• 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!

Is YHVH Equal To Brahma or Brahman?

Muffled

Jesus in me
Try me.

We have the truth. We do not need any help.

The term Advaita refers to its idea that the soul (true Self, Atman) is the same as the highest metaphysical Reality (Brahman) [Wikipedia]

I believe this is not true. What evidence is there to support this view?

I believe a lot of people think they have the truth when they do not. There are a lot of things I don't know because God doesn't tell me everything but I do trust what He tells me is true.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
I don't think we've confused it, but that there are just a lot of differing schools, not just with Hinduism, but within Saivism (the large sect that worships Siva as Supreme, or calls God Siva) itself. The trident and snake misunderstanding is really common, so welcome to the crowd.

Personally, I don't get insulted by little misunderstandings like that. It's understandable. Its only after we've explained it as well as we can, and the person still holds to their ideas stubbornly does it get more annoying. In the reverse situation, I know very very little about your faith, so if i started spouting off like some expert, you'd have every right to get upset or annoyed with me.

However I believe the name is different from Brahman so how may both be supreme and what is the difference? And if the differences are simply aspects of Brahman then why deify an aspect?

I believe that. Symbols can mean different things in different cultures. I hope you can clear this up for me.

I don't believe I get annoyed about that. I like to enlighten the misinformed.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Everything that the Gods are depicted with are highly symbolic. But in Hinduism, snakes and tridents are not given the same meaning as in Abrahamic religions. Snakes are not 'evil', though in the Bible, the Devil decided to take that form. His choice should not be taken to mean that snakes are inherently evil.

Shiva is associated with the role of 'destruction'. This is not to mean he goes around killing. Everything in material nature has a life cycle. There is birth, maturity, and death. Death is necessary for the renewal of life. Therefore Shiva represents the bringing of the end in order to create a path for life. Shiva is known for being generous, kind and generally peaceful.

I hope that makes sense.

I believe then that "destruction" is a misnomer because the living being is not destroyed but simply ceases to function as a living being. For the Christian the destroyer (the devil) is ending the cycle before its time e.g. killing someone that should not be killed.

I do not believe this is the case. There is a renewal of life when a woman gives birth and she does not have to die to do that. It is necessary for the old to die to make way for the living. It is the way a balance of living things is kept. If things get out of balance God may have to eliminate people to bring things back into balance.

In Christianity death is not necessary for people if the people are not regenerating. The balance is maintained by not renewing life by having babies.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
However I believe the name is different from Brahman so how may both be supreme and what is the difference? And if the differences are simply aspects of Brahman then why deify an aspect?

I believe that. Symbols can mean different things in different cultures. I hope you can clear this up for me.

I don't believe I get annoyed about that. I like to enlighten the misinformed.

As for the blue part, you're correct. I should have said 'different understandings' not misunderstanding.

Just different names. Parasiva, and Parabrahman refer to the same concept.


But i don't and won't spout off about your faith, so we'll never know if you'd get annoyed.
 

arthra

Baha'i
rethinking my answer, I would say that YHVH would be equal to Ishvara whereas Brahman would probably be Ein Sof or Atzmuto??

Thanks for sharing that! "Atzmuto" or the essence of God I hadn't heard that word before... In the Baha'i Writings we also have a concept of the "essence of God" that is unknowable ... beyond our comprehension.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
The term Advaita refers to its idea that the soul (true Self, Atman) is the same as the highest metaphysical Reality (Brahman) [Wikipedia]

I believe this is not true. What evidence is there to support this view?

I believe a lot of people think they have the truth when they do not. There are a lot of things I don't know because God doesn't tell me everything but I do trust what He tells me is true.
I too believe that this is not true (Wikipedia can give views that are not as comprehensive as the breadth of Hinduism). I am a strong atheist and 'advaitist' Hindu (believing in non-duality) and I do not believe either in soul or in Gods. Brahman for me is the entity which constitutes all things in the universe. What is closest to Brahman is 'physical energy', that is what e started with at the time of Big Bang. That changed into atoms and has formed all thing in the universe. The correct meaning of 'atman' is not soul but 'self'. 'Self' is a temporary phenomenon. Bascially I am composed of atoms and these atoms ill disintegrate after my death to make other combinations in nature.

There is no God to tell you anything. It is science that can tell you the truth. Perhaps not the whole truth but even then it is better than a collection of writings edited in the fourth Century of the Christian era.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
However I believe the name is different from Brahman so how may both be supreme and what is the difference? And if the differences are simply aspects of Brahman then why deify an aspect?

I like to enlighten the misinformed.
Brahman is not a God. It is a totally different, it is the totality of existence.
Before you try to inform other people, it would be good if you first get informed yourself.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
I believe then that "destruction" is a misnomer because the living being is not destroyed but simply ceases to function as a living being.

If things get out of balance God may have to eliminate people to bring things back into balance.

In Christianity death is not necessary for people if the people are not regenerating.
Nothing ever gets destroyed. Only the form changes. That happens equally to all things, living or non-living.

Nothing ever gets out of balance. Everything is in perpetual balance. Gods are just your imagination and unnecessary.

People do not regenerate, they change into dust*. Arrival of new of any species (human, animal or vegetation) is a different biological process.
* In case of Hindus who are cremated, water vapour (since 50-65% of the human body is water), carbon-di-oxide (that is what happens to carbon in an atom in a human body upon cremation, and lime (product of burning of the bone).

I do not know what other untruth you get from your books.
 
Last edited:

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
The correct meaning of 'atman' is not soul but 'self'.
Many would beg to differ on that; personally would say the exact opposite, that the atman shouldn't mean self in the slightest.
'Self' is a temporary phenomenon.
Indeed the self is only an association of life force having experience within a body.
What evidence is there to support this view?
Christianity believes virtually the same, that God being the great 'I Am' was jesus, and by 'desiring the mind of jesus', you become like him, also having this 'I Am' consciousness.
Perhaps not the whole truth but even then it is better than a collection of writings edited in the fourth Century of the Christian era.
Kettle calling the pot; both are man made texts passed down over millennia, that have been heavily anthropomorphized.
It is science that can tell you the truth.
Stephen Hawking perceives if there is black-holes, there will be white-holes emitting reality to mathematically make sense.

Dr Michio Kaku says:
"The Mind of God is like cosmic music, resonating throughout, 11 dimensional hyperspace."

This is why using the term CPU for the processor of this holographic reality we exist within, that is mathematically precise to ten thousandth of a decimal place.

Applying self, soul, atman, nephesh, 'I AM', shows how people want to make the CPU (God) into their image...

The idea you, Yah-Avah, Yeshua, Krishna, Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu, etc are the CPU isn't scientific; as they've been made manifest within the Matrix. :innocent:
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Muffled said:
What evidence is there to support this view?
Wizanda said "Christianity believes virtually the same, that God being the great 'I Am' was jesus, and by 'desiring the mind of jesus', you become like him, also having this 'I Am' consciousness."

We do not believe that having the mind of Jesus means that our spirits becomes Jesus but only that Jesus has our minds which is separate from our spirits.
 

Madhuri

RF Goddess
Staff member
Premium Member
I believe then that "destruction" is a misnomer because the living being is not destroyed but simply ceases to function as a living being. For the Christian the destroyer (the devil) is ending the cycle before its time e.g. killing someone that should not be killed.


I agree. It's probably a bad translation. Shiva is most certainly not similar to the Abrahamic 'devil'.

I do not believe this is the case. There is a renewal of life when a woman gives birth and she does not have to die to do that. It is necessary for the old to die to make way for the living. It is the way a balance of living things is kept. If things get out of balance God may have to eliminate people to bring things back into balance.

Sure. My explanation was simplistic for easy understanding. Death is not necessary for a baby to be born. However that baby is born, matures, and dies one day. Each phase is associated with one of the trinity gods in Hinduism. But the life cycle of a human is only one obvious example of this cyclic pattern in existence.

In Christianity death is not necessary for people if the people are not regenerating. The balance is maintained by not renewing life by having babies.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, to be honest. It sounds like you're saying that people won't die if they don't have children but I's sure I'm misinterpreting.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me

I agree. It's probably a bad translation. Shiva is most certainly not similar to the Abrahamic 'devil'.



Sure. My explanation was simplistic for easy understanding. Death is not necessary for a baby to be born. However that baby is born, matures, and dies one day. Each phase is associated with one of the trinity gods in Hinduism. But the life cycle of a human is only one obvious example of this cyclic pattern in existence.



I'm not sure what you mean by this, to be honest. It sounds like you're saying that people won't die if they don't have children but I's sure I'm misinterpreting.

I believe you are misinterpreting. I believe people would not die if they did not age. God has to compensate for the fact that people don't die by causing a lack of regeneration by childbirth. So it is my belief in the Kingdom of God there is no birth and very little death (accidents can still happen). The same people are on earth for thousands of years. Anyone not here is locked out.
 

Madhuri

RF Goddess
Staff member
Premium Member
I believe you are misinterpreting. I believe people would not die if they did not age. God has to compensate for the fact that people don't die by causing a lack of regeneration by childbirth. So it is my belief in the Kingdom of God there is no birth and very little death (accidents can still happen). The same people are on earth for thousands of years. Anyone not here is locked out.

The process of birth, maturation and death only occur in the material existence, according to Hindu religion. Aging is part of the process. We're not talking about the Kingdom of God. Even Hindus believe in a Spiritual existence whereupon the individual exists eternally without aging.
Anyways, thanks for the discussion.
 
Top