Fair enough. But how does that connect to the original question?
There may well be a significant link, but I honestly fail to see it at all.
-
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
There may well be a significant link, but I honestly fail to see it at all.
Hinduism IMHO is not a scripture even though I am deeply attached to the Ramayana (a “scripture” but also a history book). Let me give the example of Ramayana – to me and from the temples and teachers and savants and bhajans and leelas and rasas and travels and adventures and smells and tastes and sounds and sights and the rivers and the trees and the animal kingdom and the Demons and the Gods and the Angels and the peoples and the Monkey Army and the Bears and the flying machines and the peaceful meditation ashrams near the river and then the battle fronts both on land and in the sky and the forests and the Snakes and Vultures, and all THESE are IN RAMAYANA but more important Rama IS INDIA, the Epic spans from the North to the South and across a bridge of stones on the seas to an Island and when I go to India I think, “Did this tree meet Lord Rama?”, and he next bend will there be Hanuman standing waiting there?
You see? The “scripture” is simply a sound version now a print version of INDIA and the great epic of Ram! Every tree along the path of Ram and the Monkey Army, every cave, the stones, the animals, the pathways, the temples, the palaces, RAM, RAM, RAM.
And one line can be scripture AND India AND death, Ram nam satya hai.
So this is a “scripture” and I like it, but then I can be without a scripture once I have the “map” in my head.
Take the “map” of Kashi Varanasi. There are “zones”. Temples, Guardians, traditions, there are still people about from a 1000 years ago, there is a scripture also that is a “tourist guide” to Kashi the City of Shiva. There are pathways, gulleys, small alley ways, temples, the snake charmer, the shop owner, enter into a mist of mystic and profane and soft and hard and silent inside of the loud, THE GANGA AS THE SUN RISES AND THE GANGA AS THE SUN SETS. Kashi is a LIVING scripture.
Sure, I read scriptures. Sometimes I go through phases of scripture or scriptures. But even that little pamphlet sold near the temple with a bhajan to Hanuman or Shiva or Annapurna or Krishna or Ram et all, it is only 3 pages, reprinted again and again for 200 plus years from a little printing press off some alleyway. It is scripture.
It MIGHT be revealed. Or DISCOVERED. Or WANDERED into. Or HEARD. Or smelled. Or tasted. Or SEEN (darshan). Kali may come to a great yogi in the form of a poor girl no more than 12 years old. She is scripture. A dead person is carried on a dingy and wrapped in cloth towards the river – they say RAM NAM SATYA HAI, the fire is waiting.
Who else has also come down that road besides this dead person?
Many, many. Great Saints. The worst off in the world. A dog. God. Sometimes you may feel them still on that road. Here they come now. Can’t you hear? You might even see. In your vision. A scripture is playing like a motion machine.
You were also there. Because you chose to be there – at least once. Now you will also be there even when you leave. You may go back and see your own shadow. Your shadow is a scripture. Perhaps one day it won’t be there anymore. But for now, it will be there for a very long time.
You see? The “scripture” is simply a sound version now a print version of INDIA and the great epic of Ram! Every tree along the path of Ram and the Monkey Army, every cave, the stones, the animals, the pathways, the temples, the palaces, RAM, RAM, RAM.
And one line can be scripture AND India AND death, Ram nam satya hai.
So this is a “scripture” and I like it, but then I can be without a scripture once I have the “map” in my head.
Take the “map” of Kashi Varanasi. There are “zones”. Temples, Guardians, traditions, there are still people about from a 1000 years ago, there is a scripture also that is a “tourist guide” to Kashi the City of Shiva. There are pathways, gulleys, small alley ways, temples, the snake charmer, the shop owner, enter into a mist of mystic and profane and soft and hard and silent inside of the loud, THE GANGA AS THE SUN RISES AND THE GANGA AS THE SUN SETS. Kashi is a LIVING scripture.
Sure, I read scriptures. Sometimes I go through phases of scripture or scriptures. But even that little pamphlet sold near the temple with a bhajan to Hanuman or Shiva or Annapurna or Krishna or Ram et all, it is only 3 pages, reprinted again and again for 200 plus years from a little printing press off some alleyway. It is scripture.
It MIGHT be revealed. Or DISCOVERED. Or WANDERED into. Or HEARD. Or smelled. Or tasted. Or SEEN (darshan). Kali may come to a great yogi in the form of a poor girl no more than 12 years old. She is scripture. A dead person is carried on a dingy and wrapped in cloth towards the river – they say RAM NAM SATYA HAI, the fire is waiting.
Who else has also come down that road besides this dead person?
Many, many. Great Saints. The worst off in the world. A dog. God. Sometimes you may feel them still on that road. Here they come now. Can’t you hear? You might even see. In your vision. A scripture is playing like a motion machine.
You were also there. Because you chose to be there – at least once. Now you will also be there even when you leave. You may go back and see your own shadow. Your shadow is a scripture. Perhaps one day it won’t be there anymore. But for now, it will be there for a very long time.
Perhaps I haven't understood your point in your original response. In your opinion, why is the question not important?
I said previously that it lacks practical significance, and I stand by that.
And I meant that the answer, more so than the question itself, is of little importance. Mainly because ultimately people are entitled to answer as they please, as long as they accept the consequences (which do not look terribly difficult to deal with here from where I stand, for what it is worth).
A given person's answer about the exact nature and sequence of origin of the Devas will of course have an effect on which lines of thought and sampradayas they align with, but that is IMO largely a matter of personal inclination as opposed to truth vs falsehood.
It is my understanding that some Hindus believe that Shakti created all other Devas. Others might perhaps say that Adi-Brahma did, or perhaps that they do not conform to human expectations of a chronological sequence of creation. I assume that there are literally dozens of different answers in good standing among Hindus.
And that, far as I can tell, is just fine. The Devas are, after all, transcendental. People are entitled to perceive them in various, contrasting ways. That in no way implies that it is even possible to tell that some of those are "false" while others (much less a single one) is "true".
If anything, I would think that loving Devas would have no need for validation by humans and would likely have both the ability and the willingness to connect with a wide variety of systems of practice and belief, not entirely unlike what a very skilled teacher would do when faced with a large, heterogeneous class.
At the very least, I don't think we humans have much of a need to worry about such matters. Attain inspiration from them if we have the inclination and can use that inspiration constructively, sure. But not worry about them as if we had a duty to validate the Devas, which I certainly think we do not have.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
The other gods that manifest ONE-GOD, therefore, should be understood as the attributes of G-d. Please
Regards
Yes, exactly. That is my belief.
Not any single scripture. If Mahā Vishnu is the Supreme Brahman from which everything emanates and manifests, that's cool. If Shiva is the Supreme Brahman from which everything emanates and manifests, that's cool too. If Devi is the Supreme Brahman from which everything emanates and manifests, that's just as cool. I tend to think of them as one and the same, appearing different to us, but "they're" non-different. Human minds like to categorize, compartmentalize and delineate things. But these are just my beliefs and feeling about it. I can't say they're right or wrong.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Then one should agree that gods are manifestations and should be correctly understood as attributes of ONE-GOD. Right? Please
Regards
Some people believe it that way, others don't. There's no right or wrong answer. No one will know for sure until they get to see God.
.
Not necessarily. There is no good reason why there must be exactly one god from which the others arise directly or indirectly.
For all anyone truly knows, maybe we just feel the need to think along those terms and the reality is something else entirely. Maybe the very idea that there must be an originator, sole God is a human misunderstanding. Maybe the Devas, transcendental as they are, are simply beyond our limited expectations of number and origin.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
One may like to see the difficulty an ordinary man/women is facing in another forum/thread:
Aug 31, 2016 #3
I hope it is not against the forum rules to mention it here. Right? Please
Please correct me If I am wrong. Please
Regards
Aug 31, 2016 #3
I hope it is not against the forum rules to mention it here. Right? Please
Please correct me If I am wrong. Please
Regards
That is basically a testimonial that said forum member prefers other forms of practice that do not directly involve the Vedas.
I don't know that I would even call that a difficulty.
That post tells us that you are a monotheist in the Abrahamic mold. Fair enough. But how does that connect to this thread?
It re-explains the philosophical source of all these questions, for anyone who did not know. Either that or its proselytizing.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Veda Scripture- The Compressed One
I wish that ordinary man should be facilitated to read and finish Vedas- the Scripture in a reasonable time frame , and people get spiritual guidance direct from the scripture itself, rather than from a third person.
Life being so busy, ordinary people cannot afford to read such a voluminous Vedic scripture, they will rather be thankful if such a concise/condensed/compressed scripture is compiled which could be finished if not in 30 days or a month, then at least once in a year. Quran could be finished in thirty days , if read a part of it in 30/45 minutes a day, just for information in this connection, please.
The latest on the blueprint of the above is like this to summarize:
1. Rigveda, is proposed to be kept mostly as it is. I understand that it is about 1000 ± pages, not possible to read by a busy person, therefore, it also needs compression as is evident. The elite class of Brahmins wanted to create as many as possible obstacles to keep Veda out of reach of an ordinary man, it is one such obstacle. Rigveda is also to be compressed, therefore, however, references will be provided so that one who wants to go to detailed study of Veda could access them. Right? Please
2. Sam Veda which is a liturgical text whose 1,875 verses are primarily derived from the Rigveda and only 65 new mantras/verses are there in Samaveda, It will be compressed to 65 verses only and a footnote written on the verses in the Rigveda indicating to that effect.
3.I have read Yajurveda from cover to cover . I have found out that about some 50 or more verses are just repetition of the previous verses . These could be compressed and only references provided in the original one.
4.We get a clue from post #18 ,#43, in another thread, that only a few verses on war/battles in Yajurveda should be mentioned in the compressed Yajurveda, though they form about 10% of Yajurveda, and the rest should be compressed. and only references retained, as this is against the contemporary Veda believers, who hold Ahimsa as a basic creed of Veda, and that is a wrong concept. Right? Please
#42 #49
In terms of the posts mentioned above, one may conclude following reasonable options:
5.I get a clue from post #12 that the original, if there was/is one, should have the holy Sanskrit text side by side the translation to solve any ambiguity if the need be. That would require a two-fold compression, yet not impossible, if the friends who ascribe themselves to Vedas help us, as I don't know any Sanskrit as of now myself. Right? Please
6.We get a clue from post #79 that Veda is not to be taken literal, it is in symbols and metaphors.#80,#5 friend
@Madhuri Post #4 ,friend
@ratikala post #15 , friend
@Sunstone post #9
, and friend
@SomeRandom post #16 describes, "But I tend to interpret things metaphorically rather than most traditional Hindus. But even still how can we possibly fathom the true form? The idols may contain the presence or energy or whatever one wishes to call it of the Nameless formless one, but they are still approximations"
7. We get a clue from post #23 in another thread that there is too much monotony in Rigveda. So for minimizing it only some or more representative passages/verses should go to the compressed Rigveda but their references will be provided as mentioned in point one above. Please
8. We get from Yajurveda 15:13 “learn that part of the Veda which deals with the Unity of God” ONENESS of G-d.God and the attributes of God are most mentioned in Yajurveda, God and gods are different things.Friend
@Madhuri Post #87 God is the source of the gods. And I think it says in the text that the Supreme God IS Hiranyagarbha; not that the Supreme God is created from the egg.These parts of Veda must be given preference over anything else #52. Right? Please.
9. Veda was once one book in terms of post #31 , #65 this way it will become one again from the four or many Vedas 105 .
Anybody, please
10. I understand from
@Aupmanyav that the hymns of Veda have no chronological order, and (now my opinion) perhaps not even arranged subject-wise or under any system commanded by Brahman and are in a haphazard form. I would like some system in their arrangement and will like some suggestions to this effect for the Compressed Veda. Please
11.I understand from some posts that there are some "contradictions and differences" in Veda.In such a voluminous scriptures this was inevitable due to the human factor. If friends agree then the ones who are in line with the common sense and or with Quran those would be retained and the others will be compressed but references provided in the footnotes, so that those interested could access them and read them. Post #561, #565 .
12. Vedas were revealed on Rishis, and rishis are one's senses and also one's satguru, friend
@atanu told us in post #28. If he is right, and there is no reason of him being wrong, then everybody having senses could understand and interpret Veda and Veda is for him , Brhamin or Shudra or Daulit or untouchanble or anybody/everybody else in any part of the world or whatever religion. Right? Please
13.We get clue from post #18 from friend
@Satyamavejayanti , and post #19 from friend
@HarihOm that there are no myths in the Vedas. Also as per post #23
and post #24 and as per the statement quoted from Wikipedia by friend @Jainarayan which has a sentence that "n popular use, a myth can be a collectively held belief that has no basis in fact ".(please correct me if I am wrong), unless it is allegoric and for this a set principle is laid down in Veda. If not, only some representative ones will be included in the "Compressed Veda" and for others references will be given. Right? Please
14. The imperfect Gods mentioned in Veda no more fight, may be they got perfected, or they have killed one another so the verses in which these have been mentioned in Veda and implored for help by the priestly class and the sacrifices offered to them are no more needed. Such places/verses need to be compressed and only some representative ones will be included in the "Compressed Veda" and for others references will be given. Right? Please
Regards
Note: Please not a change in point # 4 above.
Regards
I wish that ordinary man should be facilitated to read and finish Vedas- the Scripture in a reasonable time frame , and people get spiritual guidance direct from the scripture itself, rather than from a third person.
Life being so busy, ordinary people cannot afford to read such a voluminous Vedic scripture, they will rather be thankful if such a concise/condensed/compressed scripture is compiled which could be finished if not in 30 days or a month, then at least once in a year. Quran could be finished in thirty days , if read a part of it in 30/45 minutes a day, just for information in this connection, please.
The latest on the blueprint of the above is like this to summarize:
1. Rigveda, is proposed to be kept mostly as it is. I understand that it is about 1000 ± pages, not possible to read by a busy person, therefore, it also needs compression as is evident. The elite class of Brahmins wanted to create as many as possible obstacles to keep Veda out of reach of an ordinary man, it is one such obstacle. Rigveda is also to be compressed, therefore, however, references will be provided so that one who wants to go to detailed study of Veda could access them. Right? Please
2. Sam Veda which is a liturgical text whose 1,875 verses are primarily derived from the Rigveda and only 65 new mantras/verses are there in Samaveda, It will be compressed to 65 verses only and a footnote written on the verses in the Rigveda indicating to that effect.
3.I have read Yajurveda from cover to cover . I have found out that about some 50 or more verses are just repetition of the previous verses . These could be compressed and only references provided in the original one.
4.We get a clue from post #18 ,#43, in another thread, that only a few verses on war/battles in Yajurveda should be mentioned in the compressed Yajurveda, though they form about 10% of Yajurveda, and the rest should be compressed. and only references retained, as this is against the contemporary Veda believers, who hold Ahimsa as a basic creed of Veda, and that is a wrong concept. Right? Please
#42 #49
In terms of the posts mentioned above, one may conclude following reasonable options:
- One should make the confirmed opinion that Veda people were not a peaceful people. They were most of the time fighting with others and invoking the god/idols for helping in this cause, they needed war spoils for their livelihood and were offering sacrifices only to this end.
- Rishis never taught such things, they were peaceful, all these verses had been made-up by the narrators/scribes/priests for their own ends.
- Hence all such verses in all Vedas need to be compressed and only reference provided to historical reason.
5.I get a clue from post #12 that the original, if there was/is one, should have the holy Sanskrit text side by side the translation to solve any ambiguity if the need be. That would require a two-fold compression, yet not impossible, if the friends who ascribe themselves to Vedas help us, as I don't know any Sanskrit as of now myself. Right? Please
6.We get a clue from post #79 that Veda is not to be taken literal, it is in symbols and metaphors.#80,#5 friend
, and friend
7. We get a clue from post #23 in another thread that there is too much monotony in Rigveda. So for minimizing it only some or more representative passages/verses should go to the compressed Rigveda but their references will be provided as mentioned in point one above. Please
8. We get from Yajurveda 15:13 “learn that part of the Veda which deals with the Unity of God” ONENESS of G-d.God and the attributes of God are most mentioned in Yajurveda, God and gods are different things.Friend
9. Veda was once one book in terms of post #31 , #65 this way it will become one again from the four or many Vedas 105 .
Anybody, please
10. I understand from
11.I understand from some posts that there are some "contradictions and differences" in Veda.In such a voluminous scriptures this was inevitable due to the human factor. If friends agree then the ones who are in line with the common sense and or with Quran those would be retained and the others will be compressed but references provided in the footnotes, so that those interested could access them and read them. Post #561, #565 .
12. Vedas were revealed on Rishis, and rishis are one's senses and also one's satguru, friend
13.We get clue from post #18 from friend
and post #24 and as per the statement quoted from Wikipedia by friend @Jainarayan which has a sentence that "n popular use, a myth can be a collectively held belief that has no basis in fact ".(please correct me if I am wrong), unless it is allegoric and for this a set principle is laid down in Veda. If not, only some representative ones will be included in the "Compressed Veda" and for others references will be given. Right? Please
14. The imperfect Gods mentioned in Veda no more fight, may be they got perfected, or they have killed one another so the verses in which these have been mentioned in Veda and implored for help by the priestly class and the sacrifices offered to them are no more needed. Such places/verses need to be compressed and only some representative ones will be included in the "Compressed Veda" and for others references will be given. Right? Please
Regards
Note: Please not a change in point # 4 above.
Regards
Last edited:
You truly believe that people are flat out wrong if they do not believe that there is exactly one true, Creator God, don't you, @paarsurrey ?
I hope you learn to be at peace with the eventual realization that such is not to be. And that it is not even a problem in the first place. There is actually no need whatsoever to agree on monotheism.
I hope you learn to be at peace with the eventual realization that such is not to be. And that it is not even a problem in the first place. There is actually no need whatsoever to agree on monotheism.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Truth can have many dimensions for many perceivers , yet remains ONE, it doesn't have necessarily to be many. Right? Please
Regards
Who knows?
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Truth (is an attribute of G-d) conversed and told Muhammad many eternal truths. Please
Regards