Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
It's settled, then.
-
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?
- Thread starter wizanda
- Start date
It's settled, then.
Satyamavejayanti
Well-Known Member
Yah-Avah was seen by Moses; when Yah-Avah was known as EL he ate food with Abraham.
So is Yah-Avah more like Brahma creator of the universe; yet not ultimate manifestor of reality (Brahman), as he clearly has physical attributes.
What do you think is YHVH Equal To Brahma or Brahman?
Namaste,
I say neither, because neither Brahman nor Brahma have Prophets who they communicate with or eat food with or send commandments to, nor does Brahman or Brahma Choose individuals or clans to represent them in this world nor does Brahma or Brahman send revelations to a single person in history.
Dhanyavad
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Yes.What do you think is YHVH Equal To Brahma or Brahman?
Though you will need to change your "or" to "and"
Namaste Satyamavejayanti-Ji,
Basically if Yah-Avah (Lord To Be) is Brahma (To Be), they're just like a sect of Hinduism.
What do you think the Rishis were or where did the Bhagavad Gita come from?
Though Brahman doesn't; there are Shaivites, Vaishnavites, Krishnaites, etc...
Basically if Yah-Avah (Lord To Be) is Brahma (To Be), they're just like a sect of Hinduism.
Kalki is meant to be a single person coming; Krishna was alone relaying the Gita, etc.
Last edited:
Satyamavejayanti
Well-Known Member
Namaste,
Rishi's are MantraDhrashta those who have direct experience the Mantras's, The Bhagvad Gita is not told to a Prophet, Arjun is not a Prophet of Krishna. Arjun did not disseminate the Gita after being in the conversation with Krishna.
Shiva, Vishnu nor Krishna have never chosen anyone to represent them, or speak on their behalf, Shaivite are those who worship Shiva, Vaishnava are those who worship Visnu, no where is Visnhu and Shiva ever "Choosing", their followers and worshipers. And there is no such thing as "Krishnaites".
Basically if Yah-Avah (Lord To Be) is Brahma (To Be), they're just like a sect of Hinduism.
No
Kalki is meant to be a single person coming; Krishna was alone relaying the Gita, etc.
Kalki is the Avatar of Vishnu, Vishnu does not send revelation to Kalki.
The prophets received a lot of poetry from Divine beings....They recorded these, people carried them forwards.http://www.vmission.org.in/vedanta/shastras/vedas.htm said:
Though written thousands of years ago, it is saying even if Arjuna doesn't fight, they will still be destroyed in the Mahapralaya (11:32-33); which hasn't happened yet, so it could be seen as prophetic.
Also in some Biblical prophecies, it is an angel relaying the message to the prophet in a physical shape, same happens in the Gita, only Krishna is called an Avatar.
Take into account both of the names 'Gabriel' (strength of God), and 'Michael' (who is like God), are both aspects of the divine.
Yeah i knew, did look them up, and was already aware of Krishna Consciousness movement; yet it sort of distracted from the idea every sect of Hinduism are just branches of the same tree, and Judaism is just another branch.
The Kalki Purana is again prophetic, with the 10th, and final avatar of Vishnu coming as Kalki, where they will be sharing revelation as a single person in history.
They're the same thing within both understandings, it just all depends on the perception, to recognizing the Lila.
Satyamavejayanti
Well-Known Member
Namaste,
Not even the quote you provide does it mention that "Rishi", is Prophet of God, the word that gets you sucked in is "revelation", which is not correct, the correct would be "Inspiration or Experience",. There is no mention in the Mantra text of a Rishi being called upon by any God or Angel ect to relay messages or commandments for the masses, God chooses a Prophet, but Rishis are self realized and anyone can become a Rishi via Tapasya/Yoga/Sadhna and Atmagyana.
The Ved Rishi's don't make "prophesies".
No, this is not a Prophesy, the idea of Mahapralay is not new to those at the time of the Gita, it is not assuming a event, it is stating a well known idea of that time.
The difference is that Krishna IS Vishnu, he is not "like" Vishnu, nor is he "Strength" of Vishnu, Krishna is Avavtar - "who descends to earth in Physical form'- therefore is Vishnu direct.
Even if we consider Gita to be "Prophesy", it is Direct Prophecy of Vishnu compared to the Indirect message relay of the Bible.
I would leave the Jewish adherents to address this.
No, Purana is not a message from God revealed to a human who God has chosen to relay the message back to other Humans, why don't you understand this?
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
The answer seems to rely entirely on one's personal definitions of the three words......Yah-Avah was seen by Moses; when Yah-Avah was known as EL he ate food with Abraham.
So is Yah-Avah more like Brahma creator of the universe; yet not ultimate manifestor of reality (Brahman), as he clearly has physical attributes.
What do you think is YHVH Equal To Brahma or Brahman?
Having read the texts, i get where you're coming from; yet i just don't agree with it, especially having first hand experience of these things myself.
Whereas you seem to be so separatist, that you're not recognizing the Oneness of Brahman, and thus a reason many are down here in the Maya.
Modern Jews have their own interpretation of the texts, based on Rabbinic commentaries, that blinded them to what is really going on.
How do you think it was recorded if a human didn't write it down, and if it wasn't for humans why are we reading it?
The Kalki Purana is a revelation written down by some person of future events, that they were inspired to write by the Divine.
Vishnu (Krishna) is an Avatar of Brahman in the Gita, everything is Brahman.
In the Biblical context, Elyon is the Most High (Brahman), with Yah-Avah being a manifestation from it (Brahma), and its angels being sent to communicate with mankind (Krishna).
Have you studied the text? In some places, it is Yah-Avah saying "i shall come and do these things", in others 'the lord appeared unto me, and said these things'.
That statement isn't right; you're another one so full of being against, you don't see you've fallen over your own feet in the process.
Mahapralaya is at the end of time, not before it; just as it was written back then, doesn't mean it is stuck in that ancient timeline, it is an event to happen....Therefore we call that prophetic.
After i get around to reading all the Vedas will let you know; yet considering some of the events mention in other texts i have read, are clearly referenced in a future time, seriously doubt it.
Wasn't speaking about the Rishis being Prophets of God, that would be a silly expression, and is mixing religious constructs, which can get confusing.
Though would say the Rishi had the power of prophecy; which is something any enlightened person has. ॐ
The Rishis were divinely inspired, from having attained a state of buddhi, due to keeping all the aspects of Yoga, they became one with the understanding.
Because the prophets sought God, and meditated, maintained dietary laws, fasted, and practiced devotion of God, they were made aware of the understanding.
Do agree that in Abrahmic systems, there is not enough emphasis put on seeking enlightenment; yet it doesn't mean the prophets weren't practicing Yoga (to connect), like the Rishi.
As said earlier, there is only one reality, with one singularity; the ideas you present that there is twoness, doesn't make logical sense.
Last edited:
Muffled
Jesus in me
Yah-Avah was seen by Moses; when Yah-Avah was known as EL he ate food with Abraham.
So is Yah-Avah more like Brahma creator of the universe; yet not ultimate manifestor of reality (Brahman), as he clearly has physical attributes.
What do you think is YHVH Equal To Brahma or Brahman?
I believe there is no difference between Brahma and Brahman. Yahweh does not have physical form but simply takes on physical form when He needs to.
My take on Brahma(n) is that it is an early understanding of God that may lack the information that comes later and in some cases is incorrect.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I don't beleive God is ever non-personal if one is using the definition of having personal traits. If you are referring to a physical person then it is something that God does not what He is in essence.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe that differs from my understanding of Shiva ie that it is an aspect of God that stands for his tendency to wipe out whole cities that have become too evil.
I don't believe 2 & 3 make any sense to me either.
Satyamavejayanti
Well-Known Member
Namaste
Ok, so you do agree that the text itself does not follow in the "Abrahmic", way, therefore it is not a "Prophesy", or Message from a God.
I hope you mean "Dvait", or duelist, because it just seems like your accusing of being something nasty.
Plus Brahman is "realized", not "recognized", no one can force another to recognize the oneness of Brahman.
As I have said, I will leave this up to our Jewish friends.
How do you think it was recorded if a human didn't write it down, and if it wasn't for humans why are we reading it?
Can you please provide some evidence that "Purana is a message from God revealed to a human who God has chosen to relay the message back to other Humans.
So Krshna is Avatar and in your point of view Avatar=Angel. And Vishnu is Avatar of Brahman in your view, which is a inaccurate understanding of the relationship of the Avatar to Brahman.
I would not say I have studied the texts, but i am not ignorant of it either.
In the context of the Gita and the discussion between Arjun and Krishna, where Krishna is directly conversing with Arjun, and looking at the Mahabharatta as a whole where Krishna is in direct conversation with many other people, it would mean that "Yah-Avah", in the Bible has direct physical contact with people not just the Prophets. Is this the case.
Mahapralaya is at the end of time, not before it; just as it was written back then, doesn't mean it is stuck in that ancient timeline, it is an event to happen....Therefore we call that prophetic.
No, it is not "Prophetic", This is a known idea for Hindus, this is not a event that needs to be told by someone, and Mahapralay is not just one, there are previous Mahapralays, as we believe the cosmos is cyclic in nature the idea of future events being considered as "prophesy", is not applicable.
Well, as i have read them, i can tell you that the Rishi of the Mantras don't make "Prophesy".
So you were not correct in assuming that the Rishi is a Prophet of Brahman and that the Gita is a Prophetic book in your first reply to me.
Some Hindus would agree that the inspiration was Divine, but from reading the Mantra texts i think the Inspiration's and experiences were from Devta's not A divine Entity.
So you do agree that there is a difference between "Rishi", and "Prophet", which is what i have been trying to establish.
Well, i don't think that i have presented a Dvaita idea as Yet, never have i said that we are separate from Brahman, have I?
Last edited:
The Bhagavad Gita is prophetic as it talks of future events.
Think you've got problems; why are you trying to fit Hindu texts into the smaller scope of Abrahamic texts??
Krishna being a representative of Brahman, has a conversation with Arjuna, and shares knowledge for mankind; how is that not a message from God?
Nope I'm never nasty, I'm saying to you, you're ego is getting in the way of thinking properly; you're not making sense in lots of places, assuming, and presenting a case from what you think I'm stating, without really understanding i personally fit into both religions independently.
The idea you're making Brahman and God two separate singularities, that both manifest reality at the same time, to me is totally illogical...
For the people who think that way, is the reason reality exists in this Dvaita state in the first place, as some people have issues accepting Oneness.
Yes indeed people can be ignorant of all religious texts having just One ultimate they're trying to discuss, and you can't make them realize their ignorance, they have to recognize it.
Plus at Mahapralaya (Judgement day) that option is removed.
Have you read the text?
Kalki Purana - Wikipedia
Why are you repeatedly using simplified Christian terminology, to decipher other religious constructs? You do realize you'll be constantly confused whilst doing so?
The Kalki Purana is a message from Kalki, who is a form of Vishnu, who is a manifestation from Brahman (God).
It has been recorded by sages Agastya and Vishvamitra; these were both Humans, who were chosen to relay this message back to other Humans.
Krishna is another form of the Avatar Vishnu; Yah-Avah is an Avatar, and Yeshua is another form of his.
Arch Angels/Elders/Elohim/Avatars are the Divine Council, sitting below ELyon, which is the Most High without form, similar to Brahman in concept.
Gabriel and Michael could be Arch Angels or they could just be servants, so not sure if they'd fit into the term Avatar.
Yes, Yah-Avah shared food with Abraham (Genesis 18)...Yeshua is a manifestation of Yah-Avah...
This is why you shouldn't necessarily take Jewish, Christian, Islamic understanding as 100%, as they're a bit lost, when you've studied what is stated.
Having partially remembered them since birth; claiming 'we', when you're taking it from a book is funny.
Within this epoch, we're in a linear time frame, we have the date of the recording of these texts, we could show on a linear timeline when Mahapralaya will happen, therefore that is a prophecy, as most self orientated humans are not able to see infinite time, until they've attained that level of consciousness.
If you didn't learn it from a book, would be interested what you can describe from first hand experience of the events to come?
Rishi can mean a Seer, the terminology prophet implies someone is a Seer.
The Gita has prophetic statements within it, as it tells of future events.
Considering how confused you are in these conversations, that doesn't mean it is a fact; will read them for myself, Thank you.
Of course, they're two different words with totally different historical contexts applied to each.
Again to me this is twoness; everything within Heaven (Oneness) is Divine.
You've been making God not Brahman, so you're implying there is one singularity creating the Abrahamic world, and another creating the Dharmic one....
My usage of twoness wasn't meaning duality, it was causing division of religious concepts to imply that Brahman isn't One.
Last edited:
Indeed. If one wants to see it a certain way, they also project a definition onto a word that may be quite different than the more commonly accepted one. Sometimes it would just be better to leave the question alone. For example, in my own case, I have no idea what YHVH is, but I do know what Brahma and Brahman are (there are some variations) so what can I say other than 'I don't know'. I also know that in the past, we Hindus have often explained the difference between Brahma and Brahman to seekers asking, or in attempts to alter ideas we consider as misconceptions.
In Hinduism, Brahman is the aspect of the Divine that is pure intelligence and spirit. Brahman does not have a personality. Everything is ultimately 'made' of Brahman.
Ishvara/Bhagavan, however, is the aspect of the divine that has a personality and manifests as forms.
I'm not aware of Shiva ever doing this sort of thing. Where did you read it or hear it?
Advaitin Hindus believe that Brahman does not have physical form but will take physical form when He needs to.
Madhuri, from sites like this, I would imagine ... "Lord Shiva", and His relationship to Jesus Christ in Kashmir in the first century AD.
That is a grossly distorted and horribly misunderstood idea of who and what Shiva is, and that his function is wholesale and wanton destruction and/or punishment.