Who Would This Person Be Within Hinduism

[Aupmanyav]

Someone saying they have no intention of ruffling feathers doesn't mean a lot, if feathers are ruffled. Not how it works.

Vinayaka, there are two people. Native, who does not want to ruffle feathers (he has down-loaded BG Tilak's 'Orion or the Antiquity of Vedas' and is going to study it. He is happy to see the image of Milky Way galaxy on the second page of the book); and Paarsurray, of whose intentions I am not sure. But if it is ruffling Hindu feathers then he is not going to succeed. I can ruffle his feathers any time I want.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If Brahman did not tell about Him then who told about Him? Please name the person who got the information about Him.

Do you have a brain? Do you use it for thinking? Or you go by whatever someone tells you? Some one says that he is the son of a God or some one says that a God has sent him some message and you accept it. What if the person who makes a claim is a fool or a charlatan? Why don't you accept what Bahaullah or Mirza Ghulam Ahmad said? Or what Joseph Smith or even David Koresh? Why accept one person and reject the others? Only those who have no brains or are not in the habit of using it would do that. Hindus make their own decisions. We do not need people to tell us what is true and what is not. We find it ourselves.

 

[wizanda]

Who told the authors about Brahman?

There were ancient schools of thought, called the Rishis...They sat in deep meditation, and came to knowledge of reality, from connecting with Brahman directly.

Then there have been numerous avatars, who are incarnations of Brahman... Thus there is knowledge written about them as well.

Here is the historical timeline of Hindu texts, save you having to look anything up on Google, and checking it for yourself, before making silly derogatory statements towards a tradition, that has so much more detail compared to any other religion, it would take you a life time to study it all.

 

[paarsurrey]

Please name the first rishi who conversed with Brahman and the mode in which the conversation took place, quoting his words and the aspect of preservation of his words. We are in the Religious Debate Forum, if some one has any apprehensions,one may not join the debate/discussion no compulsion whatsoever, please.
And kindly don't doubt my sincerity, the discussions are done on equitable basis and no reservations, please.
Regards

 

[wizanda]

Please name the first rishi who conversed with Brahman

Go to the historical timeline of Hindu texts, check the first book, which is the Rigveda, and then that page has a list of them.

If you check the links, and actually do some research, you might learn something.

the mode in which the conversation took place,

As just saying they meditated, and if you read the links, you'd see the Rishi page explains that...

Haven't you ever meditated on God, God can communicate with us all the time; unless we're just full of our own ego.

the aspect of preservation of his words

Sorry, yet there are thousands of years of history there, go read up on it.

 

[Vinayaka]

Please name the first rishi who conversed with Brahman and the mode in which the conversation took place, quoting his words and the aspect of preservation of his words. We are in the Religious Debate Forum, if some one has any apprehensions,one may not join the debate/discussion no compulsion whatsoever, please.
And kindly don't doubt my sincerity, the discussions are done on equitable basis and no reservations, please.
Regards

It wasn't a conversation. It was one-way. The rishis recorded, or remembered.

 

[wizanda]

It wasn't a conversation. It was one-way.

Do you not find that when you meditate, and ask questions of the divine, it answers back?

 

[Vinayaka]

Do you not find that when you meditate, and ask questions of the divine, it answers back?

For starters, meditation means a lot of different things to different people, so sometimes discussions won't bear any fruit unless we're talking about the same thing. I am not sure in this case. I suspect we won't be on the same wavelength. Regardless, I'll answer, based on my understanding and version of Hindu meditation.

One of my Guru's statements on it was, "You go in, and in, and in, and in, and then you go in some more. After you get there, you go in some more still."

I think that shows pretty clearly that there are levels ... and levels of skill at it ... many, each deeper than the next. Another quote was 'Some people, as soon as they get any realisation at all, (like a flash of light, etc.) actually (said with a sense of dismay) are so eager to tell someone they stop their meditation.

Further teachings from my Gurus, when I asked about how to determine whether or not something is real insight, or just your own mind/ego/instinct playing games with itself. That response was longer, and it went something like this.

True insight comes unbidden, and often OUTSIDE of meditation. In meditation you're looking for it, but the actual response will come in a moment of 'Aha!' when you're relaxed, walking, even driving the car, etc. The context here, I believe was for the beginner to tell, not the advanced meditator. In my understanding of the word, very few are advanced. (If you see an advanced meditator in action so to speak, they are as still as a corpse ... no swallowing, nothing, except a gentle breath, and that may last a few hours.

The other aspect in being able to tell is emotion. If there is any emotion (even a little) attached to it, then it's probably just your mind trying to trick you. True intuitive flashes come unbidden, are often contradictory to previous stuff, or a new way to view the situation entirely.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Please name the first rishi who conversed with Brahman and the mode in which the conversation took place, quoting his words and the aspect of preservation of his words.

Leave it, Paarsurrey. You are not fit to understand Hinduism. We have a saying that 'we should not play a flute before a she-buffalo, because she is never going to understand music', it is a futile exercise, the she-buffalo will only moo - (Bhains ke āge been bajāwe, bhains khari dakarāye). It requires some intelligence.

In Sanskrit also there is a concept of Su-patra (suitable candidate) and ku-patra (unsuitable candidate). If one is giving money, education, or advice to another person, one should first think if the person receiving it really deserves it or not. Will he benefit by it or will the person use that money, education or advice to his own detriment and that of others. By what you have posted here and by what you have understood of so many people who have posted in reply to your questions, you have proved that any further discussion with you will also be useless. http://biblehub.com/matthew/7-6.htm

Go to the historical timeline of Hindu texts, check the first book, which is the Rigveda, and then that page has a list of them.

The information about RigVeda as given by Western scholars is completely wrong, Wizanda. It is at least 6,000 year old. It mentions the time when the sun rose in the asterism or Orion on the day of vernal equinox.

 

[Jainarayan]

These "who(m) did Brahman talk to" and "who was the first person who ... " questions have become not only tiresome and repetitive, but I daresay trollish. I think our collective Hindu chain is being yanked.

 

[Vinayaka]

These "who(m) did Brahman talk to" and "who was the first person who ... " questions have become not only tiresome and repetitive, but I daresay trollish. I think our collective Hindu chain is being yanked.

I think it demonstrates an excellent point ... west not understanding east. In this case it's obvious. With the Donigers, Alexander Popes, and Bede Griffiths of the world, the same holds true, but because they could or can speak with fanciful language, it's not so obvious. So it's a lesson on how not to be fooled DESPITE the apparent intricate mumble-jumble use of words. Parsurrey probably understands it better than Doniger.

 

[Jainarayan]

Moreover, I think it's condescending of them, pretending they know as much or more than those who live it.

 

[wizanda]

The information about RigVeda as given by Western scholars is completely wrong

Yeah Wikipedia is wrong on multiple things; yet trying to say go research before making almost derogatory claims, because of lack of knowledge.

west not understanding east.

It isn't west vs east, it appears it is an automatic Muslim response; they've got certain bits instilled in their thinking, where they can't compute outside of it.

Moreover, I think it's condescending of them

It might be because of lack of understanding on the whole topic, due to certain aspects of Islam being determined only one way.

 

[paarsurrey]

It isn't west vs east, it appears it is an automatic Muslim response; they've got certain bits instilled in their thinking, where they can't compute outside of it.

West and East both are direction of the same earth we all live in, the difference if there is only a cultural difference not of the Truth or the truthful religion. West and the East are both creation of the same G-d:

[2:116] To Allah belong the East and the West; so withersoever you turn, there will be the face of Allah. Surely, Allah is Bountiful, All- Knowing.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=2&verse=115​

Regards

 

[The_Fisher_King]

It isn't west vs east, it appears it is an automatic Muslim response; they've got certain bits instilled in their thinking, where they can't compute outside of it.

What 'automatic Muslim response' are you referring to here? Similarly, which 'bits instilled in their thinking' are you referring to?

It might be because of lack of understanding on the whole topic, due to certain aspects of Islam being determined only one way.

What is 'the whole topic' here, in your opinion? And which 'aspects of Islam being determined only one way' are you referring to?

 

[Vinayaka]

Sorry guys, I slipped again. I have been meaning to avoid east and west as terms for paradigms, and say Abrahamic and Dharmic instead, like this forum categorises it. So post 251 should read Abrahamic will never understand Dharmic. I think that almost goes without saying now.

 

[Vinayaka]

It isn't west vs east, it appears it is an automatic Muslim response; they've got certain bits instilled in their thinking, where they can't compute outside of it.

In my experiences and discussions, Muslims vary a lot. Not as much as Sanatana Dharma, but still a lot. It would probably benefit you to read up on Islam as well before making generalisations like that. BTW, when I was expressing my observations about the differing paradigms not getting each other, I think of you as Abrahamic as well. Better spoken with better English, yes, but still you haven't convinced me (nor several others) you're not an Abrahamic thinker at the core. Still, I've perhaps seen some shifting, as I alluded to earlier.

 

[wizanda]

What 'automatic Muslim response' are you referring to here?

Muslims are insistent that the Quran is a perfected message; that it has all the history of its existence, and therefore is more legitimate than other books.

Now understandably some of this is the attempt at showing the Biblical text to be questionable; it is then being automatically applied to Hindu texts, when there is reams of knowledge available on Hindu beliefs.

What is 'the whole topic' here, in your opinion?

The questions asked about what is Brahman, what is Hinduism or its texts; where its history can all be looked up on Google, to have a rough idea of what is being discussed.

And which 'aspects of Islam being determined only one way' are you referring to?

Because from an Islamic perspective, they've been told to look for people of the book, so they assume everyone must have documented texts, like Muslims do for it to be equal with Islam....

Since a Muslim will try to find common ground to begin with, none of this is intentionally being rude, it is why there are 'pleases' being put....It is just an error in communication.

as well before making generalisations

Read the Quran, spent years in Muslim chat rooms studying what people believe... So got a vague idea, like with many of the beliefs globally.

east and west as terms for paradigms, and say Abrahamic and Dharmic

At first i saw them as separate; yet as we study more we find they fit in many ways.

Like learned the other day, that Brahman 'from root bṛh-, means "to be or make firm, strong, solid, expand, promote"....YHVH means Lord 'to be' or 'shall be'.

It is possible that all roots of religion stem back to a much older time, and only because of confusion, are they seen so separately.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Muslims are insistent that the Quran is a perfected message; that it has all the history of its existence, and therefore is more legitimate than other books.

I certainly believe that the Qur'aan is Perfect. But I don't believe it has all the history of its existence. And I don't believe that it is necessarily more legitimate than other books.

The questions asked about what is Brahman, what is Hinduism or its texts; where its history can all be looked up on Google, to have a rough idea of what is being discussed.

What makes you think that Muslims necessarily don't understand this topic?

Because from an Islamic perspective, they've been told to look for people of the book, so they assume everyone must have documented texts, like Muslims do for it to be equal with Islam....

I'm a Muslim, but I don't look for 'people of the book' or assume that everyone must have documented texts.

 

[Vinayaka]

At first i saw them as separate; yet as we study more we find they fit in many ways.

Your view only, and it comes from a false assumption of some vague 'concept' you have regarding 'unity'. In my experience, the more most people study, the more they actually become aware of the many and varied differences, the wonderful diversity, that so many people have been pointing out to you again and again. But since we've been through all this before, I'm not about to do it again. In Hindu Solidarity terms, we call it all a unity in diversity, (applies to Hindus mostly, but in the broadest sense of it, all non-violent faiths) which means we love each other to death as brothers and sisters, but aren't fooled by thinking that things like dualism and monism are essentially the same thing. They're not, period.