• 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!

Tastes and Preferences: Curious about why you choose what you choose!

SeekerOnThePath

On a mountain between Nietzsche and Islam
I always find concepts such as sexuality and even race fascinating to “study” (for lack of a better term) through the various ages and across cultures. Because it always leads me down like several rabbit holes lol
Cultures throughout history have sought to answer such existential questions about the human condition and there’s a surprising variety of thought/philosophies to be found on just those two aspects of the human animal. Never mind the religious wranglings. It serves as a reminder that whilst I do consider the modern western thought more accurate since it depends on science, that humans have come up with a myriad of ways to describe human behaviour. Through philosophy, language and indeed various religious doctrines.

Myself likewise.
Sexuality in general is a very big part of who we are, perhaps the most fundamental in the material sense (as it is what we ourselves are a result of).
I've contemplated the subject a lot myself, I know our OP Artismagistra would find some of my reflections on the subject intriguing (even 'out there' in the philosophical sense).

I've read a lot from both left-leaning and right-leaning writers on the subject, it never ceases to be fascinating.
One thing I cannot get away is the contradictory dichotomy between both cultural relativism (which, regardless of whether there is or isn't 'objective morality', is still an objective anthropological fact) and divine revelation. Both provide significantly different models, yet seem to reaffirm some of each other's conclusions in surprising and weird ways.
 

SeekerOnThePath

On a mountain between Nietzsche and Islam
by default of being Australian.

Not to rudely overhear your conversation but, me too. I was born there but raised in NZ (after I was 1 year old). My father and everyone on my father's side are Australian, my mother a NZer.
Stralya is still very close to my heart.
 

SeekerOnThePath

On a mountain between Nietzsche and Islam
Both provide significantly different models, yet seem to reaffirm some of each other's conclusions in surprising and weird ways.

For instance that morality means nothing in-and-of-itself but that it is an action-based judgement that serves it's own sociological function in relation to a wider social organism (or "society" or "culture" or "community" for short). To some degree there is always a sense of "belief" involved in the role of morality which requires making assumptions specifically about the values of certain actions and the contexts of such actions. Immorality usually being judged as a transgression against the wider social organism. Such things in different cultures, especially pre-globalism (though not limited), are not considered as transgressions when not against it's own social organism (hence the violence between different armies or troops, or the violence of warriors towards civilians of another culture, particularly in a war context). Such things though do tend to occur with most modern military and still remains a fact of the way these wider social organisms function.
War itself is usually the area where we see the concept of morality exposed at it's stretching point, as historically evident.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Not to rudely overhear your conversation but, me too. I was born there but raised in NZ (after I was 1 year old). My father and everyone on my father's side are Australian, my mother a NZer.
Stralya is still very close to my heart.
Straya son!!
 
I have only met one scholar in theology who now lives in Australia who had read so much. She is now retired in down under but even she has not read all of that. As far as I know it took about 30 years. So you are only 33 and to have finished all of this is a miracle.

So far, I have never met, nor have I even heard of someone or read about someone who has read all of that. Honestly, even Hindu scholars have not read all of the Hindu scripture. Many of them. And you know Greek as well. Thats honestly a miracle. Its not humanely possible. I can put you in touch with the only other person who have read about half of what you have read who is the only other person I know to have a level of expertise in Arabic, Sanskrit and Koine Greek. She is now about 70 years old and she will be dumbfounded. Eethan kharah mwu nasas milliso.

Kudos.

I was told by an Amazon.ca representative in Canada on the phone that the amount of books I have and have read is more than any he has ever encountered in all of India even among the current professors and sages haha. I thought that was really nice, and when I thought about it, I thought wow, if that is true, wow. Its also been done so smoothly, like I didn't even notice, and I started reading this sort of literature at an early age, but more so after I was out of school and just at home starting around the age of 14 or 15 maybe, so that cuts the time down a bit, and I don't even skim, I read things over and over and every line very carefully, and I've read the Qur'an (or otherwise had it read to me) numerous times.

I managed to even get in the audio books by Stephen Fry of the Harry Potter book series, but mainly I don't have time for any fiction or much interest, though I've read a bit here and there.

I didn't even mention everything, as later I remembered I've also read the the Eddas both the Prose Edda and the Poetic Edda, and those are so important to me that I have the Poetic Edda in the original language for reciting certain parts, and the Vedas as well in their original recreated recitation, and Qur'an transliteration, and the Septuagint in multiple languages. I was so happy reading the Septuagint in Greek, and the fact that this Greek was READABLE TO ME, I was amazed, it was totally like a miracle, but I have experienced many weird miracles.

That I could read Greek writing and pronounce it almost instantly, was tremendous though, and I sat in my bathtub with my phone and was reading the Greek and pronouncing it, lol and because of not maintaining myself with this whole Covid thing I have this huge long beard and looked like a Greek/Viking/Vedic Sage too lol.

I read these things with the interest of finding the names of Allah or terms I can use to refer to Allah and also quotes that I may be able to use, or entities I may be able to twist back into references to Allah or qualities or powers of Allah. I wrote down notes while reading the Bible in Greek of all the different words and terms I was extracting as well and studying the etymologies of many of them or most all the words I was encountering, and that was not apparently slowing me down much either, but making it easier as I crossed by those words again and had a deep etymological understanding (based on what is available online about them anyway) for each, which would sometimes open up ideas for when I'd see similar lettering in parts of other words.

I have the Infernal Dictionary in French, I haven't read that yet, but I want to use it to also become pretty good at French reading, but I have a lot of dictionaries of languages, and what I really want is to understand how to read French properly so that I'm not mispronouncing the words based on my typical reading of English, which weirdly seemed to make Greek a lot easier since the letters were not even the same used in English in their appearance which can actually make reading a language using roman-text lettering a little more slow or confusing until the rules set in and you go into that mode.

(Kul) Rubbay Zidthnee Ilma.

Allah has made me read through so much of the remaining pieces of the world's legacy, but not only that, numerous academic papers and research where I get little tidbits of obscure information (and get irritated when I can't find these again or it becomes difficult, and more disturbing was the recent loss of my humungous digital library on my SD card).

So when I go to the various factions of people, I try to use their own terminologies to try to bring them to the same understandings, but it never works really, and everywhere I go I am generally thrown out, which seems to prove the words of the Qur'an true, they just don't want it, and they aren't allowed to want it either.

The words of all these things though, except the Bible, often please me greatly. I really dislike the Bible a lot, and I'm not very fond of some of the stories of the Puranas that I've read since they make out terms that I use to refer to Allah out to be very disturbing and unpleasant characters or are otherwise pretty blasphemous and wicked sounding or glorifying men over God, such as what they say about Indra these days, as compared to the praise of Indra all throughout the past. I become genuinely angry about these things, and I'm very attached or righteous and furious about these words and annoyed by the things people say about Indra, Odin, and how they imagine these terms when they use them, but they also say evil things about Allah as well, and this seems to be some sickness among the human beings, or they make stories about how they kill beings that are symbolic representations of God or force them to do things, like even in the Bible they have that wrestling scene where man overpowers some representation of God and forced God to do things, I think that the people who believe in such and made such should all be destroyed for their lies and blasphemies and I expect and hope that God will punish them.

God is the only Great One, by any name. Often, God appears to be the villain in many human tales, where God is made out to be some evil being, a dragon, a giant, a demon that the humans overpower and defeat in their Chaoskampf and impossible fantasies. Occasionally, one may find some actual piety or something true said about God or which matches up with the reality of things, but mostly its just human beings villainizing God and glorying in how they have defeated God or overcome God one way or another and forced God to do things. They attribute to Ahriman things that are only rightfully God's works, they attribute knowledge and even the name Fafnir to a being they said they killed, or they say that Mara Prajapati can be overcome when it is clearly God who they are referring to, the creator of all creatures and the ruler and decider of all life and procreation and the cycles of things. Liars, all of them, and expected to totally destroyed as they follow false hopes, like clouds, which have no solidity, and so they will fall through.

So, reading all that I have read, only increases my fervor, and doesn't leave me with a good impression of human beings, past or present much. The Muslims also have spent generations telling evil lies and are expected by me to burn in hell for their blasphemous trash that they say to this day. The Allah they make up in the Hadiths has no existence, and the real God will justly tear them to pieces in my opinion.

That is also why I don't care whatever happens to them on this Earth too much, though all injustice and oppression is wrong, I don't consider them necessarily good Muslims or knowledgeable about anything, and the greater their ignorance the better, since they may be saved by vagueness or not thinking too much, whereas the so-called scholars who perpetuate lies about Allah, they are the ones who are really bad in my opinion and which I look at with poisonous intent. For what? Just because they say "Moses said "Go back and correct Allah, this is too much" and Allah was corrected again and again" and "The Qur'an is co-eternal with Allah", and "Allah will be seen as you see the moon" and other stupid stuff, I hope their hearts just stop and they drop dead for these things they tell people. This is real hatred.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I was told by an Amazon.ca representative in Canada on the phone that the amount of books I have and have read is more than any he has ever encountered in all of India even among the current professors and sages haha. I thought that was really nice, and when I thought about it, I thought wow, if that is true, wow. Its also been done so smoothly, like I didn't even notice, and I started reading this sort of literature at an early age, but more so after I was out of school and just at home starting around the age of 14 or 15 maybe, so that cuts the time down a bit, and I don't even skim, I read things over and over and every line very carefully, and I've read the Qur'an (or otherwise had it read to me) numerous times.

I managed to even get in the audio books by Stephen Fry of the Harry Potter book series, but mainly I don't have time for any fiction or much interest, though I've read a bit here and there.

I didn't even mention everything, as later I remembered I've also read the the Eddas both the Prose Edda and the Poetic Edda, and those are so important to me that I have the Poetic Edda in the original language for reciting certain parts, and the Vedas as well in their original recreated recitation, and Qur'an transliteration, and the Septuagint in multiple languages. I was so happy reading the Septuagint in Greek, and the fact that this Greek was READABLE TO ME, I was amazed, it was totally like a miracle, but I have experienced many weird miracles.

That I could read Greek writing and pronounce it almost instantly, was tremendous though, and I sat in my bathtub with my phone and was reading the Greek and pronouncing it, lol and because of not maintaining myself with this whole Covid thing I have this huge long beard and looked like a Greek/Viking/Vedic Sage too lol.

I read these things with the interest of finding the names of Allah or terms I can use to refer to Allah and also quotes that I may be able to use, or entities I may be able to twist back into references to Allah or qualities or powers of Allah. I wrote down notes while reading the Bible in Greek of all the different words and terms I was extracting as well and studying the etymologies of many of them or most all the words I was encountering, and that was not apparently slowing me down much either, but making it easier as I crossed by those words again and had a deep etymological understanding (based on what is available online about them anyway) for each, which would sometimes open up ideas for when I'd see similar lettering in parts of other words.

I have the Infernal Dictionary in French, I haven't read that yet, but I want to use it to also become pretty good at French reading, but I have a lot of dictionaries of languages, and what I really want is to understand how to read French properly so that I'm not mispronouncing the words based on my typical reading of English, which weirdly seemed to make Greek a lot easier since the letters were not even the same used in English in their appearance which can actually make reading a language using roman-text lettering a little more slow or confusing until the rules set in and you go into that mode.

(Kul) Rubbay Zidthnee Ilma.

Allah has made me read through so much of the remaining pieces of the world's legacy, but not only that, numerous academic papers and research where I get little tidbits of obscure information (and get irritated when I can't find these again or it becomes difficult, and more disturbing was the recent loss of my humungous digital library on my SD card).

So when I go to the various factions of people, I try to use their own terminologies to try to bring them to the same understandings, but it never works really, and everywhere I go I am generally thrown out, which seems to prove the words of the Qur'an true, they just don't want it, and they aren't allowed to want it either.

The words of all these things though, except the Bible, often please me greatly. I really dislike the Bible a lot, and I'm not very fond of some of the stories of the Puranas that I've read since they make out terms that I use to refer to Allah out to be very disturbing and unpleasant characters or are otherwise pretty blasphemous and wicked sounding or glorifying men over God, such as what they say about Indra these days, as compared to the praise of Indra all throughout the past. I become genuinely angry about these things, and I'm very attached or righteous and furious about these words and annoyed by the things people say about Indra, Odin, and how they imagine these terms when they use them, but they also say evil things about Allah as well, and this seems to be some sickness among the human beings, or they make stories about how they kill beings that are symbolic representations of God or force them to do things, like even in the Bible they have that wrestling scene where man overpowers some representation of God and forced God to do things, I think that the people who believe in such and made such should all be destroyed for their lies and blasphemies and I expect and hope that God will punish them.

God is the only Great One, by any name. Often, God appears to be the villain in many human tales, where God is made out to be some evil being, a dragon, a giant, a demon that the humans overpower and defeat in their Chaoskampf and impossible fantasies. Occasionally, one may find some actual piety or something true said about God or which matches up with the reality of things, but mostly its just human beings villainizing God and glorying in how they have defeated God or overcome God one way or another and forced God to do things. They attribute to Ahriman things that are only rightfully God's works, they attribute knowledge and even the name Fafnir to a being they said they killed, or they say that Mara Prajapati can be overcome when it is clearly God who they are referring to, the creator of all creatures and the ruler and decider of all life and procreation and the cycles of things. Liars, all of them, and expected to totally destroyed as they follow false hopes, like clouds, which have no solidity, and so they will fall through.

So, reading all that I have read, only increases my fervor, and doesn't leave me with a good impression of human beings, past or present much. The Muslims also have spent generations telling evil lies and are expected by me to burn in hell for their blasphemous trash that they say to this day. The Allah they make up in the Hadiths has no existence, and the real God will justly tear them to pieces in my opinion.

That is also why I don't care whatever happens to them on this Earth too much, though all injustice and oppression is wrong, I don't consider them necessarily good Muslims or knowledgeable about anything, and the greater their ignorance the better, since they may be saved by vagueness or not thinking too much, whereas the so-called scholars who perpetuate lies about Allah, they are the ones who are really bad in my opinion and which I look at with poisonous intent. For what? Just because they say "Moses said "Go back and correct Allah, this is too much" and Allah was corrected again and again" and "The Qur'an is co-eternal with Allah", and "Allah will be seen as you see the moon" and other stupid stuff, I hope their hearts just stop and they drop dead for these things they tell people. This is real hatred.

Rabbi Zidni Ilma. Good phrase. But I like whats before that in the same verse.

Nevertheless, since you have read practically all of Hindu scripture, what do you think about the very similar doctrine of Tawhid in them with the Qur'an?
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
This thread appears to be about you and me and everyone and getting to our core. I did want to say that in another thread, you, the OP, were talking about how you are very focused on women and not men. And on women being the most beautiful they can be. I actually support that. One problem with feminism is one of its goals is for men and women to be treated exactly the same. I'm not sure I'm for the destruction of gender roles in -quite- that way. I'm only for rethinking harmful gender stereotypes. As a trans female, I like the things a lot of everyday women do, beauty and the idea of being adored for my looks, as well as my personality, but not necessarily on my ability to complete an algebra test (even if I can).
 
Rabbi Zidni Ilma. Good phrase. But I like whats before that in the same verse.

Nevertheless, since you have read practically all of Hindu scripture, what do you think about the very similar doctrine of Tawhid in them with the Qur'an?

I consider a careful reading and parsing of the Hindu literature compatible with Islam, so long as literalism or blasphemous content is sterilized, as well as misleading symbolism (which also exists in the Bible). I believe that there is a strong case to be made that the Vedas are or were rightfully interpreted by some as Monotheistic, and that the various epithets of God seem to overlap with other names, and explicit statements are made saying that these are all One God, which I accept, and then later there is enough material that states that the God described is Bodiless, Pure, Like Nothing, basically everything that we believe and understand about the God of Logic and Allah it can be found in the Vedic writings, the scriptures from Pakistan and India, and then similar material pops up again in Mahayana Buddhism or the Buddhism from out of Pakistan, so it was not that big of a change for them to also become Muslims when this had been what they were apparently thinking and promoting since ancient times. The writings of the Vedic thinkers can act also as a Key to modify and correct interpretations of all their related groups, such as the Greeks and the Vikings and all that, so that by applying the Vedic Monotheism, the famous Polytheisms of the Indo-European cultures can all be brought back to Monotheism again, and Islam basically.

I think that the Ancient people of the Indus had Muslims present (long before Muhammed was even an egg or his mother was an egg or her mother and so on) and worshipping God in the same or similar enough manner to the Muslims of today, and that these were also present from Japan to the Americas and ample clues exist for these beliefs and practices and widespread monotheistic understandings among human beings (usually the more sophisticated and educated or thoughtful) while the majority may have tended towards ignorance and erroneous or senseless thinking and acts.

If you read the wikipedia page on "Aztec Philosophy", even the Aztecs seemed to be familiar with Allah, so that what Allah claims in the Qur'an appears to be true, and is even the claim of Odin, that Allah is known across the world by various names and gave the message repeatedly to all humanity, whereas it was gradually or immediately corrupted by many people but also maintained by some of the people who were given good hearts.

That means that in Paradise, we expect to see many more than just Post-Muhammed Muslims, but people from all the world and time who were real authentic Muslims who worshipped Allah by varying names but had the right ideas and practices and were noble, good, god-fearing people.

I think a humungous proportion of those people will likely be people from India as well as China, also because their populations are pretty big and had also been pretty big in comparison, but because these two cultures had a lot of monotheism and were focused on justice and right and wrong, and also believed in consequences after their deaths for what is wrong and rewards for what is right.

Just like in the past, the mass of Muslims we see may not really be the best or truest Muslims (only Allah knows, but definitely based on the behaviors and actions of some, some are just nominal seeming and others are fully distorted in their understandings and beliefs or conceptualization of Allah).

After the Vedic teachings or Indra became less popular, Shiva came to take on and promote some very Islamic sorts of concepts once more, and many of the Saivite regions became Muslims later. I consider Shiva a legitimate name of Allah (meaning Auspicious) and even if one thinks of or refers to Shiva as Destroyer, all the attributes of Shiva (except for anthropomorphic literalism, which is also contradicted or spoken against in Saivite literature) are those of Allah, they are one and the same, there is no real Shiva besides Allah and no other Allah than Shiva, and that is just one name.

All the names, epithets, versions, qualities of these varieties of beings even make their appearance in some of the simple and straightforward words of the Qur'an, because the people were using just ordinary words a lot, Thor meant Thunder, and we have the Thunder praising Allah or the lightning strikes sent by Allah, which identifies Allah with all the lightning striking activities throughout mythologies, which seem to have been trying to talk about God and Nature, but would go far in their symbolic writing or anthropomorphic language which would end up eventually (or possibly immediately) bringing wrong thoughts to minds and misleading people, even worse when they would create statues meant to depict various qualities of God, but would just make people misunderstand and think that is what God is or looks like.

To me, Zeus is really God, but taking a terrible journey into totally confusing people a lot, whereas still among the people there were those who are recorded as saying that Zeus does not appear like that or like they think, but that the statues were meant to represent how Zeus is a rational being, naked to mean invisible and unseen and free, and so many more symbols which were explained, but even today people don't know how to read the language of art and symbolism which may have been made for the illiterate people who could not read or understand things or be reminded of things in better ways, and whatever the case, it created problems and creates problems to this day, even among the modern polytheists and Hindus who make images, or even Christians.

Anyway, there are enough quotes throughout the Hindu or Vedic literature which can be used to show that monotheism was being promoted or could have been understood, and that these were (or some of them were) very sophisticated monotheists who had beliefs and practices (such as ablution, and worship exercises and motions and prostrating) just like Muslims, and seemed to have messengers and contact with Allah and receive the same messages and even sayings at times like the Muslims, and so some of them were more than likely qualified to be considered Muslims.

Today, Hindus might sometimes say that God is the Three, Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Pervading Upholder, and Shiva the Destroyer, and that these three powers are One, creation, sustaining, ending. That is fine, but the Qur'an is much less easily misunderstood or confusing overall, and the Upanishads may be better with their descriptions of The Brahman, or even if one understands all the various terms used of God as referring to only One God, but still there can be a lot of confusion in these, which are at times only slightly clarified in the later ideas like those in the Bhagavad Gita which also makes it quite clear that there is One God and that all the various things are also that One God behind them.

With the Qur'an in hand and in mind, the Vedic writings can be transformed and filtered in such a way to make them conform, and then with the Vedic writings in hand and in mind, all the other Pagan or Polytheistic writings can also get filtered through and sterilized towards Monotheistic re-formatting.

One thing, that people might not always realize (though you probably know this), is that in these cultures, even like the Greek culture but especially in the Indian, there can be considered to be numerous varieties of beliefs, sayings, stories, cults, religions, tribes, tribal beliefs, and so in one place you could hear or see developments that focused on Rama, or Vishnu, another about Shiva, and before them, there may have been some group focused on Agni, Indra, Mitra, Varuna, whatever, and some may argue they were all worshipping different things, others may say different attributes of one thing, or some may say (and this is actually the most easy to demonstrate potentially) that they were using different terms of preference to refer to one thing that would repeatedly be referred to as having the same qualities as the things with different names other people were referring to, and so, whether its an apple in English or an apple in French, if what is being described is an apple each time clearly, its talking about the same thing.

It is also talking about other things as well potentially. In the Qur'an, we have Mitra in several ways as God is described in relation to promises and covenants and friendship, but also we have "The Covenant" which is another sort of "entity" linguistically, which can also be a reference to the word "Mitra" which might mean Covenant. Similarly we have Isis in a variety of forms, the word means Throne and refers to the Dominion and Power, and ultimately the Dominion and Power are qualities of Allah as well, while there is also the separate linguistic entity of the "Throne", so the Qur'an has it all really, and encompasses practically everything ever referred to spiritually throughout the human history before it.

So when the Qur'an says there is only One Religion and that religion is Surrender (which is also stated in the Bhagavad Gita), it appears that this is, despite appearances, literally true in a number of ways, and that the people of the Indus had access to this One Religion and some of them may have practiced it, while others may have been not practicing it. When they prayed and their prayers were answered, it was Allah they were praying to and Allah who was answering, even if they called Allah by Allah's other names and epithets, all of which are true and accurate rightfully belong to Allah as the Only (Actual) Power in existence.

That is also why I might say to people, they really don't have to choose, but can take whatever they can which seems best and right for themselves, as all these writings can be potentially used for good for oneself or for others or justice.

So I can confidently consider myself, having read all these things, able to justify what I am saying, a real Muslim, Jew, Christian, Hindu, and whatever else, while all being One Thing, One Religion, making no real major distinction, all of them are made to conform to the same skeleton, all that are exchanged are terms, and terms are taken for their meanings, and the best meanings are selected to accord with the truth and the reality as apparent and proveable.

So what do I think about the Monotheism or Oneness of God in literature accepted by Hindus or from Ancient Pakistan/India? I think that they are saying a lot of stuff, but that a lot of it can be formatted or carefully explained to be fitting, true, and monotheistic in nature, and so becomes a potentially effective tool to reach people or even meditate on or come to good thoughts and praises by. I think that even the Qur'an (however difficult it may be as compared to other writings) can be twisted by corrupt minds to say or imply things which are wrong, false, possibly even polytheistic for all its speaking out against polytheism (just like there are people who try to make the Bible polytheistic while others try to insist it is only Monotheistic), but that a Muslim will always twist and turn everything they can towards the truth and reason, and that only people with "diseased understandings" will try to make everything an idiotic cartoon (and I understand, I love cartoons, but "lets be real").
 
This thread appears to be about you and me and everyone and getting to our core. I did want to say that in another thread, you, the OP, were talking about how you are very focused on women and not men. And on women being the most beautiful they can be. I actually support that. One problem with feminism is one of its goals is for men and women to be treated exactly the same. I'm not sure I'm for the destruction of gender roles in -quite- that way. I'm only for rethinking harmful gender stereotypes. As a trans female, I like the things a lot of everyday women do, beauty and the idea of being adored for my looks, as well as my personality, but not necessarily on my ability to complete an algebra test (even if I can).

I have also grown up being adored for my looks and given an apparent advantage due to them, and hope to improve that advantage or regain it and exceed it even after enjoying lots of tasty food sitting around, having my metabolism lowering around my early thirties and late twenties unexpectedly and from ignorance, so that I got a belly. I still think I look good luckily, and I'm still funny and charming and all that, but I'd like to also be more physically fit, because it feels good when a person looks and seems to get reactions that they look amazing or attractive. I'm ok with being funny looking, but I prefer being funny and also sexy and powerful and stunning.

The Trans people I've talked to, particularly the Trans Females (people born biologically male), have reported to me that they feel as though they may in some sense be inhabited by a certain spirit, and this spirit seems to me to be their idealized spiritual form (which I'm always trying to get people to flesh out and describe as well), what they think they are or wish to be, so that their higher self or ideal self is more in accord with their manifest form in their experience.

There are generally 6 ways that people can transform, and these seem to somehow also deal with time and difficulty or slowness in some ways too, like a 6 stringed instrument, they vibrate different and at different speeds in some sense.

Above them all, might be the entirely mental transformation of beliefs which only transform a concept or definition, and above that is instantaneous and unwilling or even unwitting transformation.

More easy to understand, the transformation which one can perform in their Imagination, by simply seeing an image, or an image of oneself in this case, and transforming it or instantaneously seeing what one wants to see. So that can be done with great ease and speed.

The next would be "superimposed", that is to see something transformed or changed by the imagination imposed on the visual reality for example, maybe like a hallucination even, otherwise to just sort of imagine it vividly over whatever one is seeing, which can have varying degrees of intensity.

Next is the physical transformation, like what might be performed by exercise, by effort, which gradually shapes a person physically, or otherwise by cutting off and carving away a shape, like by surgeries.

Next is the Technological transformation (this I associate with the term Asura), which uses fabricated objects applied and integrated into one's physicality to modify the appearance, or even if one wants to be a wolf, you create a wolf suit or a mechanical wolf costume you can control, or do other things that use fabricated means to achieve the goal, and also this can extend into "illusion" like creating a virtual persona or having a virtual hologram projected of yourself which you control or projected over your appearance.

Next is the Transformation by means of material change, like genetic alteration, or changing the nature of matter, or even "being born that way", and this is often the one that people consider "most real" and "most true" and "most solid" and "most legitimate", when people "actually biologically wholly turned into a living werewolf" or whatever, which can be done by various biological means, and may someday be possible and ready to put into action.

Finally, God can bring about any of these, even in an instant, by various means or "just like that" and the next moment it is so.

I like or feel safest regarding things which are reversible easily, so I'm against things like tattoos and permanent modifications that can't easily be done away with if one changes their mind or has second thoughts later. Whatever is easily reversible or removable, seems harmless enough to me mainly, and the ideal form for humans is one where they can easily and immediately change their forms and appearances at will to represent whatever at all they want to represent. We live this fantasy in some senses in various ways, including avatars in games at times, pieces of art we empathize with, or in our fantasies.

We also at times wish to appear certain ways for the effect it is imagined to have on others. For example, I'd have no need or real benefit being gigantic in size or intimidating in appearance if there was no one around really, then it wouldn't even matter if I was super tiny or something, in fact, being tiny might make spaces more vast, which can have all their benefits (see the Siddhis).

Yet, due to the presence of "others" in my experience, I wish to appear certain ways almost centrally due to how they might react to my appearance and the feelings I get from those reactions.

People who like being beautiful females may enjoy the positive reactions they get from themselves in the mirror and those attracted to their appearance, and these reactions are processed and send signals in the brain which get chemicals released which basically make people feel great and give a sense of reward and happiness, even feelings of power over people and safety in some sense too (that they wouldn't attack or harm what they really like or derive pleasure from, except if they are illogical and crazy).

Everything becomes clear if we think about it. I make obnoxious statements on the internet that seem radical and horrible at first, but are meant to encourage people to face the darkness so that they can look into themselves and see the very basic, animalistic truths that we tend to avoid or rationalize or cover up with lots of other language and explanations that don't quite go so far as actually dealing with our real visceral feelings, and reactions, and tempers, and all justice and truth actually stems from the human animalism in my opinion.

So when I talk bluntly about my feelings (even if they are humorous exaggerations), the point is actually to be almost psychopathically "hyper-logical" to the point of being like "do I even really like men or want them around?" the answer is, no, not really, they are just competition and interference (and helpful labor) that gets in the way of what I really enjoy (and can also get work and service from), the female creature that I'm stimulated by, even by looking at them. They can do pretty much what men can do now or are used for these days, while making me happy seeing them do it, and if I'm the only male around and they like males, then that is like a Goat's Heaven.

Many people also have sexual intercourse in order to feel confident or dominate someone or "achieve a conquest" or something. I have never had sexual intercourse myself yet. I have been married for many years, and I expect that I will have sexual intercourse (and why I'm ok is knowing that I would and could), but I want to be more fit and actually enjoy it, so I have no reason to make that happen, and I'm typically satisfied enough feeling that people love me and no one else and prove this by their behaviors and activities, interactions and statements (to a lesser degree, as what people say doesn't probably matter as much, though I'd like it said, as what people do, a.k.a proving by manifestly and clearly caring and helping and being kind and affectionate as well).

I think also that it is important in the case of human rights to take into account the genuine female experience and acknowledge the differences, including the biological differences, as well as the differences which generations of still present cultural and even biological realities do to a person growing up as a female or thought of as a female and treated like a female, and so that a heavy handed slapping on of "now you're all the same" is actually an injustice and takes for granted and ignores real problems and struggles and how they are not the same and there is also this stronger predatory being in the room also, driven by their hormones and generations of support fueling them and their misunderstandings and cruelties which they think are "expected" and have been totally "normalized" upon a section of humans based only on their forms or appearances (so basically like a kind of skin-deep racism and caste system).

So, even though idiotic people are ready to pounce on the things I say as totally crazy and wrong, I'm actually awesome, really beautiful, and super smart. Thank you. *bows in a room made of mirrors*
 
Okay. Specifically, Yajurved.
So Yajurved has things like this:
"Thou art giver of life, O Agni; give me life [3]. Thou art giver of radiance, O Agni; give me radiance. Thou art guardian of the body, O Agni; guard my body."

which one can easily switch the word Agni for Allah without any issue or Al-Noor or even keep Agni and take it as a Spiritual sort of Ag (Fire) rather than a literal one, Allah used the symbol of Fire when dealing with Musa for example, and the Qur'an compares Allah to a light (which were mainly known as flames) in a niche that lights the homes of the believers. Similarly, the Yajurved, which can be interpreted in a crappy fashion, can make everything out to be really stupid and annoying, or with a monotheistic understanding and a willingness to pick and choose, edit, alter, twist, and do what is necessary to make a thing better seeming to one's sensibilities and one's own understandings of the truth and the reality, then these statements can almost all be made better, and in order to prevent internal contradictions, when Indra is stated as partnered with Agni, one should take the other verses among Vedas which say that Indra is one and the same, that all of them are One, so that if they appear in some sentence as partners, they are not and should not be imagined as actual partners or separate, but in the same fashion as Allah is the name of God, Al-Noor, Rahman are all the names of God, not different beings, even if one says "Allah sent a storm, Rahman sent thunder".

Unfortunately, the Hindus use the Yajurved to claim at times that God is embodied and has a form, which is to wrongfully give borders to a borderless and infinite all encompassing God who is without form (as other writings say explicitly and repeatedly).

Is God formless or with form?

"A Making a banner for that which hath none, Form for the formless" - Yajurved

"k Thou art the body of Agni, loostener of speech." which seems to indicate that the terms like "body" and "skin" are used in some kind of symbolic form with linguistic connotations which differ from a simple understanding, since these people are also using the word for "Fire" but associating all sorts of things with it too, then connecting and joining in many other terms (which are often taken to be "other gods" also).

Through all this apparent confusion, they still managed to at times insist upon monotheism, though it is a great thing that we have the Qur'an as such a clear and easy reading in comparison to any of these (though still nothing in the Vedas as far as I've read through them has ever disturbed me or filled me with hate and rage like the content of the Bible which seems much harder to understand as merely symbolic).

"v. 5. 17. The dappled (deer) is for the All"

The Vedas, and Yajurved, are lengthy (magical) rituals and ceremonial rites which people derive clues to establish what the beliefs of the Vedic Aryans may have been. To me, I don't care much what they may have really believed or not, which is between them and God and can never be known for certain, but rather how this language and work can potentially still be used and understand to inspire thinking which matches up with the monotheistic philosophy and concept of God which we consider appropriate and accurate.

People with an agenda different from that, like those who want to believe in things like a God with a "form" will use the same things to try to justify their own preferences, just as people have tried to use statements in the Qur'an to make Allah out to be something other than Subhan and Like Nothing, they try to say "Allah has two real hands" and stuff like that, even though the language is symbolic or can be taken to be symbolic.

Like, look at this guy who has an agenda of trying to convince people God is literally some formed limited tiny pathetic being:
Concept of Supreme God in Holy Vedas (Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samaveda, Atharvaveda) | Jagat Guru Rampal Ji

That is probably because he believes in a very literal Krishna (which became popular way after the older Vedas anyway).

They also say things like this:
20. Is God in Form or Formless?

Yet:
Facts of Life: GOD AS DESCRIBED IN THE VEDAS

Also, here is a Yajurved document for people:
https://www.holybooks.com/wp-conten...eda-Taittiriya-Sanhita-Taittiriya-Sanhita.pdf

The focus of the text does not seem to be to explain to people directly the nature of reality, which the Upanishads do a nicer job of, but rather to record the rituals performed by the priests during their sacrifices and whatever, which contain some clues to their thinking possibly, but what I use these things for more is to extract Names, Attributes, and quotes as well as possibly prayers or inspiration for prayers also.

I have the Vedas in my closet in my room right now, and by interpreting everything they are saying to be about Allah and modifying everything to be accord with the apparent truth and reality in what ways might be possible, it changes the whole way one might understand the text, though I still think the ritual performances and sacrifices which developed are likely unnecessary and over-bloated and can be refined down for similar results (though these rituals may have also been performed for entire communities in the hope of safety or making everyone else feel safe, as it is highly unlikely every single person was doing these long rituals constantly).

Also, the people with one agenda or another, find ways to translate words whichever way they want and to mean whatever they want (and if they do it, why can't we?).

We know that God is without form and all forms are encompassed by God, so anything that can be made to fit that works, and anything that can be twisted to work with that is fine too, and if it can't or really doesn't, who cares, throw it aside I say if its going to be a stumbling block. The Qur'an says things that some people are bent on understanding in ways that only make their God concept repulsive and foolish in my opinion, and the same goes for statements in these collections of magical rituals (they are nothing like the Qur'an really, except maybe having similarities to some of the prayers in the Qur'an), the same goes for the Vedas. The Qur'an is the more clearly and difficult to argue against monotheistic text, but the Vedas can pretty easily be demonstrated as Monotheistic as well and ultimately describing the same God in similar ways as well, but there are people who want to understand it differently, because (in my opinion) their minds are polluted with bad intentions which try to make God out to be a cartoon character of their preference rather than matching up to the Reality or Logic.

So the Yajurved makes statements throughout which can be used to refer to God symbolically in ways that can be justified as true, and even provides some ideas for possible prayers and praises, and it also says other things which become more difficult to justify or the symbolism is irritating (and the Bible has this also, but so too does the Qur'an in translation at times), but all these are considered scriptures, and all these have things which can be used to inspire and even empower as well as control for good, and the Qur'an exceeds them all in its clarity towards what I prefer, which is strict non-anthropomorphic monotheism, but many of the statements in the Bible and the Vedas and Upanishads and other writings seem to do so also, while others less so.

I use Rubbay or Rabbi Zidthnee Ilma as a prayer, asking Allah for knowledge.

"Lord please grant us the best in this world and in the Hereafter. We have now turned to you." Portion of 7:156

I haven't memorized all the things that I've read, so its all like an ocean with waves where things pop up or I remember or I'm like "I think I heard this somewhere, probably here" or get flashes of things, from the Qur'an or any of these books, the Bible, then I try to hunt them down or open them up in a pdf and use a word search or just open them up at random. Some of them are so huge and sometimes the word searches online are not that great and it can be very frustrating when I can't seem to find things again.

Also, these Ancient Religions often seemed pretty focused on Nature and the qualities of Nature and the Natural world, which they (I think rightfully) probably understood as the activities and operations of God controlling such (which people also often call "gods").

Like, I just looked outside the window, and I saw all these leaves swirling around in the wind, and there are only two types of people, those who think God is doing that, that is God in action and "it is just the wind and only the wind", and even if those people call themselves theists, I think they are really Atheists and that any God they say exists who is not what is making the appearance of those swirling leaves, has no God whatsoever. That is Indra right there, before our eyes, actively moving everything. So it is a good test to put oneself under, as to what we really believe and how we believe it. It is really so simple. I think most people are probably (and have possibly always been) truly atheistic and having no real God, all because they don't acknowledge the swirling of the leaves as God doing it right before our eyes, and say its other things, and that God isn't responsible for it except maybe somehow remotely or as the first domino pusher or whatever trash.

So, when the Vedas say that Indra removed the blockages and made the waters pour out, that is true in multiple ways, symbolically, actually, everything, the only way in which it is not true, is where Indra is some little humanoid flying around cutting open cloud bellies or something stupid like that taken as literally as possible, that never happened (except maybe in some poor imaginations). Who else is Indra, and even also Vrtra, than the one and only God, who is responsible for both the withholding and restraining effects of any sort, and the opening and flowing effects as well? Yet, silly minds might take there to be two or more, or some kind of oppositions at war, which we reject. Allah is directly responsible for the experience of seeing the clouds move, and that is why wherever at all you turn, you are seeing Allah and Allah's work and Allah at work, even though Allah is without image, encompassing all images, without form, encompassing all forms, controlling all experiences, all things in those experiences, and so all those things are being run by and played by Allah in a sense, though they can all be eliminated, and none of them are Allah in fact, but just information generated and manipulated by Allah as our experience, and wipe them all out, and there is what is Like Nothing, which is only Allah alone, not blackness, whiteness, space, distance, size, dimensions, depth, none of it, pure power, pure intelligent power to generate information and experience. The God and the Only God by any name. There is no other Odin that is powerful or true than that, nor any other Lopt or Sarva or Aplu or whatever else, it is Allah who is the diseaser, the healer, the wind blower, the water giver, Tlaloc, what else? Everything else!
 
Not to rudely overhear your conversation but, me too. I was born there but raised in NZ (after I was 1 year old). My father and everyone on my father's side are Australian, my mother a NZer.
Stralya is still very close to my heart.

Would you say in your experience or perception you've figured out some differences between Australians and NZ people and culture, or are they really similar to the point of being identical? What are the common stereotypes locally that people believe about each other and how accurate or true do they seem to be to you, and what are your actual, real observations? Which do you prefer? Why? What is life like where you are?
 
The Dharma, so far I read, doesn't mention homosexuality. It just says not to have sexual misconduct. Cultural conditions probably forbid same-sex relations but homosexuality, that's most likely never mentioned if not heard of back then.
Buddhism and sexual orientation - Wikipedia

"
Early texts[edit]

Buddha is often portrayed as an asexual figure, such as in this painting from a monastery in Laos.
Within the earliest monastic texts such as the Vinaya (c. 4th century BCE), male monks are explicitly forbidden from having sexual relations with any of the four genders: male, female, ubhatovyanjañaka and paṇḍaka; various meanings of these words are given below. Later, the Buddha allowed the ordination of women, forbade ordination to these other types of people, with exceptions to a few particular types of paṇḍaka.[12] The Buddha's proscriptions against certain types of people joining the monastic sangha (ordained community) are often understood to reflect his concern with upholding the public image of the sangha as virtuous; in some cases, this is explicitly stated. Social acceptability was vital for the sangha, as it could not survive without material support from lay society.[13]

Ubhatovyanjañakas[edit]
The word ubhatovyanjañaka is usually thought to describe people who have both male and female sexual characteristics: hermaphrodites[14] (intersex). In the Vinaya, it is said that ubhatovyanjañaka should not be ordained, on account of the possibility that they would entice a fellow monk or nun into having sex.[15]

Paṇḍakas[edit]
The paṇḍaka is a complex category that is variously defined in different Buddhist texts. In the earliest texts, the word seems to refer to a socially stigmatized class of trans-feminine and/or cross-dressing people, some of whom may have been sex workers.[16][17] Paisarn Likhitpreechakul argue that these people are grouped together with groups who are excluded from ordination as well; those with physical disabilities such as deafness or dwarfism, or those who have committed crimes.[18] "The Story of the Prohibition of the Ordination of Pandaka" from the Vinaya claims that the ban is a response to the example of a paṇḍaka monk with a desire to have sex. Being refused by other monks, he had sex with animal handlers, who then told the wider community and brought disgrace upon the sangha.[19][20]

In the Lotus Sutra, it said Bodhisattva should not go near Paṇḍaka,[21][22] as like what monk rules said in Vinaya. The Milinda Panha, claims that Paṇḍakas let out secrets through their imperfection.[23][24]"

"Gampopa (12th century), one of the main early masters of the Kagyu school of Tibetan Buddhism, followed the Indian Buddhist tradition, starting with the 3rd-century Hinayana texts of Vasubandhu, that oral and anal sex, whether with a man or a woman, are violations of the third precept regarding inappropriate sexual behavior. Longchenpa, the 13th-century founder of the Nyingma school, citing the 3rd-century Mahayana texts of the Indian master Asanga, elaborated that inappropriate sexual behavior also include the hands among inappropriate parts of the body for sexual activity. In the same way, Gelug predecessor Je Tsongkhapa also adheres to such rules in his studies.[35][42]"

"

__________________________

More stuff on the page, but anyway, traditionally throughout the Buddhist history it seems to have been shunned along with all sort of lusty sex acts and sexual gratification acts for the most part.

Also, the Dalai Lama, who is supposed to be Avalokiteshvara re-incarnate I think says it isn't allowed. I worship Avalokitesvara, but not the Dalai Lama, nor do I think he is Avalokitesvara incarnate, which to me would mean God incarnate.

Kāraṇḍavyūha Sūtra - Wikipedia
 
Thats not monotheism? I was asking about monotheism since you have read Yajurved.

The monotheism is stuff like this:
Advaita: Rig Veda says God is ‘ONE’ and God is Atman, then why believe and worship any other God in place of real God.+*****

The Vedas are not a theologically descriptive text that tries to purposefully outline the nature of God purposefully, so much as it is a record of ritual prayers and recitations which contain many epithets and names and qualities described by these praises and associations. Verses throughout the Vedas seem to indicate that these various names are referring to One, or aspects and attributes of One, but its focus isn't seemingly on proving that but just collecting the ritual recitations.

It is not like the Qur'an, its not the same sort of thing really, the Qur'an seems to be focused on actually teaching people something and making them conform to it, while these people already believed whatever they believed and these were some of the rituals they wanted to put down so that it remains recorded.

"i. 1. 1. a For food thee, for strength thee! b Ye are winds, ye are approachers. c Let the god Savitr impel you to the most excellent offering. d O invincible ones, swell with the share for the gods, Full of strength, of milk, rich in offspring, free from sickness, from disease. e Let no thief, no evil worker, have control over you. f Let Rudra's dart avoid you. g Abide ye, numerous, with this lord of cattle. h Do thou protect the cattle of the sacrificer."

That is how the Yajurved starts in the document I linked to, and you can see its the beginning of some sort of prayer that provides people with two names Savitr, and Rudra, which also can through reading the rest of the Vedas and Upanishads and commentaries, collect enough quotes and evidence which indicate that these various names were calling upon One or different attributes of One Power, just like how the Qur'an uses different names all in one sentence or paragraph even to describe Allah or call upon Allah's attributes.

Nowhere, as far as I recall, do the Vedas spend a great deal of time focused on making sure its entirely clear and fully understood that Monotheism is the right way or anything, so one has to go through and find little quotes here and there among the prayers that are being recited.

"b Since Viçvakarman is mighty in mind, Disposer, ordainer, and highest seer, Their offerings rejoice in food, Where say they is one beyond the seven Rsis. c He who is our father, our begetter, the ordainer, Who begot us from being unto being [1],"
"

"The one god producing sky and earth Welds them together with arms, with wings. l What was the basis? Which and what his support? When producing earth [4] Viçvakarman, all−seeing, Disclosed the sky with his might. m What was the wood, and what the tree, Whence they formed sky and earth? O ye wise ones, inquire with your minds On what he stood as he supported the worlds. n Thy highest, lowest, Midmost abodes here, O Viçvakarman, In the offering do thou teach thy comrades, O faithful one; Do thou thyself sacrifice to thyself, rejoicing. o The lord of speech, Viçvakarman, Let us invoke this day to aid us [5], thought yoked for strength, May he delight in our nearest offerings, He with all healing, to aid (us), the doer of good deeds. p O Viçvakarman, waxing great with the oblation, Do thou thyself sacrifice to thyself rejoicing; May the others around, our foes, be confused; May our patrons here be rich. q O Viçvakarman, with the oblation as strengthening,"

Right before that, and right after that, are statements that "faces and arms and hands and feet on every side" and "you made Indra", while Indra is the same One God, and the stuff about body parts everywhere should only be understood as non-literal, referring to omni-presence, animation in all directions, animating all things, and being all places and behind every sort of creature and motion, yet, its very much misleading and confusing, which is why the language of the Qur'an is better.

So if your question was "what does the Yajurved say about monotheism", it contains quotes like all the Vedas which can be used to make it appear monotheistic and refer to One God even by a variety of names or names placed as symbolic figures next to each other, but its focus does not seem to really be on educating people in this regard as much as it is a series of ritual recitations, incantations, things that people recited for their community or their patrons. The Upanishads seem to be more of an educating text, one that tries to elaborate upon and explain things, and often does so by indicating Monotheism, possibly Monism, that there is only One God, and really One Thing also maybe.

Yet, people use the same verses or other verses to try to make there be numerous other Gods or divide all these into various Gods, some even say then that the "gods" are angels actually, but none of that seems to be the case. Terminology is used that seems to refer to natural things and aspects of nature or society and life, but these can also be taken more extensively as symbolic things in reference to qualities of God.

"c You Indra chose for the contest with Vrtra, ye chose Indra for the contest with Vrtra. d Ye are sprinkled. e I sprinkle you agreeable to Agni, to Agni and Soma. f Be ye pure for the divine rite, for the sacrifice to the gods. g The Raksas is shaken off, the evil spirits are shaken off."

The reason I keep showing these quotes is that I'm trying to explain that its not a text about demonstrating monotheism to students or learners or anything mainly.

"i So great art thou, thou art life, bestow life upon me; thou art strength, bestow strength upon me; thou art the yoker; thou art radiance, bestow radiance upon me. k To Agni, lord of the house, hail! To Soma, lord of the forest, hail! To Indra's strength hail! To the Maruts' force hail! I The gander seated in purity, the bright one seated in the atmosphere, The Hotr seated at the altar, the guest seated in the house, Seated among men, seated in the highest, seated in holy order, seated in the firmament, Born of the waters, born of the cows, born of holy order, born of the mountain, the great holy order. i. 8. 16. a Thou art Mitra, thou art Varuna. b May I be united with the All−gods. c Thou art the navel of kingly power, thou are the womb of kingly power. d Sit thou on the smooth, sit thou on the pleasant seat. e May she hurt thee not; may she hurt me not. f Varuna, of sure vows, hath set him down In the waters, with keen insight, for lordship. g O Brahman! Thou, O king, art the Brahman priest, thou art Savitr of true instigation. O Brahman! Thou, O king, art the Brahman priest, thou art Indra of true force [1]. O Brahman! Thou, O king, art the Brahman priest; thou art Indra, the kindly. O Brahman! Thou, O king, art the Brahman priest; thou art Varuna, of true rule. h Thou art the bolt of Indra, slaying foes; with this subject to me. i This king hath surmounted the quarters. k O thou of good fame! O thou of prosperity! O thou of true rule!"

You see? "You are" and then listing all these names and everything, saying you are Agni, Varuna, Mitra, All, Brahman, and a bunch of other stuff.

This explanatory commentary of the sacrifices is included as well:

"He offers to Agni on eight potsherds; the sacrificial fee is gold. (He offers) to Sarasvati an oblation; the sacrificial fee is a calf. To Savitr (he offers) on twelve potsherds; the sacrificial fee is a speckled (ox). To Pusan (he offers) an oblation; the sacrificial fee is a dark (ox), To Brhaspati (he offers) an oblation; the sacrificial fee is a white−backed (ox). To Indra (he offers) on eleven potsherds; the sacrificial fee is a bull. To Varuna (he offers) on ten potsherds; the sacrificial fee is a great castrated (ox). To Soma (he offers) an oblation; the sacrificial fee is a brown (ox). To Tvastr (he offers) on eight potsherds; the sacrificial fee is a white (ox) To Vishnu (he offers) on three potsherds; the sacrificial fee is a dwarf (ox)."

"He who practises witchcraft should offer to Agni and Visnu on eleven potsherds; Sarasvati should have a portion of the butter, and to Brhaspati an oblation (be offered); in that there is (an offering) on eleven potsherds to Agni and Visnu, and all the gods are Agni and the sacrifice is Visnu, with all the gods and the sacrifice be practises witchcraft against him; Sarasvati has a portion of the butter; Sarasvati is speech; verily with speech he practises against him; the oblation is Brhaspati's, Brhaspati is the holy power (Brahman) of the gods; verily with the holy power (Brahman) he practises against him [1]. Him who practises witchcraft they practise then against; he should double each of the Puronuvakyas, for special employment."

Now its possible that these developments were (most likely) included as notes later on, but regardless, it seems clear to most that the purpose of these texts is not for theological explanations overall, though they are used for that by some via extraction from things that are said during the suggested recitations and rituals.

So when I read through these, what I'm looking for are names, epithets, descriptions, praises, which might be useful. I consider all these One (even as it says, even as the article tries to show in some quotes, and there are more that I've seen which may be less overt so not selected as the main ones Monotheists use), so that Vayu refers to God, Indra, etc, and they refer to the All-God but also each may be used to refer to certain attribute or aspect, so just like we call Allah Mighty and Wise, and if we are seeking wisdom we might use the Wise epithet, and if we are seeking strength or protection, the Mighty epithet, invoking and calling upon that area of power of Allah, and it can be interpreted or used now in the same way that if someone wants something that they mentally associate with strength and consider the term Indra having to do with that, they can call upon Allah as Indra, Brahman, Varuna, Mitra, whichever seems appropriate or apt, and if it is a word that means something natural, one should modify their understanding to not mean the literal physical thing or version of that, so that when we say Noor, we hopefully don't mean literal physical light.

So, reading through the Vedas, and the Yajurved, its just ongoing praises and invocations and prayers and ritual recitations, with little clues and things that can be picked out, but not an ongoing discourse on the Oneness of Allah or anything like that as its focus.
 
Because of stuff like how it is written and translated though, the Vedas would not be recommended to someone who isn't tending towards Monotheism and is not expected to enter into it with a Monotheistic understanding and way of resolving the writing. Similarly, the Bible starts off with disappointing, in its term "Elohim" rather than El or Eloah and more clearly singular versions rather than the plural term (even if the surrounding language is singular). Though the Vedas may seem ultimately more confusing than the Bible, the Bible contains such disturbing material regarding its main ideas and the deeds and the results of the primary figures in it from practically the beginning, that it gets voted down by me and ranks way below the Vedas in comparison to the apparent piety and good praises in the Vedas or throughout the Vedas (despite the anthropomorphic or strange epithets and descriptions which likely had different connotations and references that are not as well understood now or took on different meanings in the language over a very long period of time).

The Avestan texts attributed to Zoroaster and the Zoroastrians, are also not too bad, I like them, but they are similar to the Vedic in some ways, and also indicate more directly a whole league of hostile entities that take on the names at times of other Vedic beings, while adopting others more positively. The Zoroastrians also now consider themselves Monotheistic, but because of some of the things written in their texts which attribute basic things in our reality to "evil beings" that are separated and different from the God, this makes their writing even more concerning than that of the Vedas! So they get put at a lower rank as well, but not lower than the Bible, as the Zoroastrian texts as far as I have read (which is a lot, they are available online as well, and I still may buy the big collection I had put in my Amazon cart, even though I had read all that online I think or downloaded it), they do not have as many great names, epithets, and praises put throughout the works as the Vedas, the Vedas are in other words, more filled with stuff that is useful to me. I think that there were polytheistic minded and monotheistic minded Zoroastrians and Anti-Zoroastrians throughout Persia in the past (most likely).

Above the Dualistic writings and thoughts of the Zoroastrians, but possibly under the Vedas and Upanishadic texts and thoughts, sit the Mahayana Buddhist writings, which were oftentimes pretty Vedic and Upanishadic in nature, and even easily used towards Monotheism and Monotheistic thinking which is acceptable, so long as the descriptions or epithets or names match up well as useful in referring to the qualities of the One Power. These texts differ from the more Atheistic and even irreverent texts that some other Buddhists may prefer, and are heavily theistic in nature very often and also pretty technical and philosophical at times, while also being very much religious or based around faith and dependency upon a greater power and intelligence. A little fiddling and they are just practically or entirely Islamic seeming at times, and elements of these ideas have been at least somewhat retained more in some Buddhist sects today, like some in Tibet and Japan as well as China. They often also seem more normal at times, more for the lay people or non-monks sometimes in some ways, or more accepting and inviting and not as focused on hierarchies and tight systems and orders, where one can have a relationship with the magical reality all alone and in their own life without even necessarily touching an order (probably written by people who were kicked out of orders or couldn't join haha, but its better overall if a religion can be accepted personally and not dealing with a real organization, and I hate organizations myself generally and authority structures, especially when it comes to religions and a relationship with God).

Qur'an is the C'rown
Vedas are the Torso like a V
Mahayana Buddhism is the front and back of the pelvic connector region (B is like a buttocks for example)
Avesta/Zoroastrianism is the masculine part
Judaism and Christians are the Legs

Maybe we should put P for Philosophy and the Philosophers under the Qur'an and above the Vedas as they clarify the texts and ideas and often (around the world and time) tended towards Monotheism quite often.

Q
P
V
MB
A
JC

The Great Little Adam of Human Spiritual Writing.

Voodoo, Polytheism, Poltytheistic Witchcraft and doing weird things and believing in energies and all that, they are excluded, and they were quite frequently despised but popular systems or systems similar to them and what exists today, but they are even worse than Bible for their ideas, so that the Bible seems almost enlightened in comparison to people thinking that hurting animals and drinking their blood when they are afraid or that ghosts are going to help them or blah blah blah are the lowest, most degraded, ideas of mad humans, which is why some of the earliest writings in the world are against such things, anti-witch rituals and prayers, anti-witch laws and procedures, because of how offensive it seems to people that there is someone who hates them or is out to get them or is poisoning their food with dead rats and plant drugs or whatever.

Most human beings across the world, even today, as far as I've talked to them (and just like I've read more than I've realized, a lot, I've also talked to thousands upon thousands, possibly even hundreds of thousands over the years, online and offline, in pretty intimate and piercing conversations, like I had huge lists on MSN messenger and have been online since 1999 so like 20 years or more of dialogue with every sort of person of every age), say they believe in God or something, are spiritual or at least sort of want to be and want to be perceived as such or opened, but a great many of them tend towards some kind of anthropomorphism and even polytheism or polytheistic literalism quite frequently, and this sort of (what in my opinion is frankly ultimate dumbness and cartoon-ness, however much we all may want a cartoon universe of HE-MAN or SHE-RA) silliness in thinking has been growing and growing, so that I've heard of it and ideas like this a lot more, a lot more openly, a lot more insisted upon by youths and some older people (and I pretty strongly dislike everyone, but especially people who are younger than me, especially as they get younger and younger and younger mostly, like the creeps I encountered on the program called Discord, and the creeps who live above and around me and are young and totally annoying, selfish, inconsiderate, no manners, just horrible people overall that have been produced by this New World Order of the Internet, the New Media, or something, boy o boy do they do so much annoying stuff and say so much annoying stuff and act like totally mean people).

I think these ultimately or realistically Godless people are the majority, the vast majority, and have always really been the majority, and that these are the Polytheists which the Qur'an says have existed throughout time "Their hearts are all the same" it says (or something like that), and they exist now, are totally unrelatable, almost completely lacking ethics, would kill their children if they could (and many times do, in various ways).

Religion and Philosophy does not seem to be suited for them, and all that seems to be their life is pettiness and dramas and a disconnection from each other, themselves, all sincerity. They don't even have a deep affection for anything, not even animals, because a caring and love and sensitivity towards life and creatures is an important indication of the state of one's heart and sensitivity and how diseased one's heart is (in my opinion). The Nobler of the Ignorant Pagans is going to always be the one who is kind to lifeforms and caring, and the Cruel among the Religious people who doesn't have any understanding are the ones who are Cruel to lifeforms and destructive and vile sorts of people with bad manners and treatment and no honor, restraint, or shame.

So Religion doesn't automatically grant anyone anything. You could follow all the rules (except the rules about not being a bast) and be a bast, and would hopefully lose for it.

That means, more important than Religion and Religious Understanding, More Important than What You Know or Think You Know, even more Important than Praising God, is Your Conduct, Your Sensitivity, Your Kindness, Your Decency. If you're a rotten human being, it doesn't matter how much you kiss-up to God or think you're buddies, in my opinion God hates you (probably because I hate you! I don't mean you or any of you though lol just general bad, mean people).

So, if you think about it, the world almost becomes sort of clear, and we CAN seem to be able to offer some kind of judgment even, of who we think might be (based on their apparent conduct as far as we can see) someone who is better or worse and more truly Godly or Evil. It may not always be who you would think or expect, since it comes down to a place that is hidden (the insides, the "Heart" or "Understanding" or "Mind).

You can judge a book by its cover, but also by its content, since most books may have a cover that is made that way for a reason, to get certain people attracted, show certain things, let people know what might be expected inside, or to deceive (and its actually hiding a bottle inside! It isn't even a book! It's an alcoholic!).

What do you all think is best, most beautiful, most noble? Both superficially and on the surface, and spiritually and philosophically? Who do you think deserves Paradise and Hell if there were or are to be such existences and locations to inhabit? How much do you each act like someone you think is truly beautiful, amazing, lovely, and deserving all good here and now and any laters?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
The monotheism is stuff like this:
Advaita: Rig Veda says God is ‘ONE’ and God is Atman, then why believe and worship any other God in place of real God.+*****

The Vedas are not a theologically descriptive text that tries to purposefully outline the nature of God purposefully, so much as it is a record of ritual prayers and recitations which contain many epithets and names and qualities described by these praises and associations. Verses throughout the Vedas seem to indicate that these various names are referring to One, or aspects and attributes of One, but its focus isn't seemingly on proving that but just collecting the ritual recitations.

It is not like the Qur'an, its not the same sort of thing really, the Qur'an seems to be focused on actually teaching people something and making them conform to it, while these people already believed whatever they believed and these were some of the rituals they wanted to put down so that it remains recorded.

"i. 1. 1. a For food thee, for strength thee! b Ye are winds, ye are approachers. c Let the god Savitr impel you to the most excellent offering. d O invincible ones, swell with the share for the gods, Full of strength, of milk, rich in offspring, free from sickness, from disease. e Let no thief, no evil worker, have control over you. f Let Rudra's dart avoid you. g Abide ye, numerous, with this lord of cattle. h Do thou protect the cattle of the sacrificer."

That is how the Yajurved starts in the document I linked to, and you can see its the beginning of some sort of prayer that provides people with two names Savitr, and Rudra, which also can through reading the rest of the Vedas and Upanishads and commentaries, collect enough quotes and evidence which indicate that these various names were calling upon One or different attributes of One Power, just like how the Qur'an uses different names all in one sentence or paragraph even to describe Allah or call upon Allah's attributes.

Nowhere, as far as I recall, do the Vedas spend a great deal of time focused on making sure its entirely clear and fully understood that Monotheism is the right way or anything, so one has to go through and find little quotes here and there among the prayers that are being recited.

"b Since Viçvakarman is mighty in mind, Disposer, ordainer, and highest seer, Their offerings rejoice in food, Where say they is one beyond the seven Rsis. c He who is our father, our begetter, the ordainer, Who begot us from being unto being [1],"
"

"The one god producing sky and earth Welds them together with arms, with wings. l What was the basis? Which and what his support? When producing earth [4] Viçvakarman, all−seeing, Disclosed the sky with his might. m What was the wood, and what the tree, Whence they formed sky and earth? O ye wise ones, inquire with your minds On what he stood as he supported the worlds. n Thy highest, lowest, Midmost abodes here, O Viçvakarman, In the offering do thou teach thy comrades, O faithful one; Do thou thyself sacrifice to thyself, rejoicing. o The lord of speech, Viçvakarman, Let us invoke this day to aid us [5], thought yoked for strength, May he delight in our nearest offerings, He with all healing, to aid (us), the doer of good deeds. p O Viçvakarman, waxing great with the oblation, Do thou thyself sacrifice to thyself rejoicing; May the others around, our foes, be confused; May our patrons here be rich. q O Viçvakarman, with the oblation as strengthening,"

Right before that, and right after that, are statements that "faces and arms and hands and feet on every side" and "you made Indra", while Indra is the same One God, and the stuff about body parts everywhere should only be understood as non-literal, referring to omni-presence, animation in all directions, animating all things, and being all places and behind every sort of creature and motion, yet, its very much misleading and confusing, which is why the language of the Qur'an is better.

So if your question was "what does the Yajurved say about monotheism", it contains quotes like all the Vedas which can be used to make it appear monotheistic and refer to One God even by a variety of names or names placed as symbolic figures next to each other, but its focus does not seem to really be on educating people in this regard as much as it is a series of ritual recitations, incantations, things that people recited for their community or their patrons. The Upanishads seem to be more of an educating text, one that tries to elaborate upon and explain things, and often does so by indicating Monotheism, possibly Monism, that there is only One God, and really One Thing also maybe.

Yet, people use the same verses or other verses to try to make there be numerous other Gods or divide all these into various Gods, some even say then that the "gods" are angels actually, but none of that seems to be the case. Terminology is used that seems to refer to natural things and aspects of nature or society and life, but these can also be taken more extensively as symbolic things in reference to qualities of God.

"c You Indra chose for the contest with Vrtra, ye chose Indra for the contest with Vrtra. d Ye are sprinkled. e I sprinkle you agreeable to Agni, to Agni and Soma. f Be ye pure for the divine rite, for the sacrifice to the gods. g The Raksas is shaken off, the evil spirits are shaken off."

The reason I keep showing these quotes is that I'm trying to explain that its not a text about demonstrating monotheism to students or learners or anything mainly.

"i So great art thou, thou art life, bestow life upon me; thou art strength, bestow strength upon me; thou art the yoker; thou art radiance, bestow radiance upon me. k To Agni, lord of the house, hail! To Soma, lord of the forest, hail! To Indra's strength hail! To the Maruts' force hail! I The gander seated in purity, the bright one seated in the atmosphere, The Hotr seated at the altar, the guest seated in the house, Seated among men, seated in the highest, seated in holy order, seated in the firmament, Born of the waters, born of the cows, born of holy order, born of the mountain, the great holy order. i. 8. 16. a Thou art Mitra, thou art Varuna. b May I be united with the All−gods. c Thou art the navel of kingly power, thou are the womb of kingly power. d Sit thou on the smooth, sit thou on the pleasant seat. e May she hurt thee not; may she hurt me not. f Varuna, of sure vows, hath set him down In the waters, with keen insight, for lordship. g O Brahman! Thou, O king, art the Brahman priest, thou art Savitr of true instigation. O Brahman! Thou, O king, art the Brahman priest, thou art Indra of true force [1]. O Brahman! Thou, O king, art the Brahman priest; thou art Indra, the kindly. O Brahman! Thou, O king, art the Brahman priest; thou art Varuna, of true rule. h Thou art the bolt of Indra, slaying foes; with this subject to me. i This king hath surmounted the quarters. k O thou of good fame! O thou of prosperity! O thou of true rule!"

You see? "You are" and then listing all these names and everything, saying you are Agni, Varuna, Mitra, All, Brahman, and a bunch of other stuff.

This explanatory commentary of the sacrifices is included as well:

"He offers to Agni on eight potsherds; the sacrificial fee is gold. (He offers) to Sarasvati an oblation; the sacrificial fee is a calf. To Savitr (he offers) on twelve potsherds; the sacrificial fee is a speckled (ox). To Pusan (he offers) an oblation; the sacrificial fee is a dark (ox), To Brhaspati (he offers) an oblation; the sacrificial fee is a white−backed (ox). To Indra (he offers) on eleven potsherds; the sacrificial fee is a bull. To Varuna (he offers) on ten potsherds; the sacrificial fee is a great castrated (ox). To Soma (he offers) an oblation; the sacrificial fee is a brown (ox). To Tvastr (he offers) on eight potsherds; the sacrificial fee is a white (ox) To Vishnu (he offers) on three potsherds; the sacrificial fee is a dwarf (ox)."

"He who practises witchcraft should offer to Agni and Visnu on eleven potsherds; Sarasvati should have a portion of the butter, and to Brhaspati an oblation (be offered); in that there is (an offering) on eleven potsherds to Agni and Visnu, and all the gods are Agni and the sacrifice is Visnu, with all the gods and the sacrifice be practises witchcraft against him; Sarasvati has a portion of the butter; Sarasvati is speech; verily with speech he practises against him; the oblation is Brhaspati's, Brhaspati is the holy power (Brahman) of the gods; verily with the holy power (Brahman) he practises against him [1]. Him who practises witchcraft they practise then against; he should double each of the Puronuvakyas, for special employment."

Now its possible that these developments were (most likely) included as notes later on, but regardless, it seems clear to most that the purpose of these texts is not for theological explanations overall, though they are used for that by some via extraction from things that are said during the suggested recitations and rituals.

So when I read through these, what I'm looking for are names, epithets, descriptions, praises, which might be useful. I consider all these One (even as it says, even as the article tries to show in some quotes, and there are more that I've seen which may be less overt so not selected as the main ones Monotheists use), so that Vayu refers to God, Indra, etc, and they refer to the All-God but also each may be used to refer to certain attribute or aspect, so just like we call Allah Mighty and Wise, and if we are seeking wisdom we might use the Wise epithet, and if we are seeking strength or protection, the Mighty epithet, invoking and calling upon that area of power of Allah, and it can be interpreted or used now in the same way that if someone wants something that they mentally associate with strength and consider the term Indra having to do with that, they can call upon Allah as Indra, Brahman, Varuna, Mitra, whichever seems appropriate or apt, and if it is a word that means something natural, one should modify their understanding to not mean the literal physical thing or version of that, so that when we say Noor, we hopefully don't mean literal physical light.

So, reading through the Vedas, and the Yajurved, its just ongoing praises and invocations and prayers and ritual recitations, with little clues and things that can be picked out, but not an ongoing discourse on the Oneness of Allah or anything like that as its focus.

Brother. Hear me out. Let me tell you directly that very very rarely respond to one persons simple request on one single matter with a direct answer. Since it was never for a debate I asked for your insight on the Hindu Yajurveda specifically because you said you have all of scripture. Everything. I would urge you brother to try and focus on one thing and go deep into it. Make it your subject. I dont mean you should make it your life's work but at least make it one of your subjects and go deep. One by one.

I asked you one or two questions just to see how you approach what you call "reading the scripture".

Thanks for engaging. I bid you well.
 

Ancient Soul

The Spiritual Universe
I was trying to write a whole post awhile back but the thread got deleted right after I pressed enter. So, I'm debating whether to comment on it in full. Took awhile.

I've had that happen when my WiFi cuts out. So if you are using a PC, try pressing the "Ctrl and C" keys at the same time every so often to copy your longer posts. Then if you lose it, just press "Ctrl and V" keys to re-enter your post. Not sure how to copy or save it on a phone though.
 
Top