Abrahamic God = Brahman???

[Aupmanyav]

Not in place of the belief of the transcendent ultimate reality (without attributes) of Brahman, and not even taken literally a lot of the time (many Hindus don't believe in the literal existence of any particular deity but see them as symbols, aka Bhakti itself), and still if taken as a literal concept, taken as far lesser than Brahman.

Brahman is a topic for theologians and academics in Hinduism. The mass of Hindus are satisfied with their chosen deities and would not care about intricacies of these religious discussions.

 

[Martin]

Trying to compare Brahman to the Abrahamic God is comparing apples and oranges, IMO. A pointless exercise really.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Then we believe the same things, as shown above.

You mean to say Imam al-Kazim, the speaker of that Hadith and the seventh successor to Prophet Muhammad, a member of the Ahl al-Bayt.

Lol, the Middle East IS the East.

So finally, what do you believe? Is Allah capable of thinking? I believe Brahman has nothing to do with thinking. It does not have sense organs, it does not have a brain. We do not even term Brahman as He, we mention it as "It". But I believe that even the smallest sub-atomic particle is it and none other.

Your quote about the hadith says "Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from Muhammad ibn Khalid al-Tayalisi from Safwan ibn Yahya from ibn Maskan from abu Basir". I was not wholly correct. The original source of the hadith seems to be abu Basir.

"Abu Basir, also known as Utbah ibn Baseed, was a contemporary of Muhammad. He had fled from Mecca after the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, upset by the atrocities committed by the Quraysh he sought refuge among the Muslims of Medina, but was asked to return since in accordance with Islamic law it was not allowed to break a treaty so he was not accepted. The two men from Quraysh who were pursuing Abu Basir grabbed him and tied him to their caravan to return him back to Mecca. However, Abu Basir managed to escape from the ropes and flee. To his dismay one escaped alive and the next day reached the Muslim caravan demanding Abu Basir to be handed over. Again Muhammad ordered Abu Basir to go with him since he would be a war kindler. Abu Basir understood that he needed to leave and went for the shore, there Abu Jandal ibn Suhayl joined him after freeing himself from the Quraysh in Mecca. Eventually whenever a Muslim escaped Mecca, they joined Abu Basir, until they became a big group.
Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani's Fath al-Bari contains one of the more detailed accounts of Abu Basir's life." Wikipedia

No, Middle-East is not East, Middle-East is Middle-East, as the term denotes middle of East and West. Sure it is east of Europe and Africa.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I agree, it's frustrating as hell.


Abrahamics: "We believe in a transcendent ultimate reality without attributes, which is omnipresent"
Dharmics: "We believe in a transcendent ultimate reality without attributes, which is omnipresent"

Dharmics on this thread: "You believe in a different thing to us, see ours is transcendent ultimate reality without attributes, which is omnipresent, whereas yours is just some entity".

Which Abrahamics, besides you, believe that the God of Abraham is without attributes? He's certainly not without attributes in any text that I've read or in any sermon I've heard.

 

[SalixIncendium]

**MOD POST**

Comparative Religion is a non-debate forum. Posts that incite debate or are debating in nature are subject to moderation under Rule 10.​

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

My provisional answer to the question posed by the post is "no," but permit me a possibly naive question.

Is Brahman intentional, i.e., does it posses the quality of agency?

 

[SalixIncendium]

My provisional answer to the question posed by the post is "no," but permit me a possibly naive question.

Is Brahman intentional, i.e., does it posses the quality of agency?

If I understand the question correctly, the answer is no.

In my view, using a painting as an example, if the Abrahamic God appeared as a painting, Brahman is the canvas on which Abrahamic God is painted.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If I understand the question correctly, the answer is no.

In my view, using a painting as an example, if the Abrahamic God appeared as a painting, Brahman is the canvas on which Abrahamic God is painted.

I would think that the two views would be:

• It's a self-portrait with God as the artist.
• Brahman is the canvas, the portrait, and the brush, paint, and frame.

But what do I know?

 

[SalixIncendium]

I would think that the two views would be:

• It's a self-portrait with God as the artist.
• Brahman is the canvas, the portrait, and the brush, paint, and frame.

But what do I know?

I see your point, but the canvas just is. It existed before the painting and is unaffected by it. In its true nature, it is still a canvas. The portrait is an appearance of the canvas, regardless of what created it or what tools made it a painting.

Even if the portrait is destroyed by using a mineral solvent to remove the paint, the canvas remains.

 

[74x12]

Is the Abrahamic God an anthropomorphic personification of the Hinduism's Brahman?

As I understand it, Brahman doesn't have human qualities, but the Abrahamic God has some of the same qualities as Brahman.

So maybe he is?

No ... remember that it was the ancient Israelites who decided that Yah (the God of the Bible) was best worshiped as in the image of a calf. This was condemned by God over and over. They first tried it in the wilderness (which angered Moses so much he broke the tablets of the Covenant) and then they tried it again later on. Which according to the Bible led to the destruction of the northern kingdom of Israel by he Assyrians. So it was never a good idea and condemned by all the prophets. So Brahman who is worshiped as a cow is not the true God at all.

 

[SeekerOnThePath]

Which Abrahamics, besides you, believe that the God of Abraham is without attributes?

The founders, the prophets, the texts themselves. This is the key thing which distinguishes the Abrahamic religions, their opposition to idolatry and associators (mushrikun).

He's certainly not without attributes in any text that I've read or in any sermon I've heard.

I've literally quoted many primary sources here.

Abrahamic God = Brahman???
Abrahamic God = Brahman???
Abrahamic God = Brahman???


What you're claiming is tantamount to saying that as Abrahamics, we are supposed to be idolaters and associate angels, beings and entities as God.
The angel that reveals scripture is not God, it is the mouthpiece of God. God is without attributes, there is nothing like God (Surah 42:11, 112:4, et al).

As Surah 3:80 says: "Neither would he enjoin you that you should take the angels and the prophets for lords; what! would he enjoin you with unbelief after you are Submitters (to God)?"


What you claim about the Abrahamic God is almost as blasphemous as Christians claiming that a man (Jesus) is God, that is as far from the truth as you could possibly get. So deep into false belief.

 

[SeekerOnThePath]

So finally, what do you believe? Is Allah capable of thinking? I believe Brahman has nothing to do with thinking.

As I've already quoted from an authoritative primary source, I'll quote it again:

Al-Husayn ibn Ahmad ibn Idris (RA) said, on the authority of his father, on the authority of Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Jabbar, on the authority of Safwan ibn Yahya that I enquired from Imam al-Kazim (AS): “Inform me about the Will. Is it a part of Allah or is it of the Creation?
Hence, he (AS) answered "The will is part of the created conscience, and it manifest itself in action. As for Will of Allah, the Mighty and High, then it is His Making [ihdath] and none other than that because He does not reflect, does not imagine, and does not think. These attributes cannot be applied to Him as they are attributes of creation. Thus, Allah’s Will is action and nothing else. He says to it: “Be and it is,” without a word or speech expressed by tongue, or by imagination or by thought. His Will is expressed without form in the same way that He is without form."

True Abrahamic Monotheism is strictly Apophatic and anti-Anthropomorphic.

 

[MonkeyFire]

We are all brahman, and brahman is one.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Al-Husayn ibn Ahmad ibn Idris (RA) said, on the authority of his father, on the authority of Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Jabbar, on the authority of Safwan ibn Yahya that I enquired from Imam al-Kazim (AS): “Inform me about the Will. Is it a part of Allah or is it of the Creation?
Hence, he (AS) answered "The will is part of the created conscience, and it manifest itself in action. As for Will of Allah, the Mighty and High, then it is His Making [ihdath] and none other than that because He does not reflect, does not imagine, and does not think. These attributes cannot be applied to Him as they are attributes of creation. Thus, Allah’s Will is action and nothing else. He says to it: “Be and it is,” without a word or speech expressed by tongue, or by imagination or by thought. His Will is expressed without form in the same way that He is without form."

True Abrahamic Monotheism is strictly Apophatic and anti-Anthropomorphic.

There is a contradiction in what Musa ibn Ja'far al-Kadhim said. Perhaps Safwan ibn Yahya was satisfied with the answer given by al-Kazim, I am not. Because one cannot will without thinking.

Therefore the Abrahamic God / Allah is different from the Hindu Brahman, who does not think, has no need to do so. You have unnecessarily anthropomorphized your Allah. There is no need to equate them. And as Allah said in Quran - you have your religion, I have mine. Even when Quran says "Allah said", it is anthropomorphizing Allah. One cannot say anything without thinking.

 

[SeekerOnThePath]

Because one cannot will without thinking.

And as it says in the quoted Hadith: He says to it: “Be and it is,” without a word or speech expressed by tongue, or by imagination or by thought. His Will is expressed without form in the same way that He is without form

"Be and it is" (Kun Fayakun) is a phrase which does not denote words being said, you're badly misunderstanding it if you think that. "Be and it is" is the principle to which things exists from Allah. Things are, action is manifest, things are.


Goodbye to this sad thread.

 

[SeekerOnThePath]

I agree, it's frustrating as hell.


Abrahamics: "We believe in a transcendent ultimate reality without attributes, which is omnipresent"
Dharmics: "We believe in a transcendent ultimate reality without attributes, which is omnipresent"

Dharmics on this thread: "You believe in a different thing to us, see ours is transcendent ultimate reality without attributes, which is omnipresent, whereas yours is just some entity".

The lesson here is that Abrahamics have to shut up and take it and be shoved their religion by people who don't understand a damn thing about it.

God is not a being/entity, I repeat God is not a being/entity. Why do I feel like I'm having to teach preschoolers here?

 

[danieldemol]

My answer to the question is that "Abrahamic" is an umbrella term covering an array of gods claimed to be the single God.

Some of these "Abrahamic" gods may be described similarly to Brahman. Others clearly are not.

In my personal conception of the Abrahamic God I would say it is not Brahman because to me the fabric of the universe is not God, and God is not omnipresent. Both of these would according to my understanding disqualify my personal Abrahamic God concept from being = Brahman.

 

[ajay0]

Is the Abrahamic God an anthropomorphic personification of the Hinduism's Brahman?

As I understand it, Brahman doesn't have human qualities, but the Abrahamic God has some of the same qualities as Brahman.

So maybe he is?

In Hinduism, there is both Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman.

Nirguna Brahman is impersonal Brahman without attributes while Saguna Brahman is Brahman with personal attributes.

The Abrahamic God with personal attributes seems similar to Saguna Brahman rather than Nirguna Brahman.

The Shivalingam is considered the greatest personification or manifestation of Saguna Brahman, and worshipped by the Avatars Parashurama, Rama and Krishna. It is also the only deity in Hinduism Who is non-anthropomorphic.

The Vedas,Hindu scriptures and Swami Vivekananda has referred to the Shivalingam representing or denoting a cosmic pillar of light.

The Prajapita Brahmakumaris consider the Shivalingam to denote God as an incorporeal point of light, and consider Him the same as Jehovah, Allah, Ahura Mazda, Waheguru in the other monotheistic religions.

I have created threads on the correlation between God and light in various world religions, as well as the similarities between the Orphic Egg and Shivalingam...

Interesting correlation between God and light in major world religions...

Similarities between the Orphic Egg and the Shivalingam...

 

[Aupmanyav]

"Be and it is" (Kun Fayakun) is a phrase which does not denote words being said, you're badly misunderstanding it if you think that. "Be and it is" is the principle to which things exists from Allah. Things are, action is manifest, things are.

Well, Good bye, SeekerOnThePath, till we meet again, if that is to be. Let me inform you that some people have imagined "Kun Fayakun" among Hindus also. They say Lord Said " Eko'ham Bahusyami" (I am alone, I will be many) and so it was.

You are very correct, @danieldemol, the way I (and at least some others, I do not know who ) visualize Brahman in Hinduism is the 'fabric of the universe', the substrate, what constitutes the universe; and not as a God.

 

[ajay0]

The Shivalingam is considered the greatest of the gods and goddesses and worshipped by them all, and the Panchakshari Mantra 'Om Namah Shivaya' is considered as the greatest mantra as well. The Shivalingam is also the only deity in Hinduism who is non-anthropomorphic and considered synonymous with light. Jyotirlingam is also an another name for the Shivalingam, with 'Jyoti' meaning light.


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.

All this shows an uncanny similarity to the Abrahamic God and God in other monotheistic religions like Zoroastrianism, Yazidism and Sikhism as well, and shows that the major world religions are identical in their core, with only superficial differences on the outside creating cause for extremism and conflict.