the omnipresent and infinite God. In his first manifestation, when Brahman was alone and he was not happy, he decided to create and then he created Brahma. The suffix a indicates descent or son. So, Brahma is son of Brahman and this Brahma started the task of creation. Just to clear up, both of these have nothing to do with the word Brahmin, which is a cast of the priests and have nothing to do with the creation or at all.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Brahman is the creator; he is the omnipresent and infinite God. In his first manifestation, when Brahman was alone and he was not happy, he decided to create and then he created Brahma. The suffix a indicates descent or son. So, Brahma is son of Brahman and this Brahma started the task of creation.

I don't speak for all Hindus, but as I see it, Brahman is satcidananda - existence/consciousness/bliss. Brahman does not create, does not destroy, is not alone, is neither happy nor sad, does not decide, and is neither father nor son. Creation, destruction, loneliness, happiness, sadness, decision, familial relation...all appearances in Brahman manifest as a result of Maya. There is only Brahman.

Your interpretation is heavily influenced by Abrahamic belief.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Brahman does not create, does not destroy, is not alone, is neither happy nor sad, does not decide, and is neither father nor son

If Brahman did not create then how did one become many? As told in Chhandogya Upanishad. The fact is that this idea is I have discussed this with a number of monks to name one Swami Ramanand of Omkareshwar and he agreed that there has to be some sense of desire, howsoever small, in the Brahman to be able to divide itself into one, one into many, or for the creation to arise. If Brahman did not create then the creation would not arise. So, this idea is momentous and I think this is at the root of the decline of Hinduism in India because once it is said that Brahman does not create and he does not want anything then it leaves no objective to a human being to engage in this world except expiation of one's own desires. Even in Gita, Krishna tells Arjun that he has to act not because Brahman wants activity but because he has to expiate his desires. This is a false theory because Brahman does desire and that is why creation has taken place.

 

[SalixIncendium]

If Brahman did not create then how did one become many? As told in Chhandogya Upanishad. The fact is that this idea is I have discussed this with a number of monks to name one Swami Ramanand of Omkareshwar and he agreed that there has to be some sense of desire, howsoever small, in the Brahman to be able to divide itself into one, one into many, or for the creation to arise. If Brahman did not create then the creation would not arise. So, this idea is momentous and I think this is at the root of the decline of Hinduism in India because once it is said that Brahman does not create and he does not want anything then it leaves no objective to a human being to engage in this world except expiation of one's own desires. This is a false theory because Brahman does desire and that is why creation has taken place.

There is neither dissolution nor creation, none in bondage and none practicing disciplines. There is none seeking Liberation and none liberated. This is the absolute truth. ~ Guadapada, Mandukya Karika 2:32

Verily, all this is Brahman.

Even in Gita, Krishna tells Arjun that he has to act not because Brahman wants activity but because he has to expiate his desires.

Chapter and verse, please.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

There is neither dissolution nor creation, none in bondage and none practicing disciplines. There is none seeking Liberation and none liberated. This is the absolute truth. ~ Guadapada, Mandukya Karika 2:32

Verily, all this is Brahman.


Chapter and verse, please.

You are not replying to my question. How did creation come about if Brahman did not create? Because at one time there was only Brahman and nothing else. So, this can only happen if Brahman has desires. This is the fundamental problem of Advaita philosophy that has led to the decline of India because the best minds have considered the world to be meaningless when actually Brahman wants something. What it is we can discuss separately.

 

[SalixIncendium]

You are not replying to my question. How did creation come about if Brahman did not create? Because at one time there was only Brahman and nothing else. So, this can only happen if Brahman has desires. This is the fundamental problem of Advaita philosophy that has led to the decline of India because the best minds have considered the world to be meaningless when actually Brahman wants something. What it is we can discuss separately.

Now India is declining, too? What's next? Asia?

I did reply to your question. You either ignored or disliked the answer. Let's try this another way...

"Creation" is an appearance in Brahman. Brahman does not create something separate from itself. Just as the dream you had last night was an appearance in you. It doesn't exist independently of you. And just as your dream is a result of ignorance of the fact that you are sleeping in your bed, "creation" is a result of ignorance of one's true nature as Brahman.

Speaking of not replying to questions, I asked for the chapter and verse where Krishna tells Arjuna that he has to act to expiate Brahman's desires. You have yet to furnish it.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Now India is declining, too? What's next? Asia?

I did reply to your question. You either ignored or disliked the answer. Let's try this another way...

"Creation" is an appearance in Brahman. Brahman does not create something separate from itself. Just as the dream you had last night was an appearance in you. It doesn't exist independently of you. And just as your dream is a result of ignorance of the fact that you are sleeping in your bed, "creation" is a result of ignorance of one's true nature as Brahman.

Speaking of not replying to questions, I asked for the chapter and verse where Krishna tells Arjuna that he has to act to expiate Brahman's desires. You have yet to furnish it.

Reply to your question, the verse is 3.9 of the Geeta.

Regarding creation being an appearance in Brahman. The question is where did Maya or the appearance arise from? The Maya can only arise if there is some desire in the Para-Brahman only then Para-Brahman becomes Para-Brahman.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Reply to your question, the verse is 3.9 of the Geeta.

"Work must be done as a yajna to the Supreme Lord; otherwise, work causes bondage in this material world. Therefore, O son of Kunti, for the satisfaction of God, perform your prescribed duties, without being attached to the results."

This says nothing about Brahman having desires. It's about performing duties as a sacrifice to God rather than for the satisfaction of (ego) self to prevent bondage to vyavaharika. You're attempting to shoehorn Abrahamic belief into Hindu scripture.

Regarding creation being an appearance in Brahman. The question is where did Maya or the appearance arise from?

Avidya. Maya is an adjunct to Brahman, just as a dream is an adjunct to your forebrain.

The Maya can only arise if there is some desire in the Para-Brahman only then Para-Brahman becomes Para-Brahman.

This makes no sense. Does desire cause @Bharat Jhunjhunwala to become @Bharat Jhunjhunwala?

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

This says nothing about Brahman having desires. It's about performing duties as a sacrifice to God rather than for the satisfaction of (ego) self to prevent bondage to vyavaharika. You're attempting to shoehorn Abrahamic belief into Hindu scripture.

- That is exactly the problem. When Gita says you have to perform your prescribed duties, it is saying that Brahman does not have any desires and there is no reason for you to do any duties, if your desires have been expedited. So, this is the problem of Advaita philosophy that the only purpose of undertaking work in this world is not the furtherance of Brahman, or not the furtherance of this world, but rather it is only because one has somehow been born. It does not explain why one has been born with some desires.

Avidya. Maya is an adjunct to Brahman, just as a dream is an adjunct to your forebrain.

Secondly, you say that Maya is an adjunct to Brahman. But why? But dream and forebrain example does not work. Because dream forebrain is not the only thing that exists in this world, whereas Brahman is the only thing that existed in this world. So, there was no reason for Maya to arise unless Brahman had some desires.

 

[The Hammer]

Ramen. Definitely ramen.

 

[SalixIncendium]

When Gita says you have to perform your prescribed duties, it is saying that Brahman does not have any desires and there is no reason for you to do any duties, if your desires have been expedited.

Where?

So, this is the problem of Advaita philosophy that the only purpose of undertaking work in this world is not the furtherance of Brahman, or not the furtherance of this world, but rather it is only because one has somehow been born. It does not explain why one has been born with some desires.

This has been explained in Chapter 1 of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.

Secondly, you say that Maya is an adjunct to Brahman. But why? But dream and forebrain example does not work. Because dream forebrain is not the only thing that exists in this world, whereas Brahman is the only thing that existed in this world. So, there was no reason for Maya to arise unless Brahman had some desires.

Incorrect assumption. Brahman does not exist in this world. This world appears in Brahman.

"All this is Brahman." ~ Chandogya Upanishad 3.14.1

This is also explained in the Mundakya Upanishad (the shortest of the Upanishads), "All this is verily Brahman," and elaborated upon in Guadapada's Mandukya Karika.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Where?

In Gita Krishna says that I have nothing to do in this world. That is the statement that the only reason for undertaking world work in this world is your own inherited desires. When, since Krishna does not have desires, he says that he has nothing to do in this world.

Incorrect assumption. Brahman does not exist in this world. This world appears in Brahman.

As you yourself say all this is a Brahman, this means that the world does not merely appear as Brahman, but the world is Brahman. Therefore, please get out of this idea of Maya being the cause of this world.

 

[SalixIncendium]

In Gita Krishna says that I have nothing to do in this world. That is the statement that the only reason for undertaking world work in this world is your own inherited desires. When, since Krishna does not have desires, he says that he has nothing to do in this world.

When I say 'where,' I'm looking for specific scripture, not "In Gita" along with your interpretations. And this doesn't remotely resemble what you wrote above unless you think I'm Krishna.

As you yourself say all this is a Brahman, this means that the world does not merely appear as Brahman, but the world is Brahman. Therefore, please get out of this idea of Maya being the cause of this world.

Perhaps before you suggest I get out of an idea, you should better understand what said idea is. 'Cause' is Maya, along with time and space.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

When I say 'where,' I'm looking for specific scripture,

BG 3.22: There is no duty for Me to do in all the three worlds, O Parth, nor do I have anything to gain or attain. Yet, I am engaged in prescribed duties.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

When I say 'where,' I'm looking for specific scripture, not "In Gita" along with your interpretations. And this doesn't remotely resemble what you wrote above unless you think I'm Krishna.


Perhaps before you suggest I get out of an idea, you should better understand what said idea is. 'Cause' is Maya, along with time and space.

If there was nothing other than Brahman, then wherefrom did Maya arise?

 

[SalixIncendium]

BG 3.22: There is no duty for Me to do in all the three worlds, O Parth, nor do I have anything to gain or attain. Yet, I am engaged in prescribed duties.

Thank you.

So without desire, why do you believe Krishna remains engaged in the world?

If there was nothing other than Brahman, then wherefrom did Maya arise?

I'm not sure why you are using past tense here. There is nothing other than Brahman. Maya arises in Brahman; it is not apart from it.

If there is nothing other than you in your bed, then wherefrom did you dream world arise? Is it a creation separate from you?

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

So without desire, why do you believe Krishna remains engaged in the world?

My own sense is that Krishna understood that Brahman has desires and he continued to engage for the evolution of Brahman and fulfilment of his desires. But at the same time, he pretended that there was nothing for him to do so that his disciples would generate detachment toward the senses and material world and then in the next step engaged with the world as per the desires of the Brahman. In other words, this talk was a strategic talk to disengage people from their senses and attach them to their hearts but in both cases with action.

I'm not sure why you are using past tense here. There is nothing other than Brahman. Maya arises in Brahman; it is not apart from it.

when you say Maya arises in Brahman then the question is that when there was only Brahman and nothing else then where was Maya at that time? If there was no Maya at that time then where from did Maya arise? So, it clearly indicates that Maya was a creation of Brahman, as you rightly say. But then it supports my view that the Brahman has desires.

 

[SalixIncendium]

My own sense is that Krishna understood that Brahman has desires and he continued to engage for the evolution of Brahman and fulfilment of his desires. But at the same time, he pretended that there was nothing for him to do so that his disciples would generate detachment toward the senses and material world and then in the next step engaged with the world as per the desires of the Brahman. In other words, this talk was a strategic talk to disengage people from their senses and attach them to their hearts but in both cases with action.

So mere conjecture to shoehorn your opinions into the Hindu narrative. Okay.

when you say Maya arises in Brahman then the question is that when there was only Brahman and nothing else then where was Maya at that time? If there was no Maya at that time then where from did Maya arise? So, it clearly indicates that Maya was a creation of Brahman, as you rightly say. But then it supports my view that the Brahman has desires.

Without Maya, there is no "time," and there is no "where." As I said previously, Maya is space/time/causation.