Does Hebraic Theology Make More Sense in a Hindu Context?

[wizanda]

You may not agree, but the foundations of the Baha'i are grounded in Rabbonic Judaism, and Islam concerning concerning the nature of God and Revelation from God.

Recognize that Baha'i adopts Christian, Rabbinic, and Islamic concepts; it just doesn't scrutinize them enough first, which then can lead to faulty conclusions.

In my opinion.

 

[shunyadragon]

Recognize that Baha'i adopts Christian, Rabbinic, and Islamic concepts; it just doesn't scrutinize them enough first, which then can lead to faulty conclusions.

In my opinion.

Good thing you describe this as opinion.

 

[soulsurvivor]

No matter how many frog hairs you splint to define your belief exclusive and separate form others, the Hindu Brahman remains a God by definition. I have read Spinoza, and this does not help your case. The fact that different religions define the 'Source' some call God(s) differently is a human cultural perspective, and the universal 'Source' some call God(s) or whatever is not dependent on egocentric definitions of the 'unknowable,' which try and define their religion unique above others.

If brahman was a God, we would have temples dedicated to him. We would have special days dedicated when we would worship him, we would have annual festival in his honor which we would celebrate. We don't. All the other important Gods have all these.

You are confusing two things - not being anthropomorphic and not being a person. Allah and the Bahai God may be non-anthropomorphic, they may not be given a face and a body or two arms and legs, but the way you and all muslims relate to Allah, he is definitely a person (without a body or face). The concept of brahman is actually too deep for even most Hindus to understand, but merely not depicting someone in any picture, does not make him impersonal. Try referring to Allah as an 'it', and you will sense the difference. brahman is an 'it'.

 

[soulsurvivor]

Yes. The mahāvākyāni (great sayings) state:

• prajñānam brahma - "Prajñāna (consciousness, intelligence) is Brahman" (Aitareya Upanishad).
• ayam ātmā brahma - "This Self (Atman) is Brahman" (Mandukya Upanishad).
• tat tvam asi - "Thou art That" (Chandogya Upanishad).
• aham brahmāsmi - "I am Brahman" (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad).
• brahma satyam jagan mithyā - "Brahman is real; the world is unreal" (Vivekachudamani of Adi Shankara).
• ekam evadvitiyam brahma - "Brahman is one, without a second" (Chāndogya Upanishad).
• so 'ham "I am He" - (Ishopanishad). I wonder if John Lennon was having an Advaitic moment on the acid trip that produced 'I Am the Walrus': "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together".
• sarvam khalvidam brahma - "All of this is Brahman" (Chāndogya Upanishad). My personal favorite.

I am glad you know so much scripture. But most Hindus don't confuse Avatars with the original God.

Krishna was a human into whom God (Vishnu) descended during Krishna's life on Earth (maybe 4000 years ago - give or take). I realize ISKCON considers Krishna the Supreme God, similar to the Christian belief in Jesus (another very similar Avatar) being the 'only begotten Son of God'. Both groups will have much adjustment to make in their beliefs when the next Avatar arrives - that will happen pretty soon, in our lifetime.

 

[shunyadragon]

If brahman was a God, we would have temples dedicated to him. We would have special days dedicated when we would worship him, we would have annual festival in his honor which we would celebrate. We don't. All the other important Gods have all these.

Actually no. You are putting criteria on God as a fallible human without consulting God about it.

Your reference to 'important Gods' is kind of amusing.

You are confusing two things - not being anthropomorphic and not being a person. Allah and the Bahai God may be non-anthropomorphic, they may not be given a face and a body or two arms and legs, but the way you and all muslims relate to Allah, he is definitely a person (without a body or face). The concept of brahman is actually too deep for even most Hindus to understand, but merely not depicting someone in any picture, does not make him impersonal. Try referring to Allah as an 'it', and you will sense the difference. brahman is an 'it'.

No the God of the Baha'i Faith and Islam is not a person.

 

[soulsurvivor]

Actually no. You are putting criteria on God as a fallible human without consulting God about it.

I am not putting any criteria on brahman. I am just stating a fact - we don't have any (not a single) temple for brahman and we have many, many for all the other Gods.

Your reference to 'important Gods' is kind of amusing.

I don't mind if you are amused, but I would say Hindus have around a dozen important Gods, but they also have many others. Whether you are amused or not, a billion people do worship that many Gods. In a few years time, humanity will discover the truth about the fallacy in monotheism. I am sure you will be even more amused then.

No the God of the Baha'i Faith and Islam is not a person.

If you say the Bahai God is not a person, I will take your word for it. But I will wait for some knowledgable muslim to confirm regarding Islam.

Incidentally, as soon as you say Allah is merciful, Allah becomes a person.

 

[wizanda]

Try referring to Allah as an 'it', and you will sense the difference. brahman is an 'it'.

Allah is both a masculine and a feminine word, so it could be describe as 'It' in Arabic.

The concept of brahman is actually too deep for even most Hindus to understand

Personally found Hindus have no trouble equating Brahman with a CPU... No trouble with Muslims equating Allah as a CPU... Trouble with Judaeo-Christians regardless of what we ponder.

I realize ISKCON considers Krishna the Supreme God

As far as aware they take what the Bhagavad Gita says, and have Krishna as the all reflective Godhead, with Brahman being the ultimate source of reality.

Both groups will have much adjustment to make in their beliefs when the next Avatar arrives

I've already been here for sometime, trying to get people to pay attention is the problem.

the Christian belief in Jesus (another very similar Avatar) being the 'only begotten Son of God'.

The Christian belief is a mess, as the Gospel of John is made up, the Jews didn't understand that Yeshua is a manifestation of YHVH Elohim, thus there is no acknowledgement of the God Most High.

we don't have any (not a single) temple for brahman and we have many, many for all the other Gods.

See this is the problem; the thread is trying to establish there is one God Most High (El Elyon), Jews and Christians don't really even acknowledge it exists... They recognize the Avatars YHVH Elohim, and Yeshua Elohim.

Many Hindu sects recognize Brahman, and the Avatars; where all representatives that are seen manifest separate to the Source, have to be an Avatar.... There is no such thing as gods pluralized.

Muslims recognize the God Most High and call that Allah, and that there are angels that work for God; they've just not been told that Yeshua and YHVH are both Avatars.

Baha'i is quite close, they have one God Most High, and then many Avatars coming; they've just not recognized that some of the text state differently to people's chosen religious beliefs.

Buddhist don't recognize that Buddha refers to the universal mind, and a place of the Buddha consciousness; which is another way to describe Heaven, and the God Most High without a name or self.

In my opinion.