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

[Dawnofhope]

So where did this nonsense come from of speaking of so-called 'Hinduism' as a religion?
There is Dharma and there is Vaedic diiksha and Tantric diiksha, but what is the use of speaking of so-called religions? It is too much theoretical to have any value in terms of real spiritual philosophy.
Someone who believes in universalism cannot at the same time speak of religions, it is a form of hypocrisy. There, I finally said it.

I think you need to raise the question with Hindus as to the value they see in the term Hindu. Most are comfortable with it.

Dharma has a wide range of meanings and so if you are talking about Dharma I'd want to be clear about what it means to you. Prayer, meditation, reflection, sacred writings, music and chanting, and service are part of my spiritual practice to be clear.

While I believe its what we do and who we are that's important, and that cuts across all humanity, religion can and does have an important role to play for many people.

We have different ideas about universalism. What the Buddha taught about right action and speech is a good starting point. I struggle to see the value in esoteric and occultic practices if practitioners can't manage the basics of civil discourse with those who have different points of view.

 

[Marcion]

I think you need to raise the question with Hindus as to the value they see in the term Hindu. Most are comfortable with it.

Dharma has a wide range of meanings and so if you are talking about Dharma I'd want to be clear about what it means to you. Prayer, meditation, reflection, sacred writings, music and chanting, and service are part of my spiritual practice to be clear.

While I believe its what we do and who we are that's important, and that cuts across all humanity, religion can and does have an important role to play for many people.

We have different ideas about universalism. What the Buddha taught about right action and speech is a good starting point. I struggle to see the value in esoteric and occultic practices if practitioners can't manage the basics of civil discourse with those who have different points of view.

First of all the last point. You are beginning to develop the habit of judging or condemming people's behaviour as you percieve it.
There are some interesting sayings about this in the historical Q-lite sayings of Jesus, you should try reading and understanding it.
Did you develop your fear of gnosticim and mystic practices during the time that you were still a Christian or is this something that was reinforced by the teachings of your preceptor?

Dharma is not your own opinion or gut feeling of what is dharma. The things you mention are part of a spiritual set of practices called a spiritual cult which is something different. Which does not mean that spiritual cult cannot or should not be part of being a dha'rmika.

Religion plays no role in spiritual progress, it is people's actual thoughts and behaviours that do this. Belonging to this or that religion is not going to help you in any way.

Your first remark is a fallacy, how many so-called Hindus believe or don't believe in the concept of religion has no value as a logical argument for its value in spiritual progress.
True universalism sees the oneness of humanity from within its shared spiritual unity not from a religious theory.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

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

I'm confused as to how "sectarian" and "polytheistic" can be combined here. Could you perhaps clarify?

I dont believe in translations. We need someone who knows Sanskrit.

Else we are just using a polytheistic translation of a secterian.

We dont want to base our belief on an incorrect translation

Kind of looks like you're searching for confirmation bias if you've already decided a Vedas translation must be wrong if it's polytheist in outlook despite your not knowing the language. Maybe 99% of translations of the Vedas use polytheist language because most Hindus are polytheists?

If you think this is frustrating, you're going to have a hard time dealing with the Avesta.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

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

In other words, you are asking if the Veda was inspired by the Christian God? The answer is No.

Firstly, India has always had its own fair share of Gods and does not need a foreign God for inspiration. Secondly, the Veda is believed to be eternal, without a beginning and therefore was not inspired or created by any God - local or foreign.

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

Again, this is a foreign religion and it will not align with your Western/Semitic concept of religion, which requires exactly one God and exactly one Book. So, the answer to your question is No.

 

[Dawnofhope]

First of all the last point. You are beginning to develop the habit of judging or condemming people's behaviour as you see it.
There are some interesting sayings about this in the historical Q-lite sayings of Jesus, you should try reading and understanding it.

Your version of Jesus is unrecognisable to most Christians. I have no interest in it.

Dharma is not your own opinion or gut feeling of what is dharma. The things you mention are part of a spiritual set of practices called a spiritual cult which is something different. Which does not mean that spiritual cult cannot or should not be part of being a dha'rmika.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Religion plays no role in spiritual progress, it is people's actual thoughts and behaviours that do this. Belonging to this or that religion is not going to help you in any way.

While religion plays no role in spiritual progress for you, it does for many people.

Your first remark is a fallacy, how many so-called Hindus believe or don't believe in the concept of religion has no value as a logical argument for its value in spiritual progress.

Its up to each Hindu to read the reality of their lives and decide what works for them. Its not my place to tell anyone how to think about their religion nor its not yours.

You are not the only one here that sees no value in religion and for atheists, I get it.

 

[Marcion]

Your version of Jesus is unrecognisable to most Christians. I have no interest in it.

Another fallacy very similar to the previous one you used.
You can take that lesson from any source you like.
Christianity is partly based on rejecting and outcasting its more gnostic or mystic brothers and sisters.
I don't think the historical Jesus would have been very happy about that.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

I'll be happy to clarify the points you failed to understand.

While religion plays no role in spiritual progress for you, it does for many people.

They may think that, but it is only their thoughts and behaviour that will change the actual direction they take, nothing else.

Its up to each Hindu to read the reality of their lives and decide what works for them. Its not my place to tell anyone how to think about their religion nor its not yours.

Here you are giving a distinct impression that you are trying to twist my words, not a very nice thing to do Adrian.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Humane behavior? I'm skeptical.

Why? If 'dharma' is not humane behavior then what is it? I do not know why you should be skeptical about it. As Krishna said in Chapter 16, verses 1-3:

"Fearlessness; purification of one's existence; cultivation of spiritual knowledge; charity; self-control; performance of sacrifice; study of the Vedas; austerity; simplicity; nonviolence; truthfulness; freedom from anger; renunciation; tranquillity; aversion to faultfinding; compassion for all living entities; freedom from covetousness; gentleness; modesty; steady determination; vigor; forgiveness; fortitude; cleanliness; and freedom from envy and from the passion for honor — these transcendental qualities, O son of Bharata, belong to godly men endowed with divine nature."

Or as Buddha said about the "Noble Eight-fold path": The Eightfold Path consists of eight practices: right view, right resolve, right speech, right conduct, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right samadhi ('meditative absorption or union').
Noble Eightfold Path - Wikipedia

Now the Christians may say that they invented them and the Muslims may say that they invented them, the fact is that they are the basic rules for a peaceful and happy society, they are eternal (Sanatan).

 

[Aupmanyav]

With similarities between the groups i mean that they invented fabricated sectarian sources which they uphold besides the Holy Books.
Are you part of a religious group?
What is the word God in Sanskrit?

In Hinduism, sects mean a difference in philosophy. Such differences are respected in a way one scientist will respect a theory different from his own, though he/she may not subscribe to it.
I am not a part of any sect in Hinduism. I am a free bird, but I subscribe to non-dual Hinduism (Advaita).

- One of the common words to indicate God in Sanskrit is Deva.

"Deva is a Sanskrit word found in Vedic literature of 2nd millennium BCE. Monier-Williams translates it as "heavenly, divine, terrestrial things of high excellence, exalted, shining ones". The concept also is used to refer to deity or god.

The Sanskrit deva- derives from Indo-Iranian *daiv- which in turn descends from the Proto-Indo-European word, *deiwo-, originally an adjective meaning "celestial" or "shining", which is a (not synchronic Sanskrit) vrddhi derivative from the root *diw meaning "to shine", especially as the day-lit sky. The feminine form of *deiwos is *deiwih2, which descends into Indic languages as devi, in that context meaning "female deity". Also deriving from *deiwos, and thus cognates of deva, are Lithuanian Dievas (Latvian Dievs, Prussian Deiwas), Germanic Tiwaz (seen in English "Tuesday") and the related Old Norse Tivar (gods), and Latin deus "god" and divus "divine", from which the English words "divine", "deity", French "dieu", Portuguese "deus", Spanish "dios" and Italian "dio", also "Zeys/Ζεύς" - "Dias/Δίας", the Greek father of the gods, are derived. It is related to *Dyeus which while from the same root, may originally have referred to the "heavenly shining father", and hence to "Father Sky", the chief God of the Indo-European pantheon, continued in Sanskrit Dyaus.

According to Douglas Harper, the etymological roots of Deva mean "a shining one," from *div- "to shine," and it is a cognate with Greek dios "divine" and Zeus, and Latin deus "god" (Old Latin deivos)."
Deva (Hinduism) - Wikipedia

- Another word to denote Gods in Sanskrit is Asura.

"The Aesir-Asura correspondence is the relation between Vedic Sanskrit Asura and Old Norse Æsir and Proto-Uralic *asera, all of which mean 'lord, powerful spirit, god'.

Monier-Williams traces the etymological roots of Asura (असुर) to Asu (असु), which means life of the spiritual world or departed spirits. In the oldest verses of the Samhita layer of Vedic texts, the Asuras are any spiritual, divine beings including those with good or bad intentions, and constructive or destructive inclinations or nature.

Asura is used as an adjective meaning "powerful" or "mighty". In the Rigveda, two generous kings, as well as some priests, have been described as asuras. One hymn requests a son who is an asura. In nine hymns, Indra is described as asura. Five times, he is said to possess asurya, and once he is said to possess asuratva. Agni has total of 12 asura descriptions, Varuna has 10, Mitra has eight, and Rudra has six. The Book 1 of Rig Veda describes Savitr (Vedic solar deity) as an Asura who is a "kind leader"."
Asura - Wikipedia

The third word for God in Sanskrit is Ishvara:

"The root of the word Ishvara comes from īś- (Ish) which means "capable of" and "owner, ruler, chief of", ultimately cognate with English own (Germanic *aigana-, PIE *aik-). The second part of the word Ishvara is vara which means depending on context, "best, excellent, beautiful", "choice, wish, blessing, boon, gift", and "suitor, lover, one who solicits a girl in marriage". The composite word, Ishvara literally means "owner of best, beautiful", "ruler of choices, blessings, boons", or "chief of suitor, lover".

The word Īśvara never appears in Rigveda. However, the verb īś- does appear in Rig veda, where the context suggests that the meaning of it is "capable of, able to". It is absent in Samaveda, is rare in Atharvaveda, appears in Samhitas of Yajurveda. The contextual meaning, however as the ancient Indian grammarian Pāṇini explains, is neither god nor supreme being."
Ishvara - Wikipedia

 

[Aupmanyav]

I cant imagine that they are just fabricated polytheistic Books. There are billions who claim to be Hindu, would they really not have at least a Scripture that is Truelly inspired by the One True God..

That presumes that there is a God. Do you have any proof of existence of a God or soul?

It is not essential that all Hindus should believe in one God. Most believe in many Gods and Goddesses and some, like me, do not believe in existence of any God or soul.

And i also reject most of what they say and believe anyways, if it contradicts the Holy Scripture.

Did any Hindu insist that you believe in what they believe. Remember Surah Al-Kafirun. You have your views, we have ours. Where is the problem?

 

[Woberts]

You forgot the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[Jainarayan]

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

No, that's not a Hindu belief. Many Hindus, including yours truly, use the phrase "there's only one God" as a matter of discussion and convenience, but we don't believe in one God as the Abrahamics do. We believe there is one source of everything, including the "gods", something we call Brahman. It's a rather "stuff monism" philosophy.

Moreover, your opening statement is stepping firmly into the Land of Preaching, with which RF does not have diplomatic relations.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But I think na thasya prathima asthi says a lot.

Ah, Zakir Naik, the dunce.

"arvāg devā asya visarjanenāthā ko veda yatābabhūva ll"
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.
(Nasadiya Sukta, Hindu Creation hymn)

Someone who believes in universalism cannot at the same time speak of religions, it is a form of hypocrisy. There, I finally said it.

Sense or no sense. Anand Marg's history is that of a dangerous cult. You forget the two realities of 'advaita'. There are no religions in 'Parmarthika', but they exist in 'Vyavaharika'.​

 

[Marcion]

As Krishna said in Chapter 16, verses 1-3:

Krishna said in which scripture, please?

You forgot the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I've always wanted to ask this, do pastafarians ever eat pasta?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Now, Marcion! Of course, BhagawadGita.

I've always wanted to ask this, do pastafarians ever eat pasta?

It is a must for them, like communion.

 

[W3bcrowf3r]

I agree with Jesus being the Son of God and we will easily discuss our views with reference to the Gospels. Hindus have a very different paradigm.

The best way I learn about Hinduism is talking to Hindus, preferably in person.

I actually avoid talking with others about religion if i do not know what the Scripture say. And i also do not learn from sectarians.

Example, i dont want to learn from trinitarian catholics who they claim Jesus Christ is. I need someone who knows the Bible for that. And these are rare.

If i want to learn. I just read the Scriptures. I stopped a long time ago with listening to 'teachers'. If the teachers teach wrong doctrines, then what to expect from blindly followers..

 

[Jainarayan]

I stopped a long time ago with listening to 'teachers'. If the teachers teach wrong doctrines, then what to expect from blindly followers..

How do you know they're wrong? Who is correct in their purports of the Bhagavad Gita, for example...Srila Prabhupada? Swami Mukundananda? Each school of Vedanta will see it differently. Which one is correct, which one is wrong?

Can you, should you take the scriptures at face value? If you do you can find seemingly irreconcilable differences and contradictions that really are not there when one understands the entire context. Not wise for a layperson to do his/her own interpreting. I can give a specific example in BG 7.21, if you like.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

I actually avoid talking with others about religion if i do not know what the Scripture say. And i also do not learn from sectarians. Example, i dont want to learn from trinitarian catholics who they claim Jesus Christ is. I need someone who knows the Bible for that.

Firstly, you need to establish what scriptures are. For example, if you take the Old Testament, there's the Samaritan one, the Jewish/Protestant one, and the Catholic/Orthodox one. In any religion, "the scriptures" are what a group of people have decided to accept.

Then there's the question of why one might accept them. Frankly, your position would seem to be that you'll accept them if you agree with them! Fair enough — that's a large part of my position, too.

Lastly there's the question of interpretation. All scriptures present problems of interpretation and have been interpreted in different ways. It's not just sufficient to be able to read the language in which they are written, for example: you need to know the cultural background. Consider the fact that the English words "liberal" and "conservative" mean quite different things in the UK and the USA.

Secondly, everyone is a "sectarian". You have decided that the majority of Christians are sectarians because they don't agree with you. They are likely to label you a sectarian for the same reason!

On the subject of monotheism and polytheism, you need to clarify the distinction. A monotheist can be some-one who believes that only one god exists, or some-one who believes that one god is the Supreme Being, creator of all else. Examples:

Only one god: Judaism, Islam, most Christians, Sikhs, Baha'i

Many gods, one Supreme being: modern Hinduism (Upanishads, Puranas), traditional African religion, ancient Chinese religion, some Christians

Many gods, no Supreme Being: ancient Hinduism (Vedas), modern Chinese religion, Shinto

 

[dianaiad]

I dont believe in translations. We need someone who knows Sanskrit.

Else we are just using a polytheistic translation of a secterian.

We dont want to base our belief on an incorrect translation

Well, the only solution to that is to learn Sanskrit yourself. Getting 'someone who knows Sanskrit' only gets YOU another translation.

It's the thing I like most about Muslims, actually; they have the very logical view that if one isn't reading the Quran in Arabic, one isn't really reading the Quran.

.............as for me, I'm perfectly happy with a translation. I have enough problems learning all the Englishes around. In fact, I used to tell people that I was tri-lingual; I can read and speak Old English, Middle English and modern English. Then I realized that Modern English and contemporary English are two different languages, and then considered South African English, Indian English, British English, Australian English, American English...and all the other Englishes that exist...

(sigh)

That's sufficient for now.

 

[Valjean]

Krishna said in which scripture, please?

Bhagavad-Gita: Chapter 16, Verse 1,2,3

 

[Valjean]

Why? If 'dharma' is not humane behavior then what is it? I do not know why you should be skeptical about it. As Krishna said in Chapter 16, verses 1-3:

"Fearlessness; purification of one's existence; cultivation of spiritual knowledge; charity; self-control; performance of sacrifice; study of the Vedas; austerity; simplicity; nonviolence; truthfulness; freedom from anger; renunciation; tranquillity; aversion to faultfinding; compassion for all living entities; freedom from covetousness; gentleness; modesty; steady determination; vigor; forgiveness; fortitude; cleanliness; and freedom from envy and from the passion for honor — these transcendental qualities, O son of Bharata, belong to godly men endowed with divine nature."

Or as Buddha said about the "Noble Eight-fold path": The Eightfold Path consists of eight practices: right view, right resolve, right speech, right conduct, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right samadhi ('meditative absorption or union').
Noble Eightfold Path - Wikipedia

Now the Christians may say that they invented them and the Muslims may say that they invented them, the fact is that they are the basic rules for a peaceful and happy society, they are eternal (Sanatan).

I was thinking of the carnivory, animal sacrifices and warfare of the early Vedic tribes.