I'd take issue here. Brahman is not a Personage, entity, or even a thing. It has no features and "exists" in no time or place.
If it's a God, it's an ineffable one, unlike any divine personage I'm aware of, from any other religion..
-
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!
Historical Accuracy in Scripture
- Thread starter SalixIncendium
- Start date
If it's a God, it's an ineffable one, unlike any divine personage I'm aware of, from any other religion..
Not exactly. "Brahman" is a neuter term that points to the ultimate reality or highest principle. For Brahman to be referenced as God, there would be qualities added, i.e. Saguna Brahman (Brahman with qualities). Deities would be considered Saguna Brahman.
I think what you are describing here is Nirguna Brahman (Para Brahman).
Connecticut or Massachusetts?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I agree, but it certainly can as Gandhi stated. When my close friend studied Hinduism for a summer about 50 years ago, he went to a Hindu household that had a picture of Jesus on the wall, and the husband noting he had a puzzled look on his face and asked if he could help. He then explained that his household does believe that Jesus was one of the manifestations of Brahman.That may not exactly correspond with the concept of a God.
As you're very much aware of I'm sure, defining "Hinduism" is a real bugger, so I'm careful to cloak my words cautiously, thus not assuming much of anything. I couldn't help but laugh as one Hindu theologian I read decades ago, when asked to define it, said that it's probably best to just say that it's a complex and highly varied religion that developed first in the Hindus River area and leave it at that.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I'm fully aware of that, but I could also "take issue" with your description.
IMO, any concept of Brahman (or "God") is seriously problematic right from the get-go, with some like Spinoza believing that "God" may be the energy of creation and possibly be in all forms of "Nature", which he used as another name for God. Einstein said he believed in "Spinoza's God", but that doesn't prove much of anything of course.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
See my post above.
Why is it seriously problematic right from the get-go?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Because I believe "God" is beyond our abilities to objectively understand.
I believe in Brahman [or "God"] not because of objective evidence but subjective experiences I've had that defy my ability to objectively know why these kept happening to me. I have a science background and profession, thus I'm not much prone to superstition. But what happened over a two-year period shook me to my very core.
lukethethird
unknown member
Historical Accuracy in Scripture
Oxymoron.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Elli G., Sayak is a monist. That means that he is not really different from his deity, only conditionally.
I too am a monist Hindu though an atheist, my view differs from that of Sayak.
My view does not accept a deity, but accepts no difference between 'what exists in the universe' and myself. I am totally 'that' without any reservation.
IMHO, you need to know about monism. Abrahamic logic does not work in Hinduism.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
That does not work with me. Gandhi may have said whatever he said. I folow Buddha's advice in Kesamutti Sutta (Wikipedia):
"nor upon another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya),
nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū)."
Yeah, everything that exists in the world is Brahman only, even a Dog. Krishna said in Gita:
"A learned and gentle brāhmiṇ, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater (outcaste), the wise see them all as the same." BG 5.18
I am not that wise, I am just an ordinary orthodox Hindu, I stick to my tradition. What the husband in that household said was his opinion.
The person whom your friend asked to define Hinduism was confused if he could not define it (no need to laugh). I will define it as the "Linux of religions", giving you complete freedom of belief, no compulsion to worship this or that, the only condition being that one must fulfill his 'dharma' (duty). That is the operating system kernel in Hinduism.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
You're answering as you have definitive answers, which begs the question how do you know these to be true? As a scientist, I can't do that, and that carries over into my religious "drifts" as well.
IMO, certainty is the enemy of serious theology.
As the crucifixion and resurrection claims are the foundation of the religion, historical accuracy is obviously critical. And those claims fail miserably. First, crucifixion was meant as a stark warning to others. Bodies were left to rot on the cross. It's ludicrous to think that Pilate or any other Roman official would EVER agree to letting Joseph take the body of Jesus down so soon - and certainly not to take it to a tomb for a decent burial. And since the crucifixion story is clearly wrong, I find the resurrection contradictions irrelevant.
If you don't understand the meaning and import of the question, bow out of the conversation. At the very least it will give you more time to learn the meaning of "oxymoron."
Pssst: "the crucifixion and resurrection claims" are irrelevant to the scripture of many religions.
lukethethird
unknown member
I understand just fine thank you very much. If you can provide me with an example of historical accuracy in scripture, please do.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Historical Accuracy in Scripture
Even otherwise there are many contradictions in the Bible, list provided vide post
#25 of our friend Valjean link:
https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/YaBBAttachments/101_Contradictions_In_The_Bible.pdf
#366 :
Bible contradictions
79.Apart from Jesus did anyone else ascend to heaven?(a) No (John 3:13)
(b) Yes. “And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven” (2 Kings 2:11)
https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/YaBBAttachments/101_Contradictions_In_The_Bible.pdf
Regards
Last edited:
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Historical Accuracy in Scripture
Bible contradictions
80.Who was high priest when David went into the house of God and ate the consecrated bread?(a) Abiathar (Mark 2:26)
(b) Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar (I Samuel 1:1; 22:20)
https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/YaBBAttachments/101_Contradictions_In_The_Bible.pdf
Such contradictions of the NT Bible loudly speak that NT Bible was neither narrated/authored by Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah nor inspired by G-d, please, right?
Regards
Byzantine diatribes? Drama?! Please explain.The truth is that I'm not interested in your Byzantine diatribes ... but if you want someone to believe something you say, stop your drama and start presenting real evidence.
As for me, that was all I have to tell you.
Good bye.
I think my posts are pretty clear, and the questions I raise relevant.
What beliefs do you have an issue with? List some and I'll attempt to support them.