Yajurveda rejects Atheism?!. Does it?

[LuisDantas]

LuisDantas said: ↑
What does "Dash" mean in "Dashavatara", please?

Well, I don't think there was any dash in vogue in the "Vedic period". Was there a dash in vogue at that time? Please
Regards

It just came to me that you may mean to ask whether the current understanding differs from the original, and is therefore to be taken as a "distortion". Would that be the case?

Edited to add: Because if it is, I fear you are failing to realize that such a worry is simply not relevant to most (pretty nearly all, it would seem) Hindus. There is no great reluctance in learning better than the forefathers among them.

To the best of my understanding, that is so mainly because while Islam is largely about attempting to remain true to an original, presumably perfect revelation, Hinduism is very different and cares a whole lot more about the effect that the practice and worship have on the people. There is little if any need to presume that it is even humanly possible to attain a "correct" understanding of the deities, let alone that it is important to do so. The Devas do not need human validation...

 

[LuisDantas]

And of course many non-Vaishnava Hindus don't believe in avatar at all.

Now that you say it, I am left wondering: do most non-Vaishnavas even have a definite opinion on the matter? Would, say, a Shakta much care how many avatars (if any) Lord Vishnu would have? Would an Advaitan even acknowledge that as a meaningful distinction?

 

[Vinayaka]

Now that you say it, I am left wondering: do most non-Vaishnavas even have a definite opinion on the matter? Would, say, a Shakta much care how many avatars (if any) Lord Vishnu would have? Would an Advaitan even acknowledge that as a meaningful distinction?

I can't speak for others, but I personally have no opinion on the matter. Unlike what some others are like, if it is not my religion, it's not my business.

 

[Jainarayan]

It just came to me that you may mean to ask whether the current understanding differs from the original, and is therefore to be taken as a "distortion". Would that be the case?

Edited to add: Because if it is, I fear you are failing to realize that such a worry is simply not relevant to most (pretty nearly all, it would seem) Hindus. There is no great reluctance in learning better than the forefathers among them.

I'm not sure about that either. There is a difference between Vedic Sanskrit and Classical Sanskrit. These are the numbers in Vedic Sanskrit.

1. aika (ai as in 'like', became eka)
2. dvau
3. tri
4. catur
5. pañca
6. ṣaṣ
7. sapta
8. aṣṭāu
9. nava
10. daśa

 

[LuisDantas]

If I may, @paarsurrey , it seems to me that you may be over-valuing differences of opinion that, in Muslim terms, would be comparable to disagreements about which Sura is the most beautiful of them all.

 

[paarsurrey]

To the best of my understanding, that is so mainly because while Islam is largely about attempting to remain true to an original, presumably perfect revelation, Hinduism is very different and cares a whole lot more about the effect that the practice and worship have on the people. There is little if any need to presume that it is even humanly possible to attain a "correct" understanding of the deities, let alone that it is important to do so. The Devas do not need human validation...

It is OK that G-d/Brahman does not need to be worshiped by the humans beings. It is the need of us human beings to worship Him. So He manifested Himself on us.
If He manifested Himself fully as per the faculties created in human beings by Him and we don't use them fully with Omission or Commission, the fault lies with us human beings. He is Unblemished.
Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

You are taking God way too seriously, @paarsurrey

Human beings should not expect so much of themselves, let alone of their gods.

 

[Jainarayan]

You are taking God way too seriously

Especially when you read the puranas, and one god is raiding the neighbors pantries for butter, playing pranks on his friends, driving his mother to distraction, and another shows up at his own wedding covered in ash, riding a bull, followed by an entourage of noise-making ghosts, while his future mother-in-law, who has never met him before, passes out from the shock. If those are not gods with a sense of humor, well, I just don't know what the world is coming to!

 

[Vinayaka]

When your entire life's training is that the GOD business is very SERIOUS (The gates of Hell are practically immediate, after all) business indeed, then what is to be expected? It is as simple as a conditioning of the subconscious mind. Thank God(s) most of us haven't had that conditioning.

 

[Jainarayan]

Thank God(s) most of us haven't had that conditioning.

Or it's taken years to shake it off.

 

[Vinayaka]

Or it's taken years to shake it off.

Yes that too.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

It is OK that G-d/Brahman does not need to be worshiped by the humans beings. It is the need of us human beings to worship Him. So He manifested Himself on us.

Which says a lot about how neurotic & egotistical your god is if he doesn't require worship, but creates us with a innate need to worship him anyway.

 

[paarsurrey]

Which says a lot about how neurotic & egotistical your god is if he doesn't require worship, but creates us with a innate need to worship him anyway.

They why did Zoroaster prayed to G-d/Ahura-Mazda, he was neither a pagan nor a believer in many gods. Was he? Please
Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

Are you trying to say that because Zoroaster was a monotheist everyone else must be as well?

How do you know whether God would even want to be perceived as having the same characteristics and number of aspects by literally everyone?

 

[Jainarayan]

They why did Zoroaster prayed to G-d/Ahura-Mazda, he was neither a pagan nor a believer in many gods. Was he? Please
Regards

To be blunt, I don't care what Zoroaster did. We're talking about Hindu scriptures and views of God.

 

[Vinayaka]

They why did Zoroaster prayed to G-d/Ahura-Mazda, he was neither a pagan nor a believer in many gods. Was he? Please
Regards

Who was Zoroaster? I've never heard of anybody like that? Was he one of the Vedic seers? What does he have to do with the Vedas? Why do you keep going off topic like this?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well, I don't think there was any dash in vogue in the "Vedic period". Was there a dash in vogue at that time?

Dasha, Deci. Dashagwahas - priests who completed their yearly ritual cycle in ten months (RigVeda). There were other rituals for the two-months long Arctic nights (Ati Ratra - Deeper Night), Ashwamedha was one of them (Ratri-kratu - Ritual to be performed during the night). The Avataras - Matsya (Fish), Kurma (Tortoise), Varaha (Boar), Nrisimha (Man-lion), Vamana (Dwarf), Parashurama, Rama, Krishna, later Buddha, yet to come after 426,000 years, Kalki.

.. but no Buddha.

Not fair, against the spirit of Hinduism, sectoral, monotheistic. Most Hindus accept Buddha as the ninth avatara. Even SrimadBhagawatham accepts Buddha. Of course, there were many partial Avataras (leelavatara, amshavatara, etc.).

 

[Aupmanyav]

Now that you say it, I am left wondering: do most non-Vaishnavas even have a definite opinion on the matter? Would, say, a Shakta much care how many avatars (if any) Lord Vishnu would have? Would an Advaitan even acknowledge that as a meaningful distinction?

Advaitist here. Does not matter to me. All things Brahman, even a mad black dog. Avataras are Religio-Mythical-cultural. Does not matter to Vinayaka, since Shiva is all for him. Does not matter to the villager in Malana because for him Jamlu Devta is the Supreme. There is none other than the Mother for a Shakta, all others being her creation. Hinduism is a free house. I respect the view of other Hindus. They have a right to their opinions.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Who was Zoroaster? I've never heard of anybody like that? Was he one of the Vedic seers? What does he have to do with the Vedas? Why do you keep going off topic like this?

He was the son of Spitama, one in the line of Sage Atharvan/Athravan, the first born of Lord Brahma, to whom AtharvaVeda is ascribed. He was not very happy with Angirasas, progeny of Sage Angiras, who were getting most of the gifts for rituals and worshiped Devas. So, he said do not worship Devas, worship Ahur Mazda, the great Asura. He did not build any empire but succeeded in getting the patronage of King Vistaspa of uncertain date and uncertain region somewhere in Bactria.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Who was Zoroaster? I've never heard of anybody like that? Was he one of the Vedic seers? What does he have to do with the Vedas? Why do you keep going off topic like this?

Paar seems to believe that because I have 'Zoroastrian philosophy' in my religion field I'm obligated to enslave myself to Zarathustra's beliefs and perceptions of deity. This despite the fact I've created a thread explaining in detail for him why I've put that down and why enslaving myself to every single thing Zarathustra thought - even if it holds no meaning for me or contradicts my own experiences - is a waste of time.

It's another example of imposing his perception of religion on to others. It doesn't work - not that that's a deterrent...