-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Abrahamic God = Brahman???
- Thread starter Eddi
- Start date
In my understanding, what one perceives in pragmatic reality is maya. Maya causes avidya (ignorance). All this is verily Brahman.
So yes, as I see it, the Abrahamic God is Brahman...or more accurately...an appearance of Brahman.
So yes, as I see it, the Abrahamic God is Brahman...or more accurately...an appearance of Brahman.
No. At root, Brahman is basically a pantheistic view of divinity. Brahman is not a being, really. It's the underlying reality and unity of the Cosmos and all that exists within it. It has no prophets and does not "reveal" itself. It also does not give moral laws, necessarily.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Gandhi thought so, as do I.
Most Hindus also believe that Brahman to an extent in also a part of us ["soul", in the Abrahamic religions], therefore the achieving of moksha would be to become one with God entirely. This can be put in terms of "I am That" and "We are That", with the "That" being a reference to Brahman [God].
Am I certain that this is correct?
Of course not.
In my view the Abrahamic might be a small aspect, or limited view of Saguna Brahman, as in one part in the metaphor of the Blind man and the Elephant, but it's not the whole elephant. Brahman is the whole elephant. Not that it matters.
In Hinduism, we (as atman) merge with Brahman as destiny, a monistic view. Certainly not an Abrahamic view, as far as I know. But what do I know?
In Hinduism, we (as atman) merge with Brahman as destiny, a monistic view. Certainly not an Abrahamic view, as far as I know. But what do I know?
Last edited:
source on Gandhi's thoughts?Gandhi thought so, as do I.
Most Hindus also believe that Brahman to an extent in also a part of us ["soul", in the Abrahamic religions], therefore the achieving of moksha would be to become one with God entirely. This can be put in terms of "I am That" and "We are That", with the "That" being a reference to Brahman [God].
Am I certain that this is correct?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Hinduism is characterized by a variety of views, perhaps more than in any other religion. Strict Advaita view will not permit merging, because there is no separation in the first place.
'That Gandhi thought so' or 'this book says so' does not work in Hinduism. The reply will be 'So what? (Tatah kim?), I think differently'.
Eddi may mention his view on similarities of Christian and Hindu view.
Last edited:
Absolutely. From your view, Brahman isn't God, so it can't possibly be the same. I appreciate diversity.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
No.
SeekerOnThePath
On a mountain between Nietzsche and Islam
Yes
That contradicts the first two commandments.
However it doesn't stop some people from anthropomorphizing God.
As I already posted here: Should God show himself?
Shia Islam, Sufism, Orthodox Christianity, Jewish mysticism (both ancient mysticism, and later Kabbalah) all have strictly apophatic views of God.
As Imam Ali also says:
"The perfection of testifying Him is to believe in His Oneness, the perfection of believing in His Oneness is to regard Him Pure, and the perfection of His purity is to deny Him attributes, because every attribute is a proof that it is different from that to which it is attributed and everything to which something is attributed is different from the attribute"
SeekerOnThePath
On a mountain between Nietzsche and Islam
The truth with a majority of Abrahamic followers (including many Jews) is that they worship "the Angel of YHWH", but not YHWH itself. This is because they associate the intermediary with God.
Same with Sunni Muslims worshiping Gabriel instead of God. This is because they associate the intermediary with God.
Whereas Christians literally worship a flesh-and-blood human who farts and eats as being "God" - this being the pinnacle of idolatry, or even worse.
The Abrahamic God is not "a being" or entity, the Angels are and their role is to to reveal within time, with form and language. All of which God is absent of.
Again, why else do you think idolatry is such a massive deal in the Abrahamic religions?
Same with Sunni Muslims worshiping Gabriel instead of God. This is because they associate the intermediary with God.
Whereas Christians literally worship a flesh-and-blood human who farts and eats as being "God" - this being the pinnacle of idolatry, or even worse.
The Abrahamic God is not "a being" or entity, the Angels are and their role is to to reveal within time, with form and language. All of which God is absent of.
Again, why else do you think idolatry is such a massive deal in the Abrahamic religions?
Last edited:
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Yes. Quite different than a separate soul leaving the body to join with an independent god. Totally not how I understand it from Hindus here.
Inasmuch as Brahman manifests as everything we see and experience, under the covering of māyā. But is the Abrahamic God equivalent to Brahman as the source or ground of everything? A resounding no from me. In my view the Abrahamic God is but another deity, spiritual or celestial being, from another pantheon, or view of the supreme. Vaishnavas see Vishnu as the Supreme, Shaivas see Shiva as the Supreme, one could say Abrahamics see their God as Supreme. Brahman manifests as any and all of those. “God shows Himself in a way meaningful to the devotee; as the devotee envisions God, so God appears”, paraphrasing Sri Ramakrishna.
I like this.
"All the other forces are static, while God is the Life Force, immanent and at the same time transcendent." The word transcendent is important here. It warns against simply equating brahman with a collection of "everything in the whole world." Gandhi did write: "God is the sum total of all life." But God, or brahman, is not only the sum total of all reality that can be experienced, from the tiniest pebble up to the grandest god. Brahman is also much more than that. Even a collection of "everything in the whole world" would ultimately perish; in that sense, it is unreal. Only the imperishable brahman is sat, the really real, the essential being of the endless process we call reality. Things come and go, but the pattern by which they interact is eternal."
The imperishable is what Eminates from God, who I see is all the Messengers, as it is only they that can tell us of a Transcendent God, without them our thoughts are bound to this world.
@Jainarayan
Regards Tony
Gandhi was one voice in many voices. Personally, I have no clue as to any 'correct' view. The OP asked, some folks answered.
MNoBody
Well-Known Member
apparently the curse of Babel still prevails, dividing humans in their own minds, since they continue to see the same thing in different terms, and imagine it is qualitatively different in kind, in spirit...that it isn't the receivers that are just labeling things differently...but such contentions ensue for thousands of years .....with no ceasing. such fun
SeekerOnThePath
On a mountain between Nietzsche and Islam
So are you saying that Abrahamics believe that creation is a second god?
SeekerOnThePath
On a mountain between Nietzsche and Islam
apparently the curse of Babel still prevails, dividing humans in their own minds, since they continue to see the same thing in different terms, and imagine it is qualitatively different in kind, in spirit...that it isn't the receivers that are just labeling things differently...but such contentions ensue for thousands of years .....with no ceasing. such fun
I agree, it's frustrating as hell.
Abrahamics: "We believe in a transcendent ultimate reality without attributes, which is omnipresent"
Dharmics: "We believe in a transcendent ultimate reality without attributes, which is omnipresent"
Dharmics on this thread: "You believe in a different thing to us, see ours is transcendent ultimate reality without attributes, which is omnipresent, whereas yours is just some entity".