I am reading the Quran, Gospel, Psalms, Tora, BoMormon, Avesta and i wonder if the Vedas are also...

[Aupmanyav]

Sayak knows some Sanskrit. (W3bcrowf3r considers statements about Vedas only from people who know Sanskrit, at least some)

 

[firedragon]

Haha, never ask this question to a Hindu. I do not know what Hindus can not be. A hindu can be polytheist, monotheists, agnostic, deist, henotheist, monist, dualist, monolaterist, kathenotheist, panpsychist, pantheist, panentheist or atheist. It depends squarely on that person, and Hinduism permits all this. It does not compromise only on one thing, 'dharma', i.e., fulfillment of one's duties and engagement in righteous conduct.

Hmm. Okay. Thats a very interesting explanation.

Thank you.

 

[ajay0]

It is unfortunate and ridiculous to see some using distorted understanding of Advaita to advance atheistic concepts. I have no issues with a logical framework for advancing atheism , but a building with a brittle foundation is bound to fall down soon.

Advaita reflects on the nature of Nirguna Brahman, and the idea of Saguna Brahman is not contrary to it in Hinduism. Shankaracharya was also a worshipper of Saguna Brahman in the form of Shiva while consolidating the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta. (Here Nirguna means formless, attributeless and impersonal, while Saguna means one with form, personalised and with attributes.)

Brahman is pure consciousness as the Vedas point out.

Prajñānam brahma - Brahman is pure consciousness (Aitareya Upanishad 3.3 of the Rig Veda)

Nirguna Brahman is pure consciousness of an impersonal nature, while God as Saguna Brahman and the jivatman or soul are pure consciousness of a personalised nature, with the Jivatman in bondage due to karma. This bondage, when hacked off through spiritual exercises and meditation, results in the soul or jivatman being purified of karma and regaining its original state as pure consciousness.

Paramahamsa Yogananda also states in this regard, "The word 'God' means the manifested, transcendental Being beyond creation, but existing in relation to creation. Spirit existed before God. God is the Creator of the universe, but Spirit is the Creator of God."

Here spirit stands for Nirguna Brahman, while God stands for Saguna Brahman.Nirguna Brahman being impersonal does not confer grace upon being worshipped, while Saguna Brahman being a personalised form of Brahman, confers grace upon the worshipper.

In the yogic philosophy, the Shivalinga as Saguna Brahman is considered the first form to arise when creation occurs, and also the last form before the dissolution of creation.

The Kashi Vishwanath temple and the Shaivite scriptures considers the Shivalingam as representing a cosmic pillar of light.

Interestingly, as per the Shaivite monotheistic religious sect called the Prajapita Brahmakumaris, the form of the Shiva linga denotes God as a point of light, and who is known as Jehovah, Allah, Ahura Mazda in other religions.

 

[Jainarayan]

What does 'na thasya prathima asthi' mean?

It means "there is no likeness of Him (God); He is unlimited". Yajurveda 32.2

 

[ajay0]

I wonder if the Vedas are also inspired by the One and Only God, our Father, who created the Heavens and the Earth, your God, my God, the God of everything and everyone.

Now i am reading a translation, but the translation is polytheistic. And i don't trust translations, because 99% of the translations that i saw of different religious Holy Books were sectarian and polytheistic.

So my question is. Does someone know Sanskrit? And could he explain if the Book is Monotheistic?

I am already busy with learning Greek, Arabic, Hebrew. And maybe i will add Sanskrit, if it's a Holy Book inspired by God as well.

PS: I do not follow any organised religion. I think they are all the same. I pray at home. I try to follow every Word that comes out of the Mouth of God, because i want to use them as Light and Guidance and Inspiration.

The Arya Samaj, Brahmo Samaj, Lingayats , Prajapita Brahmakumaris are monotheistic sects in Hinduism which reject polytheism and idolatry.

Ancient Hinduism too was monotheistic and only the Shivalingam was worshipped as a symbol of Saguna Brahman.

Here is what the enlightened master Sri Sri Ravi Shankar says in this regard...

'The other reason is that when Buddhists and Jains made their temples they would place such beautiful idols at the altar. So then those who followed Sanatan Dharma felt that they should also do something like this. So they also followed the same and began to establish different idols of Lord Vishnu, Lord Rama and Lord Krishna.

You will not find any mention of a practice of installing idols for worship in the Bhagavad Gita or the Ramayana.

Only the Shiva Linga was installed. That is why only the Shiva Linga was there in the ancient period, which was worshiped by Lord Krishna, Lord Rama and everyone else.' - Sri Sri Ravi Shankar

 

[Aupmanyav]

What does 'na thasya prathima asthi' mean?

Jai has given the meaning. I will give the correct pronunciation. Sanskrit people are very particular about pronunciation.
"Nā tasya pratimā asti" (ā as in 'task')

 

[W3bcrowf3r]

Sayak knows some Sanskrit. (W3bcrowf3r considers statements about Vedas only from people who know Sanskrit, at least some)

Yeah, i dont want to believe in translations blindly. I want references from dictionaries as well.

Only this way i will be able to make a conclusion based on truth.

 

[W3bcrowf3r]

I don’t understand the origins of Hindu beliefs about reincarnation like I do for Christian beliefs about resurrection. Neither seem logical to me.

Reincarnation is a belief in the afterlife. If it is true it must be true for all peoples not just those who believe in it. If there is no afterlife then that is true for everyone, not just atheists. So whatever the reality of the soul if it exists, the afterlife if it exists and the presence of God, gods or no god is true for us all. Beliefs are just beliefs and can be illusory and irrational. If reincarnation is true then it makes Hindus unique and superior to all other faith adherents to be gifted with such insight. Yet it appears contradictory to a compassionate God that we would be made to experience this life again, just as a child is prevented from becoming an adult because he hasn’t been a good enough child.

The Gospel and the Quran are very clear about the Eternal Afterlife as well.

 

[Valjean]

Yeah, i dont want to believe in translations blindly. I want references from dictionaries as well.

Only this way i will be able to make a conclusion based on truth.

The Vedas and a lot of other Sanskrit religious literature have been around a long time. There have been dozens of translations, by many different, unconnected people of many different nationalities, religions, sects and times. You can compare and contrast. A number of of translations are online -- Google.

Sanskrit translators, for some reason, like to go beyond the usual language - language process, so you can examine the text word for word. See the link from post #59: Bhagavad-Gita: Chapter 16, Verse 1,2,3 . First the original, in Devanagari script. then a transliteration into Roman script, then a word-for-word translation, then a colloquial translation, then several commentaries by various religious scholars.
Here's another 'translation' of the same passage (not a good one, IMHO):Bhagavad Gita As It Is, 16.1-3: The Divine And Demoniac Natures, Text 1-3.
You can also access Sanskrit-English dictionaries if you want to do your own research.

It seems to me you're looking for excuses to dismiss these texts.
Why do you have any more faith in Biblical translations, which are often translations of translations?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah, i dont want to believe in translations blindly. I want references from dictionaries as well.
Only this way i will be able to make a conclusion based on truth.

Sure, the right thing to do.

1 pratimA A1. %{-mimIte} (Ved. inf. %{prati-mai}) , to imitate , copy RV. VS. Kaus3.
2 pratimA m. a creator , maker , framer AV. VS. ; (%{A4}) f. an image , likeness , symbol RV. &c. &c. ; a picture , statue , figure , idol Mn. Hariv. Ragh. (IW. 218 , 1 ; 241) ; reflection (in comp. after a word meaning `" moon "' cf. below) ; measure , extent (cf. below) ; N. of a metre RPra1t. ; the part of an elephant's head between the tusks (also %{-ma} m.) L. (ifc. like , similar , resembling , equal to TBr. MBh. &c. ; having the measure of , as long or wide &c. as e.g. %{tri-nalva-pr-} , 3 Nalvas long Hariv. ; %{-ma-tA} f. %{-tva} n. reflection , image , shadow W.) ; %{-gata} mfn. present in an idol (as a deity) Ragh. ; %{-candra} m. `" reflection-moon "' , image of the mñmoon Ragh. ; %{-dAna} n. %{-dravyA7di-vacana} n. N. of wks. ; %{-paricAraka} m. an attendant upon an idol (= %{devala}) Kull. (cf. IW. 218 , 1) ; %{-pUjA} f. worship of images MWB. 464 ; %{-pratiSThA} f. (and %{-thA-vidhi} , m.) , %{-rodanA7di-prA7yazcitta-vidhi} m. %{-lakSaNa} n. N. of wks. ; %{vizeSa} m. a sort of image , a kind of figure MW. ; %{-zazA7Gka} m. = %{-candra} Ragh. ; %{-sampro7kSaNa} n. N. of wk. ; %{-me7ndu} m. = %{-mAcandra} Ra1jat.
http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/cgi-bin/tamil/recherche

 

[W3bcrowf3r]

The Vedas and a lot of other Sanskrit religious literature have been around a long time. There have been dozens of translations, by many different, unconnected people of many different nationalities, religions, sects and times. You can compare and contrast. A number of of translations are online -- Google.

Sanskrit translators, for some reason, like to go beyond the usual language - language process, so you can examine the text word for word. See the link from post #59: Bhagavad-Gita: Chapter 16, Verse 1,2,3 . First the original, in Devanagari script. then a transliteration into Roman script, then a word-for-word translation, then a colloquial translation, then several commentaries by various religious scholars.
Here's another 'translation' of the same passage (not a good one, IMHO):Bhagavad Gita As It Is, 16.1-3: The Divine And Demoniac Natures, Text 1-3.
You can also access Sanskrit-English dictionaries if you want to do your own research.

It seems to me you're looking for excuses to dismiss these texts.
Why do you have any more faith in Biblical translations, which are often translations of translations?

I don't have faith in Biblical translations. Like you said, they are translations of translations. And most of the translations are made from self made Greek Texts as well. So the same story goes for the Greek and Hebrew Bible. I need to learn those languages before i can really have a solid opinon.

 

[Dawnofhope]

That is nice. There should then be no boast that I can do it better or you can do it better. It is everybody's business, everybody's dharma, not just for Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs or Bahais. All humanity has a stake there. You said, "The Baha'i Faith is a universalist religion. Christianity is not, nor is Hinduism." That does not indicate a very good spirit. It hinders the attainment of the lofty goal.

"ayaṃ nijaḥ paro vā iti gaṇanā laghucetasām । udāracaritānāṃ tu vasudhā eva kuṭumbakam ॥"
(He is mine, he is another, not mine - such are thoughts of narrow minded people. For the noble minded the whole world is a family.)

Mahatma Ghandi was a universalist. He was shot by a Hindu fanatic. All religions have their extremes Hinduism included. I agree with the sentiments of the noble minded.

The earth is but one country and mankind its citizens

 

[W3bcrowf3r]

Mahatma Ghandi was a universalist. He was shot by a Hindu fanatic. All religions have their extremes Hinduism included. I agree with the sentiments of the noble minded.

The earth is but one country and mankind its citizens

Sometimes i wonder how people can group themselves and have such different believes while not even caring about learning the original language of the Book they claim to follow so that they can read what's really written in the Book.
It's like they put blind faith in the group that is most closest to them and see all other groups as wrong.

I am 25 and i learned that i shouldn't follow any group. They all have elements of Truth, but also elements of Falsehood. That's why i rather stay away from them.

 

[Marcion]

I am 25 and i learned that i shouldn't follow any group. They all have elements of Truth, but also elements of Falsehood. That's why i rather stay away from them.

That sounds like, 'every teacher sometimes makes mistakes, so I have no need to go to any school, I'd rather stay away from them'.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Sometimes i wonder how people can group themselves and have such different believes while not even caring about learning the original language of the Book they claim to follow so that they can read what's really written in the Book.
It's like they put blind faith in the group that is most closest to them and see all other groups as wrong.

I am 25 and i learned that i shouldn't follow any group. They all have elements of Truth, but also elements of Falsehood. That's why i rather stay away from them.

It sounds like you are an idealist and have high expectations of people. It might be good for you to put the books down, practice some meditation and enjoy the moment. Alternatively do some charity work.

Book learning can only take you so far...

 

[W3bcrowf3r]

That sounds like, 'every teacher sometimes makes mistakes, so I have no need to go to any school, I'd rather stay away from them'.

I dont compare Revelations to secular school.

If i can fix the job, then the schooling i received is enough.

But with Revelations, i do want to have as much good as possible.

I am becoming my own Teacher. I am learning the languages. Reading the Scriptures daily.
And i believe that if people do that, that we will start understanding what is really written in those Books.

 

[W3bcrowf3r]

It sounds like you are an idealist and have high expectations of people. It might be good for you to put the books down, practice some meditation and enjoy the moment. Alternatively do some charity work.

Book learning can only take you so far...

I study programming. So i am busy enough.

Yeah, i will reach a point when i will start practising what i believe. Now i am still learning.

I dont expect people to learn Greek etc. They just need to stop claiming things if they cant verify it by their own in the originals.
Religion is simple, Love God, Love your Neighbor. Thats it.
I also do not want to Judge people. I rather spend that time thinking about how i can improve my own.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I study programming. So i am busy enough.

Yeah, i will reach a point when i will start practising what i believe. Now i am still learning.

I dont expect people to learn Greek etc. They just need to stop claiming things if they cant verify it by their own in the originals.
Religion is simple, Love God, Love your Neighbor. Thats it.
I also do not want to Judge people. I rather spend that time thinking about how i can improve my own.

I agree. Keep it simple and just learn to take people as they come.

The best way to learn religion is to put it into practice.

You sound like you have a bright future ahead of you with programming and must be quite bright and motivated to learn languages.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Mahatma Gandhi was a universalist. He was shot by a Hindu fanatic.

I do not know if Gandhi's killer was an extremist. Those were difficult times. People felt that Gandhi cared more for Muslims than for Hindus. Gandhi went to Noakhali while the Hindus and Sikhs were being murdered in Punjab. Hindus suffered heavily in both regions (Punjab as well as Bengal), while Muslim migration was by choice. They did not go because of killings, a huge many continued to remain in India. Today they number 180 million, nearly equal to the population of Pakistan and more than that of Bangladesh.

 

[Valjean]

I am becoming my own Teacher. I am learning the languages. Reading the Scriptures daily.
And i believe that if people do that, that we will start understanding what is really written in those Books.

Without context and culture, knowing a language will give an incomplete picture.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.