Allah talks about caste?

[Rational_Mind]

One:

Can you please provide the original quote?

Two:

Father of Holy Hymns: Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krishna.
Father of Earth: Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krishna.
Father of Heaven: Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krishna.
Father of Agni: Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krishna.
Father of Indra: Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krishna.
Father of Vishnu: Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krishna.

Where and what is the confusion?

...you still have not answered my questions

Father of holy hymns, Soma flows onward the Father of the earth, Father of heaven: Father of Agni, Sūrya's generator, the Father who begat Indra and Viṣṇu.

(Rig Veda 9, 96:5)

Reference is in red, found the translation from Rig Veda, tr. by Ralph T.H. Griffith, [1896], at sacred-texts.com . Also which question did I miss.

 

[Rational_Mind]

I am still maintaining my stance of literal interpretation, to follow the actual spirit of the verse, and not a ghost.

If you check, I had asked you for the original verse when you posted the very first on the subject.

This you have not done. You are reading someone's interpretation and basing your understanding on that. Same is what you are presenting here.

Thousands of persons have interpreted the Vedas according to their level of understanding. It does not make all of them correct. You must understand the purpose of Vedas. It is to know God. Those who study Vedas for any other purpose, are mislead in their attempts to realize the goal of Vedas - God.

I can talk to two specialists of Quran/Bible/Vedas...any scripture of the world, and give you two different meanings of the same verse.

In a class, all students learn the same subject from same teacher. Teacher teaches same things to all. Yet we see, different students score different marks. Why? Because different student's understanding of the subject is different. That is why, some score high, some low, and some even fail. So, what you are saying above about Quran not open to misinterpretation, is not correct. It is not rational.

Yes. The verse says that moon has been created from the mind of Supreme Lord. Scriptures say that moon is the presiding deity of the mind.

I agree with you that many different persons have given different interpretations. Like I said above, you need to know the purpose of Vedas to understand them. You need to follow the literal to understand the spirit. Also, this you need to do under a guide or a spiritual master, who can help you whenever you are confused or have a doubt.

To become a doctor, I need to study medicine books. Studying books on my own, can I become a doctor? No. I need to study under the expert guidance of a teacher. If it is true for a mundane subject like medicine, why should we think we can understand Scriptures on our own reading? Scriptures are the science of God. It is not so cheap! We need to have a spiritual master who can guide us.

a) You set the literal standard.

b) By this standard interpretation mistake can only be if context is misunderstood. So I gave you the chance to explain. Please try again and remain in the literal context.

c) If you are going to follow Vedic scholars and eat point blank their interpretation then you can be lead a stray. The same way if you eat your teachers interpretation or news point blank without being fair and unbiased. If I followed some Muslim scholar point blank like other do today I could be led astray without even knowing.

 

[Rational_Mind]

If what you say was correct then right after death of prophet, muslims would not be divided in 2 groups who killed each other.

I am not supporting any group or any scripture.

The fact that some groups rose to bloodshed when it is clearly forbidden in the Holy Quran shows how much interpretation either bothered to do. There were groups that remained as righteous people and they also were killed. This has been analyzed over and over again where it shows the bloodshed was political motives.

There will remain sects as they are people who rejected reformers. The same way other religions rejected Prophets predicted in their own scriptures(in my opinion).

Other then that people are allowed to hold different interpretation (Quran says there can be many) and they can all have a disagreement on it although it would be very minor in nature. The fundamentals are set out so clear that there is no room for misinterpretation but it is rather rejection. The only restriction is that the interpretation must be in Harmony with the Quran.

Moreover reformers are sent to bring people back to unity. This was the purpose of Jesus (as) who united Jewish sects. Then later they themselves got divided. Then came the final law of the Holy Prophet (saw). And the essence of it is captured in this Hadith:

Prophethood shall remain among you as long as God wills. Then khilafat on the pattern of prophethood will commence and remain as long as He wills. A corrupt monarchy shall then follow and it shall remain as long as God wills. There shall then be a tyrannical despotism which shall remain as long as God wills. Then once again khilafat will emerge on the precept of prophethood. [Masnad-*Ahmad, Mishkat, Chapter Al-Anzar Wal Tahzir].

What holds togethers the Unity today is only found among those who accepted the Mahdi and Messiah reforming the Ummah like did Jesus (as). After his passing away Khilafat was established. Khilafat provides ultimate unity. The prophecy is that Muslims will accept the Prophet spoke about in the Quran and Hadith and form unity under Khilafat. Ofcourse there will remain some rejectors till the last days, but they would be insignificant in number.

What is most interesting is that Quran sets its standard for interpretation. I have not heard of this in other scriptures. If people do not bother to even follow this standard then how can it be blamed on the Quran.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

When you say "represent" then that is not literal.

Symbolic: Significant purely in terms of what is being represented or implied: "an important symbolic gesture".

Please take back literal interpretation and explain why the Moon isn't the Brahmanas as it was gendered from the mind.

Well, it seems you just want to prove your point and not understand what I am saying.

I will repeat:

Please provide the original sanskrit quote you are using. If the original quote uses 'represents' then, 'represents' IS 'literal' and not 'symbolic'.

Therefore 'literal' stays as 'represents'. If you want to dispute that, you must provide the original quote. Quoting any X,Y or Z's interpretation, does not make that interpretation correct. With due respect, the speaker in the link you provided, gave all false understanding. You cannot make such interpretations the basis of your arguments. You should, like you said for Quran, also take the preceding and later verses spoken along with the main verse in question, to understand the context and meaning.

Moon is manifested from the mind of Supreme Lord. Brahmanas represent the head of Supreme Lord in a society, which is compared to the body of Supreme Lord.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Father of holy hymns, Soma flows onward the Father of the earth, Father of heaven: Father of Agni, Sūrya's generator, the Father who begat Indra and Viṣṇu.

(Rig Veda 9, 96:5)

That is one answer. More?

Well Wilson does not translate as same as Griffith, wonder why????

The soma flows, the generator of praises, the generator of heaven and earth, the generator of agni, the generator of the sun, the generator of Indra and the generator of Vishnu.

The better word would have been producer, but who am i to complain.

Anyway generator does not in any way imply creation out of nothing nor does this mantra in the Samhita have anything which translates to "Creator" or even "Father", so i suggest you use a accurate translation.

God uses Prakriti to "generate" the Sun.

10 When they divided Purusha how many portions did they
make? What was his mouth? what were his arms? what are the
names of thighs and feet?
11 The Brâhman was his mouth, of both his arms was the
Râjanya made. His thighs became the Vaisya, from his feet the Sûdra was produced.
12 The Moon was gendered from his mind, and from his eye
the Sun had birth;

(Yajur-Veda, 31:12)

Correct translation is

The moon was engendered from his strength of knowledge, the sun was born from his knowledge of refulgence, the air of ten vital breaths were born from knowledge of space, fire was born from his knowledge of destruction.

it dosent say creation out of nothing nor does it say that somebody created the sun. Ishwar used hi Omniscience to form Parakriti into the sun, the process as i said science will tell you.
Translations by Devi Chund Yajur Veda Samhita published 2009.

Fire they endow with vital breath, Wind is compact, with vital breath:
With vital breath the Gods produced the Sun whose face turn every way.

(Atharva-Veda 19, 27:7)

This is the correct translation.

God, Combines and composes fire with air, The Air itself has been combined with vital breaths, and the luminous objects of nature are produced through prana, That fire, the Sun keeps on its front.

No creation out of nothing nor did Ishwar use his Hands. He used what was available, which i said is prakriti.

Translation of Sarvadeshik Arya prithinidhi Sabah

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Reference is in red, found the translation from Rig Veda, tr. by Ralph T.H. Griffith, [1896], at sacred-texts.com.

Let us not go around in circles. I will again repeat:

Vedas are the Science of God. Vedas are read to understand the Science of God. For that, I need to follow the prescribed rules and regulations. Till I do so, there is no meaning to my interpretation. Without knowing or following the rules of Islam, no roza, no namaaz, no ramzaan etc., can I read Quran, understand it and give a valid interpretation? You tell me!

Therefore, I again urge you not to base your faith and understanding of Vedas on such unauthorized interpretations.

Also which question did I miss.

You gave a verdict that Krishna is a Prophet of God and not God, from the literal interpretation I had provided for the verse. It is the same verse, which the person from audience had raised to the speaker, which he did not answer, in the link provided by you. Could you please prove your claim.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

a) You set the literal standard.


b) By this standard interpretation mistake can only be if context is misunderstood. So I gave you the chance to explain. Please try again and remain in the literal context.

c) If you are going to follow Vedic scholars and eat point blank their interpretation then you can be lead a stray. The same way if you eat your teachers interpretation or news point blank without being fair and unbiased. If I followed some Muslim scholar point blank like other do today I could be led astray without even knowing.

Please be specific. There is no question/query here that I see, except what you believe.

Do you even know the Sanskrit language to begin with? One word can have many meanings. Two or three words can combine to form one word. One has to be very careful in understanding the verses.

If I do not have the qualification to understand urdu or it's grammar, and I tell you how to read and interpret the verses of Quran, what would you think?

 

[atanu]

The fact that some groups rose to bloodshed when it is clearly forbidden in the Holy Quran shows how much interpretation either bothered to do. There were groups that remained as righteous people and they also were killed. This has been analyzed over and over again where it shows the bloodshed was political motives.

There will remain sects as they are people who rejected reformers. The same way other religions rejected Prophets predicted in their own scriptures(in my opinion).

Other then that people are allowed to hold different interpretation (Quran says there can be many) and they can all have a disagreement on it although it would be very minor in nature. The fundamentals are set out so clear that there is no room for misinterpretation but it is rather rejection. The only restriction is that the interpretation must be in Harmony with the Quran.

Moreover reformers are sent to bring people back to unity. This was the purpose of Jesus (as) who united Jewish sects. Then later they themselves got divided. Then came the final law of the Holy Prophet (saw). And the essence of it is captured in this Hadith:

Prophethood shall remain among you as long as God wills. Then khilafat on the pattern of prophethood will commence and remain as long as He wills. A corrupt monarchy shall then follow and it shall remain as long as God wills. There shall then be a tyrannical despotism which shall remain as long as God wills. Then once again khilafat will emerge on the precept of prophethood. [Masnad-*Ahmad, Mishkat, Chapter Al-Anzar Wal Tahzir].

What holds togethers the Unity today is only found among those who accepted the Mahdi and Messiah reforming the Ummah like did Jesus (as). After his passing away Khilafat was established. Khilafat provides ultimate unity. The prophecy is that Muslims will accept the Prophet spoke about in the Quran and Hadith and form unity under Khilafat. Ofcourse there will remain some rejectors till the last days, but they would be insignificant in number.

What is most interesting is that Quran sets its standard for interpretation. I have not heard of this in other scriptures. If people do not bother to even follow this standard then how can it be blamed on the Quran.

I do not understand what you wish to convey in this thread. I vaguely get a feeling that you are claiming supremacy of your 'Koran' vis-a-vis scriptures of other people.

 

[Rational_Mind]

Let us not go around in circles. I will again repeat:

Vedas are the Science of God. Vedas are read to understand the Science of God. For that, I need to follow the prescribed rules and regulations. Till I do so, there is no meaning to my interpretation. Without knowing or following the rules of Islam, no roza, no namaaz, no ramzaan etc., can I read Quran, understand it and give a valid interpretation? You tell me!

Therefore, I again urge you not to base your faith and understanding of Vedas on such unauthorized interpretations.

You gave a verdict that Krishna is a Prophet of God and not God, from the literal interpretation I had provided for the verse. It is the same verse, which the person from audience had raised to the speaker, which he did not answer, in the link provided by you. Could you please prove your claim.

Yes you can interpret the Quran fairly if you do it with honest intent. It defends itself against false interpretations. People have done such, moreover how do you think all those people who accept Islam all read namaz and fast first? There are many who just found the Quran so appealing that they felt this from a divine source. The beautiful thing about the Quran is that there are layers of meaning the the Holy Quran and it is a book for everyone. It is sufficient for any layman to read and for someone who want deeper understanding being more spiritual. You don't have to let go of logic when reading the Quran.

Why would God speak of a science different then what we observe. Why does God say one thing but do the other? So God equipped mankind with logic and the world follows logic but when God explains the world we would find that everything but logic is used. How can one possibly take such things as originating from God who does not seem to know logic. One has a complete right to have a doubt in a God that says one thing and does the other.

The answer of Krishna (as) being a Prophet lies in the symbolic perspectives. One symbol explained was flute player. The Alpha and Omega is also such, we find many scriptures to state the same. Yet all the people of such scriptures do not accept each others Gods. If you had some idea and had read outside just the Vedic Scriptures you would have understood how other scriptures use similar language. Although you don't have a background knowledge but I have to say that by your own standard you must also accept Jesus to be Son of God. But there is not much to explain if you do not understand symbolic language, this makes it very tough.

 

[Rational_Mind]

Well, it seems you just want to prove your point and not understand what I am saying.

I will repeat:

Please provide the original sanskrit quote you are using. If the original quote uses 'represents' then, 'represents' IS 'literal' and not 'symbolic'.

Therefore 'literal' stays as 'represents'. If you want to dispute that, you must provide the original quote. Quoting any X,Y or Z's interpretation, does not make that interpretation correct. With due respect, the speaker in the link you provided, gave all false understanding. You cannot make such interpretations the basis of your arguments. You should, like you said for Quran, also take the preceding and later verses spoken along with the main verse in question, to understand the context and meaning.

Moon is manifested from the mind of Supreme Lord. Brahmanas represent the head of Supreme Lord in a society, which is compared to the body of Supreme Lord.

Read your prior post where you used the word "represent" to explain the meaning of the verse.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Yes you can interpret the Quran fairly if you do it with honest intent. It defends itself against false interpretations.

How do you know the intention of the person you are quoting is honest? Even if it is honest, how is he qualified to comment on a spiritual subject? In a class, same things are taught by one teacher to all. The subject is understood differently by different students. All have an honest intentions. So, why do they score different marks?

Your logic is flawed here my friend.

People have done such, moreover how do you think all those people who accept Islam all read namaz and fast first?

Accepting Islam religion as divine is different. Having the required level of understanding and qualification to providing valid & meaningful interpretation of Quran is different. Don't you think so?

Do you know that only Brahmanas, who have gone the purificatory rites, could read & teach the Vedas in early times. It is a system to avoid misinterpretation of the Vedas. Vedas defends themselves against false interpretations in this way. So, what makes you think your speaker (on the link), and the person whose interpretations of Vedas you are using here, are maintaining the required standards to comment and expound on the Vedas? If an unqualified person makes a comment or false interpretation of the Vedas, how are Vedas responsible for the incorrect interpretation?

There are many who just found the Quran so appealing that they felt this from a divine source. The beautiful thing about the Quran is that there are layers of meaning the the Holy Quran and it is a book for everyone. It is sufficient for any layman to read and for someone who want deeper understanding being more spiritual. You don't have to let go of logic when reading the Quran.

There are many who find Bhagavad Gita so appealing that they feel it is from a divine source. So? Does that mean they have become qualified to provide a valid interpretation for Bhagavad Gita?

You yourself say there are layers in Quran. The layers are not in Quran. Layers are in levels of your understanding. As one understands more, he dives deeper into the meaning.

Thus, without necessary qualification, one can be drawn towards a scripture as divine, but that does not mean that he can can meaningfully interpret the scripture.

Interest in Gita as divine is a different thing and qualification to explain Gita is a different thing.

Again, your logic is flawed here.

To interpret Quran, I should first have studied it under someone who can clear my doubts. Someone qualified. Reading on my own, I can make mistakes. Thus, give a different meaning from the actual one, based on my level of understanding. It is true for all scriptures.

Why would God speak of a science different then what we observe. Why does God say one thing but do the other? So God equipped mankind with logic and the world follows logic but when God explains the world we would find that everything but logic is used. How can one possibly take such things as originating from God who does not seem to know logic. One has a complete right to have a doubt in a God that says one thing and does the other.

Why you are saying this, I do not understand. Is it not logical to follow what is written and preserve the sanctity of the literature, rather than twisting things to your convenience? Who said anything about a God who says one thing and does another?

The answer of Krishna (as) being a Prophet lies in the symbolic perspectives. One symbol explained was flute player. The Alpha and Omega is also such, we find many scriptures to state the same. Yet all the people of such scriptures do not accept each others Gods. If you had some idea and had read outside just the Vedic Scriptures you would have understood how other scriptures use similar language. Although you don't have a background knowledge but I have to say that by your own standard you must also accept Jesus to be Son of God. But there is not much to explain if you do not understand symbolic language, this makes it very tough.

There is nothing you have taken from the original verse I quoted. So, your interpretation is false. It is symbolic and not literal. You have only proved how symbolic interpretation can be different from actual, therefore should be avoided in order not to be mislead on the spiritual path.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Read your prior post where you used the word "represent" to explain the meaning of the verse.

Read my post again.

First, I had asked for the original Sanskrit quote.
Second, I had said 'represent' to explain the meaning; which I am maintaining even now. I know my scriptures a little.

I have only given a more detailed explanation for you to understand what I said.

 

[Rational_Mind]

Read my post again.

First, I had asked for the original Sanskrit quote.
Second, I had said 'represent' to explain the meaning; which I am maintaining even now. I know my scriptures a little.

I have only given a more detailed explanation for you to understand what I said.

Is it hard to lookup the Sanskrit quote when I reference it?

I cannot see how you don't understand what I mean. Have you studied English in North American High School. I am asking because you learn about symbolism and metaphoric language which they tend to avoid in other countries. I am sure that they would at least have gone over some shakespeare in other countries still.

At the MOMENT you used the word represent to explain one object (arms, legs, brain) there you applied symbolism. You left literal at that very moment. Moreover you never explained why the brain would not represent the intelligent class rather you chose the gods head.

 

[Rational_Mind]

How do you know the intention of the person you are quoting is honest? Even if it is honest, how is he qualified to comment on a spiritual subject? In a class, same things are taught by one teacher to all. The subject is understood differently by different students. All have an honest intentions. So, why do they score different marks?

Your logic is flawed here my friend.

Accepting Islam religion as divine is different. Having the required level of understanding and qualification to providing valid & meaningful interpretation of Quran is different. Don't you think so?

Do you know that only Brahmanas, who have gone the purificatory rites, could read & teach the Vedas in early times. It is a system to avoid misinterpretation of the Vedas. Vedas defends themselves against false interpretations in this way. So, what makes you think your speaker (on the link), and the person whose interpretations of Vedas you are using here, are maintaining the required standards to comment and expound on the Vedas? If an unqualified person makes a comment or false interpretation of the Vedas, how are Vedas responsible for the incorrect interpretation?

There are many who find Bhagavad Gita so appealing that they feel it is from a divine source. So? Does that mean they have become qualified to provide a valid interpretation for Bhagavad Gita?

You yourself say there are layers in Quran. The layers are not in Quran. Layers are in levels of your understanding. As one understands more, he dives deeper into the meaning.

Thus, without necessary qualification, one can be drawn towards a scripture as divine, but that does not mean that he can can meaningfully interpret the scripture.

Interest in Gita as divine is a different thing and qualification to explain Gita is a different thing.

Again, your logic is flawed here.

To interpret Quran, I should first have studied it under someone who can clear my doubts. Someone qualified. Reading on my own, I can make mistakes. Thus, give a different meaning from the actual one, based on my level of understanding. It is true for all scriptures.

Why you are saying this, I do not understand. Is it not logical to follow what is written and preserve the sanctity of the literature, rather than twisting things to your convenience? Who said anything about a God who says one thing and does another?

There is nothing you have taken from the original verse I quoted. So, your interpretation is false. It is symbolic and not literal. You have only proved how symbolic interpretation can be different from actual, therefore should be avoided in order not to be mislead on the spiritual path.

Islam teaches everyone to read the Holy Quran and get an understanding of it. Where you get stuck you can ask for help. I am open to see other peoples interpretation on verses and whether they are Muslims or Non-Muslims. In many question answer sessions people present their interpretation and ask if it is harmonious with our understanding. Sometimes the intent is honest and sometimes it is just not. The honest people have missed another verse and immediately understand. The others change the topic. We accept all interpretations as long as they are not conflicting the meanings of the words or other clear verses. It is not quite as challenging as you feel. I feel that there are sufficient clear verses in the Quran that a person can progress to a sufficient point of basic understanding. Past this they will likely need guidance through others or they can even pray to God.

Having one central book makes it simpler then interpreting Vedic Scriptures. Why don't you give it a try to see what similarities it has with Vedic Scriptures.

Do all people who follow Vedic Scriptures take literal meanings?

 

[Radiance]

Krishna & Allah are both the same ONE Supreme Lord.

Excuse me brother,please do not abuse Allah by comparing Him with krishna.Allah says in the Glorious Quran:

Surah 112. Al-Ikhlas
1. Say: He is Allah, the One!
2. Allah, the eternally Besought of all!
3. He begetteth not nor was begotten.
4. And there is none comparable unto Him.

Krishna ,by no means,stands to this test of theology,not even a whit,leave alone competing with Allah Almighty in divinity.Verily,there is no God but God Himself.


(I intend not to criticize your religion,but brother,was'nt krishna the same person who hindus themselves call as a 'butter-purlioner',wasn't he the same person who would watch women bathing secretly, , .....,how can he be regarded as Allah! didn't krishna have wives and didn't he have a human form?-----How can anyone dare to attribute such qualities to Almighty God.That is ridiculous!)Can such things as theft and shamelessness be atributed to Allah?ASTAGFIRULLAH!(I seek forgiveness from Allah on mine as well as your behalf,brother!May Allah help you to understand him if you wish to,Amen!)
Indeed what our ancestors have invented against God is shameless.Allah does not ordain shamelessness!
So please do not abuse Allah by comparing him to Krishna.AS Allah says,"There is nothing like unto him"

You know it is very easy to claim divinity.Thousands of men have in the past have done so and only Allah knows how many would do the same.The truth is that we are not powerful enough even to imagine Allah(ie Almighty God).We muslims do not claim Allah to have a specific form.We have not seen Allah but as Allah has promised in the Quran that He would definitely reveal His Countenance to us In case we are admitted to paradise after the day of judgement.On that day ,Allah says that people would crave to see His Blessed Face,Alhamdullilah.,


Was Krishna one and only_________NO
Was he Absolute and Eternal______NO
Is is incomparable________________NO
So Is Krishna ALLAH?______________________NOOOOOOO.......

Therefore, it is only fair He says the same thing in the Quoran & Bhagavad Gita. Wordings may be different according to the time, place & circumstance. Spirit is the same.

What I believe is that Allah has been sending messengers right from the outset to guide us.God's messengers came with a clear sign-some people chose to follow them whereas some refused pointblank.There are also some people who fabricated the message of God and changed its meaning for petty gains.Now the possibility is that Some of the text in the vedas could be the word of God.that's why some verses do liken to those in the Quran and are logical.(Infact if you study the authentic teachings of the Vedas,prophet Jesus and Moses and Muhammad ,peace be upon them all,their basics are strikingly similar----ie.the fundamental truth is the same--God is One,Set no parteners unto Him!We believe that The Bible(old and new tetaments) too is a word of God
but it has been fabricated over time.Allah did not intend to preserve those books for they were meant for those people to whom it was revealed and for that time.But the Final Testament-The Quran,was sent for the whole of mankind.Therefore,in the Quran, Allah has promised that he himself would preserve the Quran till the Judgement day and there you see-If u compare the Quran today with the Quran revealed 1400 yrs ago that is preserved at a museum,you would'nt find even the least difference of even a single word!Moreover,we believe that Allah can never make even a single mistake,that's why you find not even a single contradiction or misinformation in the Quran.Had this Quran been written or even fabricated by a humanbeing,would'nt we find countless errors in it?

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Is it hard to lookup the Sanskrit quote when I reference it?

You already know where it is, you can provide it easily, rather that me looking all over for it. Especially when you are the one making the claim. Burden of proof is on the one making the Claim.

I cannot see how you don't understand what I mean. Have you studied English in North American High School. I am asking because you learn about symbolism and metaphoric language which they tend to avoid in other countries. I am sure that they would at least have gone over some shakespeare in other countries still.

I just told you in my previous post - Shakespeare, poetry etc. on a material platform are different from that is on a spiritual platform. Why are you comparing the two again and again? Spiritual should be accepted literally to follow the spirit.

At the MOMENT you used the word represent to explain one object (arms, legs, brain) there you applied symbolism. You left literal at that very moment. Moreover you never explained why the brain would not represent the intelligent class rather you chose the gods head.

We have discussed this for too long. Try to understand what I am saying. If the original verse says that Brahman represents God's head; or, society represents God's body and Brahmans are His Head; then, the word 'represents' is literal and not symbolic. Follow my point? Asides I also just told you you cannot treat the commentary of someone as authentic till he is qualified to comment on the Vedas.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Islam teaches everyone to read the Holy Quran and get an understanding of it. Where you get stuck you can ask for help.

That is what I too am saying. One needs to have a teacher to help one understand the scriptures. Just reading on one's own, a person can come to wrong conclusions and misunderstand. Thus will misrepresent to others...even though intention is honest.

Having one central book makes it simpler then interpreting Vedic Scriptures. Why don't you give it a try to see what similarities it has with Vedic Scriptures.

There is a central book. Bhagavad Gita. If you want, you can find one authorized commentary on Bhagavad Gita, in line with our scriptures and in proper spiritual succession here: Bhagavad-gita As It Is

I am sure there will be a lot of similarities between Quran and Bhagavad Gita. We can compare two if you want

Please also notice how literal word-to-word meaning is given in the above Bhagavad Gita to avoid any misinterpretation which may mislead the readers.

One does not need to read the Vedas. He can read one book - the Bhagavad Gita. Bhagavad Gita is a commentary by Supreme Personality of Godhead - Krishna. It will suffice him.

Do all people who follow Vedic Scriptures take literal meanings?

Correct way is to take literal meanings. Look at the way Bhagavad Gita has been presented in the link given above.

Also, there are some qualifications needed to read the Vedas. Person should be a Brahman, he should have undergone purificatory process, he should be following the principles of religion etc. This is missing in our modern age. Therefore, you will find many commentaries on Vedas, and very few would be in accordance to the standards.

I repeat. You can read only one book - Bhagavad Gita. It will suffice for the Vedas, as it contains the essence of the Vedas. That is why it is sometimes referred to as the fifth Veda.

 

[Radiance]

Excuse me brother,please do not abuse Allah by comparing Him with krishna.Allah says in the Glorious Quran:

Surah 112. Al-Ikhlas
1. Say: He is Allah, the One!
2. Allah, the eternally Besought of all!
3. He begetteth not nor was begotten.
4. And there is none comparable unto Him.

Krishna ,by no means,stands to this test of theology,not even a whit,leave alone competing with Allah Almighty in divinity.Verily,there is no God but God Himself.


(I intend not to criticize your religion,but brother,was'nt krishna the same person who hindus themselves call as a 'butter-purlioner',wasn't he the same person who would watch women bathing secretly, , .....,how can he be regarded as Allah! didn't krishna have wives and didn't he have a human form?-
1 The Gita mentions an anecdote from Krishna's Adolescent life that is is plainly Erotic.It is known that while a group of young women called gopis are bathing naked in river yamuna,Krishna flees with their clothes thereby leaving them with no option but to come out completely naked.when the gopis come out of the water,concealing their private parts with their hands,krishna told them that they had offended the river god and that they must offer salutations to him by raising their hands and that then only could they take back their clothes.So Krishna decieved him and watched them shamlessly in their virgin state.

----How can anyone dare to attribute such qualities to Almighty God.That is ridiculous!)Can such things as theft and shamelessness be atributed to Allah?ASTAGFIRULLAH!(I seek forgiveness from Allah on mine as well as your behalf,brother!May Allah help you to understand him if you wish to,Amen!)
Indeed what our ancestors have invented against God is shameless.Allah does not ordain shamelessness but righteousness!
So please do not abuse Allah by comparing him to Krishna.AS Allah says,"There is nothing like unto him"

You know it is very easy to claim divinity.Thousands of men have in the past have done so and only Allah knows how many would do the same.The truth is that we are not powerful enough even to imagine Allah(ie Almighty God).We muslims do not claim Allah to have a specific form.We have not seen Allah but as Allah has promised in the Quran that He would definitely reveal His Countenance to us In case we are admitted to paradise after the day of judgement.On that day ,Allah says that people would crave to see His Blessed Face,Alhamdullilah.,


Was Krishna one and only_________NO
Was he Absolute and Eternal______NO
Is is incomparable________________NO
So Is Krishna ALLAH?______________________NOOOOOOO.......


What I believe is that Allah has been sending messengers right from the outset to guide us.God's messengers came with a clear sign-some people chose to follow them whereas some refused pointblank.There are also some people who fabricated the message of God and changed its meaning for petty gains.Now the possibility is that Some of the text in the vedas could be the word of God.that's why some verses do liken to those in the Quran and are logical.(Infact if you study the authentic teachings of the Vedas,prophet Jesus and Moses and Muhammad ,peace be upon them all,their basics are strikingly similar----ie.the fundamental truth is the same--God is One,Set no parteners unto Him!We believe that The Bible(old and new tetaments) too is a word of God
but it has been fabricated over time.Allah did not intend to preserve those books for they were meant for those people to whom it was revealed and for that time.But the Final Testament-The Quran,was sent for the whole of mankind.Therefore,in the Quran, Allah has promised that he himself would preserve the Quran till the Judgement day and there you see-If u compare the Quran today with the Quran revealed 1400 yrs ago that is preserved at a museum,you would'nt find even the least difference of even a single word!Moreover,we believe that Allah can never make even a single mistake,that's why you find not even a single contradiction or misinformation in the Quran.Had this Quran been written or even fabricated by a humanbeing,would'nt we find countless errors in it?

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Was Krishna one and only_________NO
Was he Absolute and Eternal______NO
Is is incomparable________________NO
So Is Krishna ALLAH?______________________NOOOOOOO.......

LOL!
Do you know the Bhagavad Gita? Do you know Hindu religion? I see you have no knowledge of our scriptures. I can refute all your claims, but see you already have a biased opinion. Therefore, your post does not qualify of my comments.

Still I will say one thing:

If I say you are not a human, you are a toad. Will it make you one? Similarly, your comments are absurd. If you say Krishna is not God, it does not change the fact that He is God!

 

[Radiance]

LOL!
Do you know the Bhagavad Gita? Do you know Hindu religion? I see you have no knowledge of our scriptures. I can refute all your claims, but see you already have a biased opinion. Therefore, your post does not qualify of my comments.

To understand the flaws,you do not have to be the scholar of hinduism.Even a layman who reads the scripture would be able to distinguish btw veracity and mendacity.
Anyways,brother,I think I must apologize for the tone that I used in my earlier pst.Look,I do not intend to criticize your beliefs or religion.That is unislamic and Allah clearly forbids us to revile those Gods which you worship instead or besides Him lest in your Ignorance you revile Allah.So I am sorry for criticizing krishna whom you consider to be God.
But think brother,plz think,how can we attribute ungodly characteristics as shamelessness ,eroticism,stealing to Almighty God.Verily,our abusing Allah would not at all harm Him,but it would harm us only!It is our fortune that Allah chose to create us,have mercy on us.And what are we doing?---setting unworthy parteners with him in worship,we are ridiculing him,do you think brother that this would please Allah?

Anyways,whatever you choose to believe,that's your freedom.But plz take care not to call Krishna as ALLAH.That is really offending !
You are accountable for your actions and me for mine,And ALLAH suffices as Witness!

If you say Krishna is not God, it does not change the fact that He is God!

How can Krishna be regarded as God when he posesses just the human characteristics.{would you ever choose to watch pornography,?if u r a modest person,I am sure u d say NO,then how would God be wanting to watch nude females-----My hands shiver as I even type this,leave alone cosidering Allah to be such.By ALLAH,I would Rather walk on red hot smouldering coal or jump into blazing fire rather than abuse Allah or associate parteners with Him when He alone created us!



Allaah says what means, “Verily, Allaah forgives not (the sin of) setting up
partners (in worship) with Him, but He forgives whom He wills, sins other
than that, and whoever sets up partners in worship with Allaah, has indeed
strayed far away.” (An-Nisaa’: 116).

But yet,I continue to pray for you brother,I know You as a Hindu believe
your religion to be the right one.Similarly,I as a muslim believe islam to be the right religion.Let's leave aside the differences.Atleast let's agree upon the concept of God.Note one thing that as long as one is biased,he can never reach the truth.Alright,brother,leave aside Islam,I would like to give you an advice,A SINCERE ADVICE-take it as an advice from a sister in humanity:
By Allah,if I had a brother ,I would want him to do the same.Try it sincerely atleast for a weak,InshaAllah it would work:
o)Ponder over your religion.Do not accept anything blindly.Accept only that which appeals to your logic and grave that in mind.

1)Leave every religion aside(including your own!),first clear your mind and convince yourself that you are earnest seeking for God,whosoever He is,wherever He is!

2)First off,eliminate any evil influences that might delude you from your mission.

3)Stay away from idols(do this atleast for a weak)
Make your mind blank.

4)Now go to a place of solitude where you are alone.Fall down on your knees
and cry,cry and cry.Ask the One true God,cry to Him,tell him everything,verily He is ALL_KNOWING,ALL-SEEING and ALL-HEARING.

5)NEVER despise of his mercy,Be patient and Ask Him and Him alone for guidance.Make sure your intentions are sincere and unbiased otherwise this ia a futile exercise.Seeing your jihad(struggle,ie.),God will surely open up your pathways.

6)Try to seek knowledge of God,ReMEMBER,Any created thing can never be the CREATOR.

7)Try to ponder over the fragile nature of man and the world.For this you can visit the sick people,cemetries etc.These things keep on reminding us of how weak we actually are!


LASTLY,SUPLICATE A LOT ,CRY AS MUCH AS YOU CAN,PROSTATE BEFORE THE LORLD OF THE WORLDS even though you do not see him,he will make you see his signs,MAKE SINCERE LOGICAL EFFORTS TO FIND HIM and the rest is

TRUST HIM...............InshaALLAH



peace !