And the basic belief is that their is one GOD.
I have to object here, jar. I respect the ecumenical impulse, but in the context of a debate this does some violence to the concepts. It's been said that one can be a good Buddhist and be a Christian, but one cannot be a good Christian and be a Buddhist, which sums it up in a nutshell.
Hindu cosmology is expressly metaphorical. So that when we say, "Brahman=GOD" we commit the error of
defining Brahman, even though we intend to define it as Infinite. To the Semitic religions, God exits. To a Hindu that's a meaningless question; the world is maya, that's what we are able to see. The Buddhist expressly rejects the notion of a Supreme Being. It's probably more accurate to call this a denial of Brahman.
Now, I'm neither a Hindu nor a Buddhist, and the above undoubtedly does some violence to both as well. But I think it's important to at least take a stab at the distinction. Hindu and Buddhist commentators may indeed see in the Semitic God a spiritual sense akin to their own. Western mystics may see as much in the East. But the Semitic idea of a God who can be known, a God who demands, or is, worshipped, who explains how one should live, that God is not to be found.
™ Version 4.2
