Abraham and Brahma

Re: Abraham and Brahma

dauer wrote:

I've seen a lot of info trying to link Abraham and Sarah to Brahma and Saraisvati. Some of it seems legit, but then I see something that makes me question the validity of the whole theory. Does anyone know anything about this? Possibly someone versed in Sanskrit, and all of the dead and living semitic languages? Eh? Eh?

Dauer

Edit: There's a shiny quarter for the linguist. Eh? Eh?

I can't help linquist - wise, but here's my two cents:

Genesis 25:1-6: "Abraham proceeded and took a woman whose name was Keturah. She bore him Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah. Jokshan begot Sheba and Dedan, and the children of Dedan were Ashurim, Letushim, and Leummim. And the children of Midian: Ephah, Epher, Hanoch, Abida, and Elda'ah; all these were the descendants of Keturah. Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac. But to the concubine-children who were Abraham's, Abraham gave gifts; then he sent them away from Isaac his son, while he was still alive, eastward to the land of the east."

What gifts did Abrahham have left to give? He had previously given everything he owned to Isaac? (Miizrachi)
(Rashi) explains: according to the Sages (Sanhedrin 91a that gifts are not to be understood in the material sense, but rather:) He imparted to them the secrets of the impure or unclean arts.
This refers to the knowledge of demons and sorcery, etc. He imparted this knowledge to teach them to counteract sorcery, and exorcise demons which enter into men (Gur Aryeh)
According to the (HaKsav V'haKabllah), Abraham imparted this knowledge to them so that they would know how to guard themselves from substituting impure names for hallowed names and inadvertently worshipping them.
(Rashi) also adds: another interpretation: Gifts refers to gifts which had been given to him because of Sarah (20:14,16), and the gifts he received from others. All of these he now gave to them sicnce he wished to derive no benefit there-from. (Previously he had give Isaac all the wealth he had earned)

He sent them "eastward to the east country." The "land of the east" would have been Charan in Amram Naharaim and Ur Kasdim, the lands where Abraham's kin lived and came from - this would have encompassed modern day Syria, Iraq and even tribal lands in Iran.

He sent his concubine children there, confident that his kinsmen would welcome them and offer them greater friendship than they would have found elsewhere. (Radak)
(Chiizkuni) explains that Abraham sent them there to claim the ancestral inheritance that was due to him for his own family.

Now, according to the Torah, Abraham was renowned throughout the world as the Founder of Monotheism, the belief in the One, True G-d. He had great, great wealth much of it in the form of cattle. Much of the cattle he got on account of Sarah and as gifts from neighboring kings.

Therefore, his concubine children would have gone out as princes of Abraham; with the knowledge of the G-d of Abraham; with much wealth in cattle; with powers given to them by Abraham to defend themselves against the idol worshippers; to claim their ancestral lands towards the East. If this came to pass, they would have become leaders of the people's in the lands to the East - such as the early Persians.

Abraham lived from 1813 BCE to 1638 BCE.

Somewhere between 1700 BCE and 1200 BCE, the Aryan people descended from the Khyber pass and invaded India. They had traveled from the West, first taking over what is now Afghanistan and then moving on to India.
They were a racial mixture of Persians and Medes. They had great herds of cattle. They conquered the moribund Indian civilizations with relative ease. They brought their gods with them into India.
This became the "Dark Ages" of India, but, as with the Dark Ages in Europe, it was also a time where new cultures and religions were fashioned. It was called the Vedic Age by Hindus. Somewhere between 1200 BCE and 600 BCE, the religion of Hinduism came into being.
It was a melding of the new gods of the Aryans and the old animist worship of the Dravidian Indians.

The unrecorded theory of the descedants of Abraham would go something like this:

The children of Abraham became tribal leaders. They preached the religion of the G-d of Abraham and they knew the names of all of the demons and lesser powers that could be used to help or afflict man.
They became the Aryan race that migrated East.
Over time, the G-d of Abraham became the G-d Abraham and through simple linquistics became the G-d Brahman. All of the lesser demons and gods became demi-gods and powers that could afflict or help man.
The Hindu pantheon of gods developed from this.
Interestingingly enough, Hinduism is a monotheistic religion. All of the gods are simply aspects of G-d, Bhagavan, or Brahama. Which is very similiar to the Aspects of G-d in Judaism - Judge; Father; Merciful; Redeemer; Angel of Death; Creator; All Supreme; Forgiving; etc.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Smile

0 Replies

Brahma - is the creator principle (and is not name of a particular tribal ancestor) In Sanskrit you can split a word to it phonetic roots.

The word Brahma is composed of these phonetic roots...
Brahma = Bruhan+ man + A

Bruhan - Vast, all encompassing, broad
+
Man - Mind, conciousness
+
A - Emergence, Creation

So the word Brahma means the supreme consciousness manifested as creator. When it is personified as saviour it is referred as Vishnu, literally means the one to enters [the world to save] and when personified as change and liberation it is referred as Shiva, literally meaning peace personified. These names are metaphors to imply the subtle principles of creation, sustenance and dissolution and are definitely not the name of some tribe leader

Sanatan Dharma (Hinduism for west) deifies these principles in feminine form also. When creativity is seen in feminine light, it is referred as Saraswati.
Phonetically it goes as ...
Saras - Essence or Creative juice
+
Avti - Emerged or Personified (like in avatar)

Whenever you create something, the princinple personified by Brahma and Saraswati, flows through you. Such a person is called Rushi. In Hindu scriptures there are 7 main Rushis, each identifying a different creative aspect, who collectively contribute to the creation.

I think that the same idea is repeated for a different audience and the story must have changed over the period of time. Abrahm and Sara could be a deviation in pronunciation of Brahma and Saraswati and so is the case with the word 'rashi' which is for 'Rushi' in sanskrit. Actually this word has very beautiful metaphor embedded in it. Rushi is the one for whom the meanings and events follows his words. When they say "Shanti", the peace emerges there as their expressions are driven from the very source of this creation.

0 Replies

Rashi is an acronym -- we've got tons of those -- for Rabbi Shlomo ben Yitzkhak. We've got a lot of later names that sound foreign because they're acronyms, like the Maharal who was Moreinu HaRav Loewe.

And this is the problem I find when I look for information. I think people are digging too hard. I found a site that connected some of the ancient nations mentioned in the bible with different Indian castes, I've found suggestions Abraham was a Brahman priest who rejected the many faces of God somehow, but it seems like whoever the linguist is, they disregard the meanings the words have in one language, at their roots, so that they can give them the entirely different meaning for the other.

Maybe it's all contrived. I don't know.

One thing I have seen suggested is that the Bible takes gods and goddesses from other religions and turns them into people in front of HaShem in order to make a statement. Maybe that's more plausible. Mayb'e it's not.

There are too many directions this can lead it seems. I just want to look at this without bias and without too much desire to find what there is not.

Dauer

0 Replies

Blue Sky is the more nearly right here. It seems to me a very great stretch to connect Abraham with Brahma. The older Hindu gods are Krishna, Shiva and Vishnu. Brahma doesn't appear in the pantheon until later. Perhaps a greater objection is that the wto religious systems are so very far apart. Abrahamic religions look at the world as finite with a beginning and someday an ending. Hinduism is based on endless (infinite) cycles of creation, contention and destruction). One is monothesiic and hostile to all other belief systems, the other is traditionally very tolerant and has a large pantheon where gods and their consorts exemplify all of the natural forces of the universe. Two very different systems, and neither of the two seems to have ever held any different positions even in the remotest antiquity.

0 Replies

Asherman, agree with you to a great extent except that with "Brahma doesn't appear in the pantheon until later" To suggest that Brahma, principle of creation, was added as an afterthought, to the cycle of creation, sustenance and dissolution, makes little sense to me and even contradicts some very ancient (at least 4000 BC) Sanatan (Hindu) hymns, which basically include offerings to Brahma, the creative force, along with Vishnu and Shiva. Having said that, Brahma is least popular among these 3 that make up the trinity. The reasons have lot to do with the philosophy than anything. Brahma principle (creativity) creates, the good as well as bad. But Vishnu principle (Savior) protects the good from the bad. Hence there is more Vishnu worship. And the conflict between good and bad goes on and there won't be peace until the duality between them is dissolved. That is where Shiva comes in as he brings peace by ending all conflicts. Peace is the most revered principle (MahaDeva)

It is very common that some have more affinity to creator principle (called Brahmis in India), some to Vishnu (called Vaishnavas) and some to Shiva (Shaivas). There have been many instances of conflicts between these when someone looses the sight of the fact that these 3 are aspect of the same divinity. When that happens for too long it leads to (outwardly) contradictory ideologies in spite of coming from the same source.

Well, these are just my thoughts. Here is another word that gets me thinking in this context...
Sangha is Sanskrit for "House of congregation"
|
San = to come together/ sync
+
Gha = Place/House/Building
Sounds lot like Synagogue?

0 Replies

Synagogue is not Hebrew. It comes from latin or greek. I don't remember which.

In hebrew it is Bet HaKnesset or House of assembly basically. Like the Knesset is Israeli Parliament.

This is like saying hebrew daber is like japanese daberu, only that may be more valid. I read it on Nova's website. Or knesset and kensei. It seems ridiculous though.

0 Replies

we call him Ibrahim

he married 2 women, one of them was sarah.

i don't know what information you are seeking..about him.

0 Replies

According to my dictionary (American Heritage College), "synagogue" is, as dauer suggests, derived from a Greek word meaning "assembly."

Great thread here, by the way. I'm currently reading Thoreau, who had little use for the Judeo-Christian theology but a great deal of interest in the Hindu belief system...

0 Replies

It is true that Brahma does appear in early hymns, but the dominant themes are in Krishna, Vishnu and Shiva. By later, I'm still talking about a the period around 2000 BCE. It appears that for a long time the indivdual forces that make up the perceptual universe were treated almost as if they were totally seperate entities. As the philosophical foundations became more sophisticated, then Brahma the underlying reality from which all the gods and universal forces sprang became much more important. Hinduism, like all religions has been evolving for a very long time. What doesn't seem to change much are the underlying principles of each of the world's various root religions. Abrahamic religions all share a common Weltanschaung. Shamanistic religions no matter how different the tribal context, also share a certain idea of what the world is about.

The Brahma principle is very important, I believe because I think that it played a crucial role in the birth of both Jain and Buddhist religions.

0 Replies

glad_to_be_muslim wrote:

we call him Ibrahim

he married 2 women, one of them was sarah.

i don't know what information you are seeking..about him.

This thread is about the possible connections between the Abraham of the Abrahamic religions and Brahma of Hinduism. Sarah and Sarasvaiti is another similarity.

It seems like it is developing into further exploration of similarities in language. I like this turn. I'm hoping perhaps someone else might know some Vedic passages that parallel biblical ones. I'm a nut for comparative religion, but I'm also big on debunking it when it's faulty. Sue me. And one of the claims I saw was that there are many similarities between Abraham and Brahma besides Saraisvati and Sarah. Those similarities were witheld. Don't both literatures have a flood story?

0 Replies

Asherman, would like to point a subtle difference
There is subtle difference and it is easy to get mislead if it is not pronounced. Brahman is not same as Brahma, a major pronunciation difference there if you hear it in Sanskrit. Brahman (not Brahma) is the underlying reality and it is formless and unmanifested

When it manifests as forms and attributes, they are deified. Now, Brahma (not Brahman) is a deification of a (mere) creative force and is not the whole underlying reality of everything. Brahma creates this world that is called Maya (falsehood), which is matrix of 5 elements and the entire Hindu spirituality is based on getting out of this web/matrix weaved by creator.

Both Jain and Buddhism refer to the same formless reality of Brahman along with falsehood of external world (Maya). Jain/Buddhist thought schools don't contradict in essence with Hindu insights (no wars there), just merely differ in some outward practices.

About Greeks: Theories goes as Hitties & Mittani civilizations, who came from east and worshiped various Vedic gods are the early ancestors of Greeks. Some buy it, while some have problem with it. I tend to buy it as the Greek language too have overwhelming number of words that can be explained to the extent of phonetic details with Sanskrit. But it is always debatable. Beyond a point it is only a matter of exploration.

0 Replies

I should have been more precise, especially when the dialog includes someone who would appreciate the difference between Brahman and Brahma. For most folks the distinction would probably be more confusing than enlightening. To add to the confusion, Brahman is also the highest of castes. Since you've pointed to the difference, I would say that Brahma is the older of the two. The idea that Brahma(n) is the fundamental from which all other gods and forces spring is, I believe, the result of a long period of philosophical pondering by the holy men of India.

I don't think I have anything in Sanskrit in our library anymore, and in any case my primary language for grad work was Mandarin. There will be, I'm sure, may parallels between Western words/terms and Sanskrit, since they are both Indo-European languages with similar roots. As pointed out above, trying to link Abrahamic religions with Hinduism is a very, very long reach. Flood stories are not uncommon, though there is nothing to suggest that the "Flood" of a particular myth is in anyway linked to the Universal Flood so loved by the Abrahamic folks. Actually, the Abrahamic Flood may well be a borrowing from the earlier Sumarian.

0 Replies

I'd say the flood motif in the Western world was very common. If you compare to the Epic of Gilgamesh it is quite clear. It may have just been an integration of accepted history into the biblical cannon.

I wonder sometimes why floods appear so much. I think Campbell said something about that but it's been a long time since I read his books.

0 Replies

wow, a very old topic...however,

Sefer Yetzirah 6:7

and when Abraham our father, may he rest in peace, looked, saw, probed, engraved and carved, he was successful in CREATION, as it is written, "the souls he MADE in Haran" (Gen. 12.5)

this would suggest some possible similarity between the Hindu creator God Brahma and Abraham...

0 Replies

Welcome to a2k.

Sefer Yetzirah doesn't exactly date back very early. 3rd to 6th c. But this is actually a reference to Gen 12:5 so I'll have a look there. According to the newest JPS translation "Abram took his wife Sarai and his brother's son Lot, and all the wealth that they had amassed, and all the persons that they had aquired in Haran; and they set out for the land of Canaan..."

It's that word aquired that sefer yetzirah translates as made, ayin, sin, heh. It's a pretty flexible verb but here it does seem to mean aquired. And I could be mistaken (I really don't know much Hebrew so I'm not familiar enough with the Hebrew text) but I'm not sure that's the word used for God creating.

I don't have that line from yetzirah in context and even if I did I might not know what it was talking about, but it's common for Jewish mystics to bend the meaning of something to find another meaning, or make use of little anomalies in the text to find hidden meaning. If every letter is considered sacred and from God, then there are no mistakes and every word can be packed with meaning.

So this really isn't early enough to be helpful. Have you been reading Sefer Yetzirah?

Dauer

0 Replies

dauer wrote:

Welcome to a2k.

Sefer Yetzirah doesn't exactly date back very early. 3rd to 6th c. But this is actually a reference to Gen 12:5 so I'll have a look there. According to the newest JPS translation "Abram took his wife Sarai and his brother's son Lot, and all the wealth that they had amassed, and all the persons that they had aquired in Haran; and they set out for the land of Canaan..."

It's that word aquired that sefer yetzirah translates as made, ayin, sin, heh. It's a pretty flexible verb but here it does seem to mean aquired. And I could be mistaken (I really don't know much Hebrew so I'm not familiar enough with the Hebrew text) but I'm not sure that's the word used for God creating.

I don't have that line from yetzirah in context and even if I did I might not know what it was talking about, but it's common for Jewish mystics to bend the meaning of something to find another meaning, or make use of little anomalies in the text to find hidden meaning. If every letter is considered sacred and from God, then there are no mistakes and every word can be packed with meaning.

So this really isn't early enough to be helpful. Have you been reading Sefer Yetzirah?

Dauer

this is from a transliterated Hebrew version online:

Haftarah Lech Lecha
5 Vayikach Avram et-Sarai ishto ve'et-Lot ben-achiv ve'et-kol-rechusham asher rachashu ve'et-hanefesh asher-asu veCharan vayetze'u lalechet artzah Kena'an vayavo'u artzah Kena'an.
Avram took his wife Sarai, Lot, his brother's son, all their possessions they had acquired, and the souls that they had made in Charan, and they set out to go to the land of Kenaan. They came to the land of Kenaan.

another key that Abraham might be more of a diety than man is "Ur" which has the double meaning of Fire...so one might say, Abraham came from the "fire of the kasdim"...

Brahma too is associated with fire worship (Brahmins perform this worship)..again, too many coincidences...although there is nothing that says Abraham is Brahma, there are too many coincidences of similarities...

Saraswati is a river in India and has a minor tributary called "Hakara"...

so Abraham wife is Sarah and slave Hagar

Brahma's wife is Saraswati and slave tributary Hakara...

if you curse the descendants of Abraham you get cursed, similar to the sin of Brahmahatya, the sin of killing a Brahmin...there are several uncanny similarities...

:wink:

0 Replies

satya wrote:

dauer wrote:
Welcome to a2k.

Sefer Yetzirah doesn't exactly date back very early. 3rd to 6th c. But this is actually a reference to Gen 12:5 so I'll have a look there. According to the newest JPS translation "Abram took his wife Sarai and his brother's son Lot, and all the wealth that they had amassed, and all the persons that they had aquired in Haran; and they set out for the land of Canaan..."

It's that word aquired that sefer yetzirah translates as made, ayin, sin, heh. It's a pretty flexible verb but here it does seem to mean aquired. And I could be mistaken (I really don't know much Hebrew so I'm not familiar enough with the Hebrew text) but I'm not sure that's the word used for God creating.

I don't have that line from yetzirah in context and even if I did I might not know what it was talking about, but it's common for Jewish mystics to bend the meaning of something to find another meaning, or make use of little anomalies in the text to find hidden meaning. If every letter is considered sacred and from God, then there are no mistakes and every word can be packed with meaning.

So this really isn't early enough to be helpful. Have you been reading Sefer Yetzirah?

Dauer

this is from a transliterated Hebrew version online:

Haftarah Lech Lecha
5 Vayikach Avram et-Sarai ishto ve'et-Lot ben-achiv ve'et-kol-rechusham asher rachashu ve'et-hanefesh asher-asu veCharan vayetze'u lalechet artzah Kena'an vayavo'u artzah Kena'an.
Avram took his wife Sarai, Lot, his brother's son, all their possessions they had acquired, and the souls that they had made in Charan, and they set out to go to the land of Kenaan. They came to the land of Kenaan.

another key that Abraham might be more of a diety than man is "Ur" which has the double meaning of Fire...so one might say, Abraham came from the "fire of the kasdim"...

Brahma too is associated with fire worship (Brahmins perform this worship)..again, too many coincidences...although there is nothing that says Abraham is Brahma, there are too many coincidences of similarities...

Saraswati is a river in India and has a minor tributary called "Hakara"...

so Abraham wife is Sarah and slave Hagar

Brahma's wife is Saraswati and slave tributary Hakara...

if you curse the descendants of Abraham you get cursed, similar to the sin of Brahmahatya, the sin of killing a Brahmin...there are several uncanny similarities...

:wink:

So, satya,
Did you read my story (and I'm sticking to it) on this subject?
If so, whaddya think?

(And Dauer, did you read my response in "On Judaism" to your query vis a vis Haredi?)

0 Replies

I don't remember if I mentioned this early in the thread but there is a theory that some of the biblical characters are the gods of other nations, reduced to the status of people before YHWH. Then again, maybe this Abraham Brahma thing is more like Kohen and Kahuna: coincidence.

0 Replies

Moishe3rd wrote:

satya wrote:
dauer wrote:
Welcome to a2k.

Sefer Yetzirah doesn't exactly date back very early. 3rd to 6th c. But this is actually a reference to Gen 12:5 so I'll have a look there. According to the newest JPS translation "Abram took his wife Sarai and his brother's son Lot, and all the wealth that they had amassed, and all the persons that they had aquired in Haran; and they set out for the land of Canaan..."

It's that word aquired that sefer yetzirah translates as made, ayin, sin, heh. It's a pretty flexible verb but here it does seem to mean aquired. And I could be mistaken (I really don't know much Hebrew so I'm not familiar enough with the Hebrew text) but I'm not sure that's the word used for God creating.

I don't have that line from yetzirah in context and even if I did I might not know what it was talking about, but it's common for Jewish mystics to bend the meaning of something to find another meaning, or make use of little anomalies in the text to find hidden meaning. If every letter is considered sacred and from God, then there are no mistakes and every word can be packed with meaning.

So this really isn't early enough to be helpful. Have you been reading Sefer Yetzirah?

Dauer

this is from a transliterated Hebrew version online:

Haftarah Lech Lecha
5 Vayikach Avram et-Sarai ishto ve'et-Lot ben-achiv ve'et-kol-rechusham asher rachashu ve'et-hanefesh asher-asu veCharan vayetze'u lalechet artzah Kena'an vayavo'u artzah Kena'an.
Avram took his wife Sarai, Lot, his brother's son, all their possessions they had acquired, and the souls that they had made in Charan, and they set out to go to the land of Kenaan. They came to the land of Kenaan.

another key that Abraham might be more of a diety than man is "Ur" which has the double meaning of Fire...so one might say, Abraham came from the "fire of the kasdim"...

Brahma too is associated with fire worship (Brahmins perform this worship)..again, too many coincidences...although there is nothing that says Abraham is Brahma, there are too many coincidences of similarities...

Saraswati is a river in India and has a minor tributary called "Hakara"...

so Abraham wife is Sarah and slave Hagar

Brahma's wife is Saraswati and slave tributary Hakara...

if you curse the descendants of Abraham you get cursed, similar to the sin of Brahmahatya, the sin of killing a Brahmin...there are several uncanny similarities...

:wink:

So, satya,
Did you read my story (and I'm sticking to it) on this subject?
If so, whaddya think?

(And Dauer, did you read my response in "On Judaism" to your query vis a vis Haredi?)

Wishful thinking on the part of a few bitter Jewish priests... :wink:

0 Replies

Abraham and Brahma

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know