• 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?

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
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
Many of the summaries (like Upanisads and Gita) are themselves revealed to the rishis.
I have read enough to know that they are accurate. Through statistical sampling. Gita uses Samkhya consistently for example and Vedanta correctly quotes the Rig and Yajur Veda. Nyaya writers use and quote the Nyaya sutras extensively. There are a lot of critical editions of many of these works .
8 (there are more) because there are different branches of Hinduism who focus on different things. The path of a bhakta, a rishi, a yogin or a Nyaya-ika will be different. That is why.
Sorry, but secular Hindus are as much Hindus as any other version. :)

Sorry, no one page summary. There are "great utterances" of the upanisads and Gita and key mantras in bhakti and tantra for example that serve that function to advanced practitioners. For example the key to Dharma is ahimsa is an excellent sumnmary. Tat tvam asi for Vedanta. etc.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
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

Mr. Paarsurrey

You must first question yourself as to why followers of the same 'so-called' concise scripture kill each other.

Please. Thank you. Regards.
 

Amanava

Member
@paarsurrey There is concise scripture and it is called Vedas. If any scripture is not in line in Vedas, it is rejected as false no matter where it comes from. You cannot understand or read the vedas and even the greatest Sanskrit scholars will also not able to understand it, believe me :) . Vedas are understood by gurus who received the secrets of it from an unbroken lineage of gurus.

So your options.
1. Read Ramayana/Mahabharata/Puranas
2. Read Bhagawath Gita which is essence of Vedas

There are literally thousands of works returned by our beloved gurus and rishis for the sake of us but I cannot mention them here (Tamil works and Sanskrit).

In a simple meaning, Vedas say finally as Sri Krishna /Vaasudeva/Vishnu is the cause of entire universe and he is the only the God which infact no one can deny once they delve into any Vedic work.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Sorry!
First time I agree with my friend.
They should realize that Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism has no value in Religion, whatsoever. Buddha gave hardly any weightage to it. Right? Please

No, no, no. You completely misread me. I said much the opposite.

Atheism is not at all harmful. Nor is it particularly healthy in and of itself, except that it is a good deterrent against superstition.

Religion has a lot more to fear from monotheism taken too seriously than from all varieties of atheism and skepticism taken together.

In fact Buddha spoke against Skepticism/Agnosticism in very clear terms:
  1. Chapter 46:
    Avoiding the Ten Evils”Free your mind of ignorance and be anxious to
    learn the truth, especially in the one thing that is needful,
    lest you fall a prey either , to scepticism or to errors.
    Scepticism will make you indifferent and errors will lead
    you astray, so that you shall not find the noble path that
    leads to life eternal.” Verse -13The Gospel of Buddha
  2. Courtesy our friend Tathagata (post#79) in Religious Forum, must be available in the records of RF.
“The BuddhSa was NOT an Agnostic. It is scripturally false to say he was an Agnostic. He was in fact vehemently opposed to Agnosticism and he called them “evasive eel-wrigglers.” See the Brahmajala Sutta and the Samannaphala Sutta.
Kindly excuse me, please.

Regards

Sorry, you are abusing the Suttas way beyond any reasonable reading would advise.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
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?
I think you had stated that you have studied a lot many Hinduism scriptures. Please correct me if I am wrong. Right?Please
If yes, please:

Kena Upanishad:
“That which cannot be seen by the eye but through which the eye itself sees, know That to be Brahman (God) and not what people worship here (in the manifested world).”
Kena Upanishad (1.7) Yajurveda

Please provide me the link, if possible.
Anybody, please

Regards
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
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?

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

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Link to what? A commentary on the verse? Not sure I understand. Something like this? https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110103013542AAq1XJG

I want to read the verse (Kena Upanishad 1.7) from the Yajur-Veda, directly with its verses in the context, like when I study a verse of Quran which is questioned by someone, I read the verses in the context to understand the specific verse. This approach has never failed me. The scriptures are from G-d, they have a very intricate/plain system that one cannot see if one's insight is blurred. If it is good for Quran, it should be good for the Hinduism scriptures also. Shouldn't it,please?
So please help me to see the verse with the verses in the context for the pleasure of my eyes and heart.
You won't believe me, but all the scriptures of the world of any religion on earth are my own scriptures, human interfering with them excepted. I love them all-the portions/part of them that have not been interfered with. And I can do it with the grace of G-d.
Maybe Yajur-Veda had copied it from Quran, in a specific, dimension. You know in absolute
sense no time and or space exist, as both time and or space are the creation of G-d, while G-d is not in them, as He rules them with his attributes and manifests in them with his attributes .
Please
Regards
 
Last edited:

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
I want to read the verse (Kena Upanishad 1.7) from the Yajur-Veda, directly with its verses in the context, like when I study a verse of Quran which is questioned by someone, I read the verses in the context to understand the specific verse. This approach has never failed me. The scriptures are from G-d, they have a very intricate/plain system that one cannot see if one's insight is blurred. If it is good for Quran, it should be good for the Hinduism scriptures also. Shouldn't it,please?
So please help me to see the verse with the verses in the context for the pleasure of my eyes and heart.
You won't believe me, but all the scriptures of the world of any religion on earth are my own scriptures, human interfering with them excepted. I love them all-the portions/part of them that have not been interfered with. And I can do it with the grace of G-d.
Maybe Yajur-Veda had copied it from Quran, in a specific, dimension. You know in absolute
sense no time and or space exist, as both time and or space are the creation of G-d, while G-d is not in them, as He rules them with his attributes and manifest in them with his attributes .
Please
Regards

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe01/sbe01176.htm
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member

TALAVAKÂRA OR KENA-UPANISHAD.

1. THE Pupil asks: 'At whose wish does the mind sent forth proceed on its errand? At whose command does the first breath go forth? At whose wish do we utter this speech? What god directs the eye, or the ear?'
2. The Teacher replies: 'It is the ear of the ear, the mind of the mind, the speech of speech, the breath of breath, and the eye of the eye. When freed (from the senses) the wise, on departing from this world, become immortal 1.
3. 'The eye does not go thither, nor speech, nor mind. We do not know, we do not understand, how any one can teach it.
4. 'It is different from the known, it is also above the unknown, thus we have heard from those of old, who taught us this 2.
5. 'That which is not expressed by speech and
that alone know as Brahman, not that which people here adore.
6. 'That which does not think by mind, and by which, they say, mind is thought 1, that alone know as Brahman, not that which people here adore.
7. 'That which does not see by the eye, and by which one sees (the work of) the eyes, that alone know as Brahman, not that which people here adore.
8. 'That which does not hear by the ear, and by which the ear is heard, that alone know as Brahman, not that which people here adore.
9. 'That which does not breathe by breath, and by which breath is drawn, that alone know as Brahman, not that which people here adore.'

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

I don't think they do. Please
Regards
 
Top