Ahura Mazda, Jehovah, and Brahman

[Aupmanyav]

Fine, till we meet again. But if he is in communication with you in some way, says something to you, listens to you, he is anthropomorphic. Yes, our views are a bit different.

But that is not the end of it. The question as to from what did he arise, still remains. So, my Brahman is beyond existence and non-existence. It can arise from the 'Ultimate void' (Ex-nihilo) and go back to it, like in Quantum Mechanics.

 

[Fool]

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.

zoroastrianism mainyu reminds me of yaldabioth, or demiurge, in gnostic cults; which is one of the seven, but then there is the 8th.

 

[Firemorphic]

But that is not the end of it. The question as to from what did he arise, still remains. So, my "Brahman" is beyond existence and non-existence. It can arise from the 'Ultimate void' (Ex-nihilo) and go back to it, like in Quantum Mechanics.

You've literally just said here what I've kept saying over and over and over and over and over and over and over and again.
You're still not describing a different thing to me, merely a different qualitative aspect.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Fare well.

 

[Firemorphic]

Fare well.

I'm glad you finally came to an agreement here

 

[Unguru]

the Sikh 'Ek Onkar' is no different from the Hindu Brahman.

Hi

Ik Onkar is different, sorry but you are wrong

 

[Treks]

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.

Well, Brahman applies no such force.

Aupmanyav, in Sikhi, the Hukam (the command / Will of Ik Onkar) is crucial. But it's like what Firemorphic is describing. It is not the will of an anthropomorphised character deity.

I didn't know that Brahman has no Will. That's fascinating.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well, according to my view (and of many others), Brahman does not create or destroys, does not interfere in human affairs (no judgment/deliverance), has not formed any rules for humans, constitutes all things in the universe, just exists*, the rest being our illusions.
* For ever, eternal? That creates the problem of where it arose from? So perhaps can even not exist. Even void has energy, Why? I do not know, science does not know, we will not know it anytime soon. It is a question which has lingered for thousands of years (RigVeda mentions it). The question is best discussed five hundreds years down the line.