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

[paarsurrey]

As far as I know, only one is. For sure there is only one who is vocal about it.

One is very vocal, a strong Atheist, and there could be others who are Agnostics/Skeptics/Humanists etc.

Regards

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Quran guides us.
For instance, Christianity, Quran tell us the real teachings of Jesus.

You dismiss the New Testament accounts of Jesus' crucifixion, death & resurrection because they were written hundreds of years after the events they describe, yet have no problem believing the Quranic account even though it was written far more remotely from the events in question.

Your 'logic' is rather inconsistent.

From it we know as to what the Christians have done with Word Revealed on Jesus. So, we don't have to go by what the Christianity say we go by what the inner evidence of NT Bible says.

I doubt you "go by the inner evidence of NT Bible". I suspect you just superimpose your own religious beliefs and the writings of the Quran onto the Biblical texts.

If one read Gathas one likes it and one knows it is from G-d and Zoroaster received Word of Revelation from G-d.

How much of the Gathas have you read? I and just about every Zoroastrian here can tell you that the Gathas are hymns written by Zoroaster, addressed to Ahura Mazda; not the other way around.

 

[LuisDantas]

(...)

If one reads Bhagwad Gita, one enjoys reading it, one knows it is from G-d. If one read Gathas one likes it and one knows it is from G-d and Zoroaster received Word of Revelation from G-d. Try it and find it yourselves. These are not very voluminous books and are available online.
When you finish, ask me questions in this thread. I will elaborate for you.
No disrespect intended to anybody, I have just shared my experience with a friend. Please
Regards

You know what, @paarsurrey ? I think you may be more correct than you realize. Although I will still disagree.

If God is the personification, source or First Cause of that which is sacred, then sure, it must logically follow that pretty much anything that serves to facilitate constructive religious inspiration must come from God. Be it scripture, personal interaction, random insight, self-developed wisdom or anything else. That which furthers the perception and expression of the Sacred will be what it is, regardless of our expectations.

It does not however follow that those will be consistent across various people, or that the attribution is necessarily meaningful. It does not even follow that God exists as such. Positive inspiration exists, but it may well not have been meant to. There is considerable evidence that what works for some simply will not work for others.

I realize that the existence of a God with a Will is self-evident for you. That may be the main and IMO ultimately minor disagreement that exists between you and me. You expect far too much to follow from your certainty of God's existence. I am sorry for that, because it seems to distract you from more important matters.

 

[LuisDantas]

One is very vocal, a strong Atheist, and there could be others who are Agnostics/Skeptics/Humanists etc.

Regards

Everyone should be at least prepared to be an agnostic, a skeptic and a humanist. That is quite independent from any stances on god-belief.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Quran guides us.
For instance, Christianity, Quran tell us the real teachings of Jesus. From it we know as to what the Christians have done with Word Revealed on Jesus. So, we don't have to go by what the Christianity say we go by what the inner evidence of NT Bible says. One gets to know the reality that Quran has unfolded. If one reads Bhagwad Gita, one enjoys reading it, one knows it is from G-d. If one read Gathas one likes it and one knows it is from G-d and Zoroaster received Word of Revelation from G-d. Try it and find it yourselves. These are not very voluminous books and are available online.
When you finish, ask me questions in this thread. I will elaborate for you.
No disrespect intended to anybody, I have just shared my experience with a friend. Please
Regards

That doesn't exactly answer my question. Let me try rephrasing it. How do you define a 'revealed' religion?

Wrt what you say above, how does the Qur'aan guide us to the idea that the Gita or the Gathas (both of which I have read many times, and have a lot of respect for) are Revelations from God?

Also, you seem to be saying that because one enjoys reading the Gita or the Gathas, one knows it is from God? Is this what you are saying?

 

[Madhuri]

Friend Madhuri !
Would you kindly let me know the most accurate English Translation of Rigveda, online, from the Hinduism perspective? Please
Regards

Unfortunately I do not think that there is any very reliable English translation of the Rigveda. But perhaps others might know of a source that I am not aware of.

 

[paarsurrey]

Unfortunately I do not think that there is any very reliable English translation of the Rigveda. But perhaps others might know of a source that I am not aware of.

Thanks and regards

 

[paarsurrey]

You know what, @paarsurrey ? I think you may be more correct than you realize. Although I will still disagree.
If God is the personification, source or First Cause of that which is sacred, then sure, it must logically follow that pretty much anything that serves to facilitate constructive religious inspiration must come from God. Be it scripture, personal interaction, random insight, self-developed wisdom or anything else. That which furthers the perception and expression of the Sacred will be what it is, regardless of our expectations.
It does not however follow that those will be consistent across various people, or that the attribution is necessarily meaningful. It does not even follow that God exists as such. Positive inspiration exists, but it may well not have been meant to. There is considerable evidence that what works for some simply will not work for others.
I realize that the existence of a God with a Will is self-evident for you. That may be the main and IMO ultimately minor disagreement that exists between you and me. You expect far too much to follow from your certainty of God's existence. I am sorry for that, because it seems to distract you from more important matters.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has expressly mentioned that G-d does talk to the righteous persons the same way like a friend talks with another friends conveyaning actual words and such a dialogue could take much time in conversation.
Quran also mentions it in a way and gives clues to it.
Do you mean to quote from him ? Please

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Quran guides us.
For instance, Christianity, Quran tell us the real teachings of Jesus.

You dismiss the New Testament accounts of Jesus' crucifixion, death & resurrection because they were written hundreds of years after the events they describe, yet have no problem believing the Quranic account even though it was written far more remotely from the events in question.
Your 'logic' is rather inconsistent.

You are simply wrong, please.
Did I ever say it? Please
Kindly quote from me, if I ever said it.
My observation is based on the inner-evidence of NT Bible for Christianity and on inner evidence of Torah for Judaism and on inner-evidence of Gathas for the Zoroastrians, so on and so forth. Please
Regards

 

[MD]

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

How many Indians, Pakistanis, Afghanis and Indonesians understand even basic Arabic? How many understand ancient classical Arabic?

Heck how many Arabs understand the Arabic of the Quran fully?

I'd be willing to wager not too many.

 

[sayak83]

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

Sorry!
It is just a question, an innocent one, please. And I asked it because Hinduism people, even the one whom I thought are scholars of Hinduism, they stated in some posts here in RF that even they have not read all the Hinduism scriptures, and they cannot do it even if they tried their whole life, somewhat like that. It was an amazing disclosure for my utter bewilderment , believe me. Hence the question. Peace
Regards

No we don't because we have them already. They are basically
1) Upanisads (called the essence of the Vedas..Vedanta)
2) Gita (Song of God. summary of theistic Vedanta)
3) Nyayasutra (axioms of Nyaya)
4) Brahmasutra (axioms of monistic Vedanta)
5) Yogasutra (axioms of Yoga)
6) Vaisesika Sutra (axioms of Vaisesika)
7) Mimansa sutra (axioms of Mimansa)
8) Tantrasara (essence of Tantra)

Apologize if I have missed a few. All of these are fairly brief works highlighting different theologies and philosophies in Hinduism extracted from Vedas and broader Indic tradition. First you read them, and depending on interest read their expansions and commentary.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You dismiss the New Testament accounts of Jesus' crucifixion, death & resurrection because they were written hundreds of years after the events they describe, yet have no problem believing the Quranic account even though it was written far more remotely from the events in question.

Dude, not hundreds of years after! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible#Table_IV:_New_Testament

 

[paarsurrey]

No we don't because we have them already. They are basically
1) Upanisads (called the essence of the Vedas..Vedanta)
2) Gita (Song of God. summary of theistic Vedanta)
3) Nyayasutra (axioms of Nyaya)
4) Brahmasutra (axioms of monistic Vedanta)
5) Yogasutra (axioms of Yoga)
6) Vaisesika Sutra (axioms of Vaisesika)
7) Mimansa sutra (axioms of Mimansa)
8) Tantrasara (essence of Tantra)

Apologize if I have missed a few. All of these are fairly brief works highlighting different theologies and philosophies in Hinduism extracted from Vedas and broader Indic tradition. First you read them, and depending on interest read their expansions and commentary.

A summary only a person can make if he had first read the whole. Please name the person who had read all the Hinduism scripture. Right? Please.
Have you read the whole Hinduism scripture yourself to confirm that the summary has been accurately prepared. Right? Please.
Why 8 summaries? Why none just 1 (one)? Please
In the wake of the above"we have them already" is fishy from a "secular"? Right? Please
By summary I would mean to be one page summary, not the whole lot of summaries, as you have suggested.
If you don't have one or cannot prepare one, just let me know, Please. One can borrow from me for a while, please,freely.

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

Parrsurrey, you keep asking why the Vedas are not the Qur'an. They just aren't. They never had to be nearly as similar to the Qur'an as you expect them to be.

A summary only a person can make if he had first read the whole.

Hardly. They are, after all, eight different volumes. That means that they need no single author.

But above all, I think you are disregarding one of Hinduism's main assets: its lines of transmission. It is a living tradition which values its sages and their marvelous ability to keep the Dharma flowing and vital.

Please name the person who had read all the Hinduism scripture. Right? Please.

There is no need for any such person to exist. Do you understand that?

Have you read the whole Hinduism scripture yourself to confirm that the summary has been accurately prepared. Right? Please.

Oh, Paarsurrey. You so miss the point. Hindus are not enslaved by their scriptures. They feel no need to validate their practice with vows of being "true to the Vedas", certainly not to the extent that Muslims feel bound to the Qur'an.

You are expecting an apple to be a coconut, and asking people to tell you where is the juice cavity of that apple. Hinduism is simply not supposed to have such an attitude towards its own scripture.

Why 8 summaries? Why none just 1 (one)? Please

Because they are eight fairly separate subjects, for one. Among other advantages, it allows people to benefit from a variety of styles and perspectives, and to shape their religious practice according to their personal inclinations.

In the wake of the above"we have them already" is fishy from a "secular"? Right? Please

Sigh. Islam truly teaches people to mistrust secularism, doesn't it? It is one of its most glaring flaws.

By summary I would mean to be one page summary, not the whole lot of summaries, as you have suggested.
If you don't have one or cannot prepare one, just let me know, Please. One can borrow from me for a while, please,freely.

Regards

You want an extremely condensed summary of Hinduism, is that it? Does the content of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism suffice?

 

[paarsurrey]

Parrsurrey, you keep asking why the Vedas are not the Qur'an. They just aren't. They never had to be nearly as similar to the Qur'an as you expect them to be.
Hardly. They are, after all, eight different volumes. That means that they need no single author.
But above all, I think you are disregarding one of Hinduism's main assets: its lines of transmission. It is a living tradition which values its sages and their marvelous ability to keep the Dharma flowing and vital.
There is no need for any such person to exist. Do you understand that?
Oh, Paarsurrey. You so miss the point. Hindus are not enslaved by their scriptures. They feel no need to validate their practice with vows of being "true to the Vedas", certainly not to the extent that Muslims feel bound to the Qur'an.
You are expecting an apple to be a coconut, and asking people to tell you where is the juice cavity of that apple. Hinduism is simply not supposed to have such an attitude towards its own scripture.
Because they are eight fairly separate subjects, for one. Among other advantages, it allows people to benefit from a variety of styles and perspectives, and to shape their religious practice according to their personal inclinations.
Sigh. Islam truly teaches people to mistrust secularism, doesn't it? It is one of its most glaring flaws.
You want an extremely condensed summary of Hinduism, is that it? Does the content of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism suffice?

Like it has always happens I grossly differ with you on every point. Still I like your sincere analysis.
"Parrsurrey, you keep asking why the Vedas are not the Qur'an"
I never asked it . Did I?
Well, you mean, I mean that.
But I even don't mean that. Please
Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

Like it has always happens I grossly differ with you on every point.

Every single one? Even the questions I asked?

Still I like your sincere analysis.

Thanks.

"Parrsurrey, you keep asking why the Vedas are not the Qur'an"
I never asked it . Did I?

It sure feels that way to me.

Well, you mean, I mean that.
But I even don't mean that. Please
Regards

Regards to you, @paarsurrey .

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Dude, not hundreds of years after! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible#Table_IV:_New_Testament

Okay, fair enough. The table (which is very handy, thank you) itself says the earliest known fragment of any of the first four Gospels is between 125-160CE for John. That's still at least 100 years after the supposed events in question - well beyond the human lifespan of people living at that age. Heck, it's beyond the average lifespan of the people living now.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

You are simply wrong, please.
Did I ever say it? Please
Kindly quote from me, if I ever said it.

I am wrong. Not only can I not find a post of yours saying such, I've found a post of yours where you express the opinion that the New Testament was written while Jesus travelled to India after the crucifixion. I apologise for my false claim.

My observation is based on the inner-evidence of NT Bible for Christianity and on inner evidence of Torah for Judaism and on inner-evidence of Gathas for the Zoroastrians, so on and so forth. Please
Regards

I'm more interested in your claim for the Gathas since others have already addressed the claims about the New Testament. The Gathas are written specifically from Zoroaster's perspective. I'm amazed you haven't asked me to "quote from Zoroaster in support of this view" yet - which I will now do.

Here is Yasna 28, the first of Zoroaster's songs, in its entirety:

Verse 1: I pray to Thee, O Mazda, with uplifted hands, and to thy Holy Spirit, first of all and hope that through truths and righteousness I would enjoy the light of wisdom and a clean conscience, thus bringing solace to the Soul of (Mother Earth) Creation.
Verse 2: I shall, verily, approach and succeed in seeing Thee, O Mazda Ahura (Lord of Wisdom and Creator of Life) through pure mind and enlightened heart. O, Creator, do grant me in both worlds, corporeal as well as spiritual, the recompense which can be achieved only through truthfulness and would make happy the faithful ones.
Verse 3: O, Mazda, O, Asha and Vohuman, (symbols of truth, purity, good thought and love towards humanity) I shall now sing songs which have not so far been heard by anyone. I hope that through Asha, Vohuman and ever-lasting Khashathra (symbols of strength and will of the Almighty), the faith and self-sacrifice would increase in our hearts. O, Almighty God, please accept our wishes, come at our call and grant us bliss.
Verse 4: I shall lead my soul towards heaven by pure thought, and being well aware of the blessings which the Almighty, Ahura, shall pour down upon good deeds, I shall teach the people to strive for truth and follow righteousness.
Verse 5: O, Asha, the symbol of truthfulness and purity, when shall I see thee? O, Vohuman, the symbol of good thought, shall I be able to recognize Thee through heavenly knowledge and true wisdom? Would I be able to approach the Wise and Mighty Lord of Life by obeying Sraosha, the voice of Conscience. May I be able to guide those who have gone astray towards the highest path, i.e. the path of truth and monotheism, through sacred words and eloquence of speech.
Verse 6: O, Lord, come towards us through Vohuman and Asha (pure thought and truth) according to Thy sacred words and grant us long enduring life. O, wise Ahura, grant Zarathushtra and his friends the spiritual strength and joy, so that they may overcome the hatred of their enemies.
Verse 7: Grant us, O Asha, the blessings which flow from pure thought. Grant, O, Armaiti, Vistaspas every wish and my followers as well O Mazda, Lord of Wisdom, grant your devoted adherents strength, so that your holy teachings may be taught to the world at large.
Verse 8: O, Lord of Life, of one-accord with Asha and Highest of All, I pray to Thee yearningly to bestow paradise upon Frashaoshtra and my friends and those endowed with pure mind as well, through all eternity.
Verse 9: O, Ahura Mazda, I constantly strive to offer you my sincere songs of praise and shall never provoke Asha and Vohuman, symbols of righteousness and purity of mind, since I know that Asha, Vohuman and mighty Khashathra are worthy of praise.
Verse 10: O, Mazda Ahura (Lord of wisdom and Life) fulfill the desires of those whom you know to be upright and enlightened, because of their purity of mind and truthfulness. I believe that no prayers offered devotedly to Thee by sincere persons with high and noble objectives shall remain unanswered on your part.
Verse 11: Through those prayers may I enjoy their gifts of Asha and Vohuman (truth and purity of mind). Do Thou, O Mazda, Ahura, instruct me Thyself through Thy spirit and knowledge whence did the creation came into being first, so that I may proclaim it to the world


It's written by Zoroaster in the first-person. By that I mean he refers to himself using "I", "me" & "my". I'm not sure what "inner evidence of the Gathas" means beyond simple confirmation bias and exegesis heavily influenced by pre-supposing that whichever self-proclaimed Mahdi who said this was right.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Okay, fair enough. The table (which is very handy, thank you) itself says the earliest known fragment of any of the first four Gospels is between 125-160CE for John. That's still at least 100 years after the supposed events in question - well beyond the human lifespan of people living at that age. Heck, it's beyond the average lifespan of the people living now.

It's the scholarly consensus on when it was written that you want to look at. Mark was written in 68-70 AD.

 

[paarsurrey]

I am wrong. Not only can I not find a post of yours saying such, I've found a post of yours where you express the opinion that the New Testament was written while Jesus travelled to India after the crucifixion. I apologise for my false claim..

Thank for your acknowledgement. Please
Regards