Brahman or God

[Aupmanyav]

How can you know Brahman or God? One can know Brahman or God from His attributes as expressed in Quran- the pristine and pure Word of G-d, revealed on Muhammad.

Thanks, Paarsurrey. Very kind of you to suggest.
That may be your solution, but it is not mine. It is 1,387 years old, I want something more recent.
As you know, I do not consider Brahman to be a God, but what constitutes all things in the universe. All things are made up OF Brahman, even a dog, a leaf or a grain of sand. I consider God to be fiction. So, Brahman is not God. Our terminologies are different.

 

[Fool]

As my partner would say ~ anyone who has can write their own good news according to themselves in their own words, and testify to witnessing the internal transformations.

true, but then you test the spirit, the mind, that claims it by their actions.


goodwill without works is dead. it is what it does and anyone can claim anything but do they deliver?


false advertisement is easily discovered.

 

[Valjean]

you exist because of something. this something is god/brahman.

Interesting claim, but it seems unsupported.

How can you know Brahman or God?

One can know Brahman or God from His attributes as expressed in Quran- the pristine and pure Word of G-d, revealed on Muhammad.

But Brahman has no attributes, and God's attributes are anyone's guess. We haven't even established His existence.

 

[paarsurrey]

Thanks, Paarsurrey. Very kind of you to suggest.
That may be your solution, but it is not mine. It is 1,387 years old, I want something more recent.
As you know, I do not consider Brahman to be a God, but what constitutes all things in the universe. All things are made up OF Brahman, even a dog, a leaf or a grain of sand. I consider God to be fiction. So, Brahman is not God. Our terminologies are different.

My understanding is based on Quran/Islam/Muhammad and the attributes of G-d as mentioned in Quran. According to it Allah is Rabbul Alimeen or "Lord of all the worlds" that envisages that we admit that other nations could have other names of G-d in their own languages.
This is my understanding others could have their own understanding, please.

Regards

 

[syo]

Interesting claim, but it seems unsupported.

Everything is governed by time. So we need a first. God/brahman is the first.

 

[Valjean]

Everything is governed by time. So we need a first. God/brahman is the first.

What I was questioning was causality.

 

[syo]

What I was questioning was causality.

Ah, in my religion the first causality is named 'God'. And yes, I believe in causality.

 

[Martin]

Thanks, Paarsurrey. Very kind of you to suggest.
That may be your solution, but it is not mine. It is 1,387 years old, I want something more recent.
As you know, I do not consider Brahman to be a God, but what constitutes all things in the universe. All things are made up OF Brahman, even a dog, a leaf or a grain of sand. I consider God to be fiction. So, Brahman is not God. Our terminologies are different.

It doesnt sound like your idea of Brahman has much do to with Hinduism.

 

[Valjean]

Ah, in my religion the first causality is named 'God'. And yes, I believe in causality.

Any clue as to mechanism, or do you just assert an agent?

 

[Valjean]

It doesnt sound like your idea of Brahman has much do to with Hinduism.

What's your idea of Brahman?

 

[syo]

Any clue as to mechanism, or do you just assert an agent?

You said it right! It's 'mechanism'. Mechanism is something well-ordered. We have a fully function Dna, atom, proton, electron etc. We didn't create all this stuff. we were given our bodies. something intelligent formed our brains etc and they were given to us.

 

[Valjean]

You said it right! It's 'mechanism'. Mechanism is something well-ordered. We have a fully function Dna, atom, proton, electron etc. We didn't create all this stuff. we were given our bodies. something intelligent formed our brains etc and they were given to us.

You seem unaware of our current knowledge of the mechanisms that created "this stuff." You say we were given our bodies by something intelligent. This is unsupported religious doctrine.

Why do you think "something intelligent" formed our brains, &c? Is this an argument from ignorance, or an appeal to personal incredulity?
Are you aware of the known mechanisms of evolution that "gave us" our bodies and brains?

 

[syo]

You seem unaware of our current knowledge of the mechanisms that created "this stuff." You say we were given our bodies by something intelligent. This is unsupported religious doctrine.

Why do you think "something intelligent" formed our brains, &c? Is this an argument from ignorance, or an appeal to personal incredulity?
Are you aware of the known mechanisms of evolution that "gave us" our bodies and brains?

What is the very first being that exists?

 

[Valjean]

What is the very first being that exists?

Define "being."
Is a self-replicating molecule a being? a membrane? a polymer?

 

[syo]

Define "being."
Is a self-replicating molecule a being? a membrane? a polymer?

yes, of course.

 

[Martin]

What's your idea of Brahman?

Not very well-informed, but saying Brahman is just the universe sounds more like materialism than Hinduism.
I haven't got an axe to grind here, but I do think clarity is important. Dressing up atheism as Hinduism is peculiar.

 

[Valjean]

yes, of course.

Then the first being was a hydrogen molecule.

 

[Valjean]

Not very well-informed, but saying Brahman is just the universe sounds more like materialism than Hinduism.
I haven't got an axe to grind here, but I do think clarity is important. Dressing up atheism as Hinduism is peculiar.

Brahman is like the Brane underlying Reality in String theory, from which the vibrating strings/loops that form Reality emerge.

Theoretical physics seems well tailored to Vedantic Hinduism.

 

[syo]

Then the first being was a hydrogen molecule.

Not time then huh...

 

[Valjean]

Not time then huh...

Time, space, quarks, atoms -- all could be "beings" by your definition.