Should the Hindus Be Judged For Rejecting Brahma?

[wizanda]

Yahavah is a two part word meaning 'Lord of Creation' - H3068.
Yah means 'Lord' - H3050.
Havah means 'to Manifest, to Be, to Create' - H1933.

Before anyone argues in our corrupted modern understanding 'Yah' has been turned into a shortened (nickname) for Yahavah, this is grammatically ignoring contexts applied that 'Yah' is used independently as 'Lord'.

Brahma means 'to make manifest, to be, to create' i.e the Creator.

In Hindu texts it is often put as 'Lord Brahma', which in Ancient Hebrew would be 'Yahavah'.

Supposedly Dharmic religious ignore that the Source of our reality is One, and thus they deem that the Abrahamic texts have nothing to do with the One Source who creates reality; thus should they be judged as being Adharmic for rejecting Lord Brahma's religious texts?

Is it possible that Hindus could come to the Dharma, and accept that the Source is One, thus all religion is here as it creates it?

In my opinion.

 

[SomeRandom]

No.
People are just living the best they can.
A person can believe whatever they please.

 

[wizanda]

People are just living the best they can.
A person can believe whatever they please.

From a personal opinion living in a secular world, I can understand people think that; yet it isn't taking into account what Hindu texts declare, if we're not Dharmic we get removed before Satya Yuga.

If this reality is all Brahman, and people are in denial of religious principles given us by the Source, whilst going opposite to it; they're not living the best they can, they're arrogantly denying parts of it from ego...

Yet in a Dharmic sense it is much more crucial, as to choose limitation against the Source is Adharmic; which is why we're in Kali Yuga, as people choose ignorance rather than enlightenment.

Thus you're quite right, in our modern secular world people can choose to believe what they wish, and can ignore the Source entirely; which is why they're all being removed at Mahapralaya, before we return to an age of Godliness, where everyone seeks God in all aspects.

In my opinion.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Yahavah is a two part word meaning 'Lord of Creation' - H3068.
Yah means 'Lord' - H3050.
Havah means 'to Manifest, to Be, to Create' - H1933.

Before anyone argues in our corrupted modern understanding 'Yah' has been turned into a shortened (nickname) for Yahavah, this is grammatically ignoring contexts applied that 'Yah' is used independently as 'Lord'.

Brahma means 'to make manifest, to be, to create' i.e the Creator.

In Hindu texts it is often put as 'Lord Brahma', which in Ancient Hebrew would be 'Yahavah'.

Supposedly Dharmic religious ignore that the Source of our reality is One, and thus they deem that the Abrahamic texts have nothing to do with the One Source who creates reality; thus should they be judged as being Adharmic for rejecting Lord Brahma's religious texts?

Is it possible that Hindus could come to the Dharma, and accept that the Source is One, thus all religion is here as it creates it?

In my opinion.

The search for peace is ancient, but the search for unity is relatively recent. Peace has not been achieved, so unity is unlikely. I don't think there are three Abrahamic religions, but I think there are hundreds.

The story of the tower of babel (Jewish story) suggests that division arises from the gods who oppose the unity of humanity, however this perhaps has deeper meaning than the surface language. In the story these gods don't want us unified, so they scramble our languages. I'm not Jewish, however this story has a lot of experience behind it, and I think it speaks about disunity. It also has the advantage of being a major religious text. The meaning of the story is unclear, however I believe it is a reference to warring factions. I think while it speaks of gods its using them as allusions to war, because at the time of the writing wars are always attributed to the whims of the gods. Now putting aside story analysis, war is obviously a major obstacle to unity and to everyone working towards a single goal. I think that is pretty obvious. Bring an end to war and unity becomes an option.

Who is it (or what is it) that doesn't want unity? Whatever it is that causes us to joust and wrestle. Something makes us grasp.

So this leads me to conclude that, no, I cannot judge Dharmic people who believe differently than I do. The force causing war remains no matter what they do. We have not yet got a finger on it. Its like a slippery fish, possibly something with more than one cause. Some people think its solvable through religious changes. Others think DNA must be changed. Some pursue eugenics and other feel eugenics are evil. Some say its overpopulation. Some say its a human trait that cannot be removed. Some say we need an absolute eternal king (yes some really do). Some say its because of meat eating. Some say that all must have the same religion and language. You pursue unity of language. This to me is not guaranteed to work, and it also doesn't seem like it can work because of whispers. You say one thing, it goes into an ear, and it changes as it comes out through the lips.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Supposedly Dharmic religious ignore that the Source of our reality is One, and thus they deem that the Abrahamic texts have nothing to do with the One Source who creates reality; thus should they be judged as being Adharmic for rejecting Lord Brahma's religious texts?

Is it possible that Hindus could come to the Dharma, and accept that the Source is One, thus all religion is here as it creates it?

Should they be judged as adharmic from an Abrahamic perspective? I suppose that's up the the Abrahamic, as one of their core tenets is judgment.

Should they be judged as adharmic from a dharmic perspective? Well, I won't speak for all Hindus, but the notion does seem a bit silly to me. I do my best not to judge those that believe differently than I do, especially if their beliefs are of no consequence to me.

 

[Howard Is]

if we're not Dharmic we get removed before Satya Yuga.

Wow. Harsh.

So what does ‘removal’ involve ?

 

[Vinayaka]

Should they be judged as adharmic from an Abrahamic perspective? I suppose that's up the the Abrahamic, as one of their core tenets is judgment.

Should they be judged as adharmic from a dharmic perspective? Well, I won't speak for all Hindus, but the notion does seem a bit silly to me. I do my best not to judge those that believe differently than I do, especially if their beliefs are of no consequence to me.

I think judging can be falsely projected as something everyone does. There is a difference between observation and judgement. I see adharma as something that applies to individuals, not to entire religions. Any Hindu, any atheist, any person can act in adharmic or dharmic ways.

I also don't see dharma/adharma as good/bad, but more as wise/unwise.

 

[firedragon]

I also don't see dharma/adharma as good/bad, but more as wise/unwise.

Err brother. You nailed it in so many angles.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yahavah is a two part word meaning 'Lord of Creation' - H3068.
Yah means 'Lord' - H3050.
Havah means 'to Manifest, to Be, to Create' - H1933.

Before anyone argues in our corrupted modern understanding 'Yah' has been turned into a shortened (nickname) for Yahavah, this is grammatically ignoring contexts applied that 'Yah' is used independently as 'Lord'.

Brahma means 'to make manifest, to be, to create' i.e the Creator.

In Hindu texts it is often put as 'Lord Brahma', which in Ancient Hebrew would be 'Yahavah'.

Supposedly Dharmic religious ignore that the Source of our reality is One, and thus they deem that the Abrahamic texts have nothing to do with the One Source who creates reality; thus should they be judged as being Adharmic for rejecting Lord Brahma's religious texts?

Is it possible that Hindus could come to the Dharma, and accept that the Source is One, thus all religion is here as it creates it?

In my opinion.

Everything is possible, but not everything makes sense.

You have just described one key difference between Dharmic and Abrahamic approaches towards religiosity.

Abrahamic has that specific unhealthy obsession, at least when the adherents lack sufficient encouragement and wisdom to let go of it.

Dharmic tends to know better.

 

[LuisDantas]

Should they be judged as adharmic from an Abrahamic perspective? I suppose that's up the the Abrahamic, as one of their core tenets is judgment.

Should they be judged as adharmic from a dharmic perspective? Well, I won't speak for all Hindus, but the notion does seem a bit silly to me. I do my best not to judge those that believe differently than I do, especially if their beliefs are of no consequence to me.

Don't you fear that Lord Brahma, who quite obviously neither needs us nor is remotely within any position that might require protection from hypothetical doctrinary mistakes from Hindus or anyone else, might chastise you for the refusal to care about what is plainly of no consequence for anyone, least of all him?

Yeah. Neither do I. It is a waste of time to even describe such a laughable "fear".

It reminds me somewhat of ants wondering whether they should give witness of their belief in the truth of the existence of carbohydrates. Somehow that just doesn't sound like a worry worth keeping. Literally no one cares, nor should care.

 

[ameyAtmA]

Namaste

In Hindu texts it is often put as 'Lord Brahma', which in Ancient Hebrew would be 'Yahavah'.

I always assumed the God of Abraham that "sits on the throne" is Brahma-Dev, Lord BrahmA (not to be confused with Brahman' , the Source), pitAmaha, prajApatI (not for any anthromorphic reasons such as He is old and has a white beard, although that is just an additional clue).

Therefore, I am happy and grateful that you are here, one of His mind-born sons, Sanandan Kumar, to show that the Source is One, i.e. Brahman' (who becomes/plays the roles of VishNu, BrahmA and Rudra).

Supposedly Dharmic religious ignore that the Source of our reality is One, and thus they deem that the Abrahamic texts have nothing to do with the One Source who creates reality; thus should they be judged as being Adharmic for rejecting Lord Brahma's religious texts?

Not me
I have time and again gone to pick wisdom from the Bible, Buddha's suttas, Jain text, Sikh, despite the Bhagavad Geeta being my staple (and other VedAnta cannon, BhAgwat MahApurAN, other purAN ).

Just as a bee collects nectar from flowers. The bee does not pick the dogma or historical context.

Thank You Dear MukundA, for Your intuition, guidance, love, shelter and protection, and the freedom to explore.


I am Mukunda's bumblebee, and I walk with Mukunda*
---
*Mukunda = One who gives (bestows) Mukti = freedom from the binding of the mAyic world, and from the cycle of birth and death. Mukunda is one of the many (thousands of) names of VishNu, specifically Shri Krishna (all-attractive centre of Love), VAsudev (all-pervading all-encompassing Love), NArAyaN (Who brings living beings, humans to Him). He is the very embodiment of Brahman', the Source, as can be seen from Bhagavad Geeta, Uddhav Geeta..

 

[wizanda]

So what does ‘removal’ involve ?

From what I understand of global religious prophecy, there is a Holy Energy/Fire (Sāṁvartaka, Frashokereti, Hell Fire, Fire and Brimstone) which will come from the Source of reality, and will be visible here.

To explain it in quantum physics, where imagine we're inside a giant computer system, where the Source is 100% mathematically precise; the energy it emits is pure Dharma (naturally coded to do duty), nothing Adharmic (deliberately corrupted coding) can be in its presence.

The energy will simply reorder the reality back to its natural maths, and thus certain souls will no longer exist as beings.

It is referred to as "outer darkness", in other words removed into outside the mathematical grid we exist within.

In my opinion.

 

[wizanda]

Should they be judged as adharmic from an Abrahamic perspective?

There is only one Dharma, it is a universal coding from the Source...

Thus the Source judges all the texts by its standards overall, and established them to test people deliberately, as stated in the Bible, Zoroastrian & Hindu texts, etc.

I suppose that's up the the Abrahamic, as one of their core tenets is judgment.

Judging the Abrahamic texts as being judgemental, and the Hindu texts as not being judgemental?
[GALLERY=media, 7635][/GALLERY]
I find all of the religious methods extremist, and judgemental in expression, compared to what many have experienced of the Source in our NDEs.

Should they be judged as adharmic from a dharmic perspective?

The Dharma its self has rules recorded in the ideas presented by Dharmic texts.

Thus if a group of religious people are judgemental, that happens regardless of doctrine.

In my opinion.

 

[wizanda]

You have just described one key difference between Dharmic and Abrahamic approaches towards religiosity.

Abrahamic has that specific unhealthy obsession, at least when the adherents lack sufficient encouragement and wisdom to let go of it.

The Abrahamic religion is obsessed with salvation, and destruction, which then entices judgementalism... This is purposely caused according to texts globally.

Like the Bible it self warns it is misleading them for being stiff necked & judgemental, and they still do it.

Neither do I. It is a waste of time to even describe such a laughable "fear".

It reminds me somewhat of ants wondering

Thus in not studying that the ants were given a specific instruction manual by light beings, explaining Lord Brahma would come live as an ant with them in the future, after a series of events take place to see who is Dharmic.

Time doesn't exist, and so really all of our time belongs to the Source to begin with.

Dharmic tends to know better.

The point in the thread is to clarify there is no Dharmic and Abrahamic divide, it is one religion....

Personally find both judgemental compared to the Taoists and Jains - so lets not take sides.

In my opinion.

 

[wizanda]

Namaste ameyAtmA-Ji,

Question: It is unlike BrahmA to say "Thou shalt not worship other Gods before Me" , unless it means one has to understand Brahman' alone

Brahman first created Brahma (Yahavah) who created all things; all of the Divine Council (Elohim) comes from Brahma.

The problem with the modern understanding of Abrahamic religion is they no longer get the ancient language, and thus have confused the Avatars (Elohim) with the Source (El):

El = Source.
EL+ H = A being breathed by the Source.
Eloh + IM = Plural beings breathed by the Source.

So in Genesis, the Divine Beings (Elohim) created us like in Hinduism, where Yahavah/Lord Brahma spoke a code which created reality.

The God Most High (El Elyon/Brahman) is Yahavah's (Lord of Creation's) parent, and this can be shown in the Hebraic texts (Deuteronomy 32:7-18, Psalms 89:6, Psalms 29:1, etc).

Just as a bee collects nectar from flowers.

Tao Te Ching

In my opinion.

 

[stvdv]

Supposedly Dharmic religious ignore that the Source of our reality is One

Title: Should the Hindus Be Judged For Rejecting Brahma?

1: Who is having this thought "Should the Hindus Be Judged For Rejecting Brahma?"?
2: Who is going to judge the Hindus?
3: If there is only One, how can there be judging?
4: If there is only One, how can there be Rejecting?

 

[SomeRandom]

From a personal opinion living in a secular world, I can understand people think that; yet it isn't taking into account what Hindu texts declare, if we're not Dharmic we get removed before Satya Yuga.

If this reality is all Brahman, and people are in denial of religious principles given us by the Source, whilst going opposite to it; they're not living the best they can, they're arrogantly denying parts of it from ego...

Yet in a Dharmic sense it is much more crucial, as to choose limitation against the Source is Adharmic; which is why we're in Kali Yuga, as people choose ignorance rather than enlightenment.

Thus you're quite right, in our modern secular world people can choose to believe what they wish, and can ignore the Source entirely; which is why they're all being removed at Mahapralaya, before we return to an age of Godliness, where everyone seeks God in all aspects.

In my opinion.

Well of course. But it is also adharmic to interfere in another’s spiritual growth. We may gently guide someone, but to judge or even admonish someone for “not believing in X” would be detrimental to one’s inner Brahma.
As our parents used to say, whenever you point your finger towards another, there are 3 pointing back at you.

 

[wizanda]

1: Who is having this thought "Should the Hindus Be Judged For Rejecting Brahma?"?

The Source has already put it in the religious texts for us to understand, so it is having the thought, and it has also allowed for some to be ignorant, so they can be destroyed at Mahapralaya for rejecting it all.

2: Who is going to judge the Hindus?

The Source will assess everyone based on their Karma the same, regardless of religious denomination.

3: If there is only One, how can there be judging?

Because the One Source, has found there are malicious entities in the game, that can be itemized and removed...

Since mankind will inevitably wipe its self out, the date was always set for an end to reality, and the Source has been assigning who gets to come back in the next reality.

4: If there is only One, how can there be Rejecting?

The Source doesn't need anything, and thus doesn't need loads of "I Am" consciousness entities, who create shadows claiming themself to be God incarnate in some way.

In my opinion.

 

[wizanda]

As our parents used to say, whenever you point your finger towards another, there are 4 pointing back at you.

Wow, your family are lucky with extra fingers.

But it is also adharmic to interfere in another’s spiritual growth.

Do we not water a plant that needs it?

Which is more adharmic to leave the plant to die or share water?

but to judge or even admonish someone for “not believing in X” would be detrimental to one’s inner Brahma.

Children need borders, it helps give them responsibility.

Condemning people for a lack of knowledge, is my current problem with prophecy; I'd rather educate mankind, yet it looks like we're about to wipe ourselves out in the Middle East, and not sure anyone survives without the Divine intervention, which is also Mahapralaya/Judgement Day.

So which is worse, telling the Children look you will hurt yourself if you stand against something so hot and powerful or leaving them to burn unknowingly?

In my opinion.

 

[stvdv]

The Source doesn't need anything, and thus doesn't need loads of "I Am" consciousness entities, who create shadows claiming themself to be God incarnate in some way.

Exactly. That was my point