Ahura Mazda, Jehovah, and Brahman

[Fool]

ahura mazda is the name of the Lord in zoroastrianism. the ultimate name, of course, is ahmi yat ahmi?


is ahura mazda equivalent to jehovah in judaism and brahman in hinduism?
is ahmi yat ahmi equivalent to tat tvam asi, or aham brahmasmi, or ayam atma brahma in hinduism and ehyeh asher ehyeh in judaism?

 

[Aupmanyav]

It is not essential to consider Brahman as a God in Hinduism, though many people do. I don't. Brahman is what constitutes all things in the universe, sort of the ultimate material, if we can call it that, or perhaps 'physical energy', which is what we started with at the time of Big Bang. So, it is 'Aham Brahmasmi' (I am Brahman) as well as 'Tat twam asi' (That is what you are) and that is what everything is 'Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahma' (All things here are Brahman). That is a huge difference.
Monotheists can only think about a God.

 

[Firemorphic]

Monotheists can only think about a God.

By "a god", what do you mean exactly?

 

[Firemorphic]

ahura mazda is the name of the Lord in zoroastrianism. the ultimate name, of course, is ahmi yat ahmi?


is ahura mazda equivalent to jehovah in judaism and brahman in hinduism?
is ahmi yat ahmi equivalent to tat tvam asi, or aham brahmasmi, or ayam atma brahma in hinduism and ehyeh asher ehyeh in judaism?

Ultimately, yes.

 

[ajay0]

ahura mazda is the name of the Lord in zoroastrianism. the ultimate name, of course, is ahmi yat ahmi?


is ahura mazda equivalent to jehovah in judaism and brahman in hinduism?
is ahmi yat ahmi equivalent to tat tvam asi, or aham brahmasmi, or ayam atma brahma in hinduism and ehyeh asher ehyeh in judaism?

Ahura Mazda is considered in a dualistic viewpoint in Zoroastrianism, opposed to the evil spirit Angra Mainyu, and superior to it. Angra Mainyu is similar to satan in the abrahamic religions.

Since all this involves dualism, Ahura Mazda cannot be considered as Nirguna Brahman, but can be considered as Saguna Brahman under a dualistic viewpoint.

Shiva or Ishwar in Hinduism are concepts of an incorporeal God similar to Ahura Mazda or Jehovah.

Here Shiva is stated by the Atharva Veda and the Shaivite scriptures to represent a cosmic pillar of light. The Prajapita Brahmakumaris state that God Shiva is an incorporeal point of light.

Jehovah and Allah are also associated with light in the Abrahamic religions. Imo, fire worship in the Zoroastrian religion also emphasizes light as a symbol of purity.

 

[Aupmanyav]

By "a god", what do you mean exactly?

A white bearded guy who sits on a throne in the sky and is supposed to send theists to eternal hell after death. Well, 999 out of 1,000, as Bible says.

 

[Firemorphic]

A white bearded guy who sits on a throne in the sky and is supposed to send theists to eternal hell after death. Well, 999 out of 1,000, as Bible says.

Well firstly, you are talking about anthropomorphic deities. No, your characterization is completely false for 99% of the Abrahamic tradition (and a characterization I am heavily critical of when it comes to Atheism and like you right now, atheists drinking their own kool-aid)
Islam and Judaism vehemently deny any deities (idolatry) and believe in a formless, transcendent Ultimate Reality. Christianity (well, for me) is harder to reconcile metaphysically but they essentially believe similar but break the formlessness in their theology by having Jesus as a supposed incarnation of God (considered by Judaism and Islam to be idolatry).
Other forms of monotheism, such as Zoroastrianism and Sikhism also believe in a formless, transcendent God.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Islam and Judaism vehemently deny any deities (idolatry) and believe in a formless, transcendent Ultimate Reality. Christianity (well, for me) is harder to reconcile metaphysically but they essentially believe similar but break the formlessness in their theology by having Jesus as a supposed incarnation of God (considered by Judaism and Islam to be idolatry).
Other forms of monotheism, such as Zoroastrianism and Sikhism also believe in a formless, transcendent God.

The Judaic and Islamic deity is still anthropomorphic, he hates, loves, gives preferences, and probably he is male, though Islam denies it.
Brahman is none like that. We use 'It' to describe Brahman. It is uninvolved in human affairs, does not create or destroy, does not love or hate, does not judge people before or after death, does not give preference to people who worship or do not worship it, it is unchangeable and eternal. So the Brahman idea is completely different from the Abrahamic God idea.
Since you do not know much about Sikhism, let us skip that, but the Sikh 'Ek Onkar' is no different from the Hindu Brahman.

 

[Firemorphic]

The Judaic and Islamic deity is still anthropomorphic, he hates, loves, gives preferences, and probably he is male, though Islam denies it.

It's not anthropomorphic whatsoever, it is The Ultimate Reality. It's formless, It's an IT. It created male and female, they are temporal biological archetypes. IT is non-personal and transcendent. The Qur'an itself is a product of a complex metaphysics but to simplify it, IT doesn't talk, angels function as the "voice" of God. The Qur'an is technically words from an angel transmitted to a prophet.
You don't believe in it, sure, and I don't care that you don't - but you have to be corrected here because you're dead wrong about your conception of Monotheism. You are thinking about Monotheism in the same way you think about Hindu deities with their adventures and families. Monotheism is 180 degrees the opposite, monotheism is not deity and is straight in the direction of Brahman but with a different essential quality (hence why your conception of Brahman leans towards your Atheism).

Since you do not know much about Sikhism, let us skip that, but the Sikh 'Ek Onkar' is no different from the Hindu Brahman.

Ik Onkar is a bridge between both worldviews.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It's not anthropomorphic whatsoever, it is The Ultimate Reality. It's formless, It's an IT. It created male and female, they are temporal biological archetypes. IT is non-personal and transcendent. The Qur'an itself is a product of a complex metaphysics but to simplify it, IT doesn't talk, angels function as the "voice" of God. The Qur'an is technically words from an angel transmitted to a prophet.
You don't believe in it, sure, and I don't care that you don't - but you have to be corrected here because you're dead wrong about your conception of Monotheism. You are thinking about Monotheism in the same way you think about Hindu deities with their adventures and families. Monotheism is 180 degrees the opposite, monotheism is not deity and is straight in the direction of Brahman but with a different essential quality (hence why your conception of Brahman leans towards your Atheism).

Ik Onkar is a bridge between both worldviews.

Taking Abrahamic God as an 'It', it still not impersonal otherwise it would not have given commandments (Brahman has given no commandments) or conveyed Qur'an through 'angels'. Hinduism has no angels carrying the messages of an involved God hither and thither. It creates, disposes, judges people, gives preferences to worshipers. In what way it is different from an anthropomorpic God?

Sikhism, just like Hinduism, gives freedom to its people to worship 'Ek Onkar' as a God also. Dharmic religions are flexible. Different people have different needs. Some are clear-headed, some are befuddled. Understanding the ultimate truth and bravely accepting it is not possible for all people. Hinduism does not expect every one to understand the concept of Brahman. Some are strong, some are weak and need support. So, we have family minded Gods and Godesses who hold hands of these people. Gods, their families and their adventures are fun.

 

[Firemorphic]

Brahman is none like that. We use 'It' to describe Brahman. It is uninvolved in human affairs, does not create or destroy, does not love or hate, does not judge people before or after death, does not give preference to people who worship or do not worship it, it is unchangeable and eternal. So the Brahman idea is completely different from the Abrahamic God idea.

Not really, you are practically describing exactly what the Abrahamic Ultimate Reality ("God") is - with point of differentiation being qualitative. Brahman is neutral or passive, the Hindu deities are even seen to be illusive towards it. The Abrahamic Ultimate Reality is transcendent and self-revealing but THE ontological perfect Unicity. The universe is the Will of God.

You come to Brahman from an Atheist/Pantheist point of view, which is perfectly fine. You represent a portion of Vedanta thought in regards to it. I, however represent the majority Islamic, Jewish and Mazdaen thought regarding monotheism.

The only Muslims that believe God is a 'guy in the sky' are Wahhabis, who are unsurprisingly the terrorists

Since you do not know much about Sikhism, let us skip that, but the Sikh 'Ek Onkar' is no different from the Hindu Brahman.

You don't know what I know about Sikhism but I could reverse that onto you, and say that you don't know much about Islam or Sikhism.

 

[Firemorphic]

Taking Abrahamic God as an 'It', it still not impersonal otherwise it would not have given commandments (Brahman has given no commandments) or conveyed Qur'an through 'angels'. Hinduism has no angels carrying the messages of an involved God hither and thither. It creates, disposes, judges people, gives preferences to worshipers. In what way it is different from an anthropomorpic God?

Sure, but Hinduism (starting with the Vedic period) is founded from the complete opposite point of view. Hinduism recognizes the diverse many making up a unified whole, whereas Abrahamism recognizes the unified whole revealing itself to the microcosm.

With Monotheism, the universe is the Will of God, you being born is the Will of God. Everything is a process from 1 to 10 then all the way back to 1. This counts for Angels, being like a kind of layer between the immaterial and the material, it's the way our metaphysics is.
Hinduism has varying views on the so-called "supernatural", as you'd know, your view doesn't represent all schools of Hindu thought.

 

[Aupmanyav]

With Monotheism, the universe is the Will of God, you being born is the Will of God. Everything is a process from 1 to 10 then all the way back to 1. This counts for Angels, being like a kind of layer between the immaterial and the material, it's the way our metaphysics is.

Hinduism has varying views on the so-called "supernatural", as you'd know, your view doesn't represent all schools of Hindu thought.

Oh sure, Hinduism does not insist on one single view. It is much wiser than that. But if the Abrahamic God has a 'will', then it is anthropomorphic. It is a creation, an imagination, it is not the ultimate principle.

 

[Firemorphic]

But if the Abrahamic God has a 'will', then it is anthropomorphic.

That is purely a false statement. You're still thinking about it in different terms that are actually being discussed here. This is not a Will in the sense of a thought or inclination, this is an Absolute "force" that emanates. I keep describing it but you're still not getting it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well, Brahman applies no such force.

 

[Firemorphic]

Well, Brahman applies no such force.

Well, if you believe the theory of the Big Bang, then you already believe it to some extent. Although, you may argue that Brahman is arbitrary within it's ultimate-ness. Whereas we will insist that The Ultimate Reality's emanation of the universe recedes back into itself eventually.

Still, this does not in any way dismiss the correlation between the self and Ultimate Reality within Monotheism (which eventually reveals itself as a form of Monism, as alluded to in everything else I've said to you). Like the Atman identifying itself as the Brahman, although not with the same Absolute-ness as Brahman/Atman in many Hindu traditions/schools.
As I said above: "Everything is a process from 1 to 10 then all the way back to 1."

The differences you state compared to me, are of quality, not quantity but we are certainly not talking about deities or anthropomorphic beings (whether Allah or Brahman) - that in and of itself runs counter-Abrahamic.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Your God is in competition with other Gods and Goddesses, so he reveals in every monotheistic religion right from Zoroastrianism to Bahais and Ahmadiyyas, he is still anthropomorphic. Inapt for the ultimate principle, the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God. Hindu Brahman has no such concern.

 

[Firemorphic]

Your God is in competition with other Gods and Goddesses

To quote earlier: "Islam and Judaism vehemently deny any deities (idolatry) and believes in a formless, transcendent Ultimate Reality."

You're going around in circles, we're not talking about deities, we're talking about a singular IT at the center of existence. Not a fluffy man in the clouds.

To Abrahamic tradition, there is nothing for the Ultimate Reality to compete with when everything comes from it but yes, it reveals itself (as I keep stating as a quality).
There is worshiping the Ultimate Reality, then there is worshiping idols (finite things within the universe), period. Whatever name you give to that Ultimate Reality is irrelevant (The Qur'an alone gives 99 names to The Ultimate Reality)

To quote my previous post:

As I said above: "Everything is a process from 1 to 10 then all the way back to 1."

The differences you state compared to me, are of quality, not quantity but we are certainly not talking about deities or anthropomorphic beings (whether Allah or Brahman) - that in and of itself runs counter-Abrahamic.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Whereas we will insist that The Ultimate Reality's emanation of the universe recedes back into itself eventually. .. Like the Atman identifying itself as the Brahman, although not with the same Absolute-ness as Brahman/Atman in many Hindu traditions/schools.
As I said above: "Everything is a process from 1 to 10 then all the way back to 1."

The differences you state compared to me, are of quality, not quantity but we are certainly not talking about deities or anthropomorphic beings (whether Allah or Brahman) - that in and of itself runs counter-Abrahamic.

Fine, like many Hindu schools, emanations of the "Ultimate Reality' do not fully merge with the 'The Ultimate Reality'.
If there was no other God, then what is his problem? How does form and formless matter? How do idols matter? How do number of God and Goddesses matter to the sole omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God? Why should people be worshiping him? What pleasure does he get out of being worshiped? Why not just good deeds are enough?

 

[Firemorphic]

Fine, like many Hindu schools, emanations of the "Ultimate Reality' do not fully merge with the 'The Ultimate Reality'.

Last try pal.

We both "believe" in The Ultimate Reality.
You say that it's totality is the Universe, I say it transcends the Universe (but pervades it).

Everything else is qualitative and things we aren't expected to agree on, as you're an Atheist and I'm not.
I'm not trying to convince you anything aside from showing you your misunderstandings of Monotheism (which is not anthropomorphic and is categorically diametrically opposed to deity).
End of story.

The Ultimate Reality is The Ultimate Reality.​