Hebrews And Vedic Brahmins




EDITORIAL, Jul 14 (VNN) — A Review

In 1979 the Oriental Institute at Baroda published a paper entitled "The Hebrews belong to a branch of Vedic Aryans." This was a follow-up to a previous article on the same topic published by the same author, Prof. Madan Mohan Shukla, in the Vishveshvaranand Indological Journal in 1976. The basic thesis of these papers is that the Hebrews represent an offshoot of Vedic Brahmins. It may be instructive to review Shukla's papers as they serve to illustrate the common origin of the Jews and Brahmins. As Shukla's papers are very difficult to obtain both within and outside India, and are virtually out of reach for laypersons, I am reproducing extensive tracts from them for reference purposes.


One of Shukla's strong points is the considerable vocabulary shared by Hebrew and Sanskrit. Indeed, M.M.Shukla has concentrated on providing a large list of of words which are common to Hebrew and Sanskrit. Thus, he provides the following examples:

"The word, 'Sva?' means 'heaven' or 'paradise' in Sanskrit. This word, written as 'svam' may assume the form, 'Sam-yim' which means, 'sky' and/or 'heaven' in Hebrew, while it may become 'Asvah' under the influence of the principle of vowelization. Sometimes, the sound 'a' may change to 'ya' and thus, the derivation, 'Asvah' or 'Asuah' may change to 'Yasuah' which is nearer to a Hebrew word, 'Yasuah' (= salvation).... It may be mentioned that 'Appa' is a Marathi word. The derivation 'Appa' may further change to 'Abba' (p=b), which is a Hebrew word... Now let us consider the root-word 'Svas'. It may change first to 'Vas' and thence to Bas or 'Bes' which is a Hebrew word though with different meaning, ie. 'daughter'." (Shukla 1979, p.45)

He also suggests that Surios gave rise to Kurios, or Kur (ibid., p.48) Shukla notes that 'Abru' and 'Uparohita' exist in Persian and Avadhi Hindi, distinct from Skt. bhru and purohita (Shukla 1979, p.44)

Describing the process of vowelization, he notes, "the Punjabis would pronounce the words station, putra and K???a as satation, puttar, and Kishan respectively." (Shukla 1976, p.41)

Building upon this, he writes, "the word Joasava may be transformed into Joasaph, from which the derivation of the word Joseph is a simple matter. Thus we can see that the Biblical name Joseph can be derived from an ancient Indian name, jayasva." (Shukla 1976, p.42)

Continuing in this line, he notes, "Adam. This word seems to have been derived from the Sanskrit word A-dityam, from the Vedic pronunciation of this word as A-ditiam." (Shukla 1976, p.45)

In addition, "The meaning of the root-word as in Sanskrit is 'to eat', and 'to enjoy' or 'to be merry'. Hence if we pronounce the term upasana as 'upasana', then it would mean, 'Eating before God', and 'Being merry before God.'" (Shukla 1976, p.46)

Another striking similarity exists with regard to script: "Now, the Hebrew script, like those of Arabic and Kaithi, does not use the word signs to indicate the pronunciation of its consonants." (Shukla 1976, p.44).


One of the strongest points for a common Brahmin-Jewish origin is the fact that both communities have been endogamous priests from the earliest times of their recorded history: "Chosen People of God: It may also be observed in this respect that the Hebrews, as well as their Indian counterparts, Brahmins, consider themselves as the "Chosen People of God". The Hebrews started their corporate career in history as a "Kingdom of Priests" (Exodus/19/6). Likewise, the Brahmins have also been a "Community of Priests" since the dawn of their history." (Shukla 1979, p.54)

The colonialists were the first to notice the similarity between Brahmins and Jews, namely that Brahma not only corresponds with Abraham, but that his consort Sarasvati corresponds to Sarah. Shukla also notes the story in Genesis 29, 32-33, 20/12.



Citing his own work 'The Holy Bible - A Source book of Ancient indian History', a paper submitted to All Indian Oriental Conference (1976) held at Dharwar, he notes that "We have already tried to equate Brahma, Sarasvati, Manu and Bali with the Biblical Abraham, Sarai, Noah and Peleg." (Shukla 1979, p.53) Not only that, but Shukla holds that the Jewish Laban and Brahmanic Lavana coincide:

"It is noteworthy to note in the above context that the sister of Lavana on the Indian side becomes the daughter of Laban in the Biblical account. It may also be mentioned in this respect that while Sarasvati is said to be the daughter of Brahma in accordance with the Indian tradition, her Biblical counterpart, Sarai, has been described as the sister of Abraham. In this context, we would like to remind our readers of a previous discussion of 'Svas', the root-word of the Sanskrit 'svasar' (sister) which becomes 'Bes' to mean 'daughter' in the Hebrew language." (Shukla 1979, p.54)

Equally striking is Shukla's derivation of 'Mary' from 'Matri': "the words 'Mary' and 'Mariam' could be derived from a Sanskrit word, mat?, meaning 'mother'." (Shukla 1976, p.42)

"Similarly the word, 'Mari' or 'Mary' may also be derived from Sanskrit 'Matri'." [ and Shukla notes that Mary is worshipped as a mother goddess. ]... "The word Adam is derived from a Hebrew word, 'Adamah' which means 'the earth'. Similarly the Skt. 'Adityam' is derived from 'Aditi' which also means the Earth. Hence the primary meaning of both the words, 'Adam' and Adityam would be 'earthly one'. (Shukla 1979, p.47)

His papers provide detailed etymologies of the word 'Abraham':

"The word 'Adam' can also be derived from Sanskrit 'Adityam' with the help of the rule of haplology also. Haplology is the name given by Bloomfield to the phenomenon where of the two similar syllables following each other, one is dropped. The word 'Adityam' will change to 'Adam' under the influence of this rule in the following way: -

Adityam -> Adatam -> Adadam (t = d) = Adam (Haplology)

It would be interesting to note here that the Sanskrit 'Adityam', represented by the same rule would change to 'Aton':

Adityan -> Aditan -> Atadan (d=t) -> Atan ->: Aten /Aton (Shukla 1979, p.48) This is interesting, for it provides an Indo-European derivation for the Egyptian God Aton.

Moreover, "the Vayu Purana mentions Manu as Bharata" (Shukla 1979, p.56)

Intriguing is Shukla's derivation of Rcam: "We may consider another Sanskrit word, 'Rcam' which may become Arīcam and then 'Aleichem' (r=l) which is a Hebrew word." (Shukla 1979, p.46)

Shukla also provides certain other etymologies, and repeatedly derives Adam from Adityam, and Mary from Matr (Shukla 1979, p.46) He also postulates a derivation of Gr. Adonis from Aton, and notes that Heb Adonay = Lord. (ibid., p.48).

"It can be shown that the Hebrew word, 'Elohim' can be derived from the Skt. 'Brahma':

Brahma -> Ibrahim (rule of vowelization) -> Ibrahim (rule of stress) -> Ilohim (r=l) -> Elohim

Hence the expression 'Adonay Elohim; becomes equivalent to the Skt. 'Aditya-Brahma'." (Shukla 1979, p.48)

Furthermore, he notes, "Savit? = Savitru (? -> ru) -> Sabiru (v=b) = Habitru (s=h)" -> Habiru = Habiru = PR Egyptian, Apiru, Ibru, Ibri, Ibrin." (Shukla 1979, p.51)

Another etymology is: (Shukla 1979, p.53)

Iksaku -> Issvahu (no k) -> Issahu (va -> a) -> Ishak, Isaac.

Further, Shukla writes, "It may also be mentioned here that Satarupa, the name of the daughter-wife of Manu, is also one of the names of the daughter-consort of Brahma" (Shukla 1979, p.53) From this we may note the case of Noah's daughters and Manu, the flood survivor.

Another interesting derivation is also supplied: "K???a -> Christ. We know that the Bengali pronounciation of the word Kr.s.n.a is Kriste. 'Christo' or 'Christ' is only a matter of spelling." (Shukla 1976, p.42)

Moreover, "Yehasua has been derived from a Sanskrit word, Yasasva." (Shukla 1976, p.42)

It would also appear that Jehova is also related to a Sanskrit word: "This word [Jehova] could, however, be equated with the Vedic word jahvuh, which may be considered, grammatically, both as an adjective and a proper noun. In the former sense, the word, jahv.uh has been used at least four times in the R.gveda. Thus, it has been used as an {p.44} attribute of Lord Agni (RV.3.1.12), as an attribute of Lord Indra (RV 8.13.24), as an attribute of Lord Soma (RV 9.75.1) and as an attribute of Lord Agni (RV 10.110.3)."


One of Shukla's most striking points is his discovery of an etymological connection between the words 'Hebrew' and 'Bharat':

"Hebrews and Rigveda: Let us first understand the real nature of the Rig Veda. As observed by Sri D.P.Mishra, "Both Devdasa and Sudasa belonged to the tribe of the Bharatas or T?tsu-Bharatas and won a number of victories over their Dasa and Aryan enemies. It is their wars and victories which have been repeatedly sung by their priests in the Rig Veda, and we have therefore no hesitation in naming it as (p.56) 'Bharata-Veda' or the Veda of the Bharatas and the Bharatas themselves as the Rigvedic Aryans. If the Rigveda supposed to deal with the entry of the Aryans into India, we would like to argue that it deals only with the entry of Bharatas ..." 34 [34. Studies in the Proto-History of India", D.P.Mishra, p.133]" (Shukla 1979, p.55)

Further, "Bharata was the first king according to Jaina traditions" (Shukla 1979, p.56)

"Now let us consider the word "Bharata'. This word is formed from the Sanskrit 'Bhara', which under the sway of the rule of vowelization (Prothesis), may assume the form 'Ibhar', 'Iber', 'Ibhray', 'Ibhri', 'Ibri', 'Ibrini' etc. which have been equated with the term Hebrew." (Shukla 1979, p.56) He then continues:

"[T]he Hebrews may be related to the Rigvedic Aryan tribes of Bharatas ... In this way, we can confidently say that the statement 'Rigveda is essentially the Bharata-Veda', means that it is the 'Veda of the Hebrews'. It is hence no wonder to find close similarity between the Rigveda and the Holy Bible." (Shukla 1979, p.56)

Intriguing is his statement that,"The famous V??akapi and some other allied saktas can be best understood and appreciated only in the form of the Book of Esther." (Shukla 1979, p,56) "Further discussion of the term 'Hebrew': We have mentioned earler that another meaning of the term Savitr (the Sanskrit form of the term Hebrew) is Brahma?a. Now let us consider the word 'Brahma?a'. f we remove the suffix 'mana' from this word, then it becomes 'Brah', which, if pronounced repeatedly, gives the word, 'Habra' which is nearer to the word 'Hebrew'. Also that, both the words, written without vowel signs, would give 'BRH' and 'HBR' respectively. The similarity is evident.

It would be interesting to note another Sanrkrit word, 'vipra' (a synonym of 'Brahma?a') in the same connection. The word 'vipra' beomes 'Ipar' in colloquial Marathi. Now consider the word 'Ipar'. This word may assume the forms 'Iber' (p=b), Ibri, Ibhray, Ibrani etc. and, on being subjected to the reverse operations of the rules of prothesis and Anaptyxis in succession, would reduce 'Pr' to 'Prm', which we have already shown to be the [ other form ] of Hebrew'. This leads us to the conclusion that the Hebrews can be identified unhesitatingly with these Indian Brahmins who had migrated from India in the very early dawn of the Vedic period." (Shukla 1979, p.54)

The rule of prothesis Shukla describes as the process of vowels developing before consonants, eg. Skt. rudhira, rajah, laghu, nr, nakha, naman which he claims led to Greek eruhtros, erobos, elakus, aner, onuch, onoma (ibid, p.44). The rule of anaptyxis is the insertion of vowel betwen combination of words (ibid, p.44).

Also, in both Avestan and Avadhi Hindi, the words Manthara and Manthra are used, and not the Sanskrit mantra (Shukla 1979, p.47).

Finally, he notes, "We have derived the word 'Hebrew' from the Sanskrit word, 'Savit?' (Shukla 1979, p.52)

More controversial would be Shukla's following statement:

"On the basis of the above since some similiarty of Jews and Arabs Sabeans


Describing the strength of his evidence, Shukla notes, "Sometimes, these evidences become so strong as may lead one to suspect that the Hebrews might have really been an offshoot of Vedic Aryans." (Shukla 1976, p.41)

Some of his strong evidence relates to common customs:

"It may also be mentioned here that like a devout Jew, a devout Hindu is also required to pray three times a day, morning, afternoon and evening (traikalika-sandhya)

To cite still another similarity in religious practices between the Hindus and the Jews, Hayyim Schauss notes in his Jewish Festivals, p.64: "When all is ready, the Samaritans form groups about the {p.47} sacrificial animals, and after uttering the prescribed blessings, fall upon the roast meat, pulling it hastily to pieces with their hands. Portions are brought to the women and children in the tents. Everybody eats rapidly and in twenty minutes all that is left is a mound of bones."

Here it is worthwhile to note: (a) Though turned largely vegetarians now, the Brahmins of India present almost similar scenes of eating hastily in their religious and ritual grand-feasts.

(b) Like Hebrews, the Hindu womenfolk also sit in seclusion to eat their share in their public feasts.

(c) Any person, who eats too rapidly (hurridly, impatiently), or too much, is called a 'haboru' in the Hindi language, particularly in the Avadhi dialect..... The resemblance bewteen the words Hebrew and Haboru is particulary striking" (Shukla 1976, p.46-47) "there is a strong case to suspect or speculate that either the Hebrews really belong to a branch of Vedic Aryans, or that they had been in direct touch with the latter at some remote and unrecorded period of their history." (Shukla 1876, p.47)


Citing evidence from anthropology for his thesis, Shukla notes:

"The above discussion also leads us to the conclusion that the term 'Bharatavarsa' (= India) actually means 'the land of the Hebrews', a conclusion which is fully supported by the observation of Prof. S.K.Chatterji that, "the third Mediterranean strain, the so-called 'Oriental' one, commoly miscalled the Semitic or Jewish, with a pronouncedly long nose and fair in skin, is found in the Punjab, in Sind, in Rajputana and in Western UP, and .... in other parts of India" [R.C.Majumdar, ed. Vedic Age, 1965, p.145-6]" (Shukla 1979, p.57)

To this we may add the brachycephaly common to both Jews and Brahmins.


Shukla agrees with the generally accepted concept of a common bond between Jews and Sabaeans or Yemenites:

"Now, let us consider the word, 'Sabean'. We have already mentioned that 'Savi' is the root-word of the term 'Savit?' and hence the term 'Sabean' can be shown to be the equivalent of the word, 'Savit?', ie. Hebrew. What we mean is that the Sabeans and the Hebrews were 2 twigs of the same branch." (Shukla 1979, p.55)


It may be instructive to cite additional facts in favour of the common origin of Jews and Brahmins which have arisen after Shukla's work. One striking common feature linking Brahmins with Jews is that of cow-worship. When Moses descended from Mt. Sinai, he found the Jews worshipping the golden calf. Likewise, "Ex. xxxii. attributes the making of a golden calf to Aaron at Mount Sinai," and "Jeroboam, in making the sanctuaries of Beth-el and Dan the recipients of his royal patronage, placed in them images of Yhwh made of gold in this calf form, the fame of which went far and wide (compare I Kings xii. 23; II Kings x. 29; II Chron. xi. 14, 15)." (Jastrow Barton 1906) Cow-worship was common amongst Hebrews:

"Among the Hebrews, as among the other agricultural Semites, the bull was associated with deity in a sacred character (see Ox). The form in which this thought found expression in Israel was in their representation of Yhwh by an image of an ox or bull made of gold (compare I Kings xii. 28)." ( Jastrow Barton 1906).

There was also a "representation of Yhwh by an image of an ox or bull made of gold (compare I Kings xii. 28)." Finally, "the twelve oxen on which rested the great laver in the Temple of Solomon (I Kings vii. 25; II Kings xvi. 17; Jer. lii. 20) are regarded as evidence that there was some sacred character attached to the bull," [ibid.].

The sacredness of the cow is likewise a fundamental part of Brahmanism:

"Dying, without the expectation of a reward, for the sake of Brahmanasand of cows, or in the defence of women and children, secures beatitude tothose excluded (from the Aryan community, vahya.)" [Manu, Ch.X.62]

"I call on you the Sons of Dyaus, the Asvins, that a dark cow to my redkine be added." [Rig-Veda, Book X, Hymn 61].

"He shall not touch with his foot a Brahmana, a cow, nor any other(venerable beings)." [Apastamba, Prasna I, Patala 11, Khanda 31]


However, in his section on "Sun-worship", M.M.Shukla has made a mistake, for it is moon-worship which links Jews and Brahmins rather than Sun-worship. Selenolatry (moon-worship) was common to both Brahmans and Jews. Sun-worship is a natural outgrowth of a cold northern climate, where the nourishing warmth of the Sun is considered the bringer of life. It is hence a characteristic of Indo-European populations, compare the Ahura Mazda of Zoroastrianism, the Mithra of Mithraism, Sol Invictus of Rome, Asshur of the Assyrians, and the Surya of the Sauras of India.

By contrast, moon-worship is a natural phenomenon of warm and desert regions, where it symbolises the refreshing coolness of the night, the opposite of the harsh and inhuman desert day. It thus arose amongst the Sumerians, where the capital was "Ur, the central home of the Semitic moon-cult" (Waddell 1929, p.388). The Old and New Testaments bear ample testimony to selenolatry amongst Hebrews (Deut. xxxiii. 14; Jer. vii. 18, xliv. 17; Job, xxxi. 26-27;, Judges viii. 21, 26; Isa. iii. 18; Cant. vi. 10; Ps. lxxii. 5, 7, lxxxix. 37; Isa. xiii. 10 xxiv. 23; Joel ii. 10, ii. 31; Amos vii. 5; I Sam. xvii. 14).

The Jewish Encyclopedia further demonstrates selenolatry amongst Jews:

"In Job (xxxi. 26 et seq.) there is an allusion to the kissing of the hand in the adoration of the moon ... Thus, the fact that Terah, Abraham's father, had lived first at Ur of the Chaldees, and that later he settled at Haran (Gen. xi. 31), two cities known from Assyrian inscriptions as places of moon-worship, shows that Abraham's parents were addicted to that form of idolatry ... The golden calf, Hommel declares, was nothing more than an emblem of the moon-god, which, in the Assyrian inscription, is styled 'the youthful and mighty bull' and the lord of the heavenly hosts (comp. "Yhwh Zeba'ot," which term is intentionally omitted from the Pentateuch). He assigns the same character to the two calves made by Jeroboam several centuries later (I Kings xii. 28) .... The close similarity between the ancient Hebrews and the southern Arabs has led Hommel furthermore to find allusion to moon-worship in such Hebrew names as begin with "ab" (= "father"), as in "Abimelech" and "Absalom," or with "'am" (= "uncle"), as in "Amminadab" and "Jeroboam," because these particles, when they appear in the names of southern Arabs, refer to the moon." (Seligsohn 1902, p.528)

The reappearance of the moon is sanctified, like the entrance of the Sabbath or festivals, by the recitation of benedictions known in liturgy as "K.iddush ha-Lebanah" or "Birkat ha-Lebanah."

Sinai is likewise a centre for Selenolatry: "Those scholars who incline to establish a connection between moon-worship ("Sin" = "moon") and the monotheism of Israel ("Sinai") find a corroboration of their theory in the fact that Abram's original home was the seat of the worship of Sin." (Hirsch 1902, p.380)

'India' and 'Hindu' are likewise derived from Indu, the name of the moon-god, also called Soma. The Somanath temple in Gujarat is dedicated to the moon-god. In the name of Rama, Rama-Chandra, the suffix Chandra is derived from the Semitic 'Sin'. Parashu-rama, 'Rama with the Axe', one of the incarnations of Vishnu, is the foremost deity for many Brahmins; the Parashu-rama is derived from Param-Sin, a title of the Moon God Sin. Thus both Ramas are votaries of the moon.

Another common point shared by Jews and Brahmins is the concept of negative memories regarding "Asuras". Historians have long wrestled with this question, as to why the "Asuras" are treated with such fear in the Vedas. However, this fear of Asuras amongst Brahmins becomes understood when one considers that the Assyrians deported the Jews. If the Brahmins share a common descent with Jews, it is only natural that they preserve in their collective memory a negative conception of their oppressors. Another 'mystery' is solved.


Mysteriously, the Star of David is common to both Judaism and certain forms of Tantrism in India, as noted by Barbara G. Walker:

"The familiar design of two interlocked triangles is generally supposed to have represented the Jewish faith since the time of David, or Solomon; therefore this hexagram is known as Magen David (Shield of David), or the Star of David, or Solomon's Seal.... {p. 402} The downward-pointing triangle is a female symbol corresponding to the yoni; it is called 'shakti.' The upward-pointing triangle is the male, the lingam, and is called 'the fire' (vahni). ... Cabalists used the hexagram as Tantric yogis used it, to represent the union of God with his Female Power, Shekina, the Jewish form of Shakti-Kali." (Walker 1983, p.401-402) The oldest undisputed example of the six-pointed star, as recorded in the Encyclopedia Judaica, is on a seal from the seventh century B.A.D. found in Sidon north of Tyre and belonging to one Joshua ben Asayahu, the name indicating that the owner was Jewish. In the Second Temple period, the hexagram was often used alongside the pentagram (the five-pointed star), and is found in the synagogue of Capernaum (second or third century A.D.). This is before the attested appearance of the Tantric six-pointed star, indicating that it is derived from the Jewish Star of David. Perhaps it was imported via Kabbalic sects. Be that as it may be, this indicates a common origin of Jews and Brahmins.

11. Conclusion

Hence, there are several features which link Jews and Brahmins, indicating a common origin. From this M.M.Shukla and his followers would have the Jews descended from Vedic Brahmins, while the present author and other researchers would have the Brahmins descended from a "Lost Tribe of Israel". Whatever the details, Shukla's detailed researches assit in the establishment of a common origin of Jews and Brahmins. We may thus conclude with the words of the Enlightenment researcher Godfrey Higgins (1772-1833):

"Now, what am I to make of this? Were these Brahmins Jews, or the Jews Brahmins?" ("Anacalypsis", Vol.I, p.771, cited in Matlock 2000, p.70)


Hirsch 1902: "Ur", by Emil G. Hirsch, Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol.12, p.380;

Jastrow Barton 1906: "Calf-Worship," by Morris Jastrow Jr. George A. Barton, Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol.III, p.510-511,

Matlock 2000: "Jesus and Moses are Buried in India, Birthplace of Abraham and the Hebrews", by Gene D. Matlock, Authors Choice Press, San Jose, imprint 5220 S 16th, Ste 200, Lincoln, NE 68512, Nov. 2000,

Seligsohn 1902: "Star-Worship", by M. Seligsohn et al, Jewish Encyclopedia, 1902, Vol.11, p.527-528.

Shukla 1976: "Hebrews and Vedic Aryans" by Madan Mohan Shukla, (47, Kumar Bhavan, opp. M.M.Hospital, G.T.Road, Ghaziabad), Vishveshvaranand Indological Journal, Vol.XIV, Pt.1 (March 1976), p.41-47.

Shukla 1979: "The Hebrews belong to a Branch of Vedic Aryans" by Madan Mohan Shukla, Journal of the Oriental Institute, M.S. (Maharaja Sayajirao) University of Baroda, Baroda, Vol. XXVIII (March-June 1979) Nos. 3-4, p.44-57; Director, Oriental Insitute, Tilak Road, opp. Sayajigunj Tower, Baroda-390002, Gujarat, India;

Waddell 1929: "The Makers of Civilization in Race and History", by L.A. Waddell, 1929, reprint S.Chand Company, P.O.Box No. 5733, Ram Nagar, 7361, New Delhi-110055, 1986,

Walker 1983: "The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets," by Barbara G. Walker, Harper Row, San Francisco, 1983.



Rabbi & Ravi

Ravi = the sun (in general) or the sun-god

Brahmin sun worship (Brah-"mins"= plural Hebrew "im")

December 15, 2006

Brahma : The Creator.



More from Hindus regarding the Brahmin-Hebrew connection

The oldest theory of the creation of man and the subsequent flood that submerged the world is also found in the Hinduttuva books. According to Hind beliefs, 'Creation has no beginning - anadi, and it is eternal.' Brahma is the Creator of the universe in the Hindu Trinity.

At the end of each Kalpa - a unit of time equal to a day of Brahma, amounting to 4,320 earth or world years, each time a new universe is recreated. At the end of the last age, there was a great deluge or destruction, which destroyed the universe. The present Age is the eight kalpa called Swetavarah. Brahma believed to have meditated at the dawn of this age, and then the God Almighty appeared in the form of sound of OM (AUM), also known as - Pranava - the origin of the entire Vedic absolute pronouncement, and AUM is the most sacred symbol, absolute in Hinduism. Brahman prayed God Almighty for the knowledge to create a new universe.

From the vibration sound of AUM, the Almighty God conceived the four Vedas - Holy Books and which are compiled from divine revelations, are - Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda, and Atharva Veda. God taught these four Vedas to Brahma, who in turn, with the acquired supreme knowledge of Vedas, created the present universe. In the Hindu scriptures, "Manu" is the appropriated name for man. Manu means, the one who can think. In addition, the name Manu provided a generic base for manava, meaning 'humankind.

-Posted by Somal Thakore at Friday, December 15, 2006


Ron said...

I think I have mentioned this before in a comment on your other blog (not sure), but there are actually two 'Brahmas'.

In this aspect, and according to Vedas, both Sun and Saturn are considered Brahmas. However, note that Sun and Saturn are worst enemies.

According to Parasara, who explained and expanded the science of Jyotish, Sun is the Brahma of what can be termed "unborn souls." However, since that means that the life-form (born individual, animal, etc.) must die (in order to be unborn), Sun is also known as the Mahesha of the living things.

Therefore, Sun gives birth to body-less souls (after killing) and therefore he is the Brahma who gives "Moksha" or "Nirvana" (Buddhism).

Saturn on the other hand, seduces unborn souls towards (again) rebirth. Therefore, Saturn is Brahma of those who are born. Also, Saturn is usually related to toiling, hardships, etc., but all that would go into extreme depths of Jyotish.

And since Saturn gives birth to everything (as in living with bodies, etc.), Saturn is the Brahma of the living things, and Mahesha of the unborn souls.

So it is obvious that both Sun and Saturn are Brahma as well as Mahesha (as in the trinity and at least as far as our solar system is concerned).

Narayana/Narayani, the supreme, and in fact s/he is actually our universe, is the one who decides when Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahesh can do their jobs, and onto whom (as in souls/life).

And Narayana/Narayani would be the one you referred to as "God Almighty" in your (this) post.

According to Jyotisha, the planets themselves cannot punish or reward us (as in life or karma), but only Narayana/Narayani can punish or reward us (via his/her soldiers = planets/grahas).

So, the correct understanding of the trinity would be:

Brahma = Sun or Saturn (depends on born or unborn).

Vishnu = Jupiter

Mahesh = Sun or Saturn (depends on born or unborn).

Apparently, these three (Sun, Jupiter, Saturn) are the largest or biggest planets in our solar system. And out of them, only Jupiter is benefic (Shubha graha), whereas Sun and Saturn are malefic (Papa graha). Between them, they carry out their functions of creation, sustenance, and destruction.

The remaining Shubha grahas are - Venus, Moon (waxing phase), Mercury. Something tricky with Mercury is that when Mercury is with a Shubha graha (in a chart), Mercury becomes Shubha (or even if he is alone in the chart). But When Mercury is with a Papa graha, he becomes malefic.

Rahu (North node), is also malefic. In fact, it is the most malefic object in our solar system. And needless to say that Saturn and Rahu are great friends (who pull souls towards rebirth). Rahu and Ketu mark the points in the space where eclipses occur.

Therefore, think about it. If our Earth did not have Moon (natural satellite), there would be no Rahu or Ketu in our solar system. Moon as you know, governs our mind, and therefore, the eclipses, as well as these two nodes (chaya graha) affect us too. As in good thoughts/bad thoughts, etc.

Rahu is associated with desires and wishes (also in the story, Rahu is the head that is cut off and wants to rejoin with his body - Ketu). And it is in fact Rahu that gives or rather forces us to rebirth. And he does so to please his friend - Saturn.

Therefore, most of everything that is born is either due to desires and wishes, or either due to Karma (usually through bad curses).

Only Ketu can lead humans (and others) to Moksha or Nirvana. This, because Ketu is headless. And all our senses (sight, sound [hearing], smell, speech, taste, etc.) are controlled by our head. If we don't have a head, we don't have senses, and therefore no desire to be reborn. This is the secret of worship to Ketu (Lord Ganesha personifies Ketu - refer to the story of why he has elephant head).

Similarly, Goddess Durga personifies Rahu (remember Durga standing on the corpse of Shiva? - Associate that to the Brahma and Mahesha roles, etc.).

This would eventually lead us to Narayani (wife of Narayana - universe, or rather the female form of universe). And later on to Navadurga (nine Goddesses), and Dasamahavidya (Tantric forms and secrets of the Goddesses, and very indepth - not black magic though, mind you. Tantric is not black magic, but many misunderstand).

Anyway, I tried to add onto your Brahma discussion via this comment. More when time permits.

Have fun, and...



PS: Sun = Brahma/Mahesh/Shiva, Moon = Parvati, Mercury = Buddha, Mars = Skanda, Venus = Lakshmi, Jupiter = Vishnu, Saturn = Brahma/Mahesh.

PPS: Brahmins usually do not worship Saturn, because since Saturn is the creator of all life (on our planet - as in born souls), even his wife is created by him (Saraswati), and therefore, it is considered that Brahma indulged in incest (I think you know what I mean). This is the reason why Brahmins avoid worshipping Saturn, and also, worshipping Saturn usually brings misery and tough life.

Once again, Cheers!

11:47 AM

Ron said...

One more thing (with regards to above comment)...

The worship of Shiva Lingha (Lingham) actually signifies that we are in the womb of our mother (whilst we are in this world/solar system/ etc.).

Therefore, we only see Shiva's Lingha (Linga) from inside.

When we achieve Moksha, we will be actually born in the heavens (as in - unborn form of soul or again, moksha).

That is why Sun is Brahma of the unborn and Mahesha of life-forms.

These are some simple secrets that most Indians see in temples etc., everyday. And some even fanatically worship without understanding what it all means.

Our ancestors however, were smart, and they left ample clues in many forms so that this knowledge continues to pass on from generation to generation. And not only among Indians.

Funnily enough, my Guru is from Denmark and he is Dannish, but his Guru is Sanjay Rath - the grandson of (former) Jyotish Ratna of India.

Once again, have fun, and...



11:55 AM--Internet Discussion..



Judaism adopted Brahmin ideas


Judah priests had a habit of culturally appropriating pagan religious conceptions and making them "monotheistic", e.g., the first chapter in Genesis is a reworking of Egyptian Creation ideas but reducing the gods involved to one, but they rejected RA as Akhenaton attempted in Egypt. I also think these Hebrews saw the way Brahmin merchants considered themselves "priests of God" and a higher stage of humanity and were envious just like they were envious of Egyptian royalty who considered themselves above the common people. Hebrews also liked the way Brahmins made themselves wealthy as businessmen. I think there is good reason to believe Brahminism highly influenced Judaism during its inception in the 1st millennia B.C. when Brahmin incense and spice merchants centered in the Kingdom of Sheba with their trade routes into Egypt and Canaan were in direct contact. "Abba Brahma", or Father Brahma, a.k.a. Abraham along with Brahma's consort Saraisvati as Abraham's wife, Sarah, came from this connection.