Don't the Hinduism (Dharmic) people need a concise Scripture?

[paarsurrey]

This is interesting. The text is IMO difficult to parse (at least by me), but the match does seem reasonable.
What differences do you see?

"to see" "and to be seen" denote different persons. I may be wrong. Am I? Please
Regards

 

[Jainarayan]

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe01/sbe01176.htm
It is excellent. I like it.
Does it match with the one given below ?
Kena Upanishad:
“That which cannot be seen by the eye but through which the eye itself sees, know That to be Brahman (God) and not what people worship here (in the manifested world).”
Kena Upanishad (1.7) Yajurveda

I don't think they do. Please
Regards

It's the same meaning. Something you need to know about Sanskrit and its translations into English is that Sanskrit is a highly inflected language, allowing almost completely free word order. Due to that, different translators can read a verse slightly differently. That's why it's important to have commentaries by qualified scholars, and not read at face value.

For example, there is contention between people in the meaning of verse 9.26 of the Bhagavad Gītā: "If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower, fruit or water, I will accept it." (Prabhupada's translation).

patram puspam phalam toyam
yo me bhaktya prayacchati
tad aham bhakty-upahrtam
asnami prayatatmanah

patram—a leaf; puṣpam—a flower; phalam—a fruit; toyam—water; yaḥ—whoever; me—unto Me; bhaktyā—with devotion; prayacchati—offers; tat—that;aham—I; bhakti-upahṛtam—offered in devotion; aśnāmi—accept; prayata-ātmanaḥ—of one in pure consciousness.

PURPORT
Here Lord Kṛṣṇa, having established that He is the only enjoyer, the primeval Lord, and the real object of all sacrificial offerings, reveals what types of sacrifices He desires to be offered. If one wishes to engage in devotional service to the Supreme in order to be purified and to reach the goal of life-the transcendental loving service of God-then he should find out what the Lord desires of him. One who loves Kṛṣṇa will give Him whatever He wants, and he avoids offering anything which is undesirable or unasked for. Thus, meat, fish and eggs should not be offered to Kṛṣṇa. If He desired such things as offerings, He would have said so. Instead He clearly requests that a leaf, fruit, flowers and water be given to Him, and He says of this offering, "I will accept it."

Tapasyananda translates it as "Whoever makes an offering to Me with devotion, be it of leaf, flower, fruit or water - that devout offering by a pure-hearted man, I accept with joy."

Here is yet another example of the translation with four commentaries http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-09-26.html These don't refer to food at all. Prabhupada had a vision for his followers.

As for Prabhupada's purport (Tapasyananda doesn't have one in the version I have), personally I don't think it refers to vegetarianism at all, and I don't think it is Sri Krishna asking for a leaf, a flower, fruit or water. I don't think it's anything more than Sri Krishna saying he will accept even the most meager and smallest of offerings if they're offered with unwavering and single-minded love and devotion from a pure heart. The verses before and after it give other examples of devotion. The only other reference to food is in 9.27 where Sri Krishna says to offer whatever you eat to him.

Now, notice the word order. The Sanskrit literally translates into English as "leaf flower fruit water whoever unto me with devotion offers that I offered in devotion (reduplication for emphasis) accept ([from] pure soul". I don't believe consciousness is the right word. It sounds silly and ungrammatical in English but it's perfect Sanskrit. There is no punctuation or articles in Sanskrit, which makes it vague at times, and one has to guess out the meaning.

That's why you can't just take a verse from this scripture or that and use it to try to prove a point, without knowing more about Hinduism, its practices and beliefs, and what makes it tick.Now, I may have some elements of my Sanskrit lesson in error, so I await someone more knowledge than me to correct it. But that's the gist of it.

 

[LuisDantas]

"to see" "and to be seen" denote different persons. I may be wrong. Am I? Please
Regards

You know what, that resides squarely in the area that I have trouble parsing.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

One has to decipher the ancient scripture. They used all types of oratory, poetic language and its tools. Jesus talked in parables as is well-known, yet the Christians following clever Paul took them literally hence their spiritual death, not that Jesus died on the Cross.
This experience should be used in studying other scriptures, then one understands them correctly, that is the enjoyment. Please
Regards

It's not clear to me what 'experience' you are referring to here. And how do you know that you have understood them 'correctly'?

 

[paarsurrey]

It's not clear to me what 'experience' you are referring to here. And how do you know that you have understood them 'correctly'?

1. When one's heart opens to the meaning of a verse and the verses in the context, one is at peace with one's understanding.
2. When one's understanding is aligned with
   The Holy Quran : Chapter 1: Al-Fatihah الفَاتِحَة, the Ummul Kitab, the satisfaction increases many times.

Quran is a Revealed Scripture :
[2:3] This is a perfect Book; there is no doubt in it; it is a guidance for the righteous,
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=2

When no doubt remains in one's heart about the meaning of a verse, the heart is in peace.
Hope, it helps.
Regards
​

 

[paarsurrey]

You know what, that resides squarely in the area that I have trouble parsing.

I thought that my friend is an expert on Buddhism and Hinduism scriptures.
Never-mind, RF is rich of intelligent persons of religions and no-religions, somebody would help one understand.
Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

I thought that my friend is an expert on Buddhism and Hinduism scriptures.
Never-mind, RF is rich of intelligent persons of religions and no-religions, somebody would help one understand.
Regards

Pretentious as it is to compare myself with Bodhidharma, it is said that he could barely tolerate the idea of relying on scriptures. Apparently he made a point of ignoring them, even.

That is a sentiment that I can't help but sympathise with.

In any case, while I do have an appreciation of Hinduism, I can hardly claim to have more than a very general idea of its scriptures - enough to reach the level of an absolutely new convert after a couple of hours, maybe.

On that note, I appreciate @Jainarayan 's post above that explains why it is something of an art to attain proper understanding of the Vedas and Upanishads. I very much liked it. That is how it should be with sacred texts: the text should be inspirational, but ultimately it falls on the adherent to decide what the proper interpretation should be - and agreement on the matter is almost inconsequential, because we are after all talking about living, rational beings reading a text.

 

[Chakra]

OK, something that was partly mentioned, but I'll just rephrase it here.

It's one thing for scripture to say something, but it is completely irrelevant if authoritative personalities do not act upon them. One should read the scriptures, and then look upon great sages/saints/mystics/scholars to see whether or not they accept said scriptures.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

When we know that this discussion will end with "Islam is the only true religion in the world while others are bullcrap", why even engage in a debate here?
Discussions with Buddhists, atheists, parsis, taoists, etc doesn't cause as many facepalms as seeing the replies of @paarsurrey does.

 

[LuisDantas]

When we know that this discussion will end with "Islam is the only true religion in the world while others are bullcrap", why even engage in a debate here?
Discussions with Buddhists, atheists, parsis, taoists, etc doesn't cause as many facepalms as seeing the replies of @paarsurrey does.

@paarsurrey is not a robot. He may be difficult to deal with at times, but the same is likely true of most or nearly all of us.

And I don't think his attitude is any worse than that of the many silent ones who will just decide that we are wrong and not even care to hear what we say.

But beyond that all, brother, he is a person who IMO means well. I don't meet those nearly as often as I would like to, so I don't feel any great hurry to avoid him.

 

[paarsurrey]

@paarsurrey is not a robot. He may be difficult to deal with at times, but the same is likely true of most or nearly all of us.
And I don't think his attitude is any worse than that of the many silent ones who will just decide that we are wrong and not even care to hear what we say.
But beyond that all, brother, he is a person who IMO means well. I don't meet those nearly as often as I would like to, so I don't feel any great hurry to avoid him.

Thanks and regards
paarsurrey

 

[Subhankar Zac]

@paarsurrey is not a robot. He may be difficult to deal with at times, but the same is likely true of most or nearly all of us.

And I don't think his attitude is any worse than that of the many silent ones who will just decide that we are wrong and not even care to hear what we say.

But beyond that all, brother, he is a person who IMO means well. I don't meet those nearly as often as I would like to, so I don't feel any great hurry to avoid him.

Actually he is. Someone who is stubborn to remain deluded by seeing his perception within everything is wrong in my view.
And he's not difficult to deal with, he just has to make every single religion Islam, every deity into Allah and every text into the Quran.
And wrong or right is decided by at least going beyond personal bias, which he's incapable of.
Even the worst of people mean well... It's simply their version of "well" isn't a universal one.
In conclusion, watching frozen for the 20th time is better than engaging in a reasonable discussion with him.

 

[paarsurrey]

When we know that this discussion will end with "Islam is the only true religion in the world while others are bullcrap", why even engage in a debate here?
Discussions with Buddhists, atheists, parsis, taoists, etc doesn't cause as many facepalms as seeing the replies of @paarsurrey does.

"Islam is the only true religion in the world while others"
Islam is for everybody not just of me.I did not bring it from G-d. Please
The later part of the sentence that I did not do in magenta, I never said. Did I ever say such words? If yes, Kindly quote from me. Please
I love the founders of all the revealed and all their scriptures in the world,my pleasure to read them.
Is your religion a revealed one? Please name it, your denomination, its founder and his scripture that he received from G-d. Please
Regards

 

[Aupmanyav]

“That which cannot be seen by the eye but through which the eye itself sees, know That to be Brahman (God) and not what people worship here (in the manifested world).”

"to see" "and to be seen" denote different persons. I may be wrong. Am I?

Say, if energy or something like it is Brahman. Would you be able to see it? Are you able to see radio waves? No. Not unless it appears in some material form. But the eye is composed of that very energy having changed into atomic form, sees it through light, again a form of energy. So you are seeing with the help of it, understanding with the help of it, because even your brain is made up of atoms, form of energy, Brahman. Kena Upanishad is pointing to that Brahman and not what we worship here through various scriptures, images or idols.
Hope this is helpful.

I love the founders of all the revealed and all their scriptures in the world,my pleasure to read them. Is your religion a revealed one?

And what is wrong with religions that do not claim to be revealed? IMHO, you will agree that without any proof, those who claim revelation could have been frauds. At least the non-revealed religions invite you to debate, whereas the revealed religions say "This is the book, do not transgress any part of it. If you do you will burn in hell for all eternity'. Do you find that a reasonable attitude?

 

[paarsurrey]

@Subhankar Zac
Please don't be angry with me, we all here on RF are a community in itself. If we don't have different viewpoints, we would be machine-made. And we are not that.
Please help me trace out who translated the following passage :
“That which cannot be seen by the eye but through which the eye itself sees, know That to be Brahman (God) and not what people worship here (in the manifested world).”
Kena Upanishad (1.7) Yajurveda

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
"to see" "and to be seen" denote different persons. I may be wrong. Am I?

Say, if energy or something like it is Brahman. Would you be able to see it? Are you able to see radio waves? No. Not unless it appears in some material form. But the eye is composed of that very energy having changed into atomic form, sees it through light, again a form of energy. So you are seeing with the help of it, understanding with the help of it, because even your brain is made up of atoms, form of energy, Brahman. Kena Upanishad is pointing to that Brahman and not what we worship here through various scriptures, images or idols.
Hope this is helpful.

I don't agree with your concept. Please
We don't have to see Brahman, we can observe Him from His attributes, if correctly understood, working in the whole Universe if we have the right and righteous insight. If we don't have the right and righteous insight insight and wisdom then we see only ghosts,apparitions,hallucinations,illusions but not Him.
Brahman also make us know Him through a messenger/prophet with a message and signs. Like Noah received a message from Brahman but those having no insight and wisdom ridiculed him.
Do you have any clue about the passage I mentioned above in #95? Please

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
I love the founders of all the revealed and all their scriptures in the world,my pleasure to read them. Is your religion a revealed one?

And what is wrong with religions that do not claim to be revealed? IMHO, you will agree that without any proof, those who claim revelation could be frauds.

Those who don't belong to any revealed religion, they are also never 100% correct. Are they? Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Actually he is. Someone who is stubborn to remain deluded by seeing his perception within everything is wrong in my view.
And he's not difficult to deal with, he just has to make every single religion Islam, every deity into Allah and every text into the Quran.
And wrong or right is decided by at least going beyond personal bias, which he's incapable of.
Even the worst of people mean well... It's simply their version of "well" isn't a universal one.
In conclusion, watching frozen for the 20th time is better than engaging in a reasonable discussion with him.

Sorry for the diversion.
Isn't Vaishnava

a Hinduism denomination and Mahayana

a Buddhism denomination?
Why have both together? Please
Please
Regards

 

[Aupmanyav]

I don't agree with your concept.
Brahman also make us know Him through a messenger/prophet with a message and signs. Like Noah received a message from Brahman but those having no insight and wisdom ridiculed him.
Do you have any clue about the passage I mentioned above in #95?

You are welcome to differ. Is Brahman a being? If he can why does he not talk to us directly? Have the messengers shown you any proof of their appointment? Is Noah a mythological figure or historical? I have already explained the passage that you mentioned. If you cannot understand that I won't persist with it.

 

[YmirGF]

Not even the most Hinduism people have read all the plethora of Hinduism scripture. It must have put the masses in Hinduism at a disadvantage and hence at the mercy of the narrators/scribes/clergy. Right? Please
Please correct me if I am wrong with your reasonable arguments.
Thread is open to everybody of any religion or no religion.
No disrespect intended to any person personally, please. I love all the revealed religions and their people. Please
Regards

That plethora is perhaps Hinduism's greatest strength. You have a multitude of very high quality texts to draw on. How is this a disadvantage?