So? There is still only one Veda. Tolkien wrote one The Lord of the Rings. His publisher asked him to split it into three sections but there is still only one The Lord of the Rings.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Don't the Hinduism (Dharmic) people need a concise Scripture?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
So? There is still only one Veda. Tolkien wrote one The Lord of the Rings. His publisher asked him to split it into three sections but there is still only one The Lord of the Rings.
gnostic
The Lost One
What an obnoxious thing to say.
All religions are man-made, regardless if they are revealed or not, including that of Islam and Ahmadiyya.
Muhammad himself led raids and robbed caravans in 623-624, which make him a robber, all because some people rejected him as a prophet. That vindictive and petty, and make him a poor role-model.
... which is a main reason why many, myself included, don't call Hinduism by that name.
buddhist
Well-Known Member
The difference between Dharmic religions and most other world religions is that the Dharmic ones see Reality itself as the "final word". The various texts and words are merely commentary on Reality itself, with differing degrees of worth. So, there can be countless texts, as they are all commentaries. Another metaphor would be that these texts are simply maps pointing to Reality.
On the other hand, the other religions seem to generally consider their texts (e.g. Torah, Bible, Koran, etc.) the "final word".
A huge difference in perspective.
On the other hand, the other religions seem to generally consider their texts (e.g. Torah, Bible, Koran, etc.) the "final word".
A huge difference in perspective.
It befuddles me some days at the total emphasis put on scripture 'over there.' It seems that almost all answers start out with ... "Well, let's look at what scripture says ..." We're more likely to say ... "Well, I think ...." and that comes form experience, common sense, intuitive thinking, what we learned for our teachers orally, etc. It really is a huge difference, as you say. Irreconcilable, I would say. Just look at how far this discussion has moved on either side.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Don't the Hinduism (Dharmic) people need a concise Scripture?
Originally there was only One-Veda, so my intentions may please taken very positively, especially when I am not writing or translating any text of the Hinduism people or Dharmic Scripture.
One may like to read the following in this connection:
1. “Formerly, i.e. in the Krita age, there was only on Veda, the sacred monosyllable om, the essence of all words, i.e. that which is the seed of all words; and there was only one god, Narayana; only one fire, , that for common use; and only caste the Hansa.”
“Original Sanskrit Texts on the Origin and History of the People of India , their Religion and Institutions”
edited by John Muir- page 48 volume III
2. "There was, they add, only one Veda at first, and when they hymns comprised in it were classified, those which did not refer to sacrifices were put together, and these constitute a separate class. Thus, “the Veda,” says Madhusudana Sarasvati, “ is divided into Rich,Yajush, and Sama for the purpose of carrying out sacrifice under its three different forms. The duties of the Hotri priests are performed with Rigveda, those of Adhvaryu priests with the Yajur-veda, those of the Udgatri priests with the Sama-Veda. The duties of the Brhahman and sacrifice are contained in all the three."
Page 2-3
“Gopatha Bráhmana of the Atharva Veda: In the original Sanskrit” Edited by HARCHANDRA VIDYABHUSHNA
Regards
Originally there was only One-Veda, so my intentions may please taken very positively, especially when I am not writing or translating any text of the Hinduism people or Dharmic Scripture.
One may like to read the following in this connection:
1. “Formerly, i.e. in the Krita age, there was only on Veda, the sacred monosyllable om, the essence of all words, i.e. that which is the seed of all words; and there was only one god, Narayana; only one fire, , that for common use; and only caste the Hansa.”
“Original Sanskrit Texts on the Origin and History of the People of India , their Religion and Institutions”
edited by John Muir- page 48 volume III
2. "There was, they add, only one Veda at first, and when they hymns comprised in it were classified, those which did not refer to sacrifices were put together, and these constitute a separate class. Thus, “the Veda,” says Madhusudana Sarasvati, “ is divided into Rich,Yajush, and Sama for the purpose of carrying out sacrifice under its three different forms. The duties of the Hotri priests are performed with Rigveda, those of Adhvaryu priests with the Yajur-veda, those of the Udgatri priests with the Sama-Veda. The duties of the Brhahman and sacrifice are contained in all the three."
Page 2-3
“Gopatha Bráhmana of the Atharva Veda: In the original Sanskrit” Edited by HARCHANDRA VIDYABHUSHNA
Regards
buddhist
Well-Known Member
Indeed, it seems there is a general lack of understanding of the various core perspectives on "scripture".
The difference in perspectives also explain the differing outer expressions of religion.
The Dharmic ones, IMO, would say that scriptures/texts/people/etc. should conform to Reality and it's Laws; and, as long as you're trying to follow Reality, then feel free to disagree with prior, established texts. It provides a fertile ground for diverse (yet harmonious) expression, as we can see in India and Hinduism today, for example.
On the other hand, those with relatively fixed scriptures, e.g. Abrahamics, would demand that reality/other texts/people should conform to their scriptures. We can all see and imagine what happens as a result of this perspective.
Last edited:
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Every Hindu sect could make its own Concise or Compressed Scriptures, if they like, on the same pattern and lines as we will suggest so that everybody of their sect benefits from it. Reading it will strengthen them in their faith and religion in totality will become stronger than having no-faith altogether. Right? Please
Regards
Yes, it explains a lot. I no longer hold high expectations. At one time I figured you could explain it, but not so much any more. Look at this thread for example, although certainly our friend Paarsurrey doesn't represent all of Abrahamism. Several people have attempted to explain it and been rather patient I must say. Still, our friend just continues to regurgitate the same old story. We have several hundred leaders of sects, heads of ashrams, heads of organisations, representing nearly a billion people in inner and outer ways, the true spirit of Sanatana Dharma. Still, a non-dharmic non-Hindu feels his duty is to advise us (all 3 who are still listening) until his fingers get sore. It's sad, actually.
What is your fixation and obsession with changing the texts of a religion you don't follow?
You know Paarsurry, that the Complete Works of Sri Aurobindo is 10 or more long volumes. Nothing is small. I study my own Guru's teachings every day. There are 3 books, and daily lesson. So the teachings within my rather small sect is vast. If we add the Purana, the Agamas, and more and more, the works of individual Gurus, the Vedas become 100 times longer.
But here is a concise and funny abbreviated form of the Vedas, the Koran, the Torah, the I Ching, and all other scriptures combined in all of the several hundred world religions.
It says ... 'Don't be a jerk." Pretty good concise summary, wouldn't you say?
buddhist
Well-Known Member
Your premises are all wrong.
The Dharmic religions are not - at their core - faith-based religions, where texts are to be blindly believed, and (in result), a concise text would be highly valued.
The Dharmic scriptures are instead only starting points, to be worked out by the disciple, for personal realization.
When you can understand this, you might begin to see why a "concise text" might actually be contrary to our religions.
much less understand.
Sees
Dragonslayer
@paarsurrey
Scripture tends to be so important to "revealed" religion because there is a founder/organization to submit to/believe in. Whether seen as speaking for, representing, etc. deities, angels, aliens, whatever...it doesn't change this need for pledge of belief in _____ person/s. The savior, prophet, king, chosen-one to be heard and followed.
They are doctrinal groups - dependent on acceptance of key beliefs - disseminated and solidified by...writings, and usually a good amount of preaching. They seek new hosts to legitimize their purpose and to blank out contrary ways of seeing/living/being. Without which, the message of the founder/organization is powerless and pointless. Without presentation as the latest and greatest or the only true - likewise it would insufficient. Is the need to vilify the "non-revealed' even understood or just taken as a given? Related to the political disturbances and atrocities of the "revealed", grasping for all-encompassing numbers and power without understanding the why?
Simplest way is to just accept it isn't applicable to ethnic/ancestral/folk traditions. They are a completely different animal. Calling them all "religions" without respect to this probably just adds confusion to popular education. If the Islam 2.0 groups/adherents simply saw Hinduism as pagan, "non-revealed" traditions - it would make the awkward situation go away.
Hinduism is an altered version of Islam about as much as ancient Rome was an altered version of Las Vegas. Don't think this will ever make sense unless you allow your self to color outside the lines.
Scripture tends to be so important to "revealed" religion because there is a founder/organization to submit to/believe in. Whether seen as speaking for, representing, etc. deities, angels, aliens, whatever...it doesn't change this need for pledge of belief in _____ person/s. The savior, prophet, king, chosen-one to be heard and followed.
They are doctrinal groups - dependent on acceptance of key beliefs - disseminated and solidified by...writings, and usually a good amount of preaching. They seek new hosts to legitimize their purpose and to blank out contrary ways of seeing/living/being. Without which, the message of the founder/organization is powerless and pointless. Without presentation as the latest and greatest or the only true - likewise it would insufficient. Is the need to vilify the "non-revealed' even understood or just taken as a given? Related to the political disturbances and atrocities of the "revealed", grasping for all-encompassing numbers and power without understanding the why?
Simplest way is to just accept it isn't applicable to ethnic/ancestral/folk traditions. They are a completely different animal. Calling them all "religions" without respect to this probably just adds confusion to popular education. If the Islam 2.0 groups/adherents simply saw Hinduism as pagan, "non-revealed" traditions - it would make the awkward situation go away.
Hinduism is an altered version of Islam about as much as ancient Rome was an altered version of Las Vegas. Don't think this will ever make sense unless you allow your self to color outside the lines.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
One aspect is that I belong to the same region as most Hinduism people belong to, I mean the Indian-sub-continent.
Another is that my ancestors, five six generation before, belonged to Hinduism or the Dharmic Religions.
And there are many such aspects. But there will be no compulsion to read it for anybody or everybody. I believe many people would love to read it.
Aren't the "Sacred Texts" done by the Western-Orientalists so beneficial and popular?
So anybody could do a beneficial work for humanity.
Regards
You should undo the wrong then. Come back! Contact your local Arya Samaj and they will do a special ceremony for you. Your ancestores would have been forcefully taken away from the Dharma. You can help undo that wrong.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
One is simply wrong.
The revealed religions don't have to believe anything blindly. Did Buddha believe anything blindly? I don't agree with one:
[25:72] And those who repent and do good deeds, indeed turn to Allah with true repentance;
[25:73] And those who bear not false witness, and when they pass by anything vain, they pass on with dignity;
[25:74] And those who, when they are reminded of the Signs* of their Lord, fall not deaf and blind thereat;
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=25&verse=73
*verses
One must be talking about the non-believing people. Right? Please
Regards
None of that gives you the right to adulterate the holy writings of another religion or to suggest that they are somehow deficient. I wouldn't have the temerity or effrontery to do that to the Quran.
No, not in the way you're talking about or for the reasons you're talking about.