-
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!
Brahman's Name
- Thread starter Fool
- Start date
isha in this sense is lord as is jehovah. a hybridization of sorts. can i claim it exclusively? self-aggrandizing? meglomaniac?
Last edited:
Treks
Well-Known Member
I'm not familiar with a Jehovah-Brahman hybrid, so I can't help you sorry. Maybe someone else can 
As I said, I'm more familiar with the idea of taking the Lord's name in vain in a Christian context.
Since Brahman is the all-pervading reality (I believe .. happy to be corrected) then I don't know what "taking Brahman's name in vain" would even be. I don't think it's possible to directly transgress against Brahman?
As I said, I'm more familiar with the idea of taking the Lord's name in vain in a Christian context.
Since Brahman is the all-pervading reality (I believe .. happy to be corrected) then I don't know what "taking Brahman's name in vain" would even be. I don't think it's possible to directly transgress against Brahman?
syo
Well-Known Member
Firemorphic
Activist Membrane
I'm not familiar with a Jehovah-Brahman hybrid, so I can't help you sorry. Maybe someone else can
As I said, I'm more familiar with the idea of taking the Lord's name in vain in a Christian context.
Since Brahman is the all-pervading reality (I believe .. happy to be corrected) then I don't know what "taking Brahman's name in vain" would even be. I don't think it's possible to directly transgress against Brahman?
The Tetragrammaton (aka, YHWH) is quite literally, comparable to Brahman. The essential distinguishing quality between the two though, is that YHWH is transcendent and self-revealing (like the philosophy of Allah, although it has been obscured in ways which Allah hasn't) whereas Brahman is not.
Unlike YHWH/Allah/Ahura Mazda, Brahman can often (depending on the philosophy, like Vedanata for instance) can be reduced down to simple Pantheism (not that it necessarily is pantheism overall) - whereas YHWH/Allah/Ahura Mazda has the essential quality of it's active, revelatory nature.
In a way, Ik Onkar is like the middle between the two.
The best thing to realize for anyone interested in this stuff, whether theist or atheist, is that proper Monotheism is not about deities and men with beards in clouds.
When it comes to taking YHWH's "name" in vein (in a Jewish context), it's a reverence of the sacredness of one's own relation back to the Ultimate Reality. In these forms of not-deistic monotheism, the name is important to trying to grasp it's profundity, the names bare significance before and after some form of attainment of gnosis of the Ultimate Reality.
(And of course, it should go without having to say that the Ultimate Reality doesn't have a "name", as each "name" is subject to it's own revelation and realization.)
Last edited:
the first name in exodus 3:14 is a verb. the second name in exodus 3:15 is a noun, or a verb noun.
god is 1st an action, and second a thing.
ajay0
Well-Known Member
Brahman is considered as a name for God in Hinduism, along with Ishwar and Om.
Prajñānam brahma - Brahman is pure consciousness (Aitareya Upanishad 3.3 of the Rig Veda)
Brahman is pure consciousness as the Vedas point out. Nirguna Brahman is pure consciousness of an impersonal nature, while God as Saguna Brahman and the jivatman or soul are pure consciousness of a personalised nature, with the Jivatman in bondage due to karma. This bondage, when hacked off through spiritual exercises and meditation, results in the soul or jivatman being purified of karma and regaining its original state as pure consciousness.
Paramahamsa Yogananda also states in this regard, "The word 'God' means the manifested, transcendental Being beyond creation, but existing in relation to creation. Spirit existed before God. God is the Creator of the universe, but Spirit is the Creator of God."
Here spirit stands for Nirguna Brahman, while God stands for Saguna Brahman.
In the yogic philosophy, the Shivalinga as Saguna Brahman is considered the first form to arise when creation occurs, and also the last form before the dissolution of creation.
The Vedas and Hindu scriptures considers the Shivalinga as representing a huge pillar of light.
Interestingly, as per the Shaivite monotheistic religious sect called the Prajapita Brahmakumaris, the form of the Shiva linga denotes God as a point of light, and who is known as Jehovah, Allah, Ahura Mazda in other religions.
There is a correlation between light and God in the other Abrahamic religions as well...
In Islam, Allah has 100 name's, and one of them is Alnoor ( the Light).
“God is light,” says 1 John 1:5, in the Bible in Christianity.
In Judaism, Psalm 76:4 says of God, “You are radiant with light.”
So you can clearly see a correlation between God and light in the monotheistic religions, whether Abrahamic or Dharmic.
Last edited:
But the usual concept of "God," at least to western ears, is a personage; a conscious entity, with likes, dislikes, opinions, &c. Brahman is none of that. it's not even a "stuff" or a force. Pure Brahman has no features at all. it just is.
pure consciousness isn't an unconditional loving spirit?
yet brahma, is abraham? sarai is sarasvatti? hagar is ghaggar?
isn't it typical for the unlearned, exoteric to anthropomorphize things in symbols as literals? vs the esoteric to see them as images, metaphors, of ithoughts or actions? like a light bulb representing an idea, thought
ajay0
Well-Known Member
That is a personalised God, which is similar to Saguna Brahman or Brahman with attributes, as I have described in the post above.
What you have stated as 'Pure Brahman' is Nirguna Brahman or Spirit which is distinct from Saguna Brahman or God.
No. Pure consciousness just is. It's reality itself. No spirit or individualism.
Popular religion is always different from academic or philosophic theology.
pure is a qualitative descriptor. why isn't it just consciouness?
Treks
Well-Known Member
I have always been of the understanding that "Brahman" is the nirguna spirit more or less equatable with Ik Onkar in Sikhi, and that the form with qualities that you call "saguma Brahman" is usually written as "Brahma" (without the 'n' sound at the end) and is the creator aspect of the triple Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva set. Does that match what you're describing?
ajay0
Well-Known Member
Not at all. Brahma is a deity associated with creation, just as Vishnu is associated with maintenance and Shankar with destruction.
Saguna Brahman in Hinduism is first associated with Shiva, who is considered to be a cosmic pillar of light as per the Vedas and scriptures. Shiva here is not related to Shankar, the deity associated with destruction. (That is an association that came with the Tantrik sect as per Vivekananda.)
The Prajapita Brahmakumaris also state that Shiva is distinct from Shankar, the deity associated with destruction.
Sikh scholars had rejected the impersonal nature of Nirguna Brahman and considers Waheguru to be of a personal nature like Allah or Ahura Mazda.
Last edited:
I was trying to emphasize the unadulterated, nirguna aspect.
Treks
Well-Known Member
Ah okay, that's interesting. So you're saying there's three layers to the Brahma/n pie? Nirguna Brahman, Sarguna Brahman, and then personal deities?
And no, in Sikhi Waheguru is not a personal god. The Ik Onkar is impersonal creative force. Sikhi is panentheistic and not monotheistic and cannot abide a creator that is separate and distinct from the creation such as Allah, for example.