Alleged parallels between Hindu and Christian theology

[litost]

*Originally posted by noname *
OM is the sound emanated by each and everything in this universe. Brahma is a manifestation of OM, and so is Vishnu and Shiva (for that matter, even you and I are manifestations of OM)

Exactly. OM is considered the sound of Brahman, the Supreme Spirit. My point was that you were contradicting yourself when you said in an earlier post:
“He [Brahma] created the Brahman (Brahman created by Brahma, get it??). Brahma is, infact, the manifestation of the energy that is OM.”

You say Brahma created Brahman and add that Brahma is a manifestation of OM. You also seem to concur that OM is the sound of Brahman, (“oneness with the Supreme” - from the link you cited) and that OM also represents the unity of the Trinity.

So, if OM represents Brahman and is a super-set of Brahma, then Brahman is a super-set of Brahma. Ergo, Brahman cannot be created by Brahma. Therein lies the contradiction.

Do you accept that Brahma is the creator in the Holy Trinity? if yes, then what did Brahma create, that Vishnu preserves, and Shiva destroys?

pls have a look at this link:
Indian Mythology - Hindu Mythology Articles, Facts @ Indian Divinity.com >> THE CREATOR

quote:
‘Brahma was born of the golden egg, HIRANYAGARBHA. When the divided into two parts, heaven and earth were formed. Between these was the sky.’

Read your own link after the lines you cite above.

“He is the uncreated creator - SVAYAMBHU - the self-born first person and his consort Saraswati manifested out of him and all creatures of the world resulted from their union.”

He created the material universe and spawned all the species. Brahman, the Supreme Spirit, was always there, before Brahma with nothing superseding or encompassing it. Brahma is Brahman in the form of Creator.

I think you also have some difficulty separating Hindu philosophy and Hindu mythology. From your own link: Indian Mythology - Hindu Mythology Articles, Facts @ Indian Divinity.com >> HINDU TRINITY

“Eventually the traditional legends, myths and tales were incorporated into the PURANAS summing up all that was to be known about the gods”
<snip>
" In the Puranas the gods assumed a substantial shape and individual character. The sacrificial rites and observances of the worship of the gods, for the first time were given a paramount place. The concept of TRIMURTI - the PURANIC GODS - emerged and gained importance over the centuries. "

If you recall from my previous link:
"In light of this Sankara postulates saguna Brahman (Brahman with attributes). This immanent aspect of Brahman is sometimes manifested as the Trimurti (Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva). "

The Trinity is a manifestation of Brahman. Brahman is the Trinity and much more. This is what I have been trying to get through.

Granted Brahman is eveything. But getting back to the begining of the argument, I had said that the ultimate aim of a Hindu is to merge with Brahma, while you seem to be saying that we should be one with the Brahman. so if Brahman contains all and everything, how can we merge with it? are we not already a part of it? and regarging the part about creation, I ask again, what did Brahma, the creator, create?

You got it. We are already part of it. As per Advaita, there is no difference between Atman and Brahman. Which is why the philosophy is called non-dualism. As per Advaitic philosophy, Brahman is everything and once the soul realizes this, the false barriers between soul-and-body and Brahman disappear.

Please read the link I provided on Advaita. It has very good information.

The others are Vishnu and Shiva/Mahesh.

What? Thanks for the information. Glad you finally realized Brahma is but one manifestation of Brahman. Or, are you trying to tell me something here?

Not to be confused with whom? Brahma is not to be confused with Brahman? Notice the author has used ‘him’ for Brahman. Now, even you agree that the Brahman is not a person, leave alone a male, so the entire passage is incorrect, don’t you agree?

You have finally proved that you haven’t read a word of the Upanishads or the Vedas. Brahman is often referred to as “He” or “Him”. The sentence is perfectly correct.

I ask you again after this, according to Sankara, what is the Brahma the manifestation of? Is it not the creation of the universe, the Brahman?

Please read it clearly:
"However, although Brahman is ineffable (neti neti – ‘Not this; not that’), it is nonetheless real. In light of this Sankara postulates saguna Brahman (Brahman with attributes). This immanent aspect of Brahman is sometimes manifested as the Trimurti (Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva). "

Brahman manifests itself as the Trimurti, which includes Brahma.
Clearly, Brahman could not have been created by Brahma.

Pls read : Advaita Vedanta

I quote: ‘According to Advaita, the ultimate bliss is the experience of non-difference between the Jivatma and the Paramatma’

The Paramatma here is Brahma, the Supreme soul. In all the links that you have given, nowhere is it said that the Brahman is the Paramatma, the Supreme soul. In fact, it says that the Brahman encompasses everything, so soul the is encompassed in the Brahman as well. So what is the Paramatma? It is Brahma.

Nice try. Nowhere does the article say Paramatma is Brahma!!! That is YOUR wrong interpretation. In fact, you are either lying or you didn’t bother reading the link I provided to the Advaita FAQ . It says right at the beginning:
"advaita asserts that the real, essential identity of the jIva, the individual self, is nothing other than brahman Itself. "

Jiva and Brahman is equivalent to Jivatma and Paramatma as stated in your link. Is this proof enough that the Supreme Soul is Brahman?

Remember, according to the Hindu philosophy, man was made from the parts of Brahma, and it strives to be back with Brahma.

Remember? No, I don’t. This, as I have shown repeatedly, is wrong. Man does not want to be back with Brahma. As per Advaita, Man achieves realization when he recognizes the non-duality of Atman and Brahman. Brahma has nothing to do with it.

Duly noted

You noted that Advaitic philosophy talks about Brahman and Brahma is NEVER EVER MENTIONED and yet you continue to assert that Hindu philosophy wants Man to get back to Brahma!

[noname]

*Originally posted by litost *
**…
You say Brahma created Brahman and add that Brahma is a manifestation of OM. You also seem to concur that OM is the sound of Brahman, (“oneness with the Supreme” - from the link you cited) and that OM also represents the unity of the Trinity.

So, if OM represents Brahman and is a super-set of Brahma, then Brahman is a super-set of Brahma. Ergo, Brahman cannot be created by Brahma. Therein lies the contradiction.
**

Now I get it (the miscommunication, I mean). You are saying that since Brahman is supreme, and Brahma is a sub-set of it, right?

Well heres the first line of a verse from the 8th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita (VIII:13), which goes,

“om ity ekaksharam brahma” (Bhagavad-Gita: Chapter 8, Verse 13)

Is the Brahma in this Lord Brahma? No, its the Brahman. Brahma and Brahman are used interchagably. This just goes to show that Brahma and Brahman are interlinked, and not a sub-set-super-set of each other. I will qoute one more passage for you

“ahar yad brahmano viduh” (description of Brahma’s day, Brahma referred to as Brahman) (Bhagavad-Gita: Chapter 8, Verse 17)

Also, the Brahma Sutra begins as “'Athato Brahma jijnasa’. Now, therefore, the enquiry into Brahman” (http://www.brahmasutra.iitk.ac.in/)
Again, Brahma is Brahman.

So why is Brahman referred to as Brahma and vice versa? Because, the Brahman was created by Brahma, and Brahma was, in turn, created by the Brahman (given the cyclical nature of the Hindu thought as opposed to the Catholic thought, which is linear). In fact, he creates and destroys one in a single one of his days (Bhagavad-Gita: Chapter 8, Verse 17 & Bhagavad-Gita: Chapter 8, Verse 18)

He created the material universe and spawned all the species. Brahman, the Supreme Spirit, was always there, before Brahma with nothing superseding or encompassing it. Brahma is Brahman in the form of Creator.

Doesn’t it fly in the face of the Advaitic philosophy, which is non-dualist? By saying the Brahma did not create the Brahman, rather he created the material world, you are accepting that there is a dualism in this world, that there is a materialist side to it, and a non-materialist side as well. Also, from the paragraphs before the the ones you quoted

“Brahma was born of the golden egg, HIRANYAGARBHA. When the egg divided into two parts, heaven and earth were formed. Between these was the sky.”

So Brahma created (okay, was responsible for) the heaven, the earth and the sky. What else remains to be created that is not in the Brahman?

I think you also have some difficulty separating Hindu philosophy and Hindu mythology. From your own link: Indian Mythology - Hindu Mythology Articles, Facts @ Indian Divinity.com >> HINDU TRINITY
<snip>

I have no diffuculty whatsoever. The link says how the three Vedic gods were eventually assimilated to form the Trinity. But no where does it dispute the fact that Brahma created Brahman.

If you recall from my previous link:
"In light of this Sankara postulates saguna Brahman (Brahman with attributes). This immanent aspect of Brahman is sometimes manifested as the Trimurti (Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva). "

The Trinity is a manifestation of Brahman. Brahman is the Trinity and much more. This is what I have been trying to get through.

You got it. We are already part of it. As per Advaita, there is no difference between Atman and Brahman. Which is why the philosophy is called non-dualism. As per Advaitic philosophy, Brahman is everything and once the soul realizes this, the false barriers between soul-and-body and Brahman disappear.

So if Brahma as the Trinity is a part of Brahman, then when I say that the ultimate aim of every Hindu is to merge back with Brahma, I am also saying the the Hindu wants to merge with Brahman, am I not right? If I am, then i dont see any difference of opinions here.

What? Thanks for the information. Glad you finally realized Brahma is but one manifestation of Brahman. Or, are you trying to tell me something here?

Your welcome. And no, I am not trying to say anything here. Just finishing the sentence.

You have finally proved that you haven’t read a word of the Upanishads or the Vedas. Brahman is often referred to as “He” or “Him”. The sentence is perfectly correct.

You are right, I havent read the Upanishads or the Vedas, and neither have you, because Brahman is not mentioned in the Vedas as a person. The persons named in the vedas are here:

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/vedicgods.htm
and no, Brahman is not one of them.

And regarding the Upanishads, the Brahma sutra is on of them, so is the He that Juan Mascaro talks about is Brahma and i say this again, “'Athato Brahma jijnasa’. Now, therefore, the enquiry into Brahman” Brahma used in place of Brahman.

Nice try. Nowhere does the article say Paramatma is Brahma!!! That is YOUR wrong interpretation. In fact, you are either lying or you didn’t bother reading the link I provided to the Advaita FAQ . It says right at the beginning:
"advaita asserts that the real, essential identity of the jIva, the individual self, is nothing other than brahman Itself. "

Jiva and Brahman is equivalent to Jivatma and Paramatma as stated in your link. Is this proof enough that the Supreme Soul is Brahman?

Right, it does not say that Brahma is the Paramatma, but then you go ahead and make the connection betwee Brahman and the Paramatma, when it is not so said anywhere!! Nice try yourself. :rolleyes:

Remember? No, I don’t. This, as I have shown repeatedly, is wrong. Man does not want to be back with Brahma. As per Advaita, Man achieves realization when he recognizes the non-duality of Atman and Brahman. Brahma has nothing to do with it.

Read what I have written earlier in this particular post about Brahma being Brahman.

You noted that Advaitic philosophy talks about Brahman and Brahma is NEVER EVER MENTIONED and yet you continue to assert that Hindu philosophy wants Man to get back to Brahma!

Advaitic philosophy is not the only Hindu philosophy, you know. There is Vaishnav thought, Sivaism, and also Vishishtadvaita Vedanta, and anti-thesis of the Advaitic Vedanta. And the Upanishads that you love to quote too contain more than one philosophy in them, like Samkhya, Monism, Mimamsa etc.
And regardign Man wanting to get back to Brahma, I said it earlier.

[litost]

*Originally posted by noname *

So why is Brahman referred to as Brahma and vice versa? Because, the Brahman was created by Brahma, and Brahma was, in turn, created by the Brahman (given the cyclical nature of the Hindu thought as opposed to the Catholic thought, which is linear).

You were insisting Brahman was an entity created by Brahma and that as per Hindu philosophy, Man wants to go back to Lord Brahma.

I have always said that as per Advaitic thought (one of the most widely believed ideas) the goal of Man is to recognize the non-duality of Atman/Self/Jiva and Brahman, the supreme spirit.

Now, you are talking of Brahma and Brahman being cyclical definitions of one another… oh, they are but the same thing! Very convenient change in your stance…

Doesn’t it fly in the face of the Advaitic philosophy, which is non-dualist? By saying the Brahma did not create the Brahman, rather he created the material world, you are accepting that there is a dualism in this world, that there is a materialist side to it, and a non-materialist side as well.

No, everything is Brahman. No divisions at all. The divisions are in our perception as per Advaita. Brahma himself is a manifestation of Brahman as Creator.

So if Brahma as the Trinity is a part of Brahman, then when I say that the ultimate aim of every Hindu is to merge back with Brahma, I am also saying the the Hindu wants to merge with Brahman, am I not right? If I am, then i dont see any difference of opinions here.

No, you have newly introducd the idea that Brahman and Brahma are the same despite claiming that Brahman was the universe created by Brahma in the previous posts. This idea however is closer to the truth. Brahma is a manifestation of the Supreme Spirit, Brahman.

You are right, I havent read the Upanishads or the Vedas, and neither have you, because Brahman is not mentioned in the Vedas as a person. The persons named in the vedas are here:

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/vedicgods.htm
and no, Brahman is not one of them.

That is utter nonsense. Brahman is not a vedic god for crying out loud. I am beginning to think you have no clue at all about Hinduism…Brahman is the Supreme Spririt, the essence of Life, the OM. He is not a Vedic God like Indra.

The strange thing is you don’t even read your own links. From the first freaking paragraph on Indra from your own freaking link:

"Indra is more like a king upon the earth than of heavens. He has a spiritual side too. According to the Kena Upanishad, he is the only god to have gone nearest to Brahman and was to know Him as Brahman. "

**Brahman is mentioned right there and is referred to as Him!!! **

I also see you haven’t claimed that Upanishads never refer to Brahman as He/Him. I ask you to either prove that the Upanishads never mention Brahman as He or Him or kindly withdraw this statement . Also, you might as well withdraw the claim that I haven’t read the Upanishads if you can’t prove the above. Just for your information, Upanishads are an ode to Brahman with Him and He used frequently to refer to the Supreme Spirit. So, good luck with this.

Right, it does not say that Brahma is the Paramatma, but then you go ahead and make the connection betwee Brahman and the Paramatma, when it is not so said anywhere!! Nice try yourself.

You have grossly (and I hope not deliberately) mis-interpreted my post. Let me provide it here for all to see:

"…Nowhere does the article say Paramatma is Brahma!!! That is YOUR wrong interpretation. In fact, you are either lying or you didn’t bother reading the link I provided to the Advaita FAQ . It says right at the beginning:
"advaita asserts that the real, essential identity of the jIva, the individual self, is nothing other than brahman Itself. "

Jiva and Brahman is equivalent to Jivatma and Paramatma as stated in your link. Is this proof enough that the Supreme Soul is Brahman? "

Let’s see. The webpage you linked to talks of an union between Jivatma and Paramatma. At least you have now agreed that it never claimed Paramatma is Brahma which you slipped in your previous post. I gave you another link as I say clearly (the Advaita FAQ) which spoke of the non-duality/union between Jiva and Brahman. I drew a parallel between Paramatma and Brahman and say it so explicitly.

Advaitic philosophy is not the only Hindu philosophy, you know. There is Vaishnav thought, Sivaism, and also Vishishtadvaita Vedanta, and anti-thesis of the Advaitic Vedanta. And the Upanishads that you love to quote too contain more than one philosophy in them, like Samkhya, Monism, Mimamsa etc.
And regardign Man wanting to get back to Brahma, I said it earlier.

Irrelevant. You were all along arguing that Man wants to get back to Brahma. If you are now claiming you were never talking about Advaita (the most popular school of thought), please tell me what school of thought it is.

(FYI: even non-Advaitic Vedantic philosophies speak of Brahman. The difference lies in the relationship between Atman and Brahman. Brahma has freaking nothing to do with it)

[crazy_grady]

Christianity and Hinduism are as different as east and west, left and right. Judiasm and Islam are similair in comparison.

Christianity teaches in the Book of Hebrews that “All men die once, then the judgement.” We can never become gods, just humble servents. Now Hinduism teaches that everyone is God, that there is no god per se, that everyone reincarnates until they reach a point of “Nirvana” where the soul is free of death and there is power and peace.

Christianity has personal Gods. Not a typo, Gods (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). Hindus believe in literally millions of spirits, none personal and none caring for the suffering and sins of mankind. Krishna himself in Bhagavad Gita spoke about if someone is suffering in pain in the streets that we must leave him be, because he was an evil person in a previous life, as opposed to Christianity that teaches that we have one life and what we do in the here and now is the most important, because this world is a test for our worthiness in the hereafter. I believe in the hereafter because the soul is energy and the soul never dies.

AMEN BROTHER

[Mangetout]

*Originally posted by crazy grady *
Christianity has personal Gods. Not a typo, Gods (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).

Perhaps not a typo, but certainly a misrepresentation; the Christian doctrine of the Trinity absolutely does not describe three Gods.

[smiling_bandit]

Look, litost and noname, given the number of wildly varying doctrines of Hindus, I’m sure that somewhere out there you’re both right.

[litost]

smiling bandit,

Not really. I would have no issue if noname pointed me to a school of thought where they talk of Man returning to Brahma as the essence of Hinduism… I may have called it marginal but wouldn’t be spending so much time. Here is what prompted my responses:

**noname **wrote:
"And the Advaitic philosophy seeks to remove the false barriers between jivatma (soul in ones body) and paramatma (the Supreme soul, the Brahma). "

That is just flat out wrong. Brahma is not the Supreme Soul. The Supreme soul/spirit in Advaitic philosophy is Brahman. The false barriers are between Jiva and Brahman, not Brahma. Two conceptually different entities. I am pointing out a factual error, not arguing over what is the correct school of thought.

I was afraid that to the uninitiated viewer on the board, it might look like nit-picking, but it ain’t. And noname continues to twist and turn but cannot acknowledge a serious error in his/her understanding of Advaita despite overwhelming proof. Sad, indeed.

[noname]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by litost *
I have always said that as per Advaitic thought (one of the most widely believed ideas) the goal of Man is to recognize the non-duality of Atman/Self/Jiva and Brahman, the supreme spirit.

[quote]

The goal of Man is to recognize the non-duality of Atman/Self/Jiva and Brahman, the supreme spirit. Does the Advaitic thought say anything about what the Atma/Self/Jiva do after it has realized the non-duality? Let me guess, it merges with the Brahman. But like I posted previously, the Gita and the Brahma Sutras seems to write Brahma in place of Brahman. ergo, Man wants to merge with with Brahma

BTW, just cos you believe in Advaitic philosophy, doesn’t make it the most believed idea/thought/philosophy

Now, you are talking of Brahma and Brahman being cyclical definitions of one another… oh, they are but the same thing! Very convenient change in your stance…

Sadly, no. No change whatsoever. Let me explain. You keep saying that Brahma is a manifestation of Brahman, and that He (Brahma) created the material universe (Heaven, Earth and sky) and spawned the species. Now pray, what other entity did the Vedic sages know, that could not be placed along with these as Brahman? So you see, Brahma is a manifestation of Brahman like you say, and he created the material universe (like you wrote earlier) which is the Brahman that Vedic sages describe. THAT is the cyclical nature of the definition. IMO, its one of the beauties of the Hindu faith. I guess the Advaitic thought forgot to mention that, so you don’t know about it.

No, everything is Brahman. No divisions at all. The divisions are in our perception as per Advaita. Brahma himself is a manifestation of Brahman as Creator.

Let me give you an easy example, since the other reasons fail you.

A year is divided in to 12 months. Each month can be considered as the manifestation of the year for a number of days (just imagine - you need imagination for this). You keep saying that we should keep denying the existance of the months, just cos they only add up to make a year, that the months are maya, and the year is the reality. But it can also be argued that without the months, the year does not exist. Similarly, by saying that all is Brahman, you negate everything else, and deny the divisions.

BTW, the above is also an expamle of the cyclical nature of the definition. A year has 12 months and 12 months make a year. Do you get the cyclical nature NOW???

No, you have newly introducd the idea that Brahman and Brahma are the same despite claiming that Brahman was the universe created by Brahma in the previous posts. This idea however is closer to the truth. Brahma is a manifestation of the Supreme Spirit, Brahman.

Think about the year and twelve months again.

That is utter nonsense. Brahman is not a vedic god for crying out loud. I am beginning to think you have no clue at all about Hinduism…Brahman is the Supreme Spririt, the essence of Life, the OM. He is not a Vedic God like Indra.

Talk about change in stance!!! You are saying that Brahman is not a God? And pray, what is the difference a God and a Supreme Spirit? For a follower of Advaitic thought, you are too steeped in dualism. First you say that Brahma and Brahman are two different things, then you say that Brahma only created the material things, and not you say that Brahman is not God, but a Supreme Spirit!!
BTW, are there any non-vedic Gods? Jesus? Mohammed? Nanak?

The strange thing is you don’t even read your own links. From the first freaking paragraph on Indra from your own freaking link:

"Indra is more like a king upon the earth than of heavens. He has a spiritual side too. According to the Kena Upanishad, he is the only god to have gone nearest to Brahman and was to know Him as Brahman. "

I recently checked the Kena Upanishad, and the text refers to Brahma!! Have a look:

http://www.geocities.com/moorpark_am/kena/kena.htm

quote:

“Barva Bramhaopnishand…ma Brahmanirakarot”

I also see you haven’t claimed that Upanishads never refer to Brahman as He/Him. I ask you to either prove that the Upanishads never mention Brahman as He or Him or kindly withdraw this statement . Also, you might as well withdraw the claim that I haven’t read the Upanishads if you can’t prove the above. Just for your information, Upanishads are an ode to Brahman with Him and He used frequently to refer to the Supreme Spirit. So, good luck with this.

I freaking won’t withdraw this statement. Like I have shown previously, the Upanishads seem to say Bramha when they talk about Brahman. Good luck to you in differentiating teh Brahma form the Brahman

You have grossly (and I hope not deliberately) mis-interpreted my post. Let me provide it here for all to see:
Let’s see. The webpage you linked to talks of an union between Jivatma and Paramatma. At least you have now agreed that it never claimed Paramatma is Brahma which you slipped in your previous post. I gave you another link as I say clearly (the Advaita FAQ) which spoke of the non-duality/union between Jiva and Brahman. I drew a parallel between Paramatma and Brahman and say it so explicitly.

when did you draw the parallel?

Irrelevant. You were all along arguing that Man wants to get back to Brahma. If you are now claiming you were never talking about Advaita (the most popular school of thought), please tell me what school of thought it is.

(FYI: even non-Advaitic Vedantic philosophies speak of Brahman. The difference lies in the relationship between Atman and Brahman. Brahma has freaking nothing to do with it)

I will reply to this later.

[II_Gyan_II]

With regards to the OP, in so far as I know, Brahma does not present himself on Earth.

[litost]

Posted by noname

I recently checked the Kena Upanishad, and the text refers to Brahma!! Have a look:

http://www.geocities.com/moorpark_am/kena/kena.htm

quote:

“Barva Bramhaopnishand…ma Brahmanirakarot”

I freaking won’t withdraw this statement. Like I have shown previously, the Upanishads seem to say Bramha when they talk about Brahman. Good luck to you in differentiating teh Brahma form the Brahman

Just fucking amazing. Fucking amazing. I ask anyone to open the link to the Kena Upanishads that noname has kindly proferred and find Brahma mentioned anywhere in the translation. It is Brahman every-fucking-where. Brahman, the Supreme Spirit, the mystical Spirit, not Lord Brahma.
And you quote one line written in classical Sanskrit and even extract the Brahma in Brahmanirakarot to prove that they are writing about Brahma and not Brahman… yes, the translators didn’t fucking know how to translate…oh wait, they added an extra “n” in all the thousand places by accident… how utterly utterly moronic!

It is very depressing to think that admitting to an error can be this difficult for a human being.

I am done with noname in this thread.

[II_Gyan_II]

FWIW, from the Sanskrit typeface used, it’s not clear that the word used is Brahman, rather it looks like Brahma. I base this on reading the text like a Devanagari script. I don’t see a bindi used in ‘Brahma’, which would render its pronunciation ‘Brahman’. But the font used is atypical. The ‘ha’ joint to the ‘ma’ is not how it’s rendered in any of my Hindi textbooks. Maybe Sanskrit use of the script is different.

[litost]

Gyan9,
This is classical sanskrit from more than a thousand years ago. I can’t speak intelligently about it. Did you read the English translation on that website? It translates to Brahman everywhere.

Feel free to check any translation. The Upanishads refer to Brahman, not Lord Brahma.

[the_creosote_kid]

IF WE ARE THE SAME AS OR EQUAL/ONE WITH GOD(AS I UNDERSTAND THE ADWAITA ARGUMENT)BUT TEMPORARILY IN AN ILLUSION…I HAVE TO ASK,IF WE ARE ACTUALLY SUPREME,HOW COULD WE HAVE BECOME SUBJECT TO ILLUSION?

[_possum_stalker]

CK, I guess it’s just one of those mysteries, like “how can God be nailed to a post?”

[El_Cid_Viscoso]

Yeah, 'possum, just like “how could God skydive into my chariot to pop me the thumbs-up over killing my cousins?”

[noname]

*Originally posted by litost *
**Just fucking amazing. Fucking amazing. I ask anyone to open the link to the Kena Upanishads that noname has kindly proferred and find Brahma mentioned anywhere in the translation. It is Brahman every-fucking-where. Brahman, the Supreme Spirit, the mystical Spirit, not Lord Brahma.
And you quote one line written in classical Sanskrit and even extract the Brahma in Brahmanirakarot to prove that they are writing about Brahma and not Brahman… yes, the translators didn’t fucking know how to translate…oh wait, they added an extra “n” in all the thousand places by accident… how utterly utterly moronic!

It is very depressing to think that admitting to an error can be this difficult for a human being.

I am done with noname in this thread. **

You need a mouth wash, litost

[noname]

*Originally posted by the creosote kid *
**I HAVE TO ASK,IF WE ARE ACTUALLY SUPREME,HOW COULD WE HAVE BECOME SUBJECT TO ILLUSION? **

KARMA, BABY, KARMA