“Brahman” and “Abraham”

The claim that Abraham’s name is derived from “Brahman” with just an “A” added, as seen in speculative discussions on platforms like TikTok, is largely a linguistic coincidence rather than a meaningful connection grounded in historical or linguistic evidence.

The languages from which “Brahman” and “Abraham” derive—Sanskrit and Hebrew, respectively—are from different linguistic families. Sanskrit belongs to the Indo-European family, while Hebrew is part of the Afro-Asiatic family. The phonetic similarities between “Brahman” and “Abraham” are likely coincidental rather than reflective of a common origin. Linguistic evidence shows no shared root between these terms, making it highly unlikely that one evolved from the other

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” – Often attributed to Edmund Burke, this quote emphasizes the importance of individual action and vigilance in the face of societal or institutional failure.

Imagine that during ancient times, long before recorded history as we understand it, there was significant migration and cultural exchange between the regions we now know as the Near East (home to Abraham’s story) and the Indian subcontinent (where Brahman originated). Perhaps there was a proto-Indo-European or even earlier civilization that influenced both traditions, sowing the seeds of a shared narrative about the divine.

In this scenario, Abraham’s story might be an adaptation of earlier myths or religious practices that originated further east. The central figure of a covenant-making, divine-connected patriarch could have evolved from a more abstract idea of a divine force, like Brahman. As people migrated westward, the concept of Brahman—a metaphysical principle—could have transformed into a personal god with whom one could enter into a covenant, as seen in the story of Abraham. The names “Brahman” and “Abraham” could have evolved from a common linguistic root, reflecting the shared spiritual heritage of these migrating peoples.

Similarly, both the figure of Sarasvati (Brahman’s consort) and Sarah (Abraham’s wife) could represent a symbolic carryover of an earlier archetypal feminine figure, perhaps tied to fertility, wisdom, or divine union. This shared mythological structure could have been reinterpreted in the context of different cultures, resulting in the distinct religious narratives we now associate with Hinduism and the Abrahamic traditions.

Noam Chomsky – “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.”

Chomsky’s critique of how governments and institutions may manipulate public opinion suggests the need for individuals to go beyond the surface-level narratives and remain critically engaged.

Exploring the connections between Brahman and Abraham requires a delicate approach, blending scholarly analysis with respectful openness to nuanced speculation. Both figures are cornerstones of distinct and influential religious traditions—Hinduism for Brahman and the Abrahamic faiths for Abraham. While at first glance, some may seek to draw parallels between the two due to linguistic similarities or universal themes, a deeper dive into the evidence reveals a more complex reality.

The idea that Brahman and Abraham are connected likely arises from a human tendency to find common ground across cultures. After all, myths and religious stories often reflect shared human experiences: the search for meaning, the relationship between humans and the divine, and the quest for knowledge about our origins. In this light, it’s understandable that some might speculate about connections between ancient figures and ideas, especially in an age where globalization brings different traditions into closer dialogue.

Ralph Waldo Emerson – “The only person you are destined to become is the person you decide to be.”

Emerson encourages self-reliance, implying that individuals must take charge of their own destinies, rather than depend on others—including governments or institutions—to determine their paths.

However, when we peel back the layers of scholarly evidence, it becomes clear that the relationship between these two figures is, at best, coincidental. Brahman, as discussed, is a metaphysical concept in Hindu philosophy, representing the eternal, infinite truth that transcends the material world. It is not a person but a principle, often described as the foundation of reality itself. Brahman emerges from a long tradition of Vedic thought, rooted in the Indian subcontinent and evolving over millennia through texts like the Upanishads. Abraham, on the other hand, is depicted in the Bible as a patriarch, a flesh-and-blood individual who made a covenant with God. His story is tied to specific places—Ur, Haran, and Canaan—and reflects the cultural and religious context of the ancient Near East.

What complicates the matter is the role that language plays in shaping our perceptions of these figures. Linguistic similarities, such as the shared “Abrah” sound, can create the illusion of a connection where none exists. This is a form of subjective validation, where unrelated phenomena are linked because they align with our expectations or desires. In this case, the idea that “Brahman” and “Abraham” are connected may simply be a projection of our modern desire to find unity across disparate cultures.

But it’s worth considering the broader context of these figures. Both represent, in their own ways, humanity’s attempt to grapple with the divine. Brahman, as the ultimate reality, reflects a deeply philosophical approach to understanding existence. Abraham, as a figure of faith, represents a personal relationship with God, a covenant that promises land and descendants. These are fundamentally different approaches to the divine, yet they both speak to a universal human desire to understand our place in the cosmos. It’s not surprising that some might seek to connect these figures, even if the evidence for such a connection is lacking.

Scholars who study the ancient Near East and Indian religious traditions have found little to suggest a historical or cultural link between these two figures. The development of the Abrahamic faiths occurred in a context geographically and culturally removed from the Vedic traditions of India. The languages, practices, and cosmologies of these two regions were distinct, and while cross-cultural influences did exist in the ancient world, there is no indication that the story of Abraham was influenced by the concept of Brahman.

However, this doesn’t diminish the richness of exploring the possibilities. The human imagination is vast, and part of what makes religious study so intriguing is the way in which ideas evolve, intersect, and sometimes collide. Speculating about connections between Brahman and Abraham, while not supported by evidence, invites us to think more deeply about how we understand religious figures and concepts across cultures. It also forces us to confront the limitations of our knowledge and the ways in which our own biases shape the stories we tell about the past.

On one hand, proponents of the Abraham-Brahman connection highlight surface-level similarities: both names share phonetic elements, and there are loose thematic parallels, such as Abraham’s spiritual journey and Brahman’s role as the universal essence in Hinduism. Some even point to symbolic connections, like the wife-sister relationship between Sarasvati and Brahma in Hinduism, and Sarah being referred to as Abraham’s sister in the Hebrew Bible. Additionally, certain speculative sources have suggested connections between rituals, priesthoods, and sacred journeys in both traditions.

• Brahman: This term comes from Sanskrit, the ancient language of India. It refers to the ultimate reality or universal spirit in Hindu philosophy, particularly in the Vedantic tradition. Brahman is abstract, representing the foundational essence of the universe, beyond personification.

• Abraham: This name originates from Hebrew, meaning “father of many” (good god Abraham! Tsk tsk) or “father of nations.” Abraham is a foundational figure in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, tied to the historical and religious narrative of the Near East. In the Bible, Abraham’s name was originally “Abram,” meaning “exalted father,” and was later changed to Abraham as part of the covenant with God (Genesis 17:5).

The similarity between the names “Brahman” and “Abraham” is purely coincidental. They come from two different linguistic families:

• Sanskrit belongs to the Indo-Aryan branch of the Indo-European language family.

• Hebrew belongs to the Semitic branch of the Afro-Asiatic language family.

On the other hand, scholars specializing in historical linguistics and comparative religion generally view these similarities as coincidental. The names “Abraham” and “Brahman” come from entirely different linguistic families—Hebrew and Sanskrit, respectively. While both names may seem similar when spoken, they have distinct etymologies and meanings. Brahman is a metaphysical concept representing the ultimate reality in Vedic traditions, while Abraham is a patriarchal figure tied to the covenantal traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Linguists and historians agree that the structures, meanings, and origins of these words differ fundamentally. While speculative associations might focus on the similarity of sounds, the linguistic roots show no direct connection between the two.

Some may argue that ancient ideas traveled across cultures, and therefore, the similarities in names could be remnants of a shared origin. However, scholars have not found convincing evidence that suggests a direct historical or cultural link between the development of Vedic Hinduism and the Abrahamic traditions.

Imagine an ancient time when the people of the Near East and the Indian subcontinent had far more cultural and religious exchanges than is currently supported by historical evidence. Perhaps through early trade routes like the Silk Road or earlier pre-Bronze Age migration patterns, ideas of divinity, spirituality, and human connection to the divine were exchanged.

In this speculative theory, the concept of Brahman as the ultimate reality in Hinduism could have influenced or been influenced by early Semitic tribes as they developed their own spiritual practices. Abraham, as a figure, could have represented the personification or an anthropomorphization of Brahman—the ultimate source of life and spirituality. In a time when oral traditions and mythologies were fluid, these ideas could have evolved separately, with Brahman in the East becoming more abstract and Abraham in the Near East becoming a tangible patriarchal figure.

Similarly, the concept of sacrifice, central to both Abraham’s story (his willingness to sacrifice Isaac) and to Vedic rituals (offerings to the gods), might have been a shared cultural motif, transforming based on local religious needs and interpretations.

Symbolic Connections:

• Sarasvati and Sarah: Sarasvati, the goddess of wisdom and speech, could be mirrored in Sarah, Abraham’s wife, who plays a crucial role in his story. Both are tied to creation and lineage, with Sarah being the matriarch of nations and Sarasvati tied to wisdom and the flow of knowledge. Imagining that these figures could have stemmed from a common mythological origin is not too far-fetched in this speculative framework.

• Ur and the City of Light: Abraham’s departure from Ur, traditionally interpreted as a historical city in Mesopotamia, could, in this speculative view, represent a metaphysical journey toward enlightenment. Brahman, being the light of consciousness, might symbolize a similar journey. Both figures, in this interpretation, leave behind the material for a divine covenant or relationship.

Issues with This Speculation

1. Linguistic Barriers: The first and most glaring issue is the vast difference in the languages from which these figures originate. Brahman is derived from Sanskrit, and Abraham from Hebrew, two languages that belong to entirely different linguistic families. There is no evidence that these linguistic streams crossed paths in a way that would allow such a direct borrowing or transformation of names.

2. Geographic and Cultural Distance: India and the Near East, while connected through ancient trade routes, developed vastly different religious traditions over millennia. While trade between regions allowed for some cultural exchange, the core religious practices and beliefs of Vedic India and the Semitic Near East show no strong historical overlap. There’s no evidence of a cross-pollination that would suggest a shared origin for such significant figures in these respective traditions.

3. Conceptual Divergence: The concepts of Brahman and Abraham are fundamentally different in terms of theology and philosophy. Brahman is an impersonal, metaphysical principle representing the ultimate truth, while Abraham is a personal figure in the context of a covenantal relationship with a monotheistic God. Even if we imagine some shared origin, the subsequent development of these ideas would have diverged dramatically, making it unlikely that they remained connected in any meaningful way.

4. Historical Evidence: Speculation can be creative, but there is no historical or archaeological evidence to support the theory that Abraham’s story was influenced by or derived from the concept of Brahman. The timelines and geographic settings do not align in a way that would make this plausible. Abraham’s narrative is deeply embedded in the early traditions of Judaism, with no historical connection to Vedic Hinduism.

5. Religious and Philosophical Differences: The monotheism of Abrahamic traditions, which centers on a personal, interactive God, differs significantly from the non-dualistic, often pantheistic philosophy of Hinduism, where Brahman is an all-encompassing reality rather than a personal deity. Reconciling these differences in a shared origin story would require significant theological adjustments that are not supported by either tradition.

While the superficial similarity in the names might seem intriguing, the evidence strongly suggests that this is a case of linguistic coincidence rather than a meaningful connection. The differences in cultural, historical, and linguistic contexts of “Brahman” and “Abraham” make the theory unlikely. So, we can confidently disagree with the claim that Abraham’s name was simply derived from Brahman by adding an “A.” The names are rooted in distinct traditions and languages that developed independently.

It’s insightful to note the shift in how narratives are controlled in the age of social media, decentralized information, and online platforms. Governments no longer have the same level of control over public discourse that they once did, and in many ways, this is a positive development. The democratization of information has allowed for a diversity of voices, ideas, and perspectives that were often marginalized or silenced in more traditional, government-controlled media environments.

The competition between governments often extends beyond just controlling narratives. It reflects a broader struggle for dominance in economic, military, and political arenas. This constant jockeying for power can breed cynicism, particularly when it feels like citizens are caught in the crossfire. For instance, economic sanctions or trade wars initiated by one government can harm ordinary people far more than the political elite. Similarly, military interventions or covert operations, justified by geopolitical competition, often result in human suffering.

People feel blocked out from critical information, and those in positions of authority can carefully filter what gets revealed.

There are philosophical roots in this as well, stretching back to thinkers like Thomas Hobbes, who believed that society is a constant competition for power and resources. In such systems, distrust can become the default. In this sense, when you’re looking at companies, organizations, or governments that are opaque, you’re engaging with a modern manifestation of this timeless tension between the public and those in power.

Psychologically, humans are wired for trust as a survival mechanism, but once betrayed, that trust becomes difficult to rebuild. This is seen even in personal dynamics, where repeated betrayal leads to hyper-vigilance and guardedness, as exemplified by many quotes about “trusting no one” after betrayal. Philosophers and political thinkers have long warned about the dangers of unchecked power and the importance of constant vigilance to safeguard public interests.

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. famously said that citizens must remain eternally vigilant to protect freedoms, particularly in moments where power dynamics are uneven or manipulated to suppress dissent or conceal truths  . This “eternal vigilance” translates into being critically engaged, not accepting easy answers, and always questioning the motives behind actions, especially when public funds or public interest are involved. This resonates with your observation about the lack of transparency surrounding figures like Nygard or powerful corporations that claim to act for the public good.

These systems thrive on distraction and plausible deniability. So, it’s understandable that when left without answers, that “Gator’s darkness” emerges—a deep-seated response to the feeling of being played, manipulated, or sidelined.

The challenge, then, is how we deal with this knowledge. Do we become cynical and distrustful, or do we take up the mantle of vigilant, informed citizens who continuously ask hard questions and demand accountability?

Governments—ostensibly established to serve their people—often treat information control as a zero-sum game. Rather than fostering healthy debate or open discussion, they may engage in strategies aimed at undermining rivals or bolstering their own power, often at the expense of transparency and public trust.

For example, in authoritarian regimes, narratives are tightly controlled to reinforce state power. In more democraticiu contexts, there may be more subtle forms of influence, where governments use legal mechanisms, corporate partnerships, or media incentives to maintain favourable coverage or limit criticism.

Albert Einstein – “Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”

Einstein underscores the importance of critical thinking and skepticism, even in the face of established authorities, suggesting that individuals must question and analyze information, rather than blindly trust.

TikTok’s algorithm isn’t just designed to show users what they want to see; it’s heavily shaped by engagement, data collection, and—yes—regional policies. Governments can exert influence over social media platforms, either directly through censorship laws or indirectly by creating environments where companies preemptively adapt their content to avoid conflict.

For instance, in the United States, content that drives viral trends tends to be more entertainment-based, feeding into the American culture of consumerism and individual expression. But in China (where TikTok operates under a different name, Douyin), content regulation is much stricter, and anything that could be seen as politically sensitive or culturally non-conforming is often filtered out or restricted. Similar strategies are applied in different countries to fit cultural, legal, or political environments.

There have been numerous investigations and whistleblower reports pointing to how TikTok’s algorithm is managed differently country by country

Less Control Over the Narrative

In some regions, TikTok has been accused of censoring content that is politically sensitive. For example, in China, videos relating to the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests are reportedly suppressed. Similar accusations have been made in other countries where dissent against the government could cause political backlash.

George Orwell – “In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

Orwell’s focus here is on personal responsibility, highlighting that in a world of widespread misinformation and competing governments, individual vigilance is necessary to uphold truth.

With platforms like TikTok, Twitter, and independent news sources, the power to shape public opinion has shifted. No longer do state-run or government-friendly media outlets have the monopoly on information dissemination. This has been empowering for many, as it enables grassroots movements, political dissidents, and independent voices to rise and challenge official narratives. Think of how social media played a critical role in movements like the Arab Spring, where traditional government control over information was circumvented by people using platforms like Facebook and Twitter.

There’s a lot of discussion around the idea that platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and others are influenced or manipulated by intelligence agencies. The idea that platforms are connected to entities like the CIA, or that TikTok is linked to China’s state surveillance, speaks to real concerns about data security, privacy, and geopolitical power struggles in the digital world.

Thomas Jefferson – “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”

This quote emphasizes the need for individuals to remain watchful and proactive in preserving their rights and freedoms, implying that no authority can be entirely relied upon without public scrutiny.

While there’s no hard evidence that platforms like Twitter or Facebook are directly run by the CIA, it’s well known that the U.S. government has complex relationships with big tech companies. Facebook, Twitter, and Google have been documented as cooperating with law enforcement and intelligence agencies when it comes to data sharing, especially after the Snowden revelations in 2013. The NSA and other agencies have been shown to collect data from tech companies as part of mass surveillance programs like PRISM.

Though not directly controlled by the CIA, these platforms do cooperate with the U.S. government, often under the guise of national security. Furthermore, these platforms have been used for information operations, with intelligence agencies using social media for influence campaigns and monitoring.

TikTok and “Chinese Intelligence”

TikTok’s connection to China and its parent company, ByteDance, has sparked concerns about whether it is used for surveillance or manipulation by the Chinese government. Given China’s strict laws on data sharing and how companies are required to cooperate with the government, there are legitimate fears that user data could be accessed by the Chinese government.

In 2020, the U.S. government raised national security concerns about TikTok, citing potential data collection practices that could expose personal information to Chinese authorities. The platform has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing or data-sharing with the Chinese government. However, due to the opaque nature of China’s government-business relationship, these concerns persist, particularly around issues of privacy and the potential for algorithmic manipulation that serves Chinese state interests.

Social Media as Tools of Influence

Both the U.S. and China use social media as tools of influence. U.S.-based platforms like Facebook and Twitter have been used to support pro-democracy movements, influence elections, and carry out covert information campaigns. Meanwhile, platforms like TikTok have been accused of censoring content that goes against Chinese state interests, such as suppressing information about the Uighur Muslim crisis or the Hong Kong protests.

In summary:

• Twitter, Facebook, etc.: They’re not CIA-run, but they do cooperate with U.S. intelligence agencies and are part of a broader information landscape that intelligence services utilize.

• TikTok: Due to China’s data policies and the close relationship between Chinese businesses and the government, TikTok raises significant concerns about surveillance and influence.

These dynamics highlight how social media, whether U.S.-based or Chinese, can be manipulated or influenced by state actors. This has created a digital battleground where information, privacy, and influence are key areas of contention.

However, this decentralization also means that misinformation can spread rapidly, often outpacing governments’ ability to respond effectively. The ease with which anyone can share content has made it more difficult for any single entity, including governments, to dominate the conversation. While this might seem like a positive check on government power, it can also result in chaos and the proliferation of misleading or harmful content, complicating the public’s ability to discern fact from fiction.

Government Competition

While governments may no longer be able to control the narrative as they once did, they are still deeply involved in competing for influence, often using underhanded tactics. In some cases, governments resort to disinformation campaigns, leveraging social media and other platforms to shape public perception both at home and abroad. Russia’s alleged interference in the 2016 U.S. elections through social media manipulation is a prime example of how governments have adapted to the new media landscape to push their agendas.

Moreover, even though traditional control over the narrative has waned, governments still compete for dominance in shaping the geopolitical landscape through covert and overt strategies. This includes funding media outlets, promoting state-sponsored content, and influencing public discourse through astroturfing (the practice of disguising an orchestrated campaign as a grassroots movement). The challenge with this competition is that it often turns into a race to the bottom, where deception and manipulation replace honest discourse.

The Nature of Competition?

What’s particularly disheartening, is the idea growing up thinking that Governments—ostensibly established to serve their people—often treat information control as a zero-sum game. Rather than fostering healthy debate or open discussion, they may engage in strategies aimed at undermining rivals or bolstering their own power, often at the expense of transparency and public trust.

Disgust at the Way Governments Compete

The competition between governments often extends beyond just controlling narratives. It reflects a broader struggle for dominance in economic, military, and political arenas. This constant jockeying for power can breed cynicism, particularly when it feels like citizens are caught in the crossfire. For instance, economic sanctions or trade wars initiated by one government can harm ordinary people far more than the political elite. Similarly, military interventions or covert operations, justified by geopolitical competition, often result in human suffering.

It’s understandable to feel suspicious or disgusted by this behavior, as it sometimes seems disconnected from the needs and well-being of the people governments are meant to represent. The interplay of power, influence, and control becomes more about the survival and expansion of the state apparatus or political leadership than about serving the public good.

As governments continue to compete, it’s up to individuals to remain informed, vigilant, and critically engaged with the content they consume and share.

“We have to be continually jumping off cliffs and developing our wings on the way down.” – Kurt Vonnegut reflects on personal courage and the need to trust one’s own resilience in unpredictable or unreliable circumstances.

Linguists and historians argue that any perceived connection between Brahman and Abraham lacks substantial evidence. The cultural, religious, and linguistic contexts in which these figures emerged are vastly different. Abraham’s narrative is rooted in the Near Eastern traditions of the Hebrew Bible, while Brahman is part of a philosophical system developed within the Indian subcontinent. There is no historical or archaeological evidence to suggest that these traditions directly influenced each other during the periods in which they emerged .

Additionally, scholars emphasize that speculative theories often rely on subjective validation, where unrelated phenomena are linked based on personal expectations or desires. In this case, the association between Brahman and Abraham might stem from a modern desire to find common ground across different religious traditions, even though the historical realities do not support such a link .

While the idea of a connection between Brahman and Abraham is interesting from a speculative or creative perspective, the scholarly consensus strongly refutes this theory. The similarities in names are coincidental, and the traditions they represent are rooted in distinct historical, cultural, and linguistic contexts. Therefore, while it’s always valuable to explore ideas and think creatively about connections between different traditions, the evidence for a direct relationship between Brahman and Abraham is unconvincing.

Speculating that TikTok is a double-edged sword—a “good ugly thing”—touches on its undeniable influence and the mixed consequences it has had on society. TikTok has become a dominant cultural platform, where creativity, humor, education, and social commentary flourish. However, alongside its positives, it’s important to recognize the more problematic trends that emerge, especially around issues like the objectification of women and the societal pressure to conform to certain harmful standards.

The Good Side of TikTok

TikTok can be an incredibly useful tool when used responsibly. It fosters creativity, allows people to share important messages, and democratizes content creation. It has given a voice to many marginalized communities and served as a platform for raising awareness about social issues, mental health, and education. Additionally, TikTok has provided a new medium for self-expression, particularly for younger generations. People are able to share their thoughts, talents, and perspectives on a massive scale.

It also allows for community building—whether it’s niche interests, art, or political activism, TikTok users can find others who share their views and passions, leading to meaningful connections. As long as users maintain an awareness of the nature of the platform and its fast-paced, highly curated content streams, it can serve as a valuable resource for entertainment, connection, and learning.

The Ugly Side of TikTok

However, TikTok also highlights some of the uglier parts of modern digital culture. One of the most problematic trends is the hypersexualization of women and girls. Some argue that social media platforms, including TikTok, have contributed to the objectification of women by promoting content that aligns with certain beauty standards and reinforcing the notion that a woman’s worth is tied to her appearance or her sexual appeal.

This “digital commodification” of women’s bodies isn’t new, but the rapid consumption and algorithm-driven nature of TikTok can exacerbate these issues. The platform’s algorithms prioritize engagement, often promoting content that generates views and likes, which sometimes leads to the amplification of sexualized or suggestive videos. This has cultural ramifications, as it can normalize objectification and create unrealistic or unhealthy expectations for young people, particularly in terms of relationships, body image, and self-worth.

Moreover, there’s concern about societal trends that contribute to the commodification of sexual expression. Some critics argue that aspects of modern-day online culture encourage behaviors that turn people—especially women—into “commodities” for attention, likes, and followers. This aligns with the broader criticism that TikTok and similar platforms contribute to the trivialization of serious social issues, such as gender inequality and the exploitation of sexuality for profit and visibility.

This isn’t just about TikTok—it reflects a larger cultural conversation about how the internet and social media affect gender dynamics, relationships, and personal identity. The way women are treated, viewed, and portrayed on such platforms has real-world consequences. Sexual objectification in online spaces can influence how people view relationships, intimacy, and personal interactions.

Sexualization, without proper context or understanding, can degrade healthy sexual relationships by reducing them to mere performances for others, rather than mutual and respectful partnerships. When platforms like TikTok promote certain types of content without challenging the underlying issues of objectification or power dynamics, they risk reinforcing harmful societal norms.

TikTok can be both a “good” and “ugly” influence, depending on how users engage with the platform and how critically they view its content. On the one hand, it’s a vibrant, creative space where people can express themselves, share important messages, and connect. On the other hand, it mirrors some of the darker aspects of digital culture, particularly in how it can amplify harmful norms around gender, sexuality, and self-worth.

Recognizing these dualities is key to navigating TikTok—and social media in general—effectively. By critically engaging with its content, users can benefit from its strengths while remaining aware of its potential to promote and normalize damaging behaviours or attitudes.

While it’s intriguing to imagine a world where ancient cultures shared religious concepts, the Abraham-Brahman connection seems unlikely upon examination. The linguistic, geographic, and cultural divides are too large, and the religious philosophies too distinct, to suggest a real historical link. This speculative theory falls apart when we consider the vast differences in how these figures and concepts evolved over time. However, imagining such possibilities allows us to explore the fluidity of religious ideas and the human tendency to find connections in distant, seemingly unrelated traditions.