Is the God of the Abrahamic traditions the same as the God of the Vedic tradition?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgkeyBGbU_s

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Hare Krishna. Question, are the Vedic and the Abrahamic conceptions of God exactly the same? Are the Vedas and the Abrahamic scriptures talking about the same God? Because often there are so many cultural differences and often those followers of those religions do not consider the Vedic conception of God to be the same God. So are they actually the same God or are we simplistically in order to maintain harmony of religions saying that they all refer to the same God? Answer, we have to consider the philosophical definition, the scriptural revelation and the cultural perception to answer this question.
As far as the philosophical definition of God is concerned, now there is no one specific definition given which summarizes for each and for any particular tradition its definition of God generally speaking. But broadly the attributes of God that are talked about in the great theistic traditions of the world are similar. So, for example, omniscience, omnipotence, benevolence, supremacy.
So these are attributes which are consistently talked of about the supreme being in all the traditions whether it is Islam or Christianity or Judaism or the Vedic tradition. Now, beyond that, if we see broadly speaking the characteristics also, for example, now Krishna says Aksharanam Akarasmi, I am the syllable A among letters, sound A among aksharas and in the Bible it is said I am the alpha and the omega of all things. So now, actually speaking there are many similarities which talk about the God’s potency, God’s pervasion of this existence and he being the essence of things.
So, in terms of broad philosophical definition, the God that is talked about in the Abrahamic scriptures and in the Vedic scriptures is the same. Now, beyond that there is scriptural revelation. So, scriptural revelation, if we see that in the Bible or in the Quran, Bible, Old Testament or New Testament, there is not much positive description of God given, that actually who God is, what he looks like and what he does and his personal attributes, his self-existence, his self-existential identity, nature and activity are not talked about in those scriptures.
Now, in the Vedic scriptures, specifically in the Vaishnav scriptures and in the more exotic Vaishnav scriptures, the Bhagavatam and other such books, especially the Bhagavatam, the revelation of God is much more intimate, vivid and personable. So, intimate means that God is, his relationships with his devotees are depicted very sweetly. Vivid means that basically not just his relationship, but his whole life.
Vrindavan as the eternal abode of the Lord is a very vivid description of the kingdom of God. And then personable means that he is very concretely depicted as a person. In the other religions also he is accepted as a person, but that conception is quite abstract.
So, he is very clearly depicted as a person and not just a person, but a very approachable and lovable person. So, in terms of scriptural revelation, there is definitely difference, but that difference is more a matter of detail than of principle. That means the same God that is talked about, he is, what his self-existential nature is, is hinted at in the Abrahamic scriptures, but it is described more in detail in the Vedic scriptures.
So, now going forward, in terms of cultural perception, this is where maximum differences come up. The monotheistic religions of the West have often been monopolistic, monopolistic on God. There is one God, that is a sensible philosophical proposition.
We cannot have many Supremes. But to extrapolate from that point that there is one God to there is only one way to God, that is an invalid but almost standard notion in the Abrahamic religions. So, in Judaism, the idea is that the Jews are the chosen people.
In Christianity, the idea is that Jesus, this is the only way, I am the only way, no one can go to the father except through me. And in Mohammed, with respect to Islam, Mohammed is thought of as the last prophet. So, this monotheism to monopolism, if you could say, monopolization, that is a standard practice in these religions because of which the idea is that other religious traditions do not have authentic access to God.
That’s the subsequent inference that comes up and this goes further and it also states that actually many times the other religions and their conceptions of God are thought of as false gods. So, because they are thought of as false gods, so, the idea is that, the common idea becomes that the false God has to be destroyed so that the glory of the true God can be established. And that’s why there is also intolerance and violence against other religions and other religions methods of worship.
So, this is because the scripture is giving a particular revelation of God but from that a cultural perception has come about and that cultural perception is partly derived from scripture but partly it is derived also from people’s own biases. So, yes, there were imaginary conceptions of God being worshipped at the time of say Moses or other times and so people started worshipping suddenly a golden calf instead of the real God and Moses smashed the golden calf. So, taking that as a standard the idea has been made that in those traditions people have acquired the idea that we have to smash whichever other gods might be there.
So, because of this there is hostility. But now in the Vedic tradition also to some extent the hostility is there but not so much. The idea of Vedic tradition actually has the advantage that there is no monopolization of access to God.
Because in the Vedic tradition itself is sambhavami yuga yuga. Krishna says I come again and again. So, the avataras come again and again and God manifests in many forms in this way and that’s why the followers of the Vedic tradition are comfortable with the idea that yes, the same God who has revealed himself to us will have revealed himself in a different way to others.
And from the time of Bhakta Vinod Thakur when the interaction of India with the Western world started, with Europe started, the thinkers have generally accepted Jesus also as an authentic messenger of God, as a son of God, as an authentic prophet. And Mohammed also has been accepted by most Vedic leaders. Our Vaishnav Acharyas have accepted them as both Mohammed and Jesus as spiritual authorities in their own way.
And they have recognized them that they are also talking about the same God. So, Bhakta Vinod Thakur says that the same in Chaitanya Shikshamruti says that the same mountain peak when perceived differently will seem different. So, similarly that same one God has revealed himself in different ways according to time, place, circumstance and further there has been different cultural perception of that one revelation.
And because of these differences in this cultural perceptions, there often are hostilities. Now in the Vedic tradition there are some people who are aggressively hostile to the Abrahamic religions and that is not so much due to any innate conflict in the, in between the Vedic conception of God and the Abrahamic religion conception of God. Rather it is due to the hostility, due to the aggression that the Vedic tradition has faced from the Abrahamic tradition.
We know that radical Islam especially under kings like Aurangzeb destroyed many temples. So, that is a threat that is there which is active even right now. Many Hindus, for example, in Pakistan are persecuted and open worship is quite difficult.
So, the point here is not to criticize any particular religion but to recognize that cultural realities of a particular religion don’t necessarily originate from the scriptural revelation of what that religion is. So, our Acharyas and the broad Vedic tradition holds that God can reveal himself in many ways and that same God who has revealed himself in the Vedic tradition has also revealed himself in the Abrahamic tradition. So, yes, the God who is talked about is one in these religions but the way God has been understood is different and that’s why there can be conflicts and hostilities.
But if people go beyond just cultural perceptions to actually study the philosophical definitions and to study the scriptural revelations then we will find that there is not anything which is irreducibly irreconcilable. So, by a higher understanding, by looking at time, place, circumstances, the differences can be reconciled. Thank you.