Brahma And Abraham (From The Nimrod Thread)

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

For those who would like to debate whether or not Abraham is Brahma and Sarah is Saraswati, I'm seperating the sidedebate from the Nimrod thread. Also, this link was posted purporting that the four are indeed linked, and I'd like to tear it apart:

http://www.hermetics.org/Abraham2.html

 

It's arguement and my rebuttal:

 

Who was Abraham?

 

In his History of the Jews, the Jewish scholar and theologian Flavius Josephus (37 - 100 A.D.), wrote that the Greek philosopher Aristotle had said: "...These Jews are derived from the Indian philosophers; they are named by the Indians Calani." (Book I:22.)

Clearchus of Soli wrote, "The Jews descend from the philosophers of India. The philosophers are called in India Calanians and in Syria Jews. The name of their capital is very difficult to pronounce. It is called 'Jerusalem.'"

"Megasthenes, who was sent to India by Seleucus Nicator, about three hundred years before Christ, and whose accounts from new inquiries are every day acquiring additional credit, says that the Jews 'were an Indian tribe or sect called Kalani...'" (Anacalypsis, by Godfrey Higgins, Vol. I; p. 400.)

The Anacalypsis got its information from the Ancient Greeks. The Greeks got their information from where? Is their information reliable? What proof do they/we have of such?

Was there a Indian tribe or Hindu sect called Kalani/Calani? Why does this article speak much of a vague? It almost seems to want to itch to convince those who know little, making itself look like know alot.

 

Martin Haug, Ph.D., wrote in The Sacred Language, Writings, and Religions of the Parsis, "The Magi are said to have called their religion Kesh-î-Ibrahim.They traced their religious books to Abraham, who was believed to have brought them from heaven." (p. 16.)

Where did he source that? That's interesting. Though I've never heard of it and would like to know more, I can't just take a doctorate's word for it because he says so.

He's got a degree, his word must be true!

 

There are certain striking similarities between the Hindu god Brahma and his consort Saraisvati, and the Jewish Abraham and Sarai, that are more than mere coincidences. Although in all of India there is only one temple dedicated to Brahma, this cult is the third largest Hindu sect.

Saivism, Vaishnavism and Shaktism are the largest. Let's see what the similarities are. Hopefully I get to see the "striking" similarities.

 

In his book Moisés y los Extraterrestres, Mexican author Tomás Doreste states,

 

Voltaire was of the opinion that Abraham descended from some of the numerous Brahman priests who left India to spread their teachings throughout the world; and in support of his thesis he presented the following elements: the similarity of names and the fact that the city of Ur, land of the patriarchs, was near the border of Persia, the road to India, where that Brahman had been born.

How very vague and poorly written an article was made.

I can describe anything vaguely and make it seem like any two things are in fact similar even when they aren't. Also, a similarity of names and the fact that Ur was near Persia where there was a road to India means nothing when it comes to equating the two. I smell that the article is attempting to talk past its readers, aiming more to convince the converted and the impressionable, and not really aimed at convincing anyone of anything real.

 

The name of Brahma was highly respected in India, and his influence spread throughout Persia as far as the lands bathed by the rivers Euphrates and Tigris.The Persians adopted Brahma and made him their own. Later they would say that the God arrived from Bactria, a mountainous region situated midway on the road to India. (pp. 46-47.)

Any evidence he was worshipped in Persia? In all likelyhood, the polytheist might've there.

As for being in Mesopotamia (as alluded to), the only possible Brahma to be found there was the Kassite Barama/Parama. While I do support the hypothesis that the two are in fact one, it is just that, a hypothesis. Why? Because while there are other sanskrit sounding names, and IndoIranian was spoken near where the Kassites came from (they were next door neighbors practically), we really don't know their language nor what it sounded like, so little remains of it. In fact, only one bilingual text listing deities, and personal names of Kassite rulers. That's not alot to go on.

 

Also, Kassite, as far as we can tell, wasn't IndoEuropean (it could've been, perhaps everything we don't have would say otherwise), and it definitely wasn't IndoIranian, let alone Indian/Indic/Sanskrit.

 

Bactria (a region of ancient Afghanistan) was the locality of a prototypical Jewish nation called Juhuda or Jaguda, also called Ur-Jaguda. Ur meant "place or town." Therefore, the bible was correct in stating that Abraham came from "Ur of the Chaldeans." "Chaldean," more correctly Kaul-Deva (Holy Kauls), was not the name of a specific ethnicity but the title of an ancient Hindu Brahmanical priestly caste who lived in what are now Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Indian state of Kashmir.

Any evidence of this prototype of a Jewish nation?

Was it called Juhuda, or was that an attempt to link Jaguda with Judah/Yehuda?

Never heard of Urjaguda/Jaguda. Was it a place? When did it exist? Where is it referenced?

Are they hinting that it meant "place/city of Judah"? Why would the Hebrews fuse Sumerian in with a name for one of their Hebrew cities names with their hebrew language?

Or maybe Juhuda/Jaguda/Urjaguda was completely sumerian. Okay, in that case, what is Jaguda supposed to mean in Sumerian? What is the "J" supposed to stand for? How is it to be pronounced? It definitely isn't pronounced like either english "j"s, because those sounds were lacking in sumerian. So I'll assume its a "y/i".

 

I know Sumerian, but I can't seem to figure out what in Sumerian in this context yaguda would mean. With Yagu? With Yahu/Yahweh? I don't think so. How do we know the name is sumerian?

 

"Chaldees or more correctly Kauldeva"

 

Really? Must they fly any higher over our (the readers) heads with arrogance? I love how they don't dive into the hebrew at all, where the evidence of Indian connection in this case would be found. If they had bothered to untranslate "chaldees/Chaldeans", they'd see "Kasdim", which refers to the Kassites and not some priestly caste of any kind.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

"The tribe of Ioud or the Brahmin Abraham, was expelled from or left the Maturea of the kingdom of Oude in India and, settling in Goshen, or the house of the Sun or Heliopolis in Egypt, gave it the name of the place which they had left in India, Maturea." (Anacalypsis; Vol. I, p. 405.)

They weren't a tribe. There is no evidence of a Brahman named Abraham, was there? If so, source? Anacalypsis doesn't count.

"He was of the religion or sect of Persia, and of Melchizedek."(Vol. I, p. 364.)

Can you be more vague? Is the religion/sect referred to Zoroastrianism? Perhaps not, because Melchizedek was Canaanite. But the persians didn't follow the Canaanite religion. Headhurt mine does. This is a meaningless sentance. Races and religions and sects are just fused in with names, regardless of where or when they existed or whether they are known to have existed at all.

"The Persians also claim Ibrahim, i.e. Abraham, for their founder, as well as the Jews. Thus we see that according to all ancient history the Persians, the Jews, and the Arabians are descendants of Abraham.(p.85)

The Iranians claim Abraham as their founder what? Perhaps by Persian, they mean Zoroastrians? That would be Zarathustra/Zoroaster. As far as Ibrahim, I smell an arabian-era adaptation. The name sounds Arabian. Did the Zoroastrians write of an Ibrahim? If so, when was this document written?

 

...We are told that Terah, the father of Abraham, originally came from an Eastern country called Ur, of the Chaldees or Culdees, to dwell in a district called Mesopotamia. Some time after he had dwelt there, Abraham, or Abram, or Brahma, and his wife Sara or Sarai, or Sara-iswati, left their father's family and came into Canaan. The identity of Abraham and Sara with Brahma and Saraiswati was first pointed out by the Jesuit missionaries."(Vol. I; p. 387.)

Sara-iswati, power of suggestion, add a needless hyphen!

 

Saraswati is Sanskrit for "essence of self", and Sarah is hebrew for "princess", the two names aren't etymologically related/connected in any way, shape, nor form.

 

http://www.koausa.org/Gods/God10.html

 

Brahma wasn't a "brahman priest" as has been repeatedly suggested, he was a God who was seen as the "ultimate reality". And isn't etymologically related to Abraham, "father of many". Brahma "expand, grow, enlarge".

 

The Jesuit missionaries, like the Catholic ones in Northern Europe, and the missionaries in Africa and Mesoamerica, equated certain local mythical figures to try to convert the poor unsaved masses they encountered.

 

 

In Hindu mythology, Sarai-Svati is Brahm's sister. The bible gives two stories of Abraham. In this first version, Abraham told Pharaoh that he was lying when he introduced Sarai as his sister. In the second version, he also told the king of Gerar that Sarai was really his sister. However, when the king scolded him for lying, Abraham said that Sarai was in reality both his wife and his sister! "...and yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife." (Genesis 20:12.)

 

But the anomalies don't end here.

What anomalies? What did I miss? Exaggerated significance of having a sister-wife? The story quoted, was that supposed to have had a Hindu-countertale?

 

In India, a tributary of the river Saraisvati is Ghaggar. Another tributary of the same river is Hakra. According to Jewish traditions, Hagar was Sarai's maidservant; the Moslems say she was an Egyptian princess. Notice the similarities of Ghaggar, Hakra and Hagar.

Notice how many times this article uses the power of suggestion, how many times does it have to use it before its seen as suspicious?

The names aren't really all that similar. Perhaps they are. Whatever. The similarities between the English word "Shepherd" and the Sumerian word "Sipad" are far more impressive. They mean the same thing. Only thing is, we know they didn't come from the same word, because we see written accounts of the word "shepherd" evolving to look more similar to the English word. Phonological, or even spelling, similarities are meaningless here.

 

 

The bible also states that Ishmael, son of Hagar, and his descendants lived in India. "...Ishmael breathed his last and died, and was gathered to his kin... They dwelt from Havilah (India), by Shur, which is close to Egypt, all the way to Asshur." (Genesis 25:17-18.)

What evidence is there that Havilah ever referred to India? And is India close to Egypt? Clearly, the writers of the Bible, if they were hebrews living in Palestine, were closer to India than Egypt was.

 

There is evidence suggesting that Havilah meant Arabia, due to the gold trade alluded to earlier in Genesis. But it doesn't even come close to suggesting it might mean India. That wouldn't even make sense no matter how you'd spin this verse!

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

It is an interesting fact that the names of Isaac and Ishmael are derive from Sanskrit: (Hebrew) Ishaak = (Sanskrit) Ishakhu = "Friend of Shiva." (Hebrew) Ishmael = (Sanskrit) Ish-Mahal = "Great Shiva."

No they don't, and I love how the writer only bothers with his anglisized pronunciation of the hebrew in his english only translation, and his anglisization of the hebrew. Also, I love how he doesn't even care to really bother seeing how borrowed words might sound in the languages they transfer to.

 

Isaac means "he laughed/laughs", and is based on what Sarah did when she found out she was going to be pregnant at 100 years old. And is what I would do if I was told I would be pregnant at 100. It could be a folk etymology, but a Sanskrit Ishakhu wouldn't make a hebrew Yitzaq.

 

Ishmael means "God hears". Even if that was a folk etymology, a Sanskrit Ish-mahal wouldn't give rise to a hebrew Ishma'el. The Hebrew spelling makes the pronounciation of either even less likely to be related.

 

A third mini-version of the Abraham story turns him into another "Noah." We know that a flood drove Abraham out of India. "...Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, Even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor; and they served other gods. And I took your father Abraham from the other side of the flood, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan." (Joshua 24:2-3.)

We know this because we're so not basing this claim on VERY vague wording in a verse. What flood? Too bad my hebrew version of the Bible is buried in with the rest of my stuff in a storage unit. I can't pick it apart much right now, but the Bible doesn't even discuss this flood or what it was or where it was. As for Abraham, the Bible says God brought him from Mesopotamia to Canaan, not India.

 

Genesis 25 mentions some descendants of his concubine Ketura (Note: The Moslems claim that Ketura is another name of Hagar.): Jokshan; Sheba; Dedan; Epher. Some descendants of Noah were Joktan, Sheba, Dedan, and Ophir. These varying versions have caused me to suspect that the writers of the bible were trying to unite several different branches of Judaism.

That's possible. There are intriguing descrepancies in the Table of Nations. Wohk nows?

 

About 1900 BC, the cult of Brahm was carried to the Middle and Near East by several different Indian groups after a severe rainfall and earthquake tore Northern India apart, even changing the courses of the Indus and Saraisvati rivers.

Any evidence of this? Since when do the Indians, prone to both earthquakes and monsoons, abandon home because of either?

As for tearing those rivers into flowing in opposite directions, evidence? Yeah, the Saraswati dried up, the Indus didn't. The Indians stayed, there were plenty of other places to go in that huge subcontinent. As for the "cult of Brahma being taken into the Near east by...1900bce" vague vague and more vague, coupled with unsubstantiation!

 

The classical geographer Strabo tells us just how nearly complete the abandonment of Northwestern India was. "Aristobolus says that when he was sent upon a certain mission in India, he saw a country of more than a thousand cities, together with villages, that had been deserted because the Indus had abandoned its proper bed." (Strabo's Geography, XV.I.19.)

Yeah, the cities of the Harappan (preIndoEuropean) civilization were abandoned. There was enviromental issues that could've played a role. Also the invasion of the IndoEuropeans by the peoples who would found the Vedic civilization. The migration was into India, not out of it.

 

"The drying up of the Sarasvati around 1900 BCE, which led to a major relocation of the population centered around in the Sindhu and the Sarasvati valleys, could have been the event that caused a migration westward from India. It is soon after this time that the Indic element begins to appear all over West Asia, Egypt, and Greece." (Indic Ideas in the Graeco-Roman World, by Subhash Kak, taken from IndiaStar online literary magazine; p.14)

Where was their evidence of vedic religion being spread so far and wide?

 

Indian historian Kuttikhat Purushothama Chon believes that Abraham was driven out of India. He states that the Aryans, unable to defeat the Asuras (The mercantile caste that once ruled in the Indus Valley or Harappans)

Really? The Asuras were a class of demons/Spirits. Not a mercantile class. Etymologically they're related to the Norse Aesir and to the persian Ahura. As for the devas, the deities in Hinduism, they were demonized as devas in Zoroastrianism.

Clearly espoused in this, though not explicitly stated, is the belief that the IndoEuropean languages all came from India. This is VERY unlikely, but nobody knows for sure. No written records exist. Though archaeological evidence suggests that they came from Ukraine/the Pontic-Caspian steppes, a theory I personally support.

 

spent so many years fighting covertly against the Asuras, such as destroying their huge system of irrigation lakes, causing destructive flooding, that Abraham and his kindred just gave up and marched to West Asia. (See Remedy the Frauds in Hinduism.) Therefore, besides being driven out of Northern India by floods, the Aryans also forced Indian merchants, artisans, and educated classes to flee to West Asia.

Evidence?

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

Edward Pococke writes in India in Greece,

 

"...in no similar instance have events occurred fraught with consequences of such magnitude, as those flowing from the great religious war which, for a long series of years, raged throughout the length and breadth of India. That contest ended by the expulsion of vast bodies of men; many of them skilled in the arts of early civilization, and still greater numbers, warriors by profession. Driven beyond the Himalayan mountains in the north, and to Ceylon, their last stronghold in the south, swept across the Valley of the Indus on the west, this persecuted people carried with them the germs of the European arts and sciences. The mighty human tide that passed the barrier of the Punjab, rolled on towards its destined channel in Europe and in Asia, to fulfill its beneficent office in the moral fertilization of the world.the distance of the migratory movement was so vast, the disguise of names so complete, and Grecian information so calculated to mislead, that nothing short of a total disregard of theoretic principles, and the resolution of independent research, gave the slightest chance of a successful elucidation."

(p. 28.)

Guess he didn't really understand the history of India. Evidence suggests that the IndoEuropean Indians came by invasion, not as a persecuted people. The Dravidians on the otherhand, have been there as far as we know, as far as genetics also suggests, since the first wave of human migration out of Africa.

 

 

If all these refugee ruling peoples were exclusively of Indian heritage, why doesn't History mention them?

Because no such refugees existed. And how did they go from refugees to rulers of other countries? I'm sorry, but I'm missing alot of information here.

 

The exodus of refugees out of ancient India did not occur all at once but over a period of one or more thousand years. If all these refugee ruling peoples were exclusively of Indian heritage, why doesn't History mention them? Indeed they are mentioned as Kassites, Hittites, Syrians, Assyrians, Hurrians, Arameans, Hyksos, Mittanians, Amalekites, Aethiops (Atha-Yop), Phoenicians, Chaldeans, and many others. But we have been wrongly taught to regard them as ethnicities indigenous to Western Asia. Our history books also call them "Indo-Europeans," causing us to wonder where they were really from. "The people of India came to realize their social identity in terms of Varna and Jati (societal functions or caste); not in terms of races and tribes." (Foundations of Indian Culture; p. 8.)

The claims made per paragraph in this article will make an apologist fundie christian blush.

 

"Our History Books" will call:

Kassites - Kassites by ethnicity, their language isn't known to be related to any other.

Hurrians - Related to the Urartians linguistically, native to Northern Mesopotamia and Western Anatolia, possibly related to one of the 2 North Caucasian language families. Mittanni was the kingdom of the Hurrians. Epic fail on the writers part.

Aethipians - Ethiopians, not no Atha-yop.

Syrians, Assyrians, Aramaeans (umm... outside meaning Assyrians, these guys are who the "syrians" refer to), Phoenicians, Chaldeans (assuming Neobabylonian as Babylonian) are Semitic.

Amalekites - Haven't been proven to have even ever existed.

Hyksos - we really don't know, but they had semitic names, but none were Indic.

 

Of the listed "IndoEuropean" peoples, only the Hittites were IndoEuropean (as long as you don't refer to the Hattians). They weren't Indic, they were the first to branch off of ProtoIndoEuropean.

 

 

Here's an example of how the ancient Indians identified people: The leaders were called Khassis (Kassites), Kushi (Kushites), Cossacks (Russian military caste) Caesars (Roman ruling caste), Hattiya (Hittites), Cuthites (a dialectical form of Hittite), Hurrite (another dialectical form of Hittite), Cathay (Chinese leaders), Kasheetl/Kashikeh among the Aztecs, Kashikhel/Kisheh by the Mayans, and Keshuah/Kush by the Incas. The Assyrians (in English), Asirios (in Spanish), Asuras or Ashuras (India), Ashuriya, Asuriya (Sumer and Babylonia), Asir (Arabia), Ahura (Persia), Suré in Central Mexico, etc., were people who worshipped Surya (the Sun).

 

This speaks for its self. It truly does. Utter nonsense!

 

Naturally, in areas where this religion prevailed, they were known as "Assyrians," no matter what the real names of their respective kingdoms were.

Another problem that western scholars have in identifying the Indo-Europeans as Indians is that India was not then and never was a nation. Furthermore, it is not "India." It is Bharata, and even Bharata is not a nation. Bharata is a collection of nations, just as Europe is a collection of nations, presently held together by the real or perceived threat of Moslem expansionism. Indian scholars have told me that when and if this expansionism ever disappears, the "Bharata Union" will again splinter into many smaller nations.

Huh? The problem is, Indians are IndoEuropeans, but not all IndoEuropeans were Indians. And the problem with the claim that all these peoples came from India, is that you haven't even presented a single shred of evidence for your claim! And what about the striking similarities between Abraham and Brahma? What ever happened to that Article? I thought that that was what this was about?

 

 

"The Arabian historians contend that Brahma and Abraham, their ancestor, are the same person. The Persians generally called Abraham Ibrahim Zeradust. Cyrus considered the religion of the Jews the same as his own. The Hindoos must have come from Abraham, or the Israelites from Brahma..." (Anacalypsis; Vol. I, p. 396.)

Is that so? By Zeradust, I assume they mean Zarathustra/Zoroaster. It clears up the above confusion I guess. Though they still haven't proved that the Indians and Israelites have a common origin.

 

Was our Abraham Really the Hindu Deity Ram?

 

Ram and Abraham were possibly the same person or clan. For example, the syllable "Ab" or "Ap" means "father" in Kashmiri. The prototypical Jews could have called Ram "Ab-Ram" or "Father Ram." It's also conceivable that the word "Brahm" evolved from "Ab-Ram" and not vice-versa.

But... I ... thought... it... was... Brahma.....

You saying Brahma and Ram are they same? They're not.

 

The Kashmiri word for "Divine Mercy," Raham, likewise derives from Ram. Ab-Raham = "Father of Divine Mercy." Rakham = "Divine Mercy" in Hebrew; Ram is also the Hebrew term for "highly placed leader or governor." Indian historian A. D. Pusalker, whose essay "Traditional History From the Earliest Times" appeared in The Vedic Age, said that Ram was alive in 1950 BC, which is about the time that Abraham, the Indo-Hebrews, and the Aryans made the greatest India-to-the-Middle East migration since the Great Flood.

The only "India to the Middle East Migration" I've seen evidence for is that of the gypsies. Indo-Hebrews..... And the Great Flood is history now! We've so proven that too!

 

"One of the shrines in the Kaaba was also dedicated to the Hindu Creator God, Brahma, which is why the illiterate prophet of Islam claimed it was dedicated to Abraham. The word "Abraham" is none other than a malpronunciation of the word Brahma. This can be clearly proven if one investigates the root meanings of both words. Abraham is said to be one of the oldest Semitic prophets. His name is supposed to be derived from the two Semitic words 'Ab' meaning 'Father' and 'Raam/Raham' meaning 'of the exalted.' In the book of Genesis, Abraham simply means 'Multitude.' The word Abraham is derived from the Sanskrit word Brahma. The root of Brahma is 'Brah' which means - 'to grow or multiply in number.' In addition Lord Brahma, the Creator God of Hinduism is said to be the Father of all Men and Exalted of all the Gods, for it is from him that all beings were generated. Thus again we come to the meaning 'Exalted Father.' This is a clear pointer that Abraham is none other than the heavenly father Brahma."

(Vedic Past of Pre-Islamic Arabia; Part VI; p.2.)

 

Evidence of the Kaaba being where Brahma was worshipped?

How insulting, saying Abraham was based on a mispronunciation of Brahma. Really? I smell a know it all writer.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

Several word-meanings can be extracted from "Abram," each of which points directly to his exalted position. Ab = "Father;" Hir or H'r = "Head; Top; Exalted;" Am = "People." Therefore, Abhiram or Abh'ram can mean "Father of the Exalted." Here's still another: Ab - î - Ram = "Father of the Merciful." Ab, also meaning "Snake," could indicate that Ab-Ram (Exalted Snake) was a Naga king. All the meanings that can be extracted from the compound word "Abraham" reveal the divine destiny of his followers. Hiram of Tyre, Solomon's close friend, was "Exalted People" or Ahi-Ram (Exalted Snake).

In ancient India, the Aryan cult was called "Brahm-Aryan." The Aryans worshiped multiple gods. Abraham turned away from polytheism. By so doing, he could have become "A-Brahm" (No longer a Brahman.) The Aryans called the Asuras "Ah-Brahm." Therefore, we can logically assume that the fathers of the Indus civilization were probably prototypical Jews.

Jerusalem was a Hittite (Indian hereditary leadership caste) city at the time of Abraham's death. In Genesis 23:4, Abraham asked the Jerusalem Hittites to sell him a burial plot. The Hittites answered, "...thou art a prince among us: in the choice of our sepulchres bury thy dead; none of us shall withhold from thee." (p. 6). If Abraham was revered as a prince by the Hittites, he, too, was a highly regarded member of India's hereditary ruling and warrior caste. The bible never did say that Abraham wasn't a Hittite. It just said, "I am a stranger and a sojourner with you." (Genesis 23:4.) As the Hittites said, they recognized Abraham as being even above them. Just as the Hittites were not a unique ethnicity, neither were the Amorites or Amarru. Marruta was the Indian caste name of commoners. The word "Amorite" (Marut) was the first caste name of the Indian Vaishyas: craftsmen, farmers, cattlemen, traders, etc.

G. D. Pande writes in Ancient Geography of Ayodhya, "Maruts represented the Visah. The Maruts are described as forming troops or masses. Rudra, the father of the Maruts, is the lord of cattle." (p. 177.) Malita J. Shendge states: "...the Maruts are the people." (The Civilized Demons; p. 314.) We should not be surprised to find the Khatti (Hittites) and Maruts (Amorites) functioning as the fathers (protectors) and mothers (helpmates or assistants) of Jerusalem.

In India, the Hittites were also known as Cedis or Chedis (pronounced Hatti or Khetti). Indian historians classify them as one of the oldest castes of the Yadavas. "The Cedis formed one of the most ancient tribes among the Ksatriyas (the aristocratic class made up of Hittites and Kassites) in early Vedic times. As early as the period of the Rgveda the Cedi kings had acquired great reknown... they are one of the leading powers in northern India in the great epic." (Yadavas Through the Ages, p. 90.) Ram or Rama also belonged to the Yadava clan. If our Abraham, Brahm, and Ram are the one and the same person, Abraham went to Jerusalem to be with his own people!

Ram's congregations segregated themselves in their own communities, called Ayodhya, which in Sanskrit means "The Unconquerable." The Sanskrit word for "fighter" is Yuddha or Yudh. Abraham and his group belonged to the Ayodhya (Yehudiya, Judea) congregation who remained aloof from non-believers and Amalekites (Aryans?).

 

Melchizadek... the sage of Salem

If what I have said thus far isn't convincing enough, maybe the word "Melchizedek" will be. Melchizedek was a king of Jerusalem who possessed secret mystical and magical powers. He was also Abraham's teacher.

Melik-Sadaksina was a great Indian prince, magician, and spiritual giant - the son of a Kassite king. In Kashmiri and Sanskrit, Sadak = "a person with magical, supernatural powers." A certain Zadok (Sadak?) was also a supernaturally-endowed priest who annointed Solomon. Why does the Kassite (of royal caste) Melik-Sadaksina, a mythical Indian personage, suddenly appear in Jerusalem as the friend and mentor of Abraham? According to Akshoy Kumar Mazumdar in The Hindu History, Brahm was the spiritual leader of the Aryans. As an Aryan (Not of Yah), he naturally believed in idols. The bible says that he even manufactured them. Upon seeing how increasing idol worship and religious guesswork were contributing to the further downfall of his people, Brahm backed away from Aryanism and reembraced the ancient Indian (Yah) philosophy (Cult of the MaterialUniverse) even though it, too, was foundering in manmade evils. He decided that mankind could save himself only by dealing with what was real; not the imagined.

Shocked at the barbarism and blind selfishness of the people, the wise men and educated people among the proto-Hebrews isolated themselves from the masses. Dr. Mazumdar wrote, "The moral fall was rapid. The seers and sages lived apart from the masses. They seldom married and were mostly given to religious contemplation. The masses, without proper light and leader, soon became vicious in the extreme. Rape, adultery, theft, etc., became quite common. Human nature ran wild. Brahma (Abraham) decided to reform and regenerate the people. He made the chief sages and seers to marry and mix with the people. Most refused to marry, but 30 agreed." Brahm married his half sister Saraisvati. These sages became known as prajapatis (progenitors).

"Northern Afghanistan was called Uttara Kuru and was a great center of learning. An Indian woman went there to study and received the title of Vak, i.e. Saraisvati (Lady Sarah). It is believed that Brahm, her teacher (and half brother), was so impressed by her beauty, education, and powerful intellect, that he married her." (The Hindu History; p. 48, in passim.)

From the holy community in Southern Afghanistan, similar communities spread all over the world: the whole of India, Nepal, Thailand, China, Egypt, Syria, Italy, the Philippines, Turkey, Persia, Greece, Laos, Iraq, - even the Americas! The linguistic evidence of Brahm's presence in various parts of the world is more than evident: Persian: Braghman (Holy); Latin: Bragmani (Holy); Russian: Rachmany (Holy); Ukranian Rachmanya (Priest; Holy); Hebrew: Ram (Supreme Leader); Norwegian From (Godly). A sacred word among the Hindus was and is the mystic syllable OM. It is associated eternally with the earth, sky, and heaven, the Triple Universe. It is also a name of Brahm. The Aztecs also worshiped and chanted the syllable OM as the dual principal of all creation: OMeticuhlti (Male Principle) and OMelcihuatl (Female Principle). The Mayan priestly caste was called Balam (pronounced B'lahm). Had an "R" sound existed in Mayan, it would have been Brahm. The Peruvian Incas worshiped the sun as Inti Raymi (Hindu Ram).

Names that undeniably derive from Rama literally pepper Native-American languages, especially the languages of those tribes extending from our American Southwest, to Mexico, and all the way to South America, beyond Peru. The Tarahumara Indians of Chihuahua are an ideal example. Their real name is Ra-Ram-Uri. As in Sumeria and Northern India, the Ra-Ram-Uri "Uri" = "People." Because the Spanish "R" is trilled, this "Uri" could also be Udi or Yuddhi, the Sanskrit name for "Warrior; Conqueror." Many Mexican tribes mention that a foreign race of Yuri once invaded their part of the world. The Ra-Ram-Uri sun god is Ono-Rúame. In Kashmiri, Ana = "Favorite Son;" The Ra-Ram-Uri moon goddess, the consort of Ono-Rúame, is Eve-Ruame. Kashmiri Hava = "Eve, or The Female Principle."

A Ra-Ram-Uri governor is called Si-Riame. In Sanskrit/Kashmiri, Su-Rama = "Great Rama." According to ancient Mexican legends, the Yoris belonged to a tribe called Surem (Su-Ram?) Before the conquest, Central Mexico and the American Southwest, as far as Eastern Colorado, were known as Suré. Suré = "Sun" in Kashmiri. The Tarahumara cure doctor or spiritual guide is an Owi-Ruame. In Sanskrit, Oph = "Hope." Their devil is called Repa-Bet-Eame. Kashmiri: Riphas (Appearance) + Buth (Malignant Spirit) + Yama (Angel of Death). Many other astonishing Kashmiri/Sanskrit correspondences appear in the Ra-Ram-Uri language. Their relation to ancient Phoenicia, Sumeria, and Northern India is beyond question. The Phoenicians... global navigators.

Most people think of the Phoenicians as a tribe of sailor-traders that inhabited what is now Lebanon. However, the Pancika or Pani as the Hindus called them, or Puni, by the Romans (a name also derived from Rama), were, like gypsies, scattered all over the globe.

The Spaniards called the land of the Ra-Ram-Uri Chiahuahua, pronounced as Shivava by the natives themselves. In Sanskrit, Shivava = "Shiva's Temple." According to Hindu religious scholars, Ram and God Shiva were once the same deity. Shiva and Yah's (the same one we read about in the Bible) name are also prominent in Native-American religious practices and can be found inscribed as petroglyphs all over the American Southwest. (Refer to my book India Once Ruled the Americas!)

Ayodhya was also another name for Dar-es-Salam in African Tanzania and Jerusalem (Judea). It is true that the Jerusalemites were known as Yehudiya or Judeans (Warriors of Yah), a fact making the Jews' Indian origins incontrovertible.

There was no part of the ancient world, including China, that wasn't influenced by Ram's religious views. For example, Christians and Jews have been brainwashed to believe that Mohammed copied his teachings from Jewish sources. The truth is that in Mohammed's time, Ram or Abraham's theology was the foundation stone of all religious sects. All Mohammed did was to purge them of idol worship.

"...the Temple of Mecca was founded by a colony of Brahmins from India.it was a sacred place before the time of Mohamed, and.they were permitted to make pilgrimages to it for several centuries after his time. Its great celebrity as a sacred place long before the time of the prophet cannot be doubted."

(Anacalypsis, Vol. I, p. 421.)

"...the city of Mecca is said by the Brahmins, on the authority of their old books, to have been built by a colony from India; and its inhabitants from the earliest era have had a tradition that it was built by Ishmael, the son of Agar. This town, in the Indus language, would be called Ishmaelistan."

(Ibid, p. 424.)

Before Mohammed's time, The Hinduism of the Arab peoples was called Tsaba. Tsaba or Saba is a Sanskrit word, meaning "Assembly of the Gods ". Tsaba was also called Isha-ayalam (Shiva's Temple). The term Moslem or Moshe-ayalam (Shiva's Temple) is just another name of Sabaism. The word has now shrunk to Islam. Mohammed himself, being a member of the Quaryaish family, was at first a Tsabaist. The Tsabaists did not regard Abraham as an actual god, but as an avatar or divinely ordained teacher called Avather Brahmo (Judge of the Underworld).

At the time of Jesus, the respective languages, religious symbolism, and traditions of the Arabs and Jews were nearly identical. If we could take a time machine to the past, most of us would not see any real differences between the Arabs and Jews. History tells us that the Arabs of Christ's time worshiped idols. So did the lower class and rural Jews. For this reason, the Middle Eastern squabble between the Jews and the Moslems and the hate between the Moslems and Hindus in India are ridiculous. The Moslems are fighting the Jews and Hindus, or vice-versa, over nothing. All three groups sprang from the same source.

The Kashmiri-Sanskrit equivalent of Hebron (Khev'run in Hebrew) screams out the Indian origins of Jerusalem's earliest inhabitants: Khab'ru (grave; tomb). (See Grierson's Dictionary.; p. 382.) Even in Hebrew, Kever = "Tomb."

Indian linguist and orientalist Maliti J. Shendge's The Languages of Harappans welds together, once and for all, West Asia and the Indus Valley civilization. Not only does she prove that Harappa was Akkadian and Sumerian, she also proves that the first "Abraham" was none other than Adam before Eve was created from one of his ribs.

"...it may be said that the region from Tigris-Euphrates to the Indus and its east was inhabited by the Akkadian speaking Semites who later called themselves as Asshuraiu. Their Indian name as known from Rgveda is 'Asura' which is not far removed. That this region should be inhabited by different clans of the same ethos is not very surprising. It would however be wrong to think that it was a racially homogenous group. As our linguistic evidence shows it was a mixed population of the Akkadians and Sumerians. The other ethnic groups also may have been present, whose traces may be looked for in future work. This mixed composition of the population is not inconsistent with the present state of knowledge, as the presence of these ethnic elements in the Indus valley only confirms and extends an identical demographic pattern, which was in existence probably from the earliest times of prehistory and civilization.

"If these Akkadians were the same as the West Asian clan, there should have been an equal preponderance of this primaeval couple in the Vedic mythology. However, beyond one cryptic reference, there is no reference to them. This was baffling. It seemed unlikely that this clan was without the primaeval parents, though their god was Asura. The predominance of Brahman in RV as the primaeval father is there which is also inadequate as he is male principle alone. A close look at Brahman revealed its ancestry to be made of two words Abu + Rahmu which is the primaeval pair in the Semitic mythology. The Akkadian counterpart of Rahmu is Lahmu which later became goddess Laksmi, born in the sea and courted by both gods and demons. Lahmu is a dragon in Akkadian but in Ugaratic Rahmu is the lass of Abu. Brahma (abu + rahmu = abrahma = brahma) all the changes postulated here being covered in the above correspondences, or lass of Abu, the supreme Semitic godhood, has undergone many transformations and has many counterparts in the Indian pantheon, amongst whom is Laksmi one of the important ones being worshipped as the goddess of all material creation. Thus the Asura clan of the Indus valley worshipped Abu-Rahmu as the primaeval couple."

I guess I give up. Don't have the time to address every unsubstantiated claim in this article. Its all bunk. A word from the person who reposted the article:

Ms. Shendge's research really strengthens my conviction that the remains of Abraham and Sarai in Hebron may really be those of the real Brahm and Saraisvati. Our Abraham was evidently a priest, perhaps even the founder, of the Abu-Rahmu (Adam and Eve) cultus, who brought his monotheistic religion to West Asia. Though he and Sarai were deified in various forms back in their native India, they remained as humans in Judaism.

Guess that's all that really matters is that the article serves its point, to "strengthen the conviction" of the followers. No real striking similarities between Brahma and Saraswati, nor proof/evidence of any of the stated claims. Just more claims meant to prove other claims.

 

It wouldn't let me post this because of the quote boxes as one post.

[mcdaddy]

I won't be taking it In faith.

 

Thanks for the analysis.

[Legion]

 

Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu

Trinity in me and

trinity in you

Father, Son, and Spirit

if you're quiet man

you can hear it

superego, ego, id

Come along Freud

and he redid

 

All symbols of one bridge

between a world of blocks

and a world of webs

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

I won't be taking it In faith.

 

Thanks for the analysis.

You're welcome! I could go further, but I wanted to go to sleep at some point last night. Busy work week now that I've got a full time job.

 

 

I've noticed you go on a poem spree Legion, I likes!

[Legion]

I've noticed you go on a poem spree Legion, I likes!

 

Thank you so much for saying that BD. That kind of positive feedback gives me indication as to where I might need to go. And that is preferable to knowing where not to go. I prefer carrots over sticks.

 

I actually have very practical reasons for expressing myself through poetry. I remain convinced that I have important ideas to relay to others. However, I think the very conveyance of knowledge carries with it an indelible residue of ego, and my ego intolerable. So I will mask my ego until proper realignment occurs within me, and attempt to express some of these things in poems, and hope others feel free to respond to them anyway they may choose.

[Ro-bear]

...

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

...

Want to see more done with this thread? I'd love to go crazy debunking the rest of that article when I have the spare time to do so. It's mental exercise